<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_27_1725236</id>
	<title>Obama Choosing NOT To Go To the Moon</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264615200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bonch writes <i>"Obama's budget proposal will contain <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,266846,print.story">no funding for the Constellation program</a>, which was to send astronauts to the moon by 2020.  Instead, NASA will be focused on terrestrial science, such as monitoring global warming.  One anonymous official said: 'We certainly don't need to go back to the moon.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bonch writes " Obama 's budget proposal will contain no funding for the Constellation program , which was to send astronauts to the moon by 2020 .
Instead , NASA will be focused on terrestrial science , such as monitoring global warming .
One anonymous official said : 'We certainly do n't need to go back to the moon .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bonch writes "Obama's budget proposal will contain no funding for the Constellation program, which was to send astronauts to the moon by 2020.
Instead, NASA will be focused on terrestrial science, such as monitoring global warming.
One anonymous official said: 'We certainly don't need to go back to the moon.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920698</id>
	<title>National Atmospheric and Science Administration</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1264620420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The National <i>Atmospheric</i> and <i>Science</i> Administration has been a clearing house for all things 'science' since the 70's.  Being related to space or aeronautics is not a prerequisite.  If you want funding and it can be made to sound vaguely sciency, head to NASA!!  Climate 'research', or something, is just the latest piglet with a tit.</p><p>Killing manned space flight has been a <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/12/0433208" title="slashdot.org">part of Obama's platform</a> [slashdot.org] since he entered the national scene, regardless of subsequent back-peddling.  Grownups know this, which is why those Congressmen with a direct stake in this are <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/12/12/1540208/House-Outlaws-Obamas-NASA-Intervention" title="slashdot.org">actively opposing</a> [slashdot.org] this guy.</p><p>What might have been a credible future for space exploration is going to the <a href="http://www.nea.org/" title="nea.org">NEA</a> [nea.org], and what is left of NASA will belong to <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/" title="columbia.edu">Hanson.</a> [columbia.edu]</p><p>Enjoy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The National Atmospheric and Science Administration has been a clearing house for all things 'science ' since the 70 's .
Being related to space or aeronautics is not a prerequisite .
If you want funding and it can be made to sound vaguely sciency , head to NASA ! !
Climate 'research ' , or something , is just the latest piglet with a tit.Killing manned space flight has been a part of Obama 's platform [ slashdot.org ] since he entered the national scene , regardless of subsequent back-peddling .
Grownups know this , which is why those Congressmen with a direct stake in this are actively opposing [ slashdot.org ] this guy.What might have been a credible future for space exploration is going to the NEA [ nea.org ] , and what is left of NASA will belong to Hanson .
[ columbia.edu ] Enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The National Atmospheric and Science Administration has been a clearing house for all things 'science' since the 70's.
Being related to space or aeronautics is not a prerequisite.
If you want funding and it can be made to sound vaguely sciency, head to NASA!!
Climate 'research', or something, is just the latest piglet with a tit.Killing manned space flight has been a part of Obama's platform [slashdot.org] since he entered the national scene, regardless of subsequent back-peddling.
Grownups know this, which is why those Congressmen with a direct stake in this are actively opposing [slashdot.org] this guy.What might have been a credible future for space exploration is going to the NEA [nea.org], and what is left of NASA will belong to Hanson.
[columbia.edu]Enjoy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923558</id>
	<title>Re:Leeme Get This Straight: So, Under Obama...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264583880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dID wE eVEN gO tO tHE mOON tHE fIRST tIME? tHE pRODUCERS oF gODZILLA hAD tO pLAY a pART iN tHIS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dID wE eVEN gO tO tHE mOON tHE fIRST tIME ?
tHE pRODUCERS oF gODZILLA hAD tO pLAY a pART iN tHIS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dID wE eVEN gO tO tHE mOON tHE fIRST tIME?
tHE pRODUCERS oF gODZILLA hAD tO pLAY a pART iN tHIS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920960</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>Isaac-1</author>
	<datestamp>1264621200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I like the idea of space flight, I can't see space tourism attracting anymore than a fraction of 1 percent of the tourism/travel populace.  First it is going to be insanely expensive on a cost per hour/day basis compared to most other travel/tourism options.  The most reasonable numbers for the foreseeable future still put the price tag more than a reasonably nice house in most places.  Secondly space tourism WILL require some level of advanced training measured in days if not weeks for all but the shortest flights.  If we compare space tourism to other forms of adventure tourism the closest comparison I can think of are those individuals that take off, alone or with family on sailboats crossing oceans, its expensive (though much cheaper than any likely space tourism), much of the time there is boredom in tedious unpleasant conditions, and then there are the moments of abject terror.  In this community you find lots of people doing "coastal cruising" roughly equal to the suborbital space tourist adventure, then you have those ocean crossing explorers out there for weeks or months on end.  It is these types that will be participating in real space tourism, space hotels, etc.  The problem is the dozens or perhaps hundred of people on the planet that have both the money and the interest to do such things does not make an industry.</p><p>To continue the sailing/ship comparison a bit more, what people envision is the thousand foot long cruise ship, with dance clubs and swimming pools, the reality is much more like a 30 foot lifeboat with 150 people crammed inside in rough seas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I like the idea of space flight , I ca n't see space tourism attracting anymore than a fraction of 1 percent of the tourism/travel populace .
First it is going to be insanely expensive on a cost per hour/day basis compared to most other travel/tourism options .
The most reasonable numbers for the foreseeable future still put the price tag more than a reasonably nice house in most places .
Secondly space tourism WILL require some level of advanced training measured in days if not weeks for all but the shortest flights .
If we compare space tourism to other forms of adventure tourism the closest comparison I can think of are those individuals that take off , alone or with family on sailboats crossing oceans , its expensive ( though much cheaper than any likely space tourism ) , much of the time there is boredom in tedious unpleasant conditions , and then there are the moments of abject terror .
In this community you find lots of people doing " coastal cruising " roughly equal to the suborbital space tourist adventure , then you have those ocean crossing explorers out there for weeks or months on end .
It is these types that will be participating in real space tourism , space hotels , etc .
The problem is the dozens or perhaps hundred of people on the planet that have both the money and the interest to do such things does not make an industry.To continue the sailing/ship comparison a bit more , what people envision is the thousand foot long cruise ship , with dance clubs and swimming pools , the reality is much more like a 30 foot lifeboat with 150 people crammed inside in rough seas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I like the idea of space flight, I can't see space tourism attracting anymore than a fraction of 1 percent of the tourism/travel populace.
First it is going to be insanely expensive on a cost per hour/day basis compared to most other travel/tourism options.
The most reasonable numbers for the foreseeable future still put the price tag more than a reasonably nice house in most places.
Secondly space tourism WILL require some level of advanced training measured in days if not weeks for all but the shortest flights.
If we compare space tourism to other forms of adventure tourism the closest comparison I can think of are those individuals that take off, alone or with family on sailboats crossing oceans, its expensive (though much cheaper than any likely space tourism), much of the time there is boredom in tedious unpleasant conditions, and then there are the moments of abject terror.
In this community you find lots of people doing "coastal cruising" roughly equal to the suborbital space tourist adventure, then you have those ocean crossing explorers out there for weeks or months on end.
It is these types that will be participating in real space tourism, space hotels, etc.
The problem is the dozens or perhaps hundred of people on the planet that have both the money and the interest to do such things does not make an industry.To continue the sailing/ship comparison a bit more, what people envision is the thousand foot long cruise ship, with dance clubs and swimming pools, the reality is much more like a 30 foot lifeboat with 150 people crammed inside in rough seas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922892</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of Change, Not So Much Hope.</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1264625400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, does an aspiring American rocket scientist try to find work in China or hope to get one of the few jobs with Space X, Scaled Composites, or Virgin Galactic?</p></div><p>
Or Blue Origin, Armadillo Aerospace, Honeywell, Honeybee, ATK, Lockheed Martin-Boeing ULA, Cape Canaveral Launch ops support, VAFB launch ops support, Japan, India, Brazil, French Guiana, Russia,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... those are just a few places off the top of my head. I have a spreadsheet of possible employers if you would like to see it. Though it is dated about a year or two.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , does an aspiring American rocket scientist try to find work in China or hope to get one of the few jobs with Space X , Scaled Composites , or Virgin Galactic ?
Or Blue Origin , Armadillo Aerospace , Honeywell , Honeybee , ATK , Lockheed Martin-Boeing ULA , Cape Canaveral Launch ops support , VAFB launch ops support , Japan , India , Brazil , French Guiana , Russia , ... those are just a few places off the top of my head .
I have a spreadsheet of possible employers if you would like to see it .
Though it is dated about a year or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, does an aspiring American rocket scientist try to find work in China or hope to get one of the few jobs with Space X, Scaled Composites, or Virgin Galactic?
Or Blue Origin, Armadillo Aerospace, Honeywell, Honeybee, ATK, Lockheed Martin-Boeing ULA, Cape Canaveral Launch ops support, VAFB launch ops support, Japan, India, Brazil, French Guiana, Russia, ... those are just a few places off the top of my head.
I have a spreadsheet of possible employers if you would like to see it.
Though it is dated about a year or two.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30931190</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264675920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Aerospace engineers don't care about environmental science<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>He's right, I don't give a shit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aerospace engineers do n't care about environmental science ...He 's right , I do n't give a shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aerospace engineers don't care about environmental science ...He's right, I don't give a shit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929640</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264614000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, it's because the ISS is full of chinks and spics and niggers and bears on unicycles, on the other hand a base on the moon will boost the spacepenis of our glorious America, and THATS more important  than any "science"done by the animals referenced earlier. You've been enlightened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , it 's because the ISS is full of chinks and spics and niggers and bears on unicycles , on the other hand a base on the moon will boost the spacepenis of our glorious America , and THATS more important than any " science " done by the animals referenced earlier .
You 've been enlightened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, it's because the ISS is full of chinks and spics and niggers and bears on unicycles, on the other hand a base on the moon will boost the spacepenis of our glorious America, and THATS more important  than any "science"done by the animals referenced earlier.
You've been enlightened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920376</id>
	<title>Other priorities</title>
	<author>l2718</author>
	<datestamp>1264619460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's important to remember that bailing out banks, bailing out people with mortgages, spreading "stimulus" money around, subsidizing healthcare, increasing the education budget and fighting two wars are all expensive endeavours.  With the deficit soaring, I'm not surprised NASA isn't getting the money to develop new launch vehicles.

At some point Scudder and his followers will be out and humanity will go to the stars again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's important to remember that bailing out banks , bailing out people with mortgages , spreading " stimulus " money around , subsidizing healthcare , increasing the education budget and fighting two wars are all expensive endeavours .
With the deficit soaring , I 'm not surprised NASA is n't getting the money to develop new launch vehicles .
At some point Scudder and his followers will be out and humanity will go to the stars again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's important to remember that bailing out banks, bailing out people with mortgages, spreading "stimulus" money around, subsidizing healthcare, increasing the education budget and fighting two wars are all expensive endeavours.
With the deficit soaring, I'm not surprised NASA isn't getting the money to develop new launch vehicles.
At some point Scudder and his followers will be out and humanity will go to the stars again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926284</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1264591860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What better way to learn how to live with dwindling resources here on earth than learning to live in a place with NO RESOURCES!</p></div></blockquote><p>Living in a place with no resources is trivially easy and long solved - ship the resources in from someplace else.  (Which is pretty much what they planned for the lunar outpost.)  As a research laboratory for learning how to live on Earth, such an expedition is pretty much useless.  (Doubly so since the research programs you propose won't actually solve any of the problems the Earth is facing.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What better way to learn how to live with dwindling resources here on earth than learning to live in a place with NO RESOURCES ! Living in a place with no resources is trivially easy and long solved - ship the resources in from someplace else .
( Which is pretty much what they planned for the lunar outpost .
) As a research laboratory for learning how to live on Earth , such an expedition is pretty much useless .
( Doubly so since the research programs you propose wo n't actually solve any of the problems the Earth is facing .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What better way to learn how to live with dwindling resources here on earth than learning to live in a place with NO RESOURCES!Living in a place with no resources is trivially easy and long solved - ship the resources in from someplace else.
(Which is pretty much what they planned for the lunar outpost.
)  As a research laboratory for learning how to live on Earth, such an expedition is pretty much useless.
(Doubly so since the research programs you propose won't actually solve any of the problems the Earth is facing.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922740</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264625100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the politicians cover the crewed space program with a thin veneer of scientific research, but the amount of good science that comes out of *crewed* spaceflight is not in reasonable proportion to the cost.</i></p><p>Hubble could not have been repaired without astronauts. It was the crown jewel of astronomy, and the new space telescope is even better. Should it develop any malfunctions, you're going to have to send someone up there to fix it.</p><p><i>We need to get NASA out of the business of doing things that the private sector can do</i></p><p>You're a little premature, since no private company has ever orbited anyone, let alone made it to the ISS.</p><p><i>Suborbital and LEO space tourism are the killer apps for private-sector crewed spaceflight</i></p><p>Again, you're a bit premature.</p><p><i>Let's unleash their energy and creativity to get that going, rather than spending public money on poorly engineered concepts for going back to to the moon.</i></p><p>"Poorly engineered?" Now I see why you thought your comment was flamebait. How poorly engineered were the two robots on Mars? Do you really think that private industry could get to Mars? Do you have any reason WHY private industry would want to?</p><p>Private industry and the free market are not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are some things that private industry can't do, and other things private industry shouldn't do, and other things governments do far better than private industry. I shouldn't have to bring up my city's government-run electric company again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the politicians cover the crewed space program with a thin veneer of scientific research , but the amount of good science that comes out of * crewed * spaceflight is not in reasonable proportion to the cost.Hubble could not have been repaired without astronauts .
It was the crown jewel of astronomy , and the new space telescope is even better .
Should it develop any malfunctions , you 're going to have to send someone up there to fix it.We need to get NASA out of the business of doing things that the private sector can doYou 're a little premature , since no private company has ever orbited anyone , let alone made it to the ISS.Suborbital and LEO space tourism are the killer apps for private-sector crewed spaceflightAgain , you 're a bit premature.Let 's unleash their energy and creativity to get that going , rather than spending public money on poorly engineered concepts for going back to to the moon .
" Poorly engineered ?
" Now I see why you thought your comment was flamebait .
How poorly engineered were the two robots on Mars ?
Do you really think that private industry could get to Mars ?
Do you have any reason WHY private industry would want to ? Private industry and the free market are not the be-all and end-all of everything .
There are some things that private industry ca n't do , and other things private industry should n't do , and other things governments do far better than private industry .
I should n't have to bring up my city 's government-run electric company again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the politicians cover the crewed space program with a thin veneer of scientific research, but the amount of good science that comes out of *crewed* spaceflight is not in reasonable proportion to the cost.Hubble could not have been repaired without astronauts.
It was the crown jewel of astronomy, and the new space telescope is even better.
Should it develop any malfunctions, you're going to have to send someone up there to fix it.We need to get NASA out of the business of doing things that the private sector can doYou're a little premature, since no private company has ever orbited anyone, let alone made it to the ISS.Suborbital and LEO space tourism are the killer apps for private-sector crewed spaceflightAgain, you're a bit premature.Let's unleash their energy and creativity to get that going, rather than spending public money on poorly engineered concepts for going back to to the moon.
"Poorly engineered?
" Now I see why you thought your comment was flamebait.
How poorly engineered were the two robots on Mars?
Do you really think that private industry could get to Mars?
Do you have any reason WHY private industry would want to?Private industry and the free market are not the be-all and end-all of everything.
There are some things that private industry can't do, and other things private industry shouldn't do, and other things governments do far better than private industry.
I shouldn't have to bring up my city's government-run electric company again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922108</id>
	<title>Re:Why? Because it's next ...</title>
	<author>k.a.f.</author>
	<datestamp>1264623660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Sam Seaborn</b>: There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon. None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon.

<b>Mallory O'Brian</b>: And we went to the moon. Do we really have to go to Mars?

<b>Sam Seaborn</b>: Yes.

<b>Mallory O'Brian</b>: Why?

<b>Sam Seaborn</b>: 'Cause it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next. </p><p>
- West Wing</p></div><p>Of course, in-series, Sam is the most gifted speech writer in the entire country. You really think we should do something because rhetorics tells you so?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sam Seaborn : There are a lot of hungry people in the world , Mal , and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon .
None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon .
Mallory O'Brian : And we went to the moon .
Do we really have to go to Mars ?
Sam Seaborn : Yes .
Mallory O'Brian : Why ?
Sam Seaborn : 'Cause it 's next .
'Cause we came out of the cave , and we looked over the hill and we saw fire ; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west , and we took to the sky .
The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what 's next .
- West WingOf course , in-series , Sam is the most gifted speech writer in the entire country .
You really think we should do something because rhetorics tells you so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sam Seaborn: There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon.
None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon.
Mallory O'Brian: And we went to the moon.
Do we really have to go to Mars?
Sam Seaborn: Yes.
Mallory O'Brian: Why?
Sam Seaborn: 'Cause it's next.
'Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky.
The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.
- West WingOf course, in-series, Sam is the most gifted speech writer in the entire country.
You really think we should do something because rhetorics tells you so?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926814</id>
	<title>Re:Helium 3</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1264593540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mostly because of two factors:  a) fetching Helium-3 from the moon is incredibly fucking difficult and expensive, and b) we don't actually have any current or near term need for it.  Even with working fusion reactors, the advantages of Helium-3 are largely overstated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly because of two factors : a ) fetching Helium-3 from the moon is incredibly fucking difficult and expensive , and b ) we do n't actually have any current or near term need for it .
Even with working fusion reactors , the advantages of Helium-3 are largely overstated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly because of two factors:  a) fetching Helium-3 from the moon is incredibly fucking difficult and expensive, and b) we don't actually have any current or near term need for it.
Even with working fusion reactors, the advantages of Helium-3 are largely overstated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458</id>
	<title>Why? Because it's next ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Sam Seaborn</b>: There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon. None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon.<br>
<b>Mallory O'Brian</b>: And we went to the moon. Do we really have to go to Mars?<br>
<b>Sam Seaborn</b>: Yes.<br>
<b>Mallory O'Brian</b>: Why?<br>
<b>Sam Seaborn</b>: 'Cause it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next. <p>
- West Wing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sam Seaborn : There are a lot of hungry people in the world , Mal , and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon .
None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon .
Mallory O'Brian : And we went to the moon .
Do we really have to go to Mars ?
Sam Seaborn : Yes .
Mallory O'Brian : Why ?
Sam Seaborn : 'Cause it 's next .
'Cause we came out of the cave , and we looked over the hill and we saw fire ; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west , and we took to the sky .
The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what 's next .
- West Wing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sam Seaborn: There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon.
None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon.
Mallory O'Brian: And we went to the moon.
Do we really have to go to Mars?
Sam Seaborn: Yes.
Mallory O'Brian: Why?
Sam Seaborn: 'Cause it's next.
'Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky.
The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.
- West Wing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924954</id>
	<title>Re:Just Junk It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, manned spaceflight should be the responsibility of the Air Force. That's how it was originally, until some genius decided that it was wasteful to run two manned spaceflight programs simultaneously... and then we wound up spending about 3x the amount of both Apollo + Dyna-Soar on the Space Shuttle, while getting a orbiter that did only a couple of the things it actually claimed to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , manned spaceflight should be the responsibility of the Air Force .
That 's how it was originally , until some genius decided that it was wasteful to run two manned spaceflight programs simultaneously... and then we wound up spending about 3x the amount of both Apollo + Dyna-Soar on the Space Shuttle , while getting a orbiter that did only a couple of the things it actually claimed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, manned spaceflight should be the responsibility of the Air Force.
That's how it was originally, until some genius decided that it was wasteful to run two manned spaceflight programs simultaneously... and then we wound up spending about 3x the amount of both Apollo + Dyna-Soar on the Space Shuttle, while getting a orbiter that did only a couple of the things it actually claimed to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926790</id>
	<title>Re:One small step for man</title>
	<author>Idarubicin</author>
	<datestamp>1264593420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We should have spent the 60's on healthcare reform...</p></div></blockquote><p>
That would have been a good idea.  Canada has had public, universal health care since 1966.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should have spent the 60 's on healthcare reform.. . That would have been a good idea .
Canada has had public , universal health care since 1966 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should have spent the 60's on healthcare reform...
That would have been a good idea.
Canada has had public, universal health care since 1966.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924786</id>
	<title>Re:Leeme Get This Straight: So, Under Obama...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it, maybe you should write your jokes instead of having them write themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it , maybe you should write your jokes instead of having them write themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it, maybe you should write your jokes instead of having them write themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927424</id>
	<title>Re:We choose</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1264596240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask not what your country can do for you... ask what your country can do for big banks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask not what your country can do for you... ask what your country can do for big banks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask not what your country can do for you... ask what your country can do for big banks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927410</id>
	<title>That's because THE MOON LANDINGS WERE FAKED!!!</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1264596180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humankind has not yet been to the Moon...any sane person knows this! *sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humankind has not yet been to the Moon...any sane person knows this !
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humankind has not yet been to the Moon...any sane person knows this!
*sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925220</id>
	<title>actually, there are many people dumber, hungrier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264588680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, it's pretty fucking funny that you're using a fictional TV show to argue a point.  Anyway:

</p><p> <i>There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon. None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon.</i>

</p><p>Uh, actually, since that money went to going to the moon, it didn't go to renewable energy research, education, etc.  Fun fact: the percentage of kids in the United States who don't get enough to eat has climbed steadily since the 60's.  Right now it's <a href="http://www.bread.org/learn/us-hunger-issues/obesity-and-hunger.html" title="bread.org">around 13-14 million kids each year</a> [bread.org].

</p><p>So yes, there are a lot of people who are dumber and colder and hungrier because of all the money flushed down the drain into what is little more than <b>nationalism in the name of science</b>.

</p><p>Don't you think we have certain societal obligations before we flush hundreds of trillions of dollars down the drain putting a couple of guys in a tin can above the earth for the world's most expensive dog and pony show?

</p><p>Newsflash, folks: politicians, even JFK, don't give a flying fuck about scientific exploration.  They care about getting their agendas through and re-elected.  Kennedy did what he did because if he hadn't, the anti-communists would have had a field day.

</p><p>Maybe if we'd spent the money on renewable energy technology, we wouldn't be spewing so much pollution into the air to generate power and heat, wouldn't need to fight two wars in Iraq, etc.  If our homes were generating their own power and more efficient, imagine what we could do with all that money not being wasted on a complex power grid?  Hmm, maybe go into space?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , it 's pretty fucking funny that you 're using a fictional TV show to argue a point .
Anyway : There are a lot of hungry people in the world , Mal , and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon .
None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon .
Uh , actually , since that money went to going to the moon , it did n't go to renewable energy research , education , etc .
Fun fact : the percentage of kids in the United States who do n't get enough to eat has climbed steadily since the 60 's .
Right now it 's around 13-14 million kids each year [ bread.org ] .
So yes , there are a lot of people who are dumber and colder and hungrier because of all the money flushed down the drain into what is little more than nationalism in the name of science .
Do n't you think we have certain societal obligations before we flush hundreds of trillions of dollars down the drain putting a couple of guys in a tin can above the earth for the world 's most expensive dog and pony show ?
Newsflash , folks : politicians , even JFK , do n't give a flying fuck about scientific exploration .
They care about getting their agendas through and re-elected .
Kennedy did what he did because if he had n't , the anti-communists would have had a field day .
Maybe if we 'd spent the money on renewable energy technology , we would n't be spewing so much pollution into the air to generate power and heat , would n't need to fight two wars in Iraq , etc .
If our homes were generating their own power and more efficient , imagine what we could do with all that money not being wasted on a complex power grid ?
Hmm , maybe go into space ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, it's pretty fucking funny that you're using a fictional TV show to argue a point.
Anyway:

 There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon.
None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon.
Uh, actually, since that money went to going to the moon, it didn't go to renewable energy research, education, etc.
Fun fact: the percentage of kids in the United States who don't get enough to eat has climbed steadily since the 60's.
Right now it's around 13-14 million kids each year [bread.org].
So yes, there are a lot of people who are dumber and colder and hungrier because of all the money flushed down the drain into what is little more than nationalism in the name of science.
Don't you think we have certain societal obligations before we flush hundreds of trillions of dollars down the drain putting a couple of guys in a tin can above the earth for the world's most expensive dog and pony show?
Newsflash, folks: politicians, even JFK, don't give a flying fuck about scientific exploration.
They care about getting their agendas through and re-elected.
Kennedy did what he did because if he hadn't, the anti-communists would have had a field day.
Maybe if we'd spent the money on renewable energy technology, we wouldn't be spewing so much pollution into the air to generate power and heat, wouldn't need to fight two wars in Iraq, etc.
If our homes were generating their own power and more efficient, imagine what we could do with all that money not being wasted on a complex power grid?
Hmm, maybe go into space?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30946754</id>
	<title>The Blame</title>
	<author>legio\_noctis</author>
	<datestamp>1264797600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And whose fault is this?</p><p>Could it possibly be the Republicans?</p><p>Seeing Obama lose his majority was incredibly annoying: everyone everywhere else in the world (well, me, certainly) thinks he's doing a great job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And whose fault is this ? Could it possibly be the Republicans ? Seeing Obama lose his majority was incredibly annoying : everyone everywhere else in the world ( well , me , certainly ) thinks he 's doing a great job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And whose fault is this?Could it possibly be the Republicans?Seeing Obama lose his majority was incredibly annoying: everyone everywhere else in the world (well, me, certainly) thinks he's doing a great job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921726</id>
	<title>Re:obviously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a fucking idiot.  Liberals have always been on the wrong side of racial issues, from slavery, to reconstruction, to eugenics, to civil rights.  For fuck's sake, the longest-sitting senator Robert Byrd is a former KKK member AND a Democrat!  Now there's an inconvenient truth for you!  Pre-1960s, when civil rights for minorities were nonexistent in the South, the South was solid Democrat territory.  You're welcome to stay there on the liberal ideological plantation if you wish.  That's certainly your right.  But I'm neither cruel enough, intolerant enough, or closed-minded enough to be a liberal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a fucking idiot .
Liberals have always been on the wrong side of racial issues , from slavery , to reconstruction , to eugenics , to civil rights .
For fuck 's sake , the longest-sitting senator Robert Byrd is a former KKK member AND a Democrat !
Now there 's an inconvenient truth for you !
Pre-1960s , when civil rights for minorities were nonexistent in the South , the South was solid Democrat territory .
You 're welcome to stay there on the liberal ideological plantation if you wish .
That 's certainly your right .
But I 'm neither cruel enough , intolerant enough , or closed-minded enough to be a liberal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a fucking idiot.
Liberals have always been on the wrong side of racial issues, from slavery, to reconstruction, to eugenics, to civil rights.
For fuck's sake, the longest-sitting senator Robert Byrd is a former KKK member AND a Democrat!
Now there's an inconvenient truth for you!
Pre-1960s, when civil rights for minorities were nonexistent in the South, the South was solid Democrat territory.
You're welcome to stay there on the liberal ideological plantation if you wish.
That's certainly your right.
But I'm neither cruel enough, intolerant enough, or closed-minded enough to be a liberal!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920792</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, so instead of providing funding to some of the brightest people around and getting a real space program going again, we get fewer potholes in roads and more people working for min-wage?</p><p>That's stimulus you can believe in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , so instead of providing funding to some of the brightest people around and getting a real space program going again , we get fewer potholes in roads and more people working for min-wage ? That 's stimulus you can believe in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, so instead of providing funding to some of the brightest people around and getting a real space program going again, we get fewer potholes in roads and more people working for min-wage?That's stimulus you can believe in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920568</id>
	<title>It's those damn aliens</title>
	<author>ZeroExistenZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264620060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's those damn aliens.. Obama has been shown the "non-disclore" files on NASA's moonlanding and their warning not to fuck around on the moon. That must be it, the new president is a pantsy...</p><p>Or he might's seen the movie "Moon" and (SPOILER ALERT) doesn't know what to do with all these clones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's those damn aliens.. Obama has been shown the " non-disclore " files on NASA 's moonlanding and their warning not to fuck around on the moon .
That must be it , the new president is a pantsy...Or he might 's seen the movie " Moon " and ( SPOILER ALERT ) does n't know what to do with all these clones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's those damn aliens.. Obama has been shown the "non-disclore" files on NASA's moonlanding and their warning not to fuck around on the moon.
That must be it, the new president is a pantsy...Or he might's seen the movie "Moon" and (SPOILER ALERT) doesn't know what to do with all these clones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926576</id>
	<title>Re:Same old garbage.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264592760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon."</p><p>Wait...we didn't get there yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At this rate , without question the Chinese will be first to the moon .
" Wait...we did n't get there yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon.
"Wait...we didn't get there yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920554</id>
	<title>Re:Sad, but...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264620000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is very sad that we won't go back to the moon, but why send humans there when robots can do a job as great as Opportunity, Spirit, MGS and all that?</p> </div><p>That depends what you want to do in space. For example, my goal is human colonization of space. That can't be done with robots alone. I don't see that my goal has to be funded with US government money. But if they're going to spend almost 20 billion USD a year on space activities, it might as well be something useful to me. Expensive, one use space probes (what I've called "rock star" missions in these very forums) aren't going to significantly further anything I'd be interested in. Sure they're better than nothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is very sad that we wo n't go back to the moon , but why send humans there when robots can do a job as great as Opportunity , Spirit , MGS and all that ?
That depends what you want to do in space .
For example , my goal is human colonization of space .
That ca n't be done with robots alone .
I do n't see that my goal has to be funded with US government money .
But if they 're going to spend almost 20 billion USD a year on space activities , it might as well be something useful to me .
Expensive , one use space probes ( what I 've called " rock star " missions in these very forums ) are n't going to significantly further anything I 'd be interested in .
Sure they 're better than nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is very sad that we won't go back to the moon, but why send humans there when robots can do a job as great as Opportunity, Spirit, MGS and all that?
That depends what you want to do in space.
For example, my goal is human colonization of space.
That can't be done with robots alone.
I don't see that my goal has to be funded with US government money.
But if they're going to spend almost 20 billion USD a year on space activities, it might as well be something useful to me.
Expensive, one use space probes (what I've called "rock star" missions in these very forums) aren't going to significantly further anything I'd be interested in.
Sure they're better than nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924710</id>
	<title>Re:And so dies humanity.</title>
	<author>Titanarm</author>
	<datestamp>1264587120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  Let's go to Pandora and kill some natives already!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Let 's go to Pandora and kill some natives already !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Let's go to Pandora and kill some natives already!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924988</id>
	<title>Re:Just Junk It</title>
	<author>yurtinus</author>
	<datestamp>1264587960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well... what are you doing to help? "Getting our factories back" is the responsibility of the American People. I'm not saying the government is blameless, but *we* ultimately are responsible for our own economy-- and we will not get it back if we keep up the demand for cheap disposable crap imported from overseas. Unfortunately a lot of our way of life as of now is brought in off the backs of developing nations.
<br> <br>
Interesting counterpoint-- "just junk it" would shut down scores of American factories who primarily build things for NASA. There's always a tradeoff...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... what are you doing to help ?
" Getting our factories back " is the responsibility of the American People .
I 'm not saying the government is blameless , but * we * ultimately are responsible for our own economy-- and we will not get it back if we keep up the demand for cheap disposable crap imported from overseas .
Unfortunately a lot of our way of life as of now is brought in off the backs of developing nations .
Interesting counterpoint-- " just junk it " would shut down scores of American factories who primarily build things for NASA .
There 's always a tradeoff.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... what are you doing to help?
"Getting our factories back" is the responsibility of the American People.
I'm not saying the government is blameless, but *we* ultimately are responsible for our own economy-- and we will not get it back if we keep up the demand for cheap disposable crap imported from overseas.
Unfortunately a lot of our way of life as of now is brought in off the backs of developing nations.
Interesting counterpoint-- "just junk it" would shut down scores of American factories who primarily build things for NASA.
There's always a tradeoff...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920620</id>
	<title>Re:Leeme Get This Straight: So, Under Obama...</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1264620180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it will be renamed National Aerothings and Stuff Administration</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it will be renamed National Aerothings and Stuff Administration</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it will be renamed National Aerothings and Stuff Administration</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30928922</id>
	<title>Going to the moon is priceless</title>
	<author>MasaMuneCyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1264606200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over the summer, I had the privilege to intern at NASA. Every little scientist's dream is to grow up and work for NASA, and I accomplished that dream for a short time. Why do kids dream of growing up to work for NASA? Because NASA is super-cool, and it does things that nobody else thought was possible or reasonable to do. It does crazy, impossible things just because it can, and to show the world that it can.</p><p>How many of you, growing up, were highly interested in space? How cool did you think NASA was? Just about every scientist I know says that they loved space and NASA as kids, and it's part of what made them interested in science. Though going to the moon has little to no hard, monetary return, the return that it does have is priceless -- inspiration for multiple new generations of children to grow up into scientists to work their hardest and do things that we think now are impossible.</p><p>Without NASA and billions of dollars spent into producing pretty pictures of galaxies and producing wild stories of the creation of planets, it will be a lot harder to convince children that the sometimes-unbearable difficulty and mundanity of science is worth the effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the summer , I had the privilege to intern at NASA .
Every little scientist 's dream is to grow up and work for NASA , and I accomplished that dream for a short time .
Why do kids dream of growing up to work for NASA ?
Because NASA is super-cool , and it does things that nobody else thought was possible or reasonable to do .
It does crazy , impossible things just because it can , and to show the world that it can.How many of you , growing up , were highly interested in space ?
How cool did you think NASA was ?
Just about every scientist I know says that they loved space and NASA as kids , and it 's part of what made them interested in science .
Though going to the moon has little to no hard , monetary return , the return that it does have is priceless -- inspiration for multiple new generations of children to grow up into scientists to work their hardest and do things that we think now are impossible.Without NASA and billions of dollars spent into producing pretty pictures of galaxies and producing wild stories of the creation of planets , it will be a lot harder to convince children that the sometimes-unbearable difficulty and mundanity of science is worth the effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the summer, I had the privilege to intern at NASA.
Every little scientist's dream is to grow up and work for NASA, and I accomplished that dream for a short time.
Why do kids dream of growing up to work for NASA?
Because NASA is super-cool, and it does things that nobody else thought was possible or reasonable to do.
It does crazy, impossible things just because it can, and to show the world that it can.How many of you, growing up, were highly interested in space?
How cool did you think NASA was?
Just about every scientist I know says that they loved space and NASA as kids, and it's part of what made them interested in science.
Though going to the moon has little to no hard, monetary return, the return that it does have is priceless -- inspiration for multiple new generations of children to grow up into scientists to work their hardest and do things that we think now are impossible.Without NASA and billions of dollars spent into producing pretty pictures of galaxies and producing wild stories of the creation of planets, it will be a lot harder to convince children that the sometimes-unbearable difficulty and mundanity of science is worth the effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</id>
	<title>National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>Calydor</author>
	<datestamp>1264618980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which part of that has anything to do with global warming?</p><p>Why is it suddenly NASA's job to monitor global warming? Why not create an agency with that job, instead of re-allocating something that has for many decades been all about space exploration?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which part of that has anything to do with global warming ? Why is it suddenly NASA 's job to monitor global warming ?
Why not create an agency with that job , instead of re-allocating something that has for many decades been all about space exploration ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which part of that has anything to do with global warming?Why is it suddenly NASA's job to monitor global warming?
Why not create an agency with that job, instead of re-allocating something that has for many decades been all about space exploration?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923286</id>
	<title>Re:we've been to the moon . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264583220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The next space race should be about who can take the largest, most unweildly animal to the moon, let it run around, and bring it back safely.  I say we try to a gorilla or a buffalo or a bear in a space suit that fits them and let them run around the moon a little bit and then the animal returns a hero.  If that works we start with marine life.  Let's put an enclosed dolphin tank on the moon and do a little show and then bring it all back home.</p><p>If we're doing this for science we can send probes cheaper and safer.  If we're doing this for glory then send a giraffe or hippo.</p></div><p>i think you just wrote the next Madagascar movie!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The next space race should be about who can take the largest , most unweildly animal to the moon , let it run around , and bring it back safely .
I say we try to a gorilla or a buffalo or a bear in a space suit that fits them and let them run around the moon a little bit and then the animal returns a hero .
If that works we start with marine life .
Let 's put an enclosed dolphin tank on the moon and do a little show and then bring it all back home.If we 're doing this for science we can send probes cheaper and safer .
If we 're doing this for glory then send a giraffe or hippo.i think you just wrote the next Madagascar movie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next space race should be about who can take the largest, most unweildly animal to the moon, let it run around, and bring it back safely.
I say we try to a gorilla or a buffalo or a bear in a space suit that fits them and let them run around the moon a little bit and then the animal returns a hero.
If that works we start with marine life.
Let's put an enclosed dolphin tank on the moon and do a little show and then bring it all back home.If we're doing this for science we can send probes cheaper and safer.
If we're doing this for glory then send a giraffe or hippo.i think you just wrote the next Madagascar movie!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920658</id>
	<title>New Heavy Lift Rocket?</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1264620300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't get it, wasn't one of the main goals of the project the development of a new heavy lift rocket?  Are they saying they will cancel this program and then start over on the heavy lift rocket from scratch?  That doesn't make any sense to me.</p><p>Maybe they should just end NASA entirely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In their place , according to White House insiders , agency officials , industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama 's long-awaited plans for the space agency , NASA will look at developing a new " heavy-lift " rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit.I do n't get it , was n't one of the main goals of the project the development of a new heavy lift rocket ?
Are they saying they will cancel this program and then start over on the heavy lift rocket from scratch ?
That does n't make any sense to me.Maybe they should just end NASA entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit.I don't get it, wasn't one of the main goals of the project the development of a new heavy lift rocket?
Are they saying they will cancel this program and then start over on the heavy lift rocket from scratch?
That doesn't make any sense to me.Maybe they should just end NASA entirely.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922420</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1264624440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Advanced hydroponics<br>Advance carbon dioxide filtering techniques<br>Learning how to grow food in mineral-less soil</i></p><p>You mean like the sort of experiments they did on the ISS?<br>Amazing how everyone here on Slashdot thinks that ISS was a wasteful boondoggle but somehow building a base on the moon won't be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Advanced hydroponicsAdvance carbon dioxide filtering techniquesLearning how to grow food in mineral-less soilYou mean like the sort of experiments they did on the ISS ? Amazing how everyone here on Slashdot thinks that ISS was a wasteful boondoggle but somehow building a base on the moon wo n't be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advanced hydroponicsAdvance carbon dioxide filtering techniquesLearning how to grow food in mineral-less soilYou mean like the sort of experiments they did on the ISS?Amazing how everyone here on Slashdot thinks that ISS was a wasteful boondoggle but somehow building a base on the moon won't be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30945294</id>
	<title>Not going to the moon</title>
	<author>lsatenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1264695600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bravo Obama

Time for the USA to start saving some money.  The exploration will not add significant new technology or satellite communication (moon is satellite) abilities.

I own a business, and in the SMB definition, I am closer to the S then to the B as in Big business.  We put reserves away for slow seasons and we pay our debts off as much as we can.

Time for the overspending for gadgets, luxuries which are non-essentials, to be watered down.  China now rules the world, and the question is, what will it take for the USA to attempt to return to the role of most technically advanced affordable society?

Obama, the millions of uninsured medical citizens appreciate what you are trying to do.

Hip Hip Horahh  YEAHHH!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo Obama Time for the USA to start saving some money .
The exploration will not add significant new technology or satellite communication ( moon is satellite ) abilities .
I own a business , and in the SMB definition , I am closer to the S then to the B as in Big business .
We put reserves away for slow seasons and we pay our debts off as much as we can .
Time for the overspending for gadgets , luxuries which are non-essentials , to be watered down .
China now rules the world , and the question is , what will it take for the USA to attempt to return to the role of most technically advanced affordable society ?
Obama , the millions of uninsured medical citizens appreciate what you are trying to do .
Hip Hip Horahh YEAHHH ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo Obama

Time for the USA to start saving some money.
The exploration will not add significant new technology or satellite communication (moon is satellite) abilities.
I own a business, and in the SMB definition, I am closer to the S then to the B as in Big business.
We put reserves away for slow seasons and we pay our debts off as much as we can.
Time for the overspending for gadgets, luxuries which are non-essentials, to be watered down.
China now rules the world, and the question is, what will it take for the USA to attempt to return to the role of most technically advanced affordable society?
Obama, the millions of uninsured medical citizens appreciate what you are trying to do.
Hip Hip Horahh  YEAHHH!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926990</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of Change, Not So Much Hope.</title>
	<author>Cytotoxic</author>
	<datestamp>1264594080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You seem to be under the impression that politicians are agreeing with the scientific consensus on climate change because of their scientific understanding and enlightenment.  You are way, way, way too credulous.  They agree because it fits their agenda, no other reason.  Other politicians disagree with it for the same reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be under the impression that politicians are agreeing with the scientific consensus on climate change because of their scientific understanding and enlightenment .
You are way , way , way too credulous .
They agree because it fits their agenda , no other reason .
Other politicians disagree with it for the same reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be under the impression that politicians are agreeing with the scientific consensus on climate change because of their scientific understanding and enlightenment.
You are way, way, way too credulous.
They agree because it fits their agenda, no other reason.
Other politicians disagree with it for the same reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921134</id>
	<title>A step backward indeed.</title>
	<author>Erikderzweite</author>
	<datestamp>1264621680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think, that the ultimate goal of the humanity is to become able to survive outside of our home planet. We, as the bearers of life and thought have limited time before our home planet is gone forever. We can't stick to one place, we need to explore further, we need to be able to survive, to spread and sustain the Life.<br>Till the existence of alien life forms is proved, we have to assume that we are the only bearers of Life with the potential to be able to survive a cataclysm which will inevitably render this planet uninhabitable. We can't sit on our hand and wait till someone invents warp engine or magic terraforming. It needs to be done, there is enough work for many generations, we can't really afford to back up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think , that the ultimate goal of the humanity is to become able to survive outside of our home planet .
We , as the bearers of life and thought have limited time before our home planet is gone forever .
We ca n't stick to one place , we need to explore further , we need to be able to survive , to spread and sustain the Life.Till the existence of alien life forms is proved , we have to assume that we are the only bearers of Life with the potential to be able to survive a cataclysm which will inevitably render this planet uninhabitable .
We ca n't sit on our hand and wait till someone invents warp engine or magic terraforming .
It needs to be done , there is enough work for many generations , we ca n't really afford to back up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think, that the ultimate goal of the humanity is to become able to survive outside of our home planet.
We, as the bearers of life and thought have limited time before our home planet is gone forever.
We can't stick to one place, we need to explore further, we need to be able to survive, to spread and sustain the Life.Till the existence of alien life forms is proved, we have to assume that we are the only bearers of Life with the potential to be able to survive a cataclysm which will inevitably render this planet uninhabitable.
We can't sit on our hand and wait till someone invents warp engine or magic terraforming.
It needs to be done, there is enough work for many generations, we can't really afford to back up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920720</id>
	<title>We certainly don't need to go back to the moon</title>
	<author>Dotren</author>
	<datestamp>1264620480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, because, you know, there aren't any resources up there or low gravity that could make it an interesting launch site for larger/long term space exploration vehicles.</p><p>Of course I've heard people talk about getting the same possibilities out of asteroid mining so maybe we'll head that route instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because , you know , there are n't any resources up there or low gravity that could make it an interesting launch site for larger/long term space exploration vehicles.Of course I 've heard people talk about getting the same possibilities out of asteroid mining so maybe we 'll head that route instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because, you know, there aren't any resources up there or low gravity that could make it an interesting launch site for larger/long term space exploration vehicles.Of course I've heard people talk about getting the same possibilities out of asteroid mining so maybe we'll head that route instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922782</id>
	<title>Personally bummed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264625220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just unspeakably bummed about this, as a human and an American.
<p>
Maybe NASA is hidebound, and Corporate America can get us there faster.  But I'd like something to take a little national pride in.
</p><p>
Hopefully some of our tech-billionaires will step up to the plate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just unspeakably bummed about this , as a human and an American .
Maybe NASA is hidebound , and Corporate America can get us there faster .
But I 'd like something to take a little national pride in .
Hopefully some of our tech-billionaires will step up to the plate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just unspeakably bummed about this, as a human and an American.
Maybe NASA is hidebound, and Corporate America can get us there faster.
But I'd like something to take a little national pride in.
Hopefully some of our tech-billionaires will step up to the plate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926480</id>
	<title>military bases</title>
	<author>duckintheface</author>
	<datestamp>1264592460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason for "Moon, Mars, and Beyond",   the Bush plan for space exploration was always to put a military base on the moon.  If the choice was that or nothing, I'd take nothing.  But Obama has shown genuine  interest in Mars and in a plan based on Phobos prior to establishing a colony on Mars.  That's the route that most astronauts favor as do most serious scientists.  Failure to fund Constellation does not mean we are giving up on Mars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason for " Moon , Mars , and Beyond " , the Bush plan for space exploration was always to put a military base on the moon .
If the choice was that or nothing , I 'd take nothing .
But Obama has shown genuine interest in Mars and in a plan based on Phobos prior to establishing a colony on Mars .
That 's the route that most astronauts favor as do most serious scientists .
Failure to fund Constellation does not mean we are giving up on Mars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason for "Moon, Mars, and Beyond",   the Bush plan for space exploration was always to put a military base on the moon.
If the choice was that or nothing, I'd take nothing.
But Obama has shown genuine  interest in Mars and in a plan based on Phobos prior to establishing a colony on Mars.
That's the route that most astronauts favor as do most serious scientists.
Failure to fund Constellation does not mean we are giving up on Mars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921190</id>
	<title>Bummer!</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1264621800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was really looking forward to Obama going to the moon.  Preferably in person and before his term ends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was really looking forward to Obama going to the moon .
Preferably in person and before his term ends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was really looking forward to Obama going to the moon.
Preferably in person and before his term ends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923688</id>
	<title>Re:we've been to the moon . . .</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1264584180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Giraffe or Hippo?</p><p>Shit man, you want to send a huge mammal, send a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er.</p><p>1) they're used to living in a small space.  Make the pod look like Mom's basement, you're good probably for a trip to Neptune.<br>2) antisocial: no need for companionship<br>3) tech-cool: they'd cheerfully blog from the Moon, even with latency of 8 bajillion.<br>4) nobody (even the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er) would mind if it was a one-way trip, so no sad relatives here.</p><p>Giraffes and hippos we'd probably want to bring back, after all.  Plus, no PETA objections to sending a slashdotter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Giraffe or Hippo ? Shit man , you want to send a huge mammal , send a /.er.1 ) they 're used to living in a small space .
Make the pod look like Mom 's basement , you 're good probably for a trip to Neptune.2 ) antisocial : no need for companionship3 ) tech-cool : they 'd cheerfully blog from the Moon , even with latency of 8 bajillion.4 ) nobody ( even the /.er ) would mind if it was a one-way trip , so no sad relatives here.Giraffes and hippos we 'd probably want to bring back , after all .
Plus , no PETA objections to sending a slashdotter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Giraffe or Hippo?Shit man, you want to send a huge mammal, send a /.er.1) they're used to living in a small space.
Make the pod look like Mom's basement, you're good probably for a trip to Neptune.2) antisocial: no need for companionship3) tech-cool: they'd cheerfully blog from the Moon, even with latency of 8 bajillion.4) nobody (even the /.er) would mind if it was a one-way trip, so no sad relatives here.Giraffes and hippos we'd probably want to bring back, after all.
Plus, no PETA objections to sending a slashdotter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923938</id>
	<title>Re:Helium 3</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264584840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for one simple reason: if there were a gold asteroid in earth orbit, it would not be economical to de-orbit it. Regardless that helium-3 isn't available on earth ( i don't know the details) whatever its purported use, it is not worth the expense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for one simple reason : if there were a gold asteroid in earth orbit , it would not be economical to de-orbit it .
Regardless that helium-3 is n't available on earth ( i do n't know the details ) whatever its purported use , it is not worth the expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for one simple reason: if there were a gold asteroid in earth orbit, it would not be economical to de-orbit it.
Regardless that helium-3 isn't available on earth ( i don't know the details) whatever its purported use, it is not worth the expense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924444</id>
	<title>Nor the other thing</title>
	<author>lazn</author>
	<datestamp>1264586280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We choose to not go to the moon. We choose to not go to the moon in this decade nor to do the other things, because this is easy, but because this is not hard, because this goal will serve to disorganize and mess up the best of our energies and skills, because this challenge is one that we are not willing to accept, one we are willing to postpone, and one which we intend to lose, and the others, too.</p><p>For every dollar spent in NASA we get back seven in the economy from the advanced technologies based on things NASA had to invent.<br><a href="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ppm/ppm68.htm" title="nasa.gov">http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ppm/ppm68.htm</a> [nasa.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We choose to not go to the moon .
We choose to not go to the moon in this decade nor to do the other things , because this is easy , but because this is not hard , because this goal will serve to disorganize and mess up the best of our energies and skills , because this challenge is one that we are not willing to accept , one we are willing to postpone , and one which we intend to lose , and the others , too.For every dollar spent in NASA we get back seven in the economy from the advanced technologies based on things NASA had to invent.http : //www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ppm/ppm68.htm [ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We choose to not go to the moon.
We choose to not go to the moon in this decade nor to do the other things, because this is easy, but because this is not hard, because this goal will serve to disorganize and mess up the best of our energies and skills, because this challenge is one that we are not willing to accept, one we are willing to postpone, and one which we intend to lose, and the others, too.For every dollar spent in NASA we get back seven in the economy from the advanced technologies based on things NASA had to invent.http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ppm/ppm68.htm [nasa.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924228</id>
	<title>Just wondering</title>
	<author>proslack</author>
	<datestamp>1264585680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many jobs will this move create?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many jobs will this move create ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many jobs will this move create?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496</id>
	<title>we've been to the moon . . .</title>
	<author>rev\_sanchez</author>
	<datestamp>1264619880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The next space race should be about who can take the largest, most unweildly animal to the moon, let it run around, and bring it back safely.  I say we try to a gorilla or a buffalo or a bear in a space suit that fits them and let them run around the moon a little bit and then the animal returns a hero.  If that works we start with marine life.  Let's put an enclosed dolphin tank on the moon and do a little show and then bring it all back home.<br>
<br>
If we're doing this for science we can send probes cheaper and safer.  If we're doing this for glory then send a giraffe or hippo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The next space race should be about who can take the largest , most unweildly animal to the moon , let it run around , and bring it back safely .
I say we try to a gorilla or a buffalo or a bear in a space suit that fits them and let them run around the moon a little bit and then the animal returns a hero .
If that works we start with marine life .
Let 's put an enclosed dolphin tank on the moon and do a little show and then bring it all back home .
If we 're doing this for science we can send probes cheaper and safer .
If we 're doing this for glory then send a giraffe or hippo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next space race should be about who can take the largest, most unweildly animal to the moon, let it run around, and bring it back safely.
I say we try to a gorilla or a buffalo or a bear in a space suit that fits them and let them run around the moon a little bit and then the animal returns a hero.
If that works we start with marine life.
Let's put an enclosed dolphin tank on the moon and do a little show and then bring it all back home.
If we're doing this for science we can send probes cheaper and safer.
If we're doing this for glory then send a giraffe or hippo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923606</id>
	<title>Back to the moon?</title>
	<author>Dretep</author>
	<datestamp>1264584060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When was anyone on there the first time?  Can't go 'back' cause nobody has been there to begin with and the gig will be up when a new 'real' video from the moon is available on earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was anyone on there the first time ?
Ca n't go 'back ' cause nobody has been there to begin with and the gig will be up when a new 'real ' video from the moon is available on earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was anyone on there the first time?
Can't go 'back' cause nobody has been there to begin with and the gig will be up when a new 'real' video from the moon is available on earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920850</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264620840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why is it suddenly NASA's job to monitor global warming? Why not create an agency with that job, instead of re-allocating something that has for many decades been all about space exploration?</p></div></blockquote><p>The National <b>Aeronautics</b> and Space Administration hasn't <i>ever</i> been all about space exploration -- forward looking terrestrial military and civilian aviation research has been a major part of their brief since the agency was founded (actually, since its <i>predecessor</i> agency, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, was founded.) Space exploration is just the stuff that gets the most press.</p><p>Space based weather, climate, geological, ocean, etc., studies have all been part of NASA work since approximately the time of the first satellite with sensors usable for such studies.</p><p>And if you wanted to direct all climate work to another agency, there is no need to create a new agency, as there is an existing agency within whose main mission such research clearly falls: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.</p><p>Of course, redirecting that work from NASA to NOAA wouldn't mean NASA goes to the moon, it just means NASA shrinks. Its not like NASA has its own independent revenue stream which is being tapped for climate work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it suddenly NASA 's job to monitor global warming ?
Why not create an agency with that job , instead of re-allocating something that has for many decades been all about space exploration ? The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has n't ever been all about space exploration -- forward looking terrestrial military and civilian aviation research has been a major part of their brief since the agency was founded ( actually , since its predecessor agency , the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics , was founded .
) Space exploration is just the stuff that gets the most press.Space based weather , climate , geological , ocean , etc. , studies have all been part of NASA work since approximately the time of the first satellite with sensors usable for such studies.And if you wanted to direct all climate work to another agency , there is no need to create a new agency , as there is an existing agency within whose main mission such research clearly falls : the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Of course , redirecting that work from NASA to NOAA would n't mean NASA goes to the moon , it just means NASA shrinks .
Its not like NASA has its own independent revenue stream which is being tapped for climate work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it suddenly NASA's job to monitor global warming?
Why not create an agency with that job, instead of re-allocating something that has for many decades been all about space exploration?The National Aeronautics and Space Administration hasn't ever been all about space exploration -- forward looking terrestrial military and civilian aviation research has been a major part of their brief since the agency was founded (actually, since its predecessor agency, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, was founded.
) Space exploration is just the stuff that gets the most press.Space based weather, climate, geological, ocean, etc., studies have all been part of NASA work since approximately the time of the first satellite with sensors usable for such studies.And if you wanted to direct all climate work to another agency, there is no need to create a new agency, as there is an existing agency within whose main mission such research clearly falls: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Of course, redirecting that work from NASA to NOAA wouldn't mean NASA goes to the moon, it just means NASA shrinks.
Its not like NASA has its own independent revenue stream which is being tapped for climate work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923078</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>MxTxL</author>
	<datestamp>1264582800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... except when he was pandering for votes in Brevard County, FL. Home of Kennedy Space Center:</p><p>Obama: "We need a real vision for space exploration. To help formulate this vision, I'm going to reestablish the National Aeronautics and Space Council so that we can develop a plan to explore the solar system - a plan that involves both human and robotic missions, and enlists both international partners and the private sector.  And as America leads the world to long-term exploration of the moon and Mars, and beyond , let's also tap NASA's ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world once again, make America stronger, and help grow the economy right here in brevard county and right here in Florida. That's what this election is all about. It's about raising our sights, seizing this moment, and reclaiming our destiny in this country."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... except when he was pandering for votes in Brevard County , FL .
Home of Kennedy Space Center : Obama : " We need a real vision for space exploration .
To help formulate this vision , I 'm going to reestablish the National Aeronautics and Space Council so that we can develop a plan to explore the solar system - a plan that involves both human and robotic missions , and enlists both international partners and the private sector .
And as America leads the world to long-term exploration of the moon and Mars , and beyond , let 's also tap NASA 's ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change .
Under my watch , NASA will inspire the world once again , make America stronger , and help grow the economy right here in brevard county and right here in Florida .
That 's what this election is all about .
It 's about raising our sights , seizing this moment , and reclaiming our destiny in this country .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... except when he was pandering for votes in Brevard County, FL.
Home of Kennedy Space Center:Obama: "We need a real vision for space exploration.
To help formulate this vision, I'm going to reestablish the National Aeronautics and Space Council so that we can develop a plan to explore the solar system - a plan that involves both human and robotic missions, and enlists both international partners and the private sector.
And as America leads the world to long-term exploration of the moon and Mars, and beyond , let's also tap NASA's ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change.
Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world once again, make America stronger, and help grow the economy right here in brevard county and right here in Florida.
That's what this election is all about.
It's about raising our sights, seizing this moment, and reclaiming our destiny in this country.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925182</id>
	<title>Re:Just Junk It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264588560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize that NASA is an industry, don't you?  You want to kill NASA and replace it with a museum?  In other words, who needs scientists, engineers, technicians, contractors, etc when you can make money on admission fees and pay night guards.</p><p>If you want good, high-paying jobs, leave the banks and mortgage holders alone and fund the hell out of NASA.  Our economy is not going to rebuild itself with us sticking our heads in the sand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that NASA is an industry , do n't you ?
You want to kill NASA and replace it with a museum ?
In other words , who needs scientists , engineers , technicians , contractors , etc when you can make money on admission fees and pay night guards.If you want good , high-paying jobs , leave the banks and mortgage holders alone and fund the hell out of NASA .
Our economy is not going to rebuild itself with us sticking our heads in the sand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that NASA is an industry, don't you?
You want to kill NASA and replace it with a museum?
In other words, who needs scientists, engineers, technicians, contractors, etc when you can make money on admission fees and pay night guards.If you want good, high-paying jobs, leave the banks and mortgage holders alone and fund the hell out of NASA.
Our economy is not going to rebuild itself with us sticking our heads in the sand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924692</id>
	<title>I dont understand americans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not support the chinese in going to the moon. They would and supporting them in doing so would cause a win/win situation on more levels than you might think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not support the chinese in going to the moon .
They would and supporting them in doing so would cause a win/win situation on more levels than you might think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not support the chinese in going to the moon.
They would and supporting them in doing so would cause a win/win situation on more levels than you might think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920618</id>
	<title>Re:Leeme Get This Straight: So, Under Obama...</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1264620180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's my biggest problem with this. I have no problem cutting Constellation or the Moon shot. It was clear we weren't going to build a base there or spend any extended time there. That made the new Moon program just an expensive nostalgia trip, a way to relive old glories with little new actual science being done. But NASA is about "out there", not looking "down here". If you want to do climate studies, that should be NOAA's job, and to a lesser extent, perhaps the U.S. Geologic Survey. NASA should be about space exploration and aeronautics research, period.</p><p>I'm completely onboard with the Administration's idea of exploring (and maybe sending a man to ) near-Earth asteroids. That's technically feasible, and unlike a new moon shot, would be real space exploration. I also like the emphasis on the push for private space launch contractors, which NASA's old guard will no doubt fight tooth and nail. But it's time for NASA's monopoly on sending men into orbit to end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's my biggest problem with this .
I have no problem cutting Constellation or the Moon shot .
It was clear we were n't going to build a base there or spend any extended time there .
That made the new Moon program just an expensive nostalgia trip , a way to relive old glories with little new actual science being done .
But NASA is about " out there " , not looking " down here " .
If you want to do climate studies , that should be NOAA 's job , and to a lesser extent , perhaps the U.S. Geologic Survey .
NASA should be about space exploration and aeronautics research , period.I 'm completely onboard with the Administration 's idea of exploring ( and maybe sending a man to ) near-Earth asteroids .
That 's technically feasible , and unlike a new moon shot , would be real space exploration .
I also like the emphasis on the push for private space launch contractors , which NASA 's old guard will no doubt fight tooth and nail .
But it 's time for NASA 's monopoly on sending men into orbit to end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's my biggest problem with this.
I have no problem cutting Constellation or the Moon shot.
It was clear we weren't going to build a base there or spend any extended time there.
That made the new Moon program just an expensive nostalgia trip, a way to relive old glories with little new actual science being done.
But NASA is about "out there", not looking "down here".
If you want to do climate studies, that should be NOAA's job, and to a lesser extent, perhaps the U.S. Geologic Survey.
NASA should be about space exploration and aeronautics research, period.I'm completely onboard with the Administration's idea of exploring (and maybe sending a man to ) near-Earth asteroids.
That's technically feasible, and unlike a new moon shot, would be real space exploration.
I also like the emphasis on the push for private space launch contractors, which NASA's old guard will no doubt fight tooth and nail.
But it's time for NASA's monopoly on sending men into orbit to end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30932314</id>
	<title>A great disturbance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264689000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When this post went up, I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of lefty slashdot voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When this post went up , I felt a great disturbance in the Force , as if millions of lefty slashdot voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When this post went up, I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of lefty slashdot voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924052</id>
	<title>Re:And so dies humanity.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1264585200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what's the plan for escaping the heat death of the universe?</p><p>There isn't one?</p><p>Why should I care about that any less than the Sun transforming into an M class star and stripping the atmosphere off the Earth.</p><p>Wait, we don't have a plan for that either...</p><p>Maybe the answer is that space exploration is worth doing for the current or next generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what 's the plan for escaping the heat death of the universe ? There is n't one ? Why should I care about that any less than the Sun transforming into an M class star and stripping the atmosphere off the Earth.Wait , we do n't have a plan for that either...Maybe the answer is that space exploration is worth doing for the current or next generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what's the plan for escaping the heat death of the universe?There isn't one?Why should I care about that any less than the Sun transforming into an M class star and stripping the atmosphere off the Earth.Wait, we don't have a plan for that either...Maybe the answer is that space exploration is worth doing for the current or next generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921422</id>
	<title>Good move</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1264622280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Good move.
It's time to pull the plug.
</p><p>
Space flight on chemically-powered rockets works no better than it did 40 years ago.  Without some other propulsion system, it can't get better.  There's only so much energy per unit weight available.  It doesn't get any better than liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen, and that's already been used. Rerunning Apollo is just a money sink.
</p><p>NASA mostly does tweaks on weight reduction, and that reached the point of diminishing returns some time ago.
Without a better powerplant, there's little hope of progress.
</p><p>
Now, nuclear rockets - that might work.  Nuclear rocket engines were tested in the 1950s.  They would have to be launched from some very remote location, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good move .
It 's time to pull the plug .
Space flight on chemically-powered rockets works no better than it did 40 years ago .
Without some other propulsion system , it ca n't get better .
There 's only so much energy per unit weight available .
It does n't get any better than liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen , and that 's already been used .
Rerunning Apollo is just a money sink .
NASA mostly does tweaks on weight reduction , and that reached the point of diminishing returns some time ago .
Without a better powerplant , there 's little hope of progress .
Now , nuclear rockets - that might work .
Nuclear rocket engines were tested in the 1950s .
They would have to be launched from some very remote location , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Good move.
It's time to pull the plug.
Space flight on chemically-powered rockets works no better than it did 40 years ago.
Without some other propulsion system, it can't get better.
There's only so much energy per unit weight available.
It doesn't get any better than liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen, and that's already been used.
Rerunning Apollo is just a money sink.
NASA mostly does tweaks on weight reduction, and that reached the point of diminishing returns some time ago.
Without a better powerplant, there's little hope of progress.
Now, nuclear rockets - that might work.
Nuclear rocket engines were tested in the 1950s.
They would have to be launched from some very remote location, of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920814</id>
	<title>Off-worlders holding back our progress again</title>
	<author>narcc</author>
	<datestamp>1264620780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those darn Vulcans never let us do anything!  Zefram Cochrane must be turning over in his grave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those darn Vulcans never let us do anything !
Zefram Cochrane must be turning over in his grave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those darn Vulcans never let us do anything!
Zefram Cochrane must be turning over in his grave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920500</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>gimmebeer</author>
	<datestamp>1264619880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, very suprising.  He's actually following through on something he promised during his campaign.  This is new territory, hang on to your butts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , very suprising .
He 's actually following through on something he promised during his campaign .
This is new territory , hang on to your butts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, very suprising.
He's actually following through on something he promised during his campaign.
This is new territory, hang on to your butts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920194</id>
	<title>frost piss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264618860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes!</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920880</id>
	<title>Rather be lucky than good.</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1264620960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh.  I had a chance to join the Constellation program some years ago.  I didn't take it.  I feel as if I just dodged a bullet.</p><p>And considering my current job involves remote sensing of land cover change, I feel as if that bullet turned to gold and landed in my wallet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh .
I had a chance to join the Constellation program some years ago .
I did n't take it .
I feel as if I just dodged a bullet.And considering my current job involves remote sensing of land cover change , I feel as if that bullet turned to gold and landed in my wallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh.
I had a chance to join the Constellation program some years ago.
I didn't take it.
I feel as if I just dodged a bullet.And considering my current job involves remote sensing of land cover change, I feel as if that bullet turned to gold and landed in my wallet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923152</id>
	<title>Re:Why? Because it's next ...</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1264582920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really liked that bit from West Wing, but I thought this one from Babylon-5 was better:

     <p><div class="quote"><p>Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control,
     genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing
     every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred
     years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will
     grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll
     take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly,
     Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for <strong>nothing</strong>, unless we go to
     the stars.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really liked that bit from West Wing , but I thought this one from Babylon-5 was better : Ask ten different scientists about the environment , population control , genetics - and you 'll get ten different answers .
But there 's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on : whether it happens in a hundred years , or a thousand years , or a million years , eventually our sun will grow cold , and go out .
When that happens , it wo n't just take us , it 'll take Marilyn Monroe , and Lao-tsu , Einstein , Maruputo , Buddy Holly , Aristophanes - all of this .
All of this was for nothing , unless we go to the stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really liked that bit from West Wing, but I thought this one from Babylon-5 was better:

     Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control,
     genetics - and you'll get ten different answers.
But there's one thing
     every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred
     years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will
     grow cold, and go out.
When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll
     take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly,
     Aristophanes - all of this.
All of this was for nothing, unless we go to
     the stars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921062</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1264621440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> then he reversed himself with no supporting data to cry foul about global warming in the late 90's and AlGore then saw his opportunity.</i>
<br>
<br>
You are actually making the argument that there was NO supporting data in the late 90's about global warming?  Because I was studying climatology in the early 90's and I do remember quite a fair number of scientific data supporting the idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>then he reversed himself with no supporting data to cry foul about global warming in the late 90 's and AlGore then saw his opportunity .
You are actually making the argument that there was NO supporting data in the late 90 's about global warming ?
Because I was studying climatology in the early 90 's and I do remember quite a fair number of scientific data supporting the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> then he reversed himself with no supporting data to cry foul about global warming in the late 90's and AlGore then saw his opportunity.
You are actually making the argument that there was NO supporting data in the late 90's about global warming?
Because I was studying climatology in the early 90's and I do remember quite a fair number of scientific data supporting the idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922078</id>
	<title>GOOD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264623600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>DIE, NASA! DIE!
The sooner America has no access to space, the safer we all will be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DIE , NASA !
DIE ! The sooner America has no access to space , the safer we all will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DIE, NASA!
DIE!
The sooner America has no access to space, the safer we all will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30932774</id>
	<title>I hate to say it, but</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1264691700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to say it, but I don't blame him for this decision.</p><p>I would love to see more space exploration, particularly manned space exploration.</p><p>However, I read the news.  The country is hanging on by a financial shoe lace.  We've borrowed money and taken donations to go to wars.   The banking industry via the government is running of borrowed money from China.</p><p>People have lost homes and have been out of work for over a year.</p><p>Now is not the time to be getting spendy unless the spending will help the country recover.</p><p>Blame AIG, Goldman Sachs, the rest of Wall Street, the politicians who deregulated to let it happen and the politicians who didn't fight to put the regulations back.</p><p>President Obama is just trying to put the country back together first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to say it , but I do n't blame him for this decision.I would love to see more space exploration , particularly manned space exploration.However , I read the news .
The country is hanging on by a financial shoe lace .
We 've borrowed money and taken donations to go to wars .
The banking industry via the government is running of borrowed money from China.People have lost homes and have been out of work for over a year.Now is not the time to be getting spendy unless the spending will help the country recover.Blame AIG , Goldman Sachs , the rest of Wall Street , the politicians who deregulated to let it happen and the politicians who did n't fight to put the regulations back.President Obama is just trying to put the country back together first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to say it, but I don't blame him for this decision.I would love to see more space exploration, particularly manned space exploration.However, I read the news.
The country is hanging on by a financial shoe lace.
We've borrowed money and taken donations to go to wars.
The banking industry via the government is running of borrowed money from China.People have lost homes and have been out of work for over a year.Now is not the time to be getting spendy unless the spending will help the country recover.Blame AIG, Goldman Sachs, the rest of Wall Street, the politicians who deregulated to let it happen and the politicians who didn't fight to put the regulations back.President Obama is just trying to put the country back together first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926364</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264592100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And he makes Bush look like? Not a problem-you want the moon-you fund it-raise YOUR taxes because you think its a hella an idea-at the moment I don't think so...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And he makes Bush look like ?
Not a problem-you want the moon-you fund it-raise YOUR taxes because you think its a hella an idea-at the moment I do n't think so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And he makes Bush look like?
Not a problem-you want the moon-you fund it-raise YOUR taxes because you think its a hella an idea-at the moment I don't think so...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706</id>
	<title>Just Junk It</title>
	<author>rally2xs</author>
	<datestamp>1264620480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA should be defunded completely, the launch pads closed, and the whole shebang turned into museums.  That would at least bring in a little coin.  Our country is broke, getting moreso, with no hope of actually ever balancing the budget while having all our other jobs outsourced, industries leaving, illegal aliens dragging down the charitable services, etc. etc.</p><p>Unless we can get our factories coming back, stop the outsourcing, etc., there's NASA and a whole whale of a lot of other things that gov't does that needs to be stopped.  You can't tax people that have lost a good-paying tool-and-diemaking job, and are working some crappy-paying retail job, to do things like go to the moon or mars.</p><p>Get our industries back.  Period.  Otherwise, the military can do GPS, the commercial interests can keep launching comm satellites by paying the French to do it, and the military again needs weather info and so can do those satellites too.  Everything else is just too expensive for the USA to be doing until we're back working again with GOOD PAYING jobs, not the near-poverty stuff we've been gravitating toward for the last 5 decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA should be defunded completely , the launch pads closed , and the whole shebang turned into museums .
That would at least bring in a little coin .
Our country is broke , getting moreso , with no hope of actually ever balancing the budget while having all our other jobs outsourced , industries leaving , illegal aliens dragging down the charitable services , etc .
etc.Unless we can get our factories coming back , stop the outsourcing , etc. , there 's NASA and a whole whale of a lot of other things that gov't does that needs to be stopped .
You ca n't tax people that have lost a good-paying tool-and-diemaking job , and are working some crappy-paying retail job , to do things like go to the moon or mars.Get our industries back .
Period. Otherwise , the military can do GPS , the commercial interests can keep launching comm satellites by paying the French to do it , and the military again needs weather info and so can do those satellites too .
Everything else is just too expensive for the USA to be doing until we 're back working again with GOOD PAYING jobs , not the near-poverty stuff we 've been gravitating toward for the last 5 decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA should be defunded completely, the launch pads closed, and the whole shebang turned into museums.
That would at least bring in a little coin.
Our country is broke, getting moreso, with no hope of actually ever balancing the budget while having all our other jobs outsourced, industries leaving, illegal aliens dragging down the charitable services, etc.
etc.Unless we can get our factories coming back, stop the outsourcing, etc., there's NASA and a whole whale of a lot of other things that gov't does that needs to be stopped.
You can't tax people that have lost a good-paying tool-and-diemaking job, and are working some crappy-paying retail job, to do things like go to the moon or mars.Get our industries back.
Period.  Otherwise, the military can do GPS, the commercial interests can keep launching comm satellites by paying the French to do it, and the military again needs weather info and so can do those satellites too.
Everything else is just too expensive for the USA to be doing until we're back working again with GOOD PAYING jobs, not the near-poverty stuff we've been gravitating toward for the last 5 decades.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923106</id>
	<title>Re:Sad, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264582860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As great as Opportunity and Spirit are, let put things into context. In their 6 years on Mars the two rovers have travelled a combined 27km. In 3 days Gene Cernan and Harisson Schmitt covered 36km on the lunar surface and collected 50kg of samples.</p><p>Spirit has been stuck in the sand for 9 months (and is now permanently stuck). An astronaut on the surface could have solved the problem in 30 seconds.</p><p>So while human missions are orders of magnitude more expensive, they also produce orders of mangitude more data. As for risk, there once was a time where humanity accepted risk as the price of knowledge. Less than 10\% of the Magellan expedition made it back home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As great as Opportunity and Spirit are , let put things into context .
In their 6 years on Mars the two rovers have travelled a combined 27km .
In 3 days Gene Cernan and Harisson Schmitt covered 36km on the lunar surface and collected 50kg of samples.Spirit has been stuck in the sand for 9 months ( and is now permanently stuck ) .
An astronaut on the surface could have solved the problem in 30 seconds.So while human missions are orders of magnitude more expensive , they also produce orders of mangitude more data .
As for risk , there once was a time where humanity accepted risk as the price of knowledge .
Less than 10 \ % of the Magellan expedition made it back home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As great as Opportunity and Spirit are, let put things into context.
In their 6 years on Mars the two rovers have travelled a combined 27km.
In 3 days Gene Cernan and Harisson Schmitt covered 36km on the lunar surface and collected 50kg of samples.Spirit has been stuck in the sand for 9 months (and is now permanently stuck).
An astronaut on the surface could have solved the problem in 30 seconds.So while human missions are orders of magnitude more expensive, they also produce orders of mangitude more data.
As for risk, there once was a time where humanity accepted risk as the price of knowledge.
Less than 10\% of the Magellan expedition made it back home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920694</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>navygeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264620420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree Calydor... What, THE FUCK, does NASA have to do with "global warming"?! I don't care if you think that 'science' is valid or not, there is no goddamn reason NASA should be involved in that. That's why we have NOAA. NASA should be spending money on sending people IN TO SPACE, fucking novel idea, I know. Fuck King Obama...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree Calydor... What , THE FUCK , does NASA have to do with " global warming " ? !
I do n't care if you think that 'science ' is valid or not , there is no goddamn reason NASA should be involved in that .
That 's why we have NOAA .
NASA should be spending money on sending people IN TO SPACE , fucking novel idea , I know .
Fuck King Obama.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree Calydor... What, THE FUCK, does NASA have to do with "global warming"?!
I don't care if you think that 'science' is valid or not, there is no goddamn reason NASA should be involved in that.
That's why we have NOAA.
NASA should be spending money on sending people IN TO SPACE, fucking novel idea, I know.
Fuck King Obama...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921706</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1264622880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;I'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this, but I think this is great. NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes, and that's a mission that can't be carried out by private enterprise.</p><p>Exactly. Bush's grandstanding for Moon and Mars missions was unfeasible and unneeded. NASA is the world leader in robotics and drone missions.  Carrying around a meatbag to these places is expensive and unneeded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this , but I think this is great .
NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes , and that 's a mission that ca n't be carried out by private enterprise.Exactly .
Bush 's grandstanding for Moon and Mars missions was unfeasible and unneeded .
NASA is the world leader in robotics and drone missions .
Carrying around a meatbag to these places is expensive and unneeded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this, but I think this is great.
NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes, and that's a mission that can't be carried out by private enterprise.Exactly.
Bush's grandstanding for Moon and Mars missions was unfeasible and unneeded.
NASA is the world leader in robotics and drone missions.
Carrying around a meatbag to these places is expensive and unneeded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921752</id>
	<title>Re:Sad, but...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264622940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because next people will be saying, "Why do we need to send another probe to Mars?  Haven't we already done that.  Why not use the money on project on something else more useful?  Maybe an extra billion for program X."</p><p>Sorry, but out side of slashdot and a few other geeky sites, how many of the general public know about spirit and opportunity STILL being on mars and roving around?  Next question, how many actually care</p><p>NASA's budget already is only $18B a year.  The state of New York Dept of Health got $29B last year.  <a href="http://www.usaspending.gov/" title="usaspending.gov">http://www.usaspending.gov/</a> [usaspending.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because next people will be saying , " Why do we need to send another probe to Mars ?
Have n't we already done that .
Why not use the money on project on something else more useful ?
Maybe an extra billion for program X .
" Sorry , but out side of slashdot and a few other geeky sites , how many of the general public know about spirit and opportunity STILL being on mars and roving around ?
Next question , how many actually careNASA 's budget already is only $ 18B a year .
The state of New York Dept of Health got $ 29B last year .
http : //www.usaspending.gov/ [ usaspending.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because next people will be saying, "Why do we need to send another probe to Mars?
Haven't we already done that.
Why not use the money on project on something else more useful?
Maybe an extra billion for program X.
"Sorry, but out side of slashdot and a few other geeky sites, how many of the general public know about spirit and opportunity STILL being on mars and roving around?
Next question, how many actually careNASA's budget already is only $18B a year.
The state of New York Dept of Health got $29B last year.
http://www.usaspending.gov/ [usaspending.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920362</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1264619400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not create an agency with that job</p></div><p>I'll ask 'eem, but I don' think he'll be very keen... we've <a href="http://www.noaa.gov/" title="noaa.gov">already got one,</a> [noaa.gov] you see!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not create an agency with that jobI 'll ask 'eem , but I don ' think he 'll be very keen... we 've already got one , [ noaa.gov ] you see !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not create an agency with that jobI'll ask 'eem, but I don' think he'll be very keen... we've already got one, [noaa.gov] you see!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30930578</id>
	<title>Come back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, don't leave us Russians to compete with China alone! Come back some day, gentlemen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , do n't leave us Russians to compete with China alone !
Come back some day , gentlemen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, don't leave us Russians to compete with China alone!
Come back some day, gentlemen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920924</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1264621020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 2002, an open process involving scientists and employees modified NASA's mission statement to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/science/22nasa.html?\_r=1&amp;ex=1176868800&amp;en=70cc52b1033c6b16&amp;ei=5070" title="nytimes.com">include</a> [nytimes.com] the phrase <em>"To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as only NASA can."</em> </p><p>But then in 2006 the phrase <em>"to understand and protect our home planet"</em> was dropped over the objections of many scientists. Considering that climate scientists have long used NASA satellite data to monitor abrupt climate change (including <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1164353&amp;cid=27235503" title="slashdot.org">myself</a> [slashdot.org]), I think it's time to re-emphasize this vital role that NASA can perform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 2002 , an open process involving scientists and employees modified NASA 's mission statement to include [ nytimes.com ] the phrase " To understand and protect our home planet ; to explore the universe and search for life ; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only NASA can .
" But then in 2006 the phrase " to understand and protect our home planet " was dropped over the objections of many scientists .
Considering that climate scientists have long used NASA satellite data to monitor abrupt climate change ( including myself [ slashdot.org ] ) , I think it 's time to re-emphasize this vital role that NASA can perform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 2002, an open process involving scientists and employees modified NASA's mission statement to include [nytimes.com] the phrase "To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only NASA can.
" But then in 2006 the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet" was dropped over the objections of many scientists.
Considering that climate scientists have long used NASA satellite data to monitor abrupt climate change (including myself [slashdot.org]), I think it's time to re-emphasize this vital role that NASA can perform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924310</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>ZOmegaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264585920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/" title="politifact.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/</a> [politifact.com] <br>
Actually, he's doing a surprisingly good job keeping his promises.  Whether we want him to or not, that's a different question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [ politifact.com ] Actually , he 's doing a surprisingly good job keeping his promises .
Whether we want him to or not , that 's a different question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [politifact.com] 
Actually, he's doing a surprisingly good job keeping his promises.
Whether we want him to or not, that's a different question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921388</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, because no good science has come out of Hubble, which would have brought us absolutely nothing without "crewed" spaceflight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , because no good science has come out of Hubble , which would have brought us absolutely nothing without " crewed " spaceflight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, because no good science has come out of Hubble, which would have brought us absolutely nothing without "crewed" spaceflight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924666</id>
	<title>Misleading summary</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264587000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the summary: <b>"Instead, NASA will be focused on terrestrial science, such as monitoring global warming."</b></p><p>From the actual article: <b>"In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects -- principally, researching and monitoring climate change -- and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible. There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station -- a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years."</b></p><p>I'm ambivalent about more Earth-science projects, but IMHO bringing back tech development at NASA with a focus on exploring the inner solar system is the way to go. Not many people seem to realize this, but many/most of the technology development programs in NASA were canceled so that their funding could be diverted towards developing the problem-ridden Ares I medium-lift rocket. The mention of exploring asteroids and the inner solar system is likely a reference to a <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32767421/ns/technology\_and\_science-space/" title="msn.com">Flexible Path to Mars</a> [msn.com] architecture, which builds a robust in-space architecture instead of focusing on deep gravity wells like the Moon. It's counter-intuitive, but it's actually energetically easier to travel to an asteroid or the Martian moon Phobos than it is to go to the Moon, and the infrastructure you create for doing so is more applicable to other endeavours in the inner solar system. Establishing in-space refueling depots and mining fuel/water from asteroids will go much more towards making us a spacefaring civilization than landing on the Moon again.</p><p>Finally, the emphasize on using fixed-price commercial contracts instead of cost-plus single-source contracts for traveling to Earth orbit will go a long way towards freeing up funds for beyond-Earth exploration, as commercial companies can focus on the well-understood problem of traveling to low-Earth orbit while NASA can focus on beyond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : " Instead , NASA will be focused on terrestrial science , such as monitoring global warming .
" From the actual article : " In the meantime , the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects -- principally , researching and monitoring climate change -- and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible .
There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station -- a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years .
" I 'm ambivalent about more Earth-science projects , but IMHO bringing back tech development at NASA with a focus on exploring the inner solar system is the way to go .
Not many people seem to realize this , but many/most of the technology development programs in NASA were canceled so that their funding could be diverted towards developing the problem-ridden Ares I medium-lift rocket .
The mention of exploring asteroids and the inner solar system is likely a reference to a Flexible Path to Mars [ msn.com ] architecture , which builds a robust in-space architecture instead of focusing on deep gravity wells like the Moon .
It 's counter-intuitive , but it 's actually energetically easier to travel to an asteroid or the Martian moon Phobos than it is to go to the Moon , and the infrastructure you create for doing so is more applicable to other endeavours in the inner solar system .
Establishing in-space refueling depots and mining fuel/water from asteroids will go much more towards making us a spacefaring civilization than landing on the Moon again.Finally , the emphasize on using fixed-price commercial contracts instead of cost-plus single-source contracts for traveling to Earth orbit will go a long way towards freeing up funds for beyond-Earth exploration , as commercial companies can focus on the well-understood problem of traveling to low-Earth orbit while NASA can focus on beyond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary: "Instead, NASA will be focused on terrestrial science, such as monitoring global warming.
"From the actual article: "In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects -- principally, researching and monitoring climate change -- and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.
There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station -- a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.
"I'm ambivalent about more Earth-science projects, but IMHO bringing back tech development at NASA with a focus on exploring the inner solar system is the way to go.
Not many people seem to realize this, but many/most of the technology development programs in NASA were canceled so that their funding could be diverted towards developing the problem-ridden Ares I medium-lift rocket.
The mention of exploring asteroids and the inner solar system is likely a reference to a Flexible Path to Mars [msn.com] architecture, which builds a robust in-space architecture instead of focusing on deep gravity wells like the Moon.
It's counter-intuitive, but it's actually energetically easier to travel to an asteroid or the Martian moon Phobos than it is to go to the Moon, and the infrastructure you create for doing so is more applicable to other endeavours in the inner solar system.
Establishing in-space refueling depots and mining fuel/water from asteroids will go much more towards making us a spacefaring civilization than landing on the Moon again.Finally, the emphasize on using fixed-price commercial contracts instead of cost-plus single-source contracts for traveling to Earth orbit will go a long way towards freeing up funds for beyond-Earth exploration, as commercial companies can focus on the well-understood problem of traveling to low-Earth orbit while NASA can focus on beyond.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921172</id>
	<title>USA is broke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US is broke. They don't have the money to fix much of anything. It spends more on just paying the interest on the debt than on education. Cuts must be made everywhere. I'm a very big supporter of the space program and if it is cut to where there is no meaningful science being done, then it saddens me. I was not a big supporter of constellation as such simply because it was such a poorly engineered craft with very little or negligible new technology. If they weren't going to create a state of the art multifunctional roll spacecraft, then they should simply have reused the simpler re-stacking and tweaked shuttle components to get up there and simply stick a crew cab on top. They will be lucky if they can keep their commitment to the space station. At least it has the possibility to return some science.</p><p>The sad part is that the moon is a reasonable goal if there was funding to establish a base with real projects that could bring returns for investment. There never was such a long term plan. So it made a return far less valuable. There was no way that the NASA could ever get the funding because it's simply not there to get. The US will be lucky to escape their financial disaster they are in now. There is no will to fix the problems and now the supreme court has granted corporations constitutional rights, the task will become beyond fixable. The two part system is failing and if a corporation can run for office then there really is no hope.</p><p>Again, although saddened by this. You could see it coming a continent away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is broke .
They do n't have the money to fix much of anything .
It spends more on just paying the interest on the debt than on education .
Cuts must be made everywhere .
I 'm a very big supporter of the space program and if it is cut to where there is no meaningful science being done , then it saddens me .
I was not a big supporter of constellation as such simply because it was such a poorly engineered craft with very little or negligible new technology .
If they were n't going to create a state of the art multifunctional roll spacecraft , then they should simply have reused the simpler re-stacking and tweaked shuttle components to get up there and simply stick a crew cab on top .
They will be lucky if they can keep their commitment to the space station .
At least it has the possibility to return some science.The sad part is that the moon is a reasonable goal if there was funding to establish a base with real projects that could bring returns for investment .
There never was such a long term plan .
So it made a return far less valuable .
There was no way that the NASA could ever get the funding because it 's simply not there to get .
The US will be lucky to escape their financial disaster they are in now .
There is no will to fix the problems and now the supreme court has granted corporations constitutional rights , the task will become beyond fixable .
The two part system is failing and if a corporation can run for office then there really is no hope.Again , although saddened by this .
You could see it coming a continent away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is broke.
They don't have the money to fix much of anything.
It spends more on just paying the interest on the debt than on education.
Cuts must be made everywhere.
I'm a very big supporter of the space program and if it is cut to where there is no meaningful science being done, then it saddens me.
I was not a big supporter of constellation as such simply because it was such a poorly engineered craft with very little or negligible new technology.
If they weren't going to create a state of the art multifunctional roll spacecraft, then they should simply have reused the simpler re-stacking and tweaked shuttle components to get up there and simply stick a crew cab on top.
They will be lucky if they can keep their commitment to the space station.
At least it has the possibility to return some science.The sad part is that the moon is a reasonable goal if there was funding to establish a base with real projects that could bring returns for investment.
There never was such a long term plan.
So it made a return far less valuable.
There was no way that the NASA could ever get the funding because it's simply not there to get.
The US will be lucky to escape their financial disaster they are in now.
There is no will to fix the problems and now the supreme court has granted corporations constitutional rights, the task will become beyond fixable.
The two part system is failing and if a corporation can run for office then there really is no hope.Again, although saddened by this.
You could see it coming a continent away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925896</id>
	<title>Re:Just Junk It</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1264590660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Our country is broke, getting moreso</p></div><p>And how do you propose to end this slide?  Let's see.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless we can get our factories coming back, stop the outsourcing, etc.</p></div><p>I see.  Let's think about this a bit before we stick it to the Bolsheviks.  Factories are a means of employing untrained labor.  In this, we compete with any number of "third world" nations and perpetuate similar standards of living.  The pre-eminence of the US on the world stage is largely due to scientific leadership.  Mothballing that to return to the factories and the farms is throwing away our future as a leading nation (perhaps not all bad) and our accustomed standard of living with it.  While exploiting massive amounts of unskilled labor and keeping them in poverty  may solve a short term problem, it creates a much more dangerous long term one.</p><p>So, yes, lets bring back some factory jobs, but lets also bring back jobs for our country's educated.  Lets keep NASA and other scientific endeavors going so that we can invest in our future even as we solve our short term problems.  Losing that talent to other nations is arguably worse than letting other nations vacuum up our natural resources.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Get our industries back. Period.</p></div><p>Good plan.  However, we export entertainment and technology as well.  Killing our scientific research impacts both of those industries.  So let us not destroy one industry in order to bring back another, let us try to keep them both, and if we have to choose, let us choose the one that carries us farther, the one that has weathered the depression better, and that has the power to help us maintain our economic lead in the long term.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>too expensive for the USA to be doing until we're back working again with GOOD PAYING jobs, not the near-poverty stuff we've been gravitating toward for the last 5 decades</p></div><p>Factory work is not good paying jobs (unless you are part of a big union, in which case you are likely destroying your industry from the inside as evidenced by the auto workers).  Factory work is minimum wage labor cranking out physical products that (usually) were designed by educated and scientifically supported research.  Now, NASA doesn't corner the market on that research, admittedly, and it may not be the most efficient program for promoting such research, but the solution is to fix it, not scrap it altogether.  The reason the US has been gravitating towards near-poverty jobs for the last 5 decades is because the religious right and liberal media have been systematically destroying the nation's interest in science and higher learning.  Nerds are socially inept and so don't get the girl, jocks get the multi-million dollar sports contract, movie stars are political geniuses, evolution is bunk, and so on.  Other than a brief push towards the end of the 1960s (lead by the space program), science has been under constant attack by those that are afraid of progress and the betterment of the masses.</p><p>How should we fix NASA?  Well, before going to the moon, we should develop technologies that allow us to stay there long term.  Means not just of surviving in a harsh environment, but flourishing in it.  Habitat technology needs to be improved significantly.  Recycling technology, not just for potable water, but for biological waste management and material re-use as well, must also be improved.  Advancements in these areas have obvious and major applications back here on Earth - this is not money being spent frivolously for pie in the sky grandstanding, but the sort that supports the "resources spent on space have a tenfold return" statement that NASA supporters love to spout.  That's just one example, and though the existing plan for returning to the moon deserves to be scrapped, and private industry probably should pick up the slack for heavy lift rockets, NASA has a place and an important purpose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our country is broke , getting moresoAnd how do you propose to end this slide ?
Let 's see.Unless we can get our factories coming back , stop the outsourcing , etc.I see .
Let 's think about this a bit before we stick it to the Bolsheviks .
Factories are a means of employing untrained labor .
In this , we compete with any number of " third world " nations and perpetuate similar standards of living .
The pre-eminence of the US on the world stage is largely due to scientific leadership .
Mothballing that to return to the factories and the farms is throwing away our future as a leading nation ( perhaps not all bad ) and our accustomed standard of living with it .
While exploiting massive amounts of unskilled labor and keeping them in poverty may solve a short term problem , it creates a much more dangerous long term one.So , yes , lets bring back some factory jobs , but lets also bring back jobs for our country 's educated .
Lets keep NASA and other scientific endeavors going so that we can invest in our future even as we solve our short term problems .
Losing that talent to other nations is arguably worse than letting other nations vacuum up our natural resources.Get our industries back .
Period.Good plan .
However , we export entertainment and technology as well .
Killing our scientific research impacts both of those industries .
So let us not destroy one industry in order to bring back another , let us try to keep them both , and if we have to choose , let us choose the one that carries us farther , the one that has weathered the depression better , and that has the power to help us maintain our economic lead in the long term.too expensive for the USA to be doing until we 're back working again with GOOD PAYING jobs , not the near-poverty stuff we 've been gravitating toward for the last 5 decadesFactory work is not good paying jobs ( unless you are part of a big union , in which case you are likely destroying your industry from the inside as evidenced by the auto workers ) .
Factory work is minimum wage labor cranking out physical products that ( usually ) were designed by educated and scientifically supported research .
Now , NASA does n't corner the market on that research , admittedly , and it may not be the most efficient program for promoting such research , but the solution is to fix it , not scrap it altogether .
The reason the US has been gravitating towards near-poverty jobs for the last 5 decades is because the religious right and liberal media have been systematically destroying the nation 's interest in science and higher learning .
Nerds are socially inept and so do n't get the girl , jocks get the multi-million dollar sports contract , movie stars are political geniuses , evolution is bunk , and so on .
Other than a brief push towards the end of the 1960s ( lead by the space program ) , science has been under constant attack by those that are afraid of progress and the betterment of the masses.How should we fix NASA ?
Well , before going to the moon , we should develop technologies that allow us to stay there long term .
Means not just of surviving in a harsh environment , but flourishing in it .
Habitat technology needs to be improved significantly .
Recycling technology , not just for potable water , but for biological waste management and material re-use as well , must also be improved .
Advancements in these areas have obvious and major applications back here on Earth - this is not money being spent frivolously for pie in the sky grandstanding , but the sort that supports the " resources spent on space have a tenfold return " statement that NASA supporters love to spout .
That 's just one example , and though the existing plan for returning to the moon deserves to be scrapped , and private industry probably should pick up the slack for heavy lift rockets , NASA has a place and an important purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our country is broke, getting moresoAnd how do you propose to end this slide?
Let's see.Unless we can get our factories coming back, stop the outsourcing, etc.I see.
Let's think about this a bit before we stick it to the Bolsheviks.
Factories are a means of employing untrained labor.
In this, we compete with any number of "third world" nations and perpetuate similar standards of living.
The pre-eminence of the US on the world stage is largely due to scientific leadership.
Mothballing that to return to the factories and the farms is throwing away our future as a leading nation (perhaps not all bad) and our accustomed standard of living with it.
While exploiting massive amounts of unskilled labor and keeping them in poverty  may solve a short term problem, it creates a much more dangerous long term one.So, yes, lets bring back some factory jobs, but lets also bring back jobs for our country's educated.
Lets keep NASA and other scientific endeavors going so that we can invest in our future even as we solve our short term problems.
Losing that talent to other nations is arguably worse than letting other nations vacuum up our natural resources.Get our industries back.
Period.Good plan.
However, we export entertainment and technology as well.
Killing our scientific research impacts both of those industries.
So let us not destroy one industry in order to bring back another, let us try to keep them both, and if we have to choose, let us choose the one that carries us farther, the one that has weathered the depression better, and that has the power to help us maintain our economic lead in the long term.too expensive for the USA to be doing until we're back working again with GOOD PAYING jobs, not the near-poverty stuff we've been gravitating toward for the last 5 decadesFactory work is not good paying jobs (unless you are part of a big union, in which case you are likely destroying your industry from the inside as evidenced by the auto workers).
Factory work is minimum wage labor cranking out physical products that (usually) were designed by educated and scientifically supported research.
Now, NASA doesn't corner the market on that research, admittedly, and it may not be the most efficient program for promoting such research, but the solution is to fix it, not scrap it altogether.
The reason the US has been gravitating towards near-poverty jobs for the last 5 decades is because the religious right and liberal media have been systematically destroying the nation's interest in science and higher learning.
Nerds are socially inept and so don't get the girl, jocks get the multi-million dollar sports contract, movie stars are political geniuses, evolution is bunk, and so on.
Other than a brief push towards the end of the 1960s (lead by the space program), science has been under constant attack by those that are afraid of progress and the betterment of the masses.How should we fix NASA?
Well, before going to the moon, we should develop technologies that allow us to stay there long term.
Means not just of surviving in a harsh environment, but flourishing in it.
Habitat technology needs to be improved significantly.
Recycling technology, not just for potable water, but for biological waste management and material re-use as well, must also be improved.
Advancements in these areas have obvious and major applications back here on Earth - this is not money being spent frivolously for pie in the sky grandstanding, but the sort that supports the "resources spent on space have a tenfold return" statement that NASA supporters love to spout.
That's just one example, and though the existing plan for returning to the moon deserves to be scrapped, and private industry probably should pick up the slack for heavy lift rockets, NASA has a place and an important purpose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923962</id>
	<title>Global Warming?</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1264584900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a waste of money.  NASA needs to do what they exist to do, not track junk science.  This is as stupid as having the CIA track "Global Warming".  Oh wait, it is called "Climate Change"...oh, whatever it is called.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a waste of money .
NASA needs to do what they exist to do , not track junk science .
This is as stupid as having the CIA track " Global Warming " .
Oh wait , it is called " Climate Change " ...oh , whatever it is called .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a waste of money.
NASA needs to do what they exist to do, not track junk science.
This is as stupid as having the CIA track "Global Warming".
Oh wait, it is called "Climate Change"...oh, whatever it is called.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921842</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264623180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep. The builders of Atlas <i>et al</i> are even more capable of launching manned vehicles now than they were in the 1960s when the Mercury and Gemini programs were hitching rides on converted ICBM technology.  Other private companies have already proven themselves capable of purpose-built suborbital passenger craft.  If the demand is there they can do orbital and even Moon-capable vehicles -- if necessary they can hire ex-NASA spacecraft engineers.  The ones who <i>didn't</i> design some of the stupid-ass concepts that went into Constellation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
The builders of Atlas et al are even more capable of launching manned vehicles now than they were in the 1960s when the Mercury and Gemini programs were hitching rides on converted ICBM technology .
Other private companies have already proven themselves capable of purpose-built suborbital passenger craft .
If the demand is there they can do orbital and even Moon-capable vehicles -- if necessary they can hire ex-NASA spacecraft engineers .
The ones who did n't design some of the stupid-ass concepts that went into Constellation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
The builders of Atlas et al are even more capable of launching manned vehicles now than they were in the 1960s when the Mercury and Gemini programs were hitching rides on converted ICBM technology.
Other private companies have already proven themselves capable of purpose-built suborbital passenger craft.
If the demand is there they can do orbital and even Moon-capable vehicles -- if necessary they can hire ex-NASA spacecraft engineers.
The ones who didn't design some of the stupid-ass concepts that went into Constellation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923780</id>
	<title>Re:Leeme Get This Straight: So, Under Obama...</title>
	<author>MRe\_nl</author>
	<datestamp>1264584420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once you go black, you never go back?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you go black , you never go back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you go black, you never go back?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920934</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>KitsuneSoftware</author>
	<datestamp>1264621080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ozone layer depletion was never "going to freeze the earth", it was going to give us skin cancer. We stopped damaging it, now it's getting better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ozone layer depletion was never " going to freeze the earth " , it was going to give us skin cancer .
We stopped damaging it , now it 's getting better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ozone layer depletion was never "going to freeze the earth", it was going to give us skin cancer.
We stopped damaging it, now it's getting better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926912</id>
	<title>But....but....</title>
	<author>Rob\_Bryerton</author>
	<datestamp>1264593840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but....hope....and change....sniff...HE PROMISED ME!!!<br> <br>

Just another tool in a suit</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but....hope....and change....sniff...HE PROMISED ME ! ! !
Just another tool in a suit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but....hope....and change....sniff...HE PROMISED ME!!!
Just another tool in a suit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712</id>
	<title>Helium 3</title>
	<author>Nzimmer911</author>
	<datestamp>1264620480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why isn't the abundance of Helium-3 more of a selling point for the return to the moon? Especially with the recently<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'d mention of the impending shortage earth-side.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't the abundance of Helium-3 more of a selling point for the return to the moon ?
Especially with the recently / .
'd mention of the impending shortage earth-side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't the abundance of Helium-3 more of a selling point for the return to the moon?
Especially with the recently /.
'd mention of the impending shortage earth-side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922856</id>
	<title>Have to start somewhere...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1264625340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say we start with the ISS and bears.</p><p>For shock value and ratings, don't let anyone know on the ISS, just wait until they open the airlock!</p><p>Hilarity and good TV ratings ensues!</p><p>"Huston we have a problem!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say we start with the ISS and bears.For shock value and ratings , do n't let anyone know on the ISS , just wait until they open the airlock ! Hilarity and good TV ratings ensues !
" Huston we have a problem !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say we start with the ISS and bears.For shock value and ratings, don't let anyone know on the ISS, just wait until they open the airlock!Hilarity and good TV ratings ensues!
"Huston we have a problem!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921852</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>orient</author>
	<datestamp>1264623180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's preventing the private sector from achieving commercial space flight? Is it the fact that they wanted to develop the technology with the government's (tax payers') money, then use commercially?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's preventing the private sector from achieving commercial space flight ?
Is it the fact that they wanted to develop the technology with the government 's ( tax payers ' ) money , then use commercially ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's preventing the private sector from achieving commercial space flight?
Is it the fact that they wanted to develop the technology with the government's (tax payers') money, then use commercially?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926742</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264593300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And canceling Constellation does not impede our ability to launch those satellites.  Don't even need NASA for that.  The Defense Department is quite capable of satellite launch.  I'm sure that if funding were redistributed, NOAA could do its own launches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And canceling Constellation does not impede our ability to launch those satellites .
Do n't even need NASA for that .
The Defense Department is quite capable of satellite launch .
I 'm sure that if funding were redistributed , NOAA could do its own launches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And canceling Constellation does not impede our ability to launch those satellites.
Don't even need NASA for that.
The Defense Department is quite capable of satellite launch.
I'm sure that if funding were redistributed, NOAA could do its own launches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920842</id>
	<title>Re:We choose</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1264620840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is easy'</p><p>Or something like that.</p></div><p>Or maybe "we resist the jingoist impulse to spend money we don't have to go to someplace we have already been, not because it is easy, but because all the frigging redneck flag-waving mouthbreathers are making it hard".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things , not because they are hard , but because not doing so is easy'Or something like that.Or maybe " we resist the jingoist impulse to spend money we do n't have to go to someplace we have already been , not because it is easy , but because all the frigging redneck flag-waving mouthbreathers are making it hard " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is easy'Or something like that.Or maybe "we resist the jingoist impulse to spend money we don't have to go to someplace we have already been, not because it is easy, but because all the frigging redneck flag-waving mouthbreathers are making it hard".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924974</id>
	<title>Re:We choose</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1264587960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, how about</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"We choose not to go to the moon because not enough of the voters care enough about doing that to have their taxes raised  or to give up enough other stuff to pay for a credible effort."</p></div><p>?</p><p>That's not exactly thrilling rhetoric, but its hard to argue with.</p><p>A really, really good unmanned probe would cost less than a half-assed attempt to put a man any place in the solar system other than Earth.  I'd even argue that the people who desperately want to see progress towards human space colonization would be better off backing a series of successful, cheap unmanned missions than going through the motions of planning a manned mission without the money to do it succesfully.</p><p>There are only two compelling reasons to back manned space exploration in the short term, in my opinion.  One is to further our study of the human body's ability to participate in larger, more ambitious planned missions in the future.  This pretty much amounts to keeping our manned options open.  The second is a fire in our national belly to see an American standing on the Moon, or Mars.</p><p>If you want Americans to pony up for that, you've got to (a) convince us our national prestige is on the line and (b) convince us to care about that.  I don't think Americans care that much about national prestige any longer.  We don't have anything against it, but from what I can see, the notion of actually sacrificing anything for that purpose is repugnant to most of us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , how about " We choose not to go to the moon because not enough of the voters care enough about doing that to have their taxes raised or to give up enough other stuff to pay for a credible effort .
" ? That 's not exactly thrilling rhetoric , but its hard to argue with.A really , really good unmanned probe would cost less than a half-assed attempt to put a man any place in the solar system other than Earth .
I 'd even argue that the people who desperately want to see progress towards human space colonization would be better off backing a series of successful , cheap unmanned missions than going through the motions of planning a manned mission without the money to do it succesfully.There are only two compelling reasons to back manned space exploration in the short term , in my opinion .
One is to further our study of the human body 's ability to participate in larger , more ambitious planned missions in the future .
This pretty much amounts to keeping our manned options open .
The second is a fire in our national belly to see an American standing on the Moon , or Mars.If you want Americans to pony up for that , you 've got to ( a ) convince us our national prestige is on the line and ( b ) convince us to care about that .
I do n't think Americans care that much about national prestige any longer .
We do n't have anything against it , but from what I can see , the notion of actually sacrificing anything for that purpose is repugnant to most of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, how about"We choose not to go to the moon because not enough of the voters care enough about doing that to have their taxes raised  or to give up enough other stuff to pay for a credible effort.
"?That's not exactly thrilling rhetoric, but its hard to argue with.A really, really good unmanned probe would cost less than a half-assed attempt to put a man any place in the solar system other than Earth.
I'd even argue that the people who desperately want to see progress towards human space colonization would be better off backing a series of successful, cheap unmanned missions than going through the motions of planning a manned mission without the money to do it succesfully.There are only two compelling reasons to back manned space exploration in the short term, in my opinion.
One is to further our study of the human body's ability to participate in larger, more ambitious planned missions in the future.
This pretty much amounts to keeping our manned options open.
The second is a fire in our national belly to see an American standing on the Moon, or Mars.If you want Americans to pony up for that, you've got to (a) convince us our national prestige is on the line and (b) convince us to care about that.
I don't think Americans care that much about national prestige any longer.
We don't have anything against it, but from what I can see, the notion of actually sacrificing anything for that purpose is repugnant to most of us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924674</id>
	<title>Re:Just Junk It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UMMM</p><p>When the space programs of the 60's - 80's were being built, they provided GOOD PAYING JOBS. Do you think the engineers and phds were paid min wage jobs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UMMMWhen the space programs of the 60 's - 80 's were being built , they provided GOOD PAYING JOBS .
Do you think the engineers and phds were paid min wage jobs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UMMMWhen the space programs of the 60's - 80's were being built, they provided GOOD PAYING JOBS.
Do you think the engineers and phds were paid min wage jobs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923110</id>
	<title>Star Wars episode V: Orion strikes back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264582860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The constellations wont take this belittlement. Orion stops hunting bears and aims towards Sol...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The constellations wont take this belittlement .
Orion stops hunting bears and aims towards Sol.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constellations wont take this belittlement.
Orion stops hunting bears and aims towards Sol...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922604</id>
	<title>Be honest.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You knew this would happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You knew this would happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You knew this would happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920866</id>
	<title>Political Backscratching...</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1264620900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about before we pour billions into "monitoring" global warming, we first prove it's existence beyond a Nobel-thieving lia...er, politician?</p><p>Oh, wait, I almost forgot.  This "re-funding" idea is coming from yet another Nobel-thieving lia...er, politician.</p><p>In related news, there is a new Government-funded study to determine the effects of funding pointless studies.  Since the budget itself is part of the study, it remains perpetual and therefore unlimited, eventually to be simply reclassified as a tax, which is set to trigger yet another study on the effects of converting perpetual funding...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about before we pour billions into " monitoring " global warming , we first prove it 's existence beyond a Nobel-thieving lia...er , politician ? Oh , wait , I almost forgot .
This " re-funding " idea is coming from yet another Nobel-thieving lia...er , politician.In related news , there is a new Government-funded study to determine the effects of funding pointless studies .
Since the budget itself is part of the study , it remains perpetual and therefore unlimited , eventually to be simply reclassified as a tax , which is set to trigger yet another study on the effects of converting perpetual funding.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about before we pour billions into "monitoring" global warming, we first prove it's existence beyond a Nobel-thieving lia...er, politician?Oh, wait, I almost forgot.
This "re-funding" idea is coming from yet another Nobel-thieving lia...er, politician.In related news, there is a new Government-funded study to determine the effects of funding pointless studies.
Since the budget itself is part of the study, it remains perpetual and therefore unlimited, eventually to be simply reclassified as a tax, which is set to trigger yet another study on the effects of converting perpetual funding...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921226</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1264621920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/weiler.html" title="nasa.gov">Dr. Weiler</a> [nasa.gov] is the director of Goddard, and I spent some time trying to find his <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as\_q=&amp;num=10&amp;btnG=Search+Scholar&amp;as\_epq=&amp;as\_oq=&amp;as\_eq=&amp;as\_occt=any&amp;as\_sauthors=E+Weiler&amp;as\_publication=&amp;as\_ylo=1970&amp;as\_yhi=1980&amp;as\_sdt=1.&amp;as\_sdtp=on&amp;as\_sdts=5&amp;hl=en" title="google.com">peer-reviewed</a> [google.com] papers, but didn't see any of the nonsense that you're attributing to him.</p><p>But that's not surprising, since the urban legend that <em>"scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s"</em> is <a href="http://dumbscientist.com/archives/abrupt-climate-change#ice\_age\_prediction" title="dumbscientist.com">false</a> [dumbscientist.com], and only true of sensationalist articles in non-peer-reviewed publications like Newsweek. Most genuinely peer-reviewed scientific journal articles were predicting global warming even in the 1970s. There <em>was</em> a genuine effect called <a href="http://dumbscientist.com/archives/abrupt-climate-change#impact\_of\_human\_co2" title="dumbscientist.com">global dimming</a> [dumbscientist.com] due to aerosols increasing the albedo of the Earth, but regulation reduced aerosol emissions, and their short lifetime in the atmosphere did the rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
Dr. Weiler [ nasa.gov ] is the director of Goddard , and I spent some time trying to find his peer-reviewed [ google.com ] papers , but did n't see any of the nonsense that you 're attributing to him.But that 's not surprising , since the urban legend that " scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s " is false [ dumbscientist.com ] , and only true of sensationalist articles in non-peer-reviewed publications like Newsweek .
Most genuinely peer-reviewed scientific journal articles were predicting global warming even in the 1970s .
There was a genuine effect called global dimming [ dumbscientist.com ] due to aerosols increasing the albedo of the Earth , but regulation reduced aerosol emissions , and their short lifetime in the atmosphere did the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
Dr. Weiler [nasa.gov] is the director of Goddard, and I spent some time trying to find his peer-reviewed [google.com] papers, but didn't see any of the nonsense that you're attributing to him.But that's not surprising, since the urban legend that "scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s" is false [dumbscientist.com], and only true of sensationalist articles in non-peer-reviewed publications like Newsweek.
Most genuinely peer-reviewed scientific journal articles were predicting global warming even in the 1970s.
There was a genuine effect called global dimming [dumbscientist.com] due to aerosols increasing the albedo of the Earth, but regulation reduced aerosol emissions, and their short lifetime in the atmosphere did the rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921044</id>
	<title>MGS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which MGS? 2, 3, 4 or the original?</p><p>Kinda too bad they are ending Snake's story, but I am interested to know where they go from here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which MGS ?
2 , 3 , 4 or the original ? Kinda too bad they are ending Snake 's story , but I am interested to know where they go from here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which MGS?
2, 3, 4 or the original?Kinda too bad they are ending Snake's story, but I am interested to know where they go from here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920630</id>
	<title>Fail</title>
	<author>christurkel</author>
	<datestamp>1264620240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>We certainly don't need to go back to the moon.</i> <br>
FAIL<br>
Yes we do because it's there, it can provide useful science and insights about the cosmos. It's just like the space station only with gravity and built in supplies of water (ice) and doesn't need to be built by multiple runs of spacecraft or boosted into a higher orbit by same said spacecraft. Oh and it has a lot more room, too!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We certainly do n't need to go back to the moon .
FAIL Yes we do because it 's there , it can provide useful science and insights about the cosmos .
It 's just like the space station only with gravity and built in supplies of water ( ice ) and does n't need to be built by multiple runs of spacecraft or boosted into a higher orbit by same said spacecraft .
Oh and it has a lot more room , too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We certainly don't need to go back to the moon.
FAIL
Yes we do because it's there, it can provide useful science and insights about the cosmos.
It's just like the space station only with gravity and built in supplies of water (ice) and doesn't need to be built by multiple runs of spacecraft or boosted into a higher orbit by same said spacecraft.
Oh and it has a lot more room, too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30930420</id>
	<title>Re:Same old garbage.</title>
	<author>MakinBacon</author>
	<datestamp>1264709880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here we have a program that would provide real long term benefits to not only the United States, but the world in general. Those benefits would not only come in the form of new technologies but in humanity's expansion into space.</p></div><p>This is the end of our plans to return to the moon, not the end of NASA.  Sending people to the moon has no real benefits, and neither does sending them to Mars or any other planet in our solar system.  The only technology that can benefit humanity's expansion into space right now is faster-than-light travel, and even that doesn't seem possible.  Even if it is possible, there's no logical reason why we have to go to the moon first.</p><p>We went to the moon to make us look better than the Soviets, we got some rocks and then we went home.  We came back a few more times, then we realized it was a massive waste of money, and we never returned.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon.</p></div><p>I'm pretty sure we beat them to that over 40 years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we have a program that would provide real long term benefits to not only the United States , but the world in general .
Those benefits would not only come in the form of new technologies but in humanity 's expansion into space.This is the end of our plans to return to the moon , not the end of NASA .
Sending people to the moon has no real benefits , and neither does sending them to Mars or any other planet in our solar system .
The only technology that can benefit humanity 's expansion into space right now is faster-than-light travel , and even that does n't seem possible .
Even if it is possible , there 's no logical reason why we have to go to the moon first.We went to the moon to make us look better than the Soviets , we got some rocks and then we went home .
We came back a few more times , then we realized it was a massive waste of money , and we never returned.At this rate , without question the Chinese will be first to the moon.I 'm pretty sure we beat them to that over 40 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we have a program that would provide real long term benefits to not only the United States, but the world in general.
Those benefits would not only come in the form of new technologies but in humanity's expansion into space.This is the end of our plans to return to the moon, not the end of NASA.
Sending people to the moon has no real benefits, and neither does sending them to Mars or any other planet in our solar system.
The only technology that can benefit humanity's expansion into space right now is faster-than-light travel, and even that doesn't seem possible.
Even if it is possible, there's no logical reason why we have to go to the moon first.We went to the moon to make us look better than the Soviets, we got some rocks and then we went home.
We came back a few more times, then we realized it was a massive waste of money, and we never returned.At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon.I'm pretty sure we beat them to that over 40 years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920560</id>
	<title>Fuck those people</title>
	<author>Wee</author>
	<datestamp>1264620000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We'll just call our friends the Chinese or the Russians if we need anything in space.
<br> <br>

Pandering assholes...
<br> <br>

-B</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll just call our friends the Chinese or the Russians if we need anything in space .
Pandering assholes.. . -B</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll just call our friends the Chinese or the Russians if we need anything in space.
Pandering assholes...
 

-B</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923766</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Graphic Twist</author>
	<datestamp>1264584360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article: <br>
"In [Constellation's] place... NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years &mdash; possibly even a decade or more &mdash; away."<br> <br>

The 2020 moon return was a decade away anyways. NASA is getting a small budget increase too and this whole thing could open up opportunity for NASA to follow one or more options from their "Flexible Path" which has a series of steps (including some earth science missions) towards getting human beyond LEO again.

I think this could actually be a move in the direction of a better thought out, more useful and more sustainable human flight program.<br> <br>

To me that's a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " In [ Constellation 's ] place... NASA will look at developing a new " heavy-lift " rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit .
But that day will be years    possibly even a decade or more    away .
" The 2020 moon return was a decade away anyways .
NASA is getting a small budget increase too and this whole thing could open up opportunity for NASA to follow one or more options from their " Flexible Path " which has a series of steps ( including some earth science missions ) towards getting human beyond LEO again .
I think this could actually be a move in the direction of a better thought out , more useful and more sustainable human flight program .
To me that 's a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: 
"In [Constellation's] place... NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit.
But that day will be years — possibly even a decade or more — away.
" 

The 2020 moon return was a decade away anyways.
NASA is getting a small budget increase too and this whole thing could open up opportunity for NASA to follow one or more options from their "Flexible Path" which has a series of steps (including some earth science missions) towards getting human beyond LEO again.
I think this could actually be a move in the direction of a better thought out, more useful and more sustainable human flight program.
To me that's a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068</id>
	<title>Same old garbage.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1264621440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is very frustrating. Here we have a program that would provide real long term benefits to not only the United States, but the world in general. Those benefits would not only come in the form of new technologies but in humanity's expansion into space. But unfortunately we're constantly hindered myopic, self-centered politicians. Unfortunately these kinds of programs require long-term commitments and do nothing to garner votes.</p><p>At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon. Despite all the problems I have with the Chinese government I have to give credit where it's do. They generally seem to do what they believe is in the best interests of the country. On the other hand, the US is saddled with a government interested in pushing agendas and pandering to special interests. Even when they get involved with something that could be beneficial it's mired down by garbage and the end result ends up not amounting to much of anything. But the problem doesn't just lie with the government. It lies with the citizens and their increasingly self-centered attitudes.</p><p>This sort of thing makes me regret having moved back to the states.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is very frustrating .
Here we have a program that would provide real long term benefits to not only the United States , but the world in general .
Those benefits would not only come in the form of new technologies but in humanity 's expansion into space .
But unfortunately we 're constantly hindered myopic , self-centered politicians .
Unfortunately these kinds of programs require long-term commitments and do nothing to garner votes.At this rate , without question the Chinese will be first to the moon .
Despite all the problems I have with the Chinese government I have to give credit where it 's do .
They generally seem to do what they believe is in the best interests of the country .
On the other hand , the US is saddled with a government interested in pushing agendas and pandering to special interests .
Even when they get involved with something that could be beneficial it 's mired down by garbage and the end result ends up not amounting to much of anything .
But the problem does n't just lie with the government .
It lies with the citizens and their increasingly self-centered attitudes.This sort of thing makes me regret having moved back to the states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is very frustrating.
Here we have a program that would provide real long term benefits to not only the United States, but the world in general.
Those benefits would not only come in the form of new technologies but in humanity's expansion into space.
But unfortunately we're constantly hindered myopic, self-centered politicians.
Unfortunately these kinds of programs require long-term commitments and do nothing to garner votes.At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon.
Despite all the problems I have with the Chinese government I have to give credit where it's do.
They generally seem to do what they believe is in the best interests of the country.
On the other hand, the US is saddled with a government interested in pushing agendas and pandering to special interests.
Even when they get involved with something that could be beneficial it's mired down by garbage and the end result ends up not amounting to much of anything.
But the problem doesn't just lie with the government.
It lies with the citizens and their increasingly self-centered attitudes.This sort of thing makes me regret having moved back to the states.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923158</id>
	<title>Re:Noooo!!!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264582920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm glad China or India is going to beat us back to the moon because we're more interested in providing healthcare to lazy people.<br></i><br>How did that flamebait get modded "insightful?" The only people who will benefit from universal health care are those with jobs, particularly hard, dangerous, dirty jobs. About anybody eligible for food stamps already get medicaid, and the retired get medicare. The only other people with health care have insurance subsidized by their employer, and most of them don't.</p><p>The janitor that cleans the toilets doesn't have health care. The guys who built your house have no health care. I, for one, am sick and tired of sociopathically stingy and greedy rich bastards, and even more tired of the middle class idiots who parrot them.</p><p>It's time the US joined the civilized world and stopped letting our citizens die in agony for lack of health care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad China or India is going to beat us back to the moon because we 're more interested in providing healthcare to lazy people.How did that flamebait get modded " insightful ?
" The only people who will benefit from universal health care are those with jobs , particularly hard , dangerous , dirty jobs .
About anybody eligible for food stamps already get medicaid , and the retired get medicare .
The only other people with health care have insurance subsidized by their employer , and most of them do n't.The janitor that cleans the toilets does n't have health care .
The guys who built your house have no health care .
I , for one , am sick and tired of sociopathically stingy and greedy rich bastards , and even more tired of the middle class idiots who parrot them.It 's time the US joined the civilized world and stopped letting our citizens die in agony for lack of health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad China or India is going to beat us back to the moon because we're more interested in providing healthcare to lazy people.How did that flamebait get modded "insightful?
" The only people who will benefit from universal health care are those with jobs, particularly hard, dangerous, dirty jobs.
About anybody eligible for food stamps already get medicaid, and the retired get medicare.
The only other people with health care have insurance subsidized by their employer, and most of them don't.The janitor that cleans the toilets doesn't have health care.
The guys who built your house have no health care.
I, for one, am sick and tired of sociopathically stingy and greedy rich bastards, and even more tired of the middle class idiots who parrot them.It's time the US joined the civilized world and stopped letting our citizens die in agony for lack of health care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252</id>
	<title>We choose</title>
	<author>Jhon</author>
	<datestamp>1264619100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is easy'</p><p>Or something like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things , not because they are hard , but because not doing so is easy'Or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is easy'Or something like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920584</id>
	<title>Obama the Luddite</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1264620060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Other than the little perks of a blackberry and using the internet to vamp up election day turnout, Obama is just short of a luddite.  We spent(and will spend) almost 1T on a worthless stimulus package last year(and this year).  We get nothing for this.  Social spending, social spending, social spending.  No moon, mars..etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than the little perks of a blackberry and using the internet to vamp up election day turnout , Obama is just short of a luddite .
We spent ( and will spend ) almost 1T on a worthless stimulus package last year ( and this year ) .
We get nothing for this .
Social spending , social spending , social spending .
No moon , mars..etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than the little perks of a blackberry and using the internet to vamp up election day turnout, Obama is just short of a luddite.
We spent(and will spend) almost 1T on a worthless stimulus package last year(and this year).
We get nothing for this.
Social spending, social spending, social spending.
No moon, mars..etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920640</id>
	<title>Apologies to the Floyd...</title>
	<author>GPLDAN</author>
	<datestamp>1264620240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no dark side of the moon really.<br> <br>
Matter of fact it's all dark.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no dark side of the moon really .
Matter of fact it 's all dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no dark side of the moon really.
Matter of fact it's all dark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923236</id>
	<title>I know a few people...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264583100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that would like to send Obama to the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that would like to send Obama to the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that would like to send Obama to the moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921504</id>
	<title>Re:Democratic infighting</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1264622460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>we'll see if Obama gets any credit for actually trying to save money.</p></div></blockquote><p>He is not trying to save money. He will take the money that would have been used for this project and spend it on so-called health care reform.</p><p>And, it is a reform that is doomed to failure because instead of forcing health insurance companies to compete with each other, it merely forces everyone to buy insurance. Even the falsely-labeled "public option" would have been the government competing, illegally and unfairly, with private business and would not have driven health insurance costs down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we 'll see if Obama gets any credit for actually trying to save money.He is not trying to save money .
He will take the money that would have been used for this project and spend it on so-called health care reform.And , it is a reform that is doomed to failure because instead of forcing health insurance companies to compete with each other , it merely forces everyone to buy insurance .
Even the falsely-labeled " public option " would have been the government competing , illegally and unfairly , with private business and would not have driven health insurance costs down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we'll see if Obama gets any credit for actually trying to save money.He is not trying to save money.
He will take the money that would have been used for this project and spend it on so-called health care reform.And, it is a reform that is doomed to failure because instead of forcing health insurance companies to compete with each other, it merely forces everyone to buy insurance.
Even the falsely-labeled "public option" would have been the government competing, illegally and unfairly, with private business and would not have driven health insurance costs down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922972</id>
	<title>Reminds me of..</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1264625640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..<a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Orbiter\_(comics)" title="wikimedia.org">Orbiter</a> [wikimedia.org], a graphic novel about the cancellation of manned spaceflight after the disappearance of the last Shuttle mission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..Orbiter [ wikimedia.org ] , a graphic novel about the cancellation of manned spaceflight after the disappearance of the last Shuttle mission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..Orbiter [wikimedia.org], a graphic novel about the cancellation of manned spaceflight after the disappearance of the last Shuttle mission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922440</id>
	<title>Re:USA is broke</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1264624440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be all for this if they would cut the other programs we dump money into like the rathole we call "Social Programs".....</p><p>If we paid the same amount for welfare and food stamps as we paid to NASA we would be on Freeking MARS by now!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be all for this if they would cut the other programs we dump money into like the rathole we call " Social Programs " .....If we paid the same amount for welfare and food stamps as we paid to NASA we would be on Freeking MARS by now ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be all for this if they would cut the other programs we dump money into like the rathole we call "Social Programs".....If we paid the same amount for welfare and food stamps as we paid to NASA we would be on Freeking MARS by now!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924846</id>
	<title>Re:Why? Because it's next ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that's not really true. "Exploration" should be "Exploitation" here. As soon as we can figure out how to make profits off going to the Moon or Mars, you can bet that everyone will suddenly want to go. If you think that the African Exodus or the North American Colonization were about "exploration" then you're misguided at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that 's not really true .
" Exploration " should be " Exploitation " here .
As soon as we can figure out how to make profits off going to the Moon or Mars , you can bet that everyone will suddenly want to go .
If you think that the African Exodus or the North American Colonization were about " exploration " then you 're misguided at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that's not really true.
"Exploration" should be "Exploitation" here.
As soon as we can figure out how to make profits off going to the Moon or Mars, you can bet that everyone will suddenly want to go.
If you think that the African Exodus or the North American Colonization were about "exploration" then you're misguided at best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920594</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1264620120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon, it's a waste of resources.</p></div><p>Well, what was the reason for doing it in the first place? Why not do it <i>because we can</i>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon , it 's a waste of resources.Well , what was the reason for doing it in the first place ?
Why not do it because we can ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon, it's a waste of resources.Well, what was the reason for doing it in the first place?
Why not do it because we can?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276</id>
	<title>Unsurprising</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1264619160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody should act surprised. He said he was going to kill Constellation during his original campaign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody should act surprised .
He said he was going to kill Constellation during his original campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody should act surprised.
He said he was going to kill Constellation during his original campaign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920740</id>
	<title>Humanity is still going to the moon and mars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The astronauts will just be speaking Chinese.</p><p>Looking a manned spaceflight purely as a scientific research endeavor is severly short-sighting the full extent of the efffects.</p><p>Creating a more fuel effecient car... making a better containment unit for fission reactions... hell even curing cancer, none of these have the sheer wonder and awe of "hey, we've got humans on another planet. See that red speck in the sky, we've got people THERE. Humans, us, as a species, we're expanding our horizons."</p><p>When was the last time we as humans did something "scientific" that changed the humanity thought about themselves and their place in the universe. I'd say it was 1969.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The astronauts will just be speaking Chinese.Looking a manned spaceflight purely as a scientific research endeavor is severly short-sighting the full extent of the efffects.Creating a more fuel effecient car... making a better containment unit for fission reactions... hell even curing cancer , none of these have the sheer wonder and awe of " hey , we 've got humans on another planet .
See that red speck in the sky , we 've got people THERE .
Humans , us , as a species , we 're expanding our horizons .
" When was the last time we as humans did something " scientific " that changed the humanity thought about themselves and their place in the universe .
I 'd say it was 1969 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The astronauts will just be speaking Chinese.Looking a manned spaceflight purely as a scientific research endeavor is severly short-sighting the full extent of the efffects.Creating a more fuel effecient car... making a better containment unit for fission reactions... hell even curing cancer, none of these have the sheer wonder and awe of "hey, we've got humans on another planet.
See that red speck in the sky, we've got people THERE.
Humans, us, as a species, we're expanding our horizons.
"When was the last time we as humans did something "scientific" that changed the humanity thought about themselves and their place in the universe.
I'd say it was 1969.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921824</id>
	<title>Re:obviously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264623180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, most people who would be a good president don't want the job, which is probably quite smart of them.  Obama's not bad, but he could be a whole lot better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , most people who would be a good president do n't want the job , which is probably quite smart of them .
Obama 's not bad , but he could be a whole lot better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, most people who would be a good president don't want the job, which is probably quite smart of them.
Obama's not bad, but he could be a whole lot better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923352</id>
	<title>Different situation now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264583460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The world is in a very different situation now, compared to JFK's golden era.</p><p>USA got it's priviledged position after the WWII, being the only economic power not directly affected by the war. Not having to spend resources on reconstruction - USA were free to run ahead of all others, becoming a superpower, in all areas.</p><p>Some decades after, the world managed to reach you. Your economy, your industries, even your technologies are not far aheat of external competition anymore.</p><p>The competition is tight now. Your people will have to learn to live in a different way - Lucky you that your President can see ahead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The world is in a very different situation now , compared to JFK 's golden era.USA got it 's priviledged position after the WWII , being the only economic power not directly affected by the war .
Not having to spend resources on reconstruction - USA were free to run ahead of all others , becoming a superpower , in all areas.Some decades after , the world managed to reach you .
Your economy , your industries , even your technologies are not far aheat of external competition anymore.The competition is tight now .
Your people will have to learn to live in a different way - Lucky you that your President can see ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world is in a very different situation now, compared to JFK's golden era.USA got it's priviledged position after the WWII, being the only economic power not directly affected by the war.
Not having to spend resources on reconstruction - USA were free to run ahead of all others, becoming a superpower, in all areas.Some decades after, the world managed to reach you.
Your economy, your industries, even your technologies are not far aheat of external competition anymore.The competition is tight now.
Your people will have to learn to live in a different way - Lucky you that your President can see ahead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922632</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of Change, Not So Much Hope.</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1264624860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you just suggest people who agree with the <i>scientific consensus</i> on climate change "can't add"? I'm surprised someone who hates science so much would support NASA</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you just suggest people who agree with the scientific consensus on climate change " ca n't add " ?
I 'm surprised someone who hates science so much would support NASA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you just suggest people who agree with the scientific consensus on climate change "can't add"?
I'm surprised someone who hates science so much would support NASA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924478</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264586400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because it's far easier to cancel something that hasn't started yet than it is to start something or change something existing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because it 's far easier to cancel something that has n't started yet than it is to start something or change something existing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because it's far easier to cancel something that hasn't started yet than it is to start something or change something existing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922824</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1264625280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll bet you the USAF gets into the manned spaceflight business soon.  Not everything should be launched into space and forgotten.  If they don't get into manned spaceflight i'd expect them to build some sort of advanced tele-robotic repair platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bet you the USAF gets into the manned spaceflight business soon .
Not everything should be launched into space and forgotten .
If they do n't get into manned spaceflight i 'd expect them to build some sort of advanced tele-robotic repair platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bet you the USAF gets into the manned spaceflight business soon.
Not everything should be launched into space and forgotten.
If they don't get into manned spaceflight i'd expect them to build some sort of advanced tele-robotic repair platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921164</id>
	<title>When George Bush makes a more popular decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>than you just did... You know you f'd up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>than you just did... You know you f 'd up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>than you just did... You know you f'd up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920432</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264619640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Such an agency already exists. We call it the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Such an agency already exists .
We call it the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such an agency already exists.
We call it the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921446</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1264622340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How Has Sending a God Damn Probe to a space rock Benifited humanity in any way?</p><p>Look sure the Luna Missions brought back a few rock samples, But The Apollo Missions actually brought a drill and took real core samples.</p><p>Once You can build a Robot that can move around and drill a hole to get real historical samples as apposed to the product of today's weather then it might be worth it, But until that time the only platform we have for doing these tasks is to send people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How Has Sending a God Damn Probe to a space rock Benifited humanity in any way ? Look sure the Luna Missions brought back a few rock samples , But The Apollo Missions actually brought a drill and took real core samples.Once You can build a Robot that can move around and drill a hole to get real historical samples as apposed to the product of today 's weather then it might be worth it , But until that time the only platform we have for doing these tasks is to send people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How Has Sending a God Damn Probe to a space rock Benifited humanity in any way?Look sure the Luna Missions brought back a few rock samples, But The Apollo Missions actually brought a drill and took real core samples.Once You can build a Robot that can move around and drill a hole to get real historical samples as apposed to the product of today's weather then it might be worth it, But until that time the only platform we have for doing these tasks is to send people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30957440</id>
	<title>NASA telethon</title>
	<author>angelwolf71885</author>
	<datestamp>1264770540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>well looks like we are gonna have to have a telethon
to try and save NASA ide much rather donate to nasa then hati anyway aglist nasa will actuarially benefit from my money</htmltext>
<tokenext>well looks like we are gon na have to have a telethon to try and save NASA ide much rather donate to nasa then hati anyway aglist nasa will actuarially benefit from my money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well looks like we are gonna have to have a telethon
to try and save NASA ide much rather donate to nasa then hati anyway aglist nasa will actuarially benefit from my money</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927494</id>
	<title>Re:Democratic infighting</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1264596660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Democrats will fight to get that money put back, and we'll see if Obama gets any credit for actually trying to save money. Unfortunately, while talk of deficit reduction is always popular, actual spending cuts are always portrayed as apocalyptic by those affected.</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe people don't give credit to Obama for trying to save money because of the trillions of dollars he and the Democrats spent last year, to the point that the federal debt ceiling had to be raised.  He kind of needs to actually save money before people will give him credit for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democrats will fight to get that money put back , and we 'll see if Obama gets any credit for actually trying to save money .
Unfortunately , while talk of deficit reduction is always popular , actual spending cuts are always portrayed as apocalyptic by those affected.Maybe people do n't give credit to Obama for trying to save money because of the trillions of dollars he and the Democrats spent last year , to the point that the federal debt ceiling had to be raised .
He kind of needs to actually save money before people will give him credit for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democrats will fight to get that money put back, and we'll see if Obama gets any credit for actually trying to save money.
Unfortunately, while talk of deficit reduction is always popular, actual spending cuts are always portrayed as apocalyptic by those affected.Maybe people don't give credit to Obama for trying to save money because of the trillions of dollars he and the Democrats spent last year, to the point that the federal debt ceiling had to be raised.
He kind of needs to actually save money before people will give him credit for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924488</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>\_aa\_</author>
	<datestamp>1264586520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No flames here. I agree with you. Manned missions are a pretty much a waste of money and, most unfortunately, lives.</p><p>What aren't wastes of money are the Mars rovers. I'd love to see hundreds of those little buggers buzzing around the solar system.</p><p>I was hoping to see a budget increase for that program and more programs like it. Can anyone shed light on the future of the Mars Rovers? Maybe a Mars Rover Tow Truck to get Spirit unstuck from the mud?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No flames here .
I agree with you .
Manned missions are a pretty much a waste of money and , most unfortunately , lives.What are n't wastes of money are the Mars rovers .
I 'd love to see hundreds of those little buggers buzzing around the solar system.I was hoping to see a budget increase for that program and more programs like it .
Can anyone shed light on the future of the Mars Rovers ?
Maybe a Mars Rover Tow Truck to get Spirit unstuck from the mud ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No flames here.
I agree with you.
Manned missions are a pretty much a waste of money and, most unfortunately, lives.What aren't wastes of money are the Mars rovers.
I'd love to see hundreds of those little buggers buzzing around the solar system.I was hoping to see a budget increase for that program and more programs like it.
Can anyone shed light on the future of the Mars Rovers?
Maybe a Mars Rover Tow Truck to get Spirit unstuck from the mud?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920446</id>
	<title>And so dies humanity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly.  If we want to have any chance as a race we've GOT to get off this rock before we kill ourselves off.  The longer we say bound up, the more chance some nutjob with a nuke and an axe to grind does something stupid.<br>
<br>
Interestingly enough Niven &amp; Pournelle had a fun little book on just what could happen if a sentient race had population control problems and limited space.  "The Gripping Hand".  Trash Sci-Fi but it a good thought-puzzle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly .
If we want to have any chance as a race we 've GOT to get off this rock before we kill ourselves off .
The longer we say bound up , the more chance some nutjob with a nuke and an axe to grind does something stupid .
Interestingly enough Niven &amp; Pournelle had a fun little book on just what could happen if a sentient race had population control problems and limited space .
" The Gripping Hand " .
Trash Sci-Fi but it a good thought-puzzle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly.
If we want to have any chance as a race we've GOT to get off this rock before we kill ourselves off.
The longer we say bound up, the more chance some nutjob with a nuke and an axe to grind does something stupid.
Interestingly enough Niven &amp; Pournelle had a fun little book on just what could happen if a sentient race had population control problems and limited space.
"The Gripping Hand".
Trash Sci-Fi but it a good thought-puzzle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920894</id>
	<title>Need versus Want</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1264620960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't <em>need</em> to go to the moon.</p><p>Just like I don't <em>need</em> a drink right now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh, I <em>want</em> a drink, all right, but I don't <em>need</em> a drink. Furthermore, I can stop drinking entirely, any time I <em>want</em> to stop.</p><p>I'm sure America can stop going to the moon any time it wants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need to go to the moon.Just like I do n't need a drink right now ... oh , I want a drink , all right , but I do n't need a drink .
Furthermore , I can stop drinking entirely , any time I want to stop.I 'm sure America can stop going to the moon any time it wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need to go to the moon.Just like I don't need a drink right now ... oh, I want a drink, all right, but I don't need a drink.
Furthermore, I can stop drinking entirely, any time I want to stop.I'm sure America can stop going to the moon any time it wants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921188</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of Change, Not So Much Hope.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264621800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>With the Shuttle put to bed, and now Constellation, NASA is done. Yeah, maybe a few robot probes will go out, but that's not what people get excited about (and are thus willing to fund).</p></div> </blockquote><p>So, the idea of the massive expensive of funding manned missions to the Moon and Mars is to create public interest which will support funding those same missions?</p><p>And, really, for quite some time robot probes have, though far less expensive, generated more positive public attention for NASA than the manned space program.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the Shuttle put to bed , and now Constellation , NASA is done .
Yeah , maybe a few robot probes will go out , but that 's not what people get excited about ( and are thus willing to fund ) .
So , the idea of the massive expensive of funding manned missions to the Moon and Mars is to create public interest which will support funding those same missions ? And , really , for quite some time robot probes have , though far less expensive , generated more positive public attention for NASA than the manned space program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the Shuttle put to bed, and now Constellation, NASA is done.
Yeah, maybe a few robot probes will go out, but that's not what people get excited about (and are thus willing to fund).
So, the idea of the massive expensive of funding manned missions to the Moon and Mars is to create public interest which will support funding those same missions?And, really, for quite some time robot probes have, though far less expensive, generated more positive public attention for NASA than the manned space program.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921858</id>
	<title>history and exploration</title>
	<author>phossie</author>
	<datestamp>1264623240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't like to play devil's advocate here since I do agree with HSF/exploration *on environmental grounds*, but here's a strong point:</p><p>Justification for HSF/exploration:<br>"The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next."</p><p>Justification for canning CxP in favor of (probably) more influence at SMD:<br>"The history of man is hung on a timeline of *resource exploitation* and this is what's next."</p><p>Exploration and resource exploitation - and I mean exploitation in its literal meaning, not in some negatively-laden connotation - are entwined as far back as we can imagine and certainly as far back as we can historically support. Exploration is the initial step toward resource acquisition. (And notice that "step" is, in English, inextricable from "progress," "advancement," etc.) This way of thinking has brought us incredibly far.</p><p>But this way of thinking has also brought us to the brink of disaster many times, sometimes over, but never before to a potential disaster as serious as the one we can imagine now. The risk trades on this one are terrifying. But I think the argument here is this:<br>1. A refocus to Earth/planetary science will yield known-meaningful, known-valuable advances, regardless of how useful our current climate models prove to be.<br>2. Technology will advance, especially through commercial spaceflight, regardless of government focus. Punting to the private sector is not crazy at this point, and may be beneficial.<br>3. No one else is going to do the science NASA already does; NASA capabilities are second to none and are a world resource at this point.<br>4. If our models do prove to be close to correct, then we need an Apollo-style focus on Earth science *now*... exploration can wait and that work may prove more efficient after just a few more years' development.</p><p>Just sayin'. I've worked on analogues and will be sad to see 'em go (though I don't think they should, there's no reason to stop researching ops concepts even with CxP cancelled).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't like to play devil 's advocate here since I do agree with HSF/exploration * on environmental grounds * , but here 's a strong point : Justification for HSF/exploration : " The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what 's next .
" Justification for canning CxP in favor of ( probably ) more influence at SMD : " The history of man is hung on a timeline of * resource exploitation * and this is what 's next .
" Exploration and resource exploitation - and I mean exploitation in its literal meaning , not in some negatively-laden connotation - are entwined as far back as we can imagine and certainly as far back as we can historically support .
Exploration is the initial step toward resource acquisition .
( And notice that " step " is , in English , inextricable from " progress , " " advancement , " etc .
) This way of thinking has brought us incredibly far.But this way of thinking has also brought us to the brink of disaster many times , sometimes over , but never before to a potential disaster as serious as the one we can imagine now .
The risk trades on this one are terrifying .
But I think the argument here is this : 1 .
A refocus to Earth/planetary science will yield known-meaningful , known-valuable advances , regardless of how useful our current climate models prove to be.2 .
Technology will advance , especially through commercial spaceflight , regardless of government focus .
Punting to the private sector is not crazy at this point , and may be beneficial.3 .
No one else is going to do the science NASA already does ; NASA capabilities are second to none and are a world resource at this point.4 .
If our models do prove to be close to correct , then we need an Apollo-style focus on Earth science * now * ... exploration can wait and that work may prove more efficient after just a few more years ' development.Just sayin' .
I 've worked on analogues and will be sad to see 'em go ( though I do n't think they should , there 's no reason to stop researching ops concepts even with CxP cancelled ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't like to play devil's advocate here since I do agree with HSF/exploration *on environmental grounds*, but here's a strong point:Justification for HSF/exploration:"The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.
"Justification for canning CxP in favor of (probably) more influence at SMD:"The history of man is hung on a timeline of *resource exploitation* and this is what's next.
"Exploration and resource exploitation - and I mean exploitation in its literal meaning, not in some negatively-laden connotation - are entwined as far back as we can imagine and certainly as far back as we can historically support.
Exploration is the initial step toward resource acquisition.
(And notice that "step" is, in English, inextricable from "progress," "advancement," etc.
) This way of thinking has brought us incredibly far.But this way of thinking has also brought us to the brink of disaster many times, sometimes over, but never before to a potential disaster as serious as the one we can imagine now.
The risk trades on this one are terrifying.
But I think the argument here is this:1.
A refocus to Earth/planetary science will yield known-meaningful, known-valuable advances, regardless of how useful our current climate models prove to be.2.
Technology will advance, especially through commercial spaceflight, regardless of government focus.
Punting to the private sector is not crazy at this point, and may be beneficial.3.
No one else is going to do the science NASA already does; NASA capabilities are second to none and are a world resource at this point.4.
If our models do prove to be close to correct, then we need an Apollo-style focus on Earth science *now*... exploration can wait and that work may prove more efficient after just a few more years' development.Just sayin'.
I've worked on analogues and will be sad to see 'em go (though I don't think they should, there's no reason to stop researching ops concepts even with CxP cancelled).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456</id>
	<title>Sad, but...</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264619760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is very sad that we won't go back to the moon, but why send humans there when robots can do a job as great as Opportunity, Spirit, MGS and all that?
<br> <br>
It is less expensive and less risky, although not as fun, to send robots. We don't need to bring them back either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is very sad that we wo n't go back to the moon , but why send humans there when robots can do a job as great as Opportunity , Spirit , MGS and all that ?
It is less expensive and less risky , although not as fun , to send robots .
We do n't need to bring them back either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is very sad that we won't go back to the moon, but why send humans there when robots can do a job as great as Opportunity, Spirit, MGS and all that?
It is less expensive and less risky, although not as fun, to send robots.
We don't need to bring them back either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929006</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1264606980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, what was the reason for doing it in the first place?</p></div><p>To annoy the Russians.</p><p>Apparently nowadays the Russians don't really care much one way or the other. Now if somebody could make a case that it annoyed the terrorists, or saved the children, there'd be a dozen bases up there in no time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , what was the reason for doing it in the first place ? To annoy the Russians.Apparently nowadays the Russians do n't really care much one way or the other .
Now if somebody could make a case that it annoyed the terrorists , or saved the children , there 'd be a dozen bases up there in no time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, what was the reason for doing it in the first place?To annoy the Russians.Apparently nowadays the Russians don't really care much one way or the other.
Now if somebody could make a case that it annoyed the terrorists, or saved the children, there'd be a dozen bases up there in no time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920350</id>
	<title>That's fine...</title>
	<author>zerospeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1264619340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like Elon Musk would beat them there anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like Elon Musk would beat them there anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like Elon Musk would beat them there anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920770</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1264620660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not suddenly their job; the Goddard Institute for Space Studies has been doing it for quite a while: <a href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/" title="nasa.gov">http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/</a> [nasa.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not suddenly their job ; the Goddard Institute for Space Studies has been doing it for quite a while : http : //www.giss.nasa.gov/about/ [ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not suddenly their job; the Goddard Institute for Space Studies has been doing it for quite a while: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/ [nasa.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924588</id>
	<title>The Earth is our East Germany Now</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264586820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Socialists don't want people to learn how to live in space so they can keep them slaves on earth.  With this decision the Left Wing makes the Gravity Well our prison as much as it did the Berlin Wall.</p><p>The only answer left is civil war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Socialists do n't want people to learn how to live in space so they can keep them slaves on earth .
With this decision the Left Wing makes the Gravity Well our prison as much as it did the Berlin Wall.The only answer left is civil war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Socialists don't want people to learn how to live in space so they can keep them slaves on earth.
With this decision the Left Wing makes the Gravity Well our prison as much as it did the Berlin Wall.The only answer left is civil war.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929910</id>
	<title>you voted for Obama, you deserve what you get</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264616880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was no secret in 2008 that Obama was going to slash the space program.  The space program has always been a primary target of the Left.  Some of us are old enough to remember the shrill cries in the late 1960s and early 1970s to cancel Apollo and use that money to "put an end to poverty"...well Apollo got canceled and we still have poverty.</p><p>I had hoped that I would live to see manned space exploration resume after it ceased nearly 40 years ago.  It no longer seems that will happen, unless the Chinese do it.</p><p>At least I remember a time when there was manned space exploration; a time when we dared dream of colonies in space.  Gen-X and younger does not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was no secret in 2008 that Obama was going to slash the space program .
The space program has always been a primary target of the Left .
Some of us are old enough to remember the shrill cries in the late 1960s and early 1970s to cancel Apollo and use that money to " put an end to poverty " ...well Apollo got canceled and we still have poverty.I had hoped that I would live to see manned space exploration resume after it ceased nearly 40 years ago .
It no longer seems that will happen , unless the Chinese do it.At least I remember a time when there was manned space exploration ; a time when we dared dream of colonies in space .
Gen-X and younger does not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was no secret in 2008 that Obama was going to slash the space program.
The space program has always been a primary target of the Left.
Some of us are old enough to remember the shrill cries in the late 1960s and early 1970s to cancel Apollo and use that money to "put an end to poverty"...well Apollo got canceled and we still have poverty.I had hoped that I would live to see manned space exploration resume after it ceased nearly 40 years ago.
It no longer seems that will happen, unless the Chinese do it.At least I remember a time when there was manned space exploration; a time when we dared dream of colonies in space.
Gen-X and younger does not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920520</id>
	<title>Noooo!!!</title>
	<author>elstonj</author>
	<datestamp>1264619880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you kidding?  Manned spaceflight is one of the most interesting things we do, Earth observing, while necessary, is boring.  I'm glad China or India is going to beat us back to the moon because we're more interested in providing healthcare to lazy people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
Manned spaceflight is one of the most interesting things we do , Earth observing , while necessary , is boring .
I 'm glad China or India is going to beat us back to the moon because we 're more interested in providing healthcare to lazy people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
Manned spaceflight is one of the most interesting things we do, Earth observing, while necessary, is boring.
I'm glad China or India is going to beat us back to the moon because we're more interested in providing healthcare to lazy people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923264</id>
	<title>The Future.</title>
	<author>Random Luck</author>
	<datestamp>1264583160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phillip K. Dick will not be happy if we don't settle the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phillip K. Dick will not be happy if we do n't settle the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phillip K. Dick will not be happy if we don't settle the moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923292</id>
	<title>Maybe that was the problem</title>
	<author>DeltaQH</author>
	<datestamp>1264583220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Constellation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... cancellation. Maybe that was the problem. Too similar words!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Constellation .... cancellation. Maybe that was the problem .
Too similar words !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Constellation .... cancellation. Maybe that was the problem.
Too similar words!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30930426</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also think that, at present, sending humans to space is not a very efficient or wise use of our resources, unless they are also willing to do some basic R&amp;D to improve access to space. Unfortunately, sending humans into space will likely mean we have fewer resources to spend on R&amp;D. The only argument in favor of sending humans into space that I find interesting is that it will inspire people to greater heights, e.g., generate interest in math and science, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also think that , at present , sending humans to space is not a very efficient or wise use of our resources , unless they are also willing to do some basic R&amp;D to improve access to space .
Unfortunately , sending humans into space will likely mean we have fewer resources to spend on R&amp;D .
The only argument in favor of sending humans into space that I find interesting is that it will inspire people to greater heights , e.g. , generate interest in math and science , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also think that, at present, sending humans to space is not a very efficient or wise use of our resources, unless they are also willing to do some basic R&amp;D to improve access to space.
Unfortunately, sending humans into space will likely mean we have fewer resources to spend on R&amp;D.
The only argument in favor of sending humans into space that I find interesting is that it will inspire people to greater heights, e.g., generate interest in math and science, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926640</id>
	<title>Re:we've been to the moon . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264593000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you spend your idle time thinking of ways to make PETA members' heads explode?</p><p>- T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you spend your idle time thinking of ways to make PETA members ' heads explode ? - T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you spend your idle time thinking of ways to make PETA members' heads explode?- T</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920622</id>
	<title>Re:Leeme Get This Straight: So, Under Obama...</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1264620180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The National <i>Air</i> and Space Administration does plenty of work a) without humans and b) at or below Low Earth Orbit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The National Air and Space Administration does plenty of work a ) without humans and b ) at or below Low Earth Orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The National Air and Space Administration does plenty of work a) without humans and b) at or below Low Earth Orbit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924514</id>
	<title>Re:Sad, but...</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1264586580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>why send humans there when robots can do a job as great as Opportunity, Spirit, MGS and all that? </i></p><p>Here is a simple reason why : Unmanned exploration is too slow. We learned more about the Moon in 2 years of Apollo than we have learned about Mars in the 40 years since Viking. We, for example, <b>still</b> don't know why the Viking biological experiments gave positive responses. The whole question of present-day life on Mars could be answered in days by a manned mission.</p><p>I have said this before, but see no reason to change my mind : One week after the first manned mission to Mars lands on the planet, all of the unmanned landers will be footnotes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why send humans there when robots can do a job as great as Opportunity , Spirit , MGS and all that ?
Here is a simple reason why : Unmanned exploration is too slow .
We learned more about the Moon in 2 years of Apollo than we have learned about Mars in the 40 years since Viking .
We , for example , still do n't know why the Viking biological experiments gave positive responses .
The whole question of present-day life on Mars could be answered in days by a manned mission.I have said this before , but see no reason to change my mind : One week after the first manned mission to Mars lands on the planet , all of the unmanned landers will be footnotes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why send humans there when robots can do a job as great as Opportunity, Spirit, MGS and all that?
Here is a simple reason why : Unmanned exploration is too slow.
We learned more about the Moon in 2 years of Apollo than we have learned about Mars in the 40 years since Viking.
We, for example, still don't know why the Viking biological experiments gave positive responses.
The whole question of present-day life on Mars could be answered in days by a manned mission.I have said this before, but see no reason to change my mind : One week after the first manned mission to Mars lands on the planet, all of the unmanned landers will be footnotes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925902</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>mangastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1264590660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Reconnaissance\_Office" title="wikipedia.org">another</a> [wikipedia.org] (they've been tasked to do that, reducing support for troops in the field, monitoring of nuclear proliferation, etc.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>And another [ wikipedia.org ] ( they 've been tasked to do that , reducing support for troops in the field , monitoring of nuclear proliferation , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And another [wikipedia.org] (they've been tasked to do that, reducing support for troops in the field, monitoring of nuclear proliferation, etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923972</id>
	<title>Typical journalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264584960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is just typical "journalism".<br>1) Find an actual <a href="http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/taking-aim-phobos-nasa-flexible-path-precursor-mars/" title="nasaspaceflight.com" rel="nofollow">story</a> [nasaspaceflight.com] written by someone who knows<br>2) Respit it badly so that it fits with your editorial "guidelines" (in this case: bash the Obama administration) and doesn't make it look too much like plagiarism<br>3) Confirm your source by just asking the author you ripped off. He now is your "insider" and since it seems he actually had his info from the white house contrary to you can now also say in your article "according to White House insiders": makes it sound more serious.<br>4) ?<br>5) Profit</p><p>The move is probably actually a good thing: it's about not spending everything on creating a launcher (Ares I) that would only get us to LEO and mean we'd have to scrap ISS and refocus on creating a heavy lift vehicle that reuses as much as possible stuff that's already flying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is just typical " journalism " .1 ) Find an actual story [ nasaspaceflight.com ] written by someone who knows2 ) Respit it badly so that it fits with your editorial " guidelines " ( in this case : bash the Obama administration ) and does n't make it look too much like plagiarism3 ) Confirm your source by just asking the author you ripped off .
He now is your " insider " and since it seems he actually had his info from the white house contrary to you can now also say in your article " according to White House insiders " : makes it sound more serious.4 ) ? 5 ) ProfitThe move is probably actually a good thing : it 's about not spending everything on creating a launcher ( Ares I ) that would only get us to LEO and mean we 'd have to scrap ISS and refocus on creating a heavy lift vehicle that reuses as much as possible stuff that 's already flying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is just typical "journalism".1) Find an actual story [nasaspaceflight.com] written by someone who knows2) Respit it badly so that it fits with your editorial "guidelines" (in this case: bash the Obama administration) and doesn't make it look too much like plagiarism3) Confirm your source by just asking the author you ripped off.
He now is your "insider" and since it seems he actually had his info from the white house contrary to you can now also say in your article "according to White House insiders": makes it sound more serious.4) ?5) ProfitThe move is probably actually a good thing: it's about not spending everything on creating a launcher (Ares I) that would only get us to LEO and mean we'd have to scrap ISS and refocus on creating a heavy lift vehicle that reuses as much as possible stuff that's already flying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921398</id>
	<title>and bad</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1264622220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be happy to see NASA focus its resources on unmanned projects instead of putting meat on the moon (again). But this line worries me:</p><blockquote><div><p>NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit.</p></div></blockquote><p>Are they saying that NASA will focus <em>only</em> on Earth science? While that is valuable and practical, I still want to know what's left to discover in our solar system, around the galaxy, and throughout the universe. I want robotic probes searching for life on Mars and Europa.  I want telescopes looking for habitable planets around nearby stars. And I want to know how the universe works and what's in its future. Those things don't need Constellation, but they do need attention beyond the surface of Earth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be happy to see NASA focus its resources on unmanned projects instead of putting meat on the moon ( again ) .
But this line worries me : NASA will look at developing a new " heavy-lift " rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit.Are they saying that NASA will focus only on Earth science ?
While that is valuable and practical , I still want to know what 's left to discover in our solar system , around the galaxy , and throughout the universe .
I want robotic probes searching for life on Mars and Europa .
I want telescopes looking for habitable planets around nearby stars .
And I want to know how the universe works and what 's in its future .
Those things do n't need Constellation , but they do need attention beyond the surface of Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be happy to see NASA focus its resources on unmanned projects instead of putting meat on the moon (again).
But this line worries me:NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit.Are they saying that NASA will focus only on Earth science?
While that is valuable and practical, I still want to know what's left to discover in our solar system, around the galaxy, and throughout the universe.
I want robotic probes searching for life on Mars and Europa.
I want telescopes looking for habitable planets around nearby stars.
And I want to know how the universe works and what's in its future.
Those things don't need Constellation, but they do need attention beyond the surface of Earth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921634</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>ghostlibrary</author>
	<datestamp>1264622700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Why is it suddenly NASA's job to monitor global warming? Why not create an agency with that job</em></p><p>I'll ask 'eem, but I don' think he'll be very keen... we've already got one (NOAA), you see!</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><strong>... except NOAA uses NASA satellites to do their work.  Whoops.</strong></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it suddenly NASA 's job to monitor global warming ?
Why not create an agency with that jobI 'll ask 'eem , but I don ' think he 'll be very keen... we 've already got one ( NOAA ) , you see !
... except NOAA uses NASA satellites to do their work .
Whoops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it suddenly NASA's job to monitor global warming?
Why not create an agency with that jobI'll ask 'eem, but I don' think he'll be very keen... we've already got one (NOAA), you see!
... except NOAA uses NASA satellites to do their work.
Whoops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921316</id>
	<title>Re:Sad, but...</title>
	<author>Strider-</author>
	<datestamp>1264622100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, a trained human geologist could have done everything that these probes have done, within 2 or 3 hours of setting foot on Mars.  The robots simply *can't* do things as well as humans can.  Think about that... Opportunity and Spirit have been doing fantastic science on Mars for the past 5 or 6 years, and all that work could have done by a trained human within a few hours.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, there are situations where they make sense.  Putting a human in orbit around Jupiter, to be irradiated by high energy particles for a few years, would be an amazingly stupid thing to do.  But don't kid yourself that the robots can explore Mars or the Moon as well as humans could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , a trained human geologist could have done everything that these probes have done , within 2 or 3 hours of setting foot on Mars .
The robots simply * ca n't * do things as well as humans can .
Think about that... Opportunity and Spirit have been doing fantastic science on Mars for the past 5 or 6 years , and all that work could have done by a trained human within a few hours.Do n't get me wrong , there are situations where they make sense .
Putting a human in orbit around Jupiter , to be irradiated by high energy particles for a few years , would be an amazingly stupid thing to do .
But do n't kid yourself that the robots can explore Mars or the Moon as well as humans could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, a trained human geologist could have done everything that these probes have done, within 2 or 3 hours of setting foot on Mars.
The robots simply *can't* do things as well as humans can.
Think about that... Opportunity and Spirit have been doing fantastic science on Mars for the past 5 or 6 years, and all that work could have done by a trained human within a few hours.Don't get me wrong, there are situations where they make sense.
Putting a human in orbit around Jupiter, to be irradiated by high energy particles for a few years, would be an amazingly stupid thing to do.
But don't kid yourself that the robots can explore Mars or the Moon as well as humans could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920944</id>
	<title>Re:One small step for man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...except without microprocessors -- which we don't need.</p></div><p>Good argument.  I expect that will be well received here on Slashdot.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p><p>Seriously.  Know your audience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...except without microprocessors -- which we do n't need.Good argument .
I expect that will be well received here on Slashdot .
/sarcasmSeriously. Know your audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...except without microprocessors -- which we don't need.Good argument.
I expect that will be well received here on Slashdot.
/sarcasmSeriously.  Know your audience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923916</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264584780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I blame his teleprompter for it! The Teleprompter just tells the puppet what to do.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Window Seat please!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame his teleprompter for it !
The Teleprompter just tells the puppet what to do .
/Window Seat please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blame his teleprompter for it!
The Teleprompter just tells the puppet what to do.
/Window Seat please!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922100</id>
	<title>Naturally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264623660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our President is a short-sighted buffoon. Does he not get the "S" in NASA stands for space?</p><p>Our society benefited more from investment is space than most of the other investments our government has made historically. At a time when JOB CREATION should be a priority, how does monitoring temperatures compare employment-wise to say, building the Apollo/Saturn 5 or the space shuttle? Which provides more long-term benefits, actually building something (and developing significant technologies that benefit us all in the process), or recording temperatures?</p><p>I hope one of our final shuttle flights involves a way one ticket for our fearless POTUS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our President is a short-sighted buffoon .
Does he not get the " S " in NASA stands for space ? Our society benefited more from investment is space than most of the other investments our government has made historically .
At a time when JOB CREATION should be a priority , how does monitoring temperatures compare employment-wise to say , building the Apollo/Saturn 5 or the space shuttle ?
Which provides more long-term benefits , actually building something ( and developing significant technologies that benefit us all in the process ) , or recording temperatures ? I hope one of our final shuttle flights involves a way one ticket for our fearless POTUS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our President is a short-sighted buffoon.
Does he not get the "S" in NASA stands for space?Our society benefited more from investment is space than most of the other investments our government has made historically.
At a time when JOB CREATION should be a priority, how does monitoring temperatures compare employment-wise to say, building the Apollo/Saturn 5 or the space shuttle?
Which provides more long-term benefits, actually building something (and developing significant technologies that benefit us all in the process), or recording temperatures?I hope one of our final shuttle flights involves a way one ticket for our fearless POTUS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920930</id>
	<title>Correction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama Cannot go to the moon.</p><p>This America thing was great while it lasted. But, we all know that in the global village everyone will live in a garden and be in balance with mother Giea. To do this we all must sacrifice. Teknowlegee is just another wichcraft that angers mother Giea by allowing more people to survive than can typically be supported by natural eecohsystum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama Can not go to the moon.This America thing was great while it lasted .
But , we all know that in the global village everyone will live in a garden and be in balance with mother Giea .
To do this we all must sacrifice .
Teknowlegee is just another wichcraft that angers mother Giea by allowing more people to survive than can typically be supported by natural eecohsystum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama Cannot go to the moon.This America thing was great while it lasted.
But, we all know that in the global village everyone will live in a garden and be in balance with mother Giea.
To do this we all must sacrifice.
Teknowlegee is just another wichcraft that angers mother Giea by allowing more people to survive than can typically be supported by natural eecohsystum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922770</id>
	<title>Re:we've been to the moon . . .</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1264625160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that's why the whalers get sent in the future...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's why the whalers get sent in the future.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's why the whalers get sent in the future...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922446</id>
	<title>China Wins!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice to see that we are letting China get to Mars first.  Or India.  NUMBER 2!! We're NUMBER 2! Or 3? YEAH! We're NUMBER 3! Or MAYBE 4!...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice to see that we are letting China get to Mars first .
Or India .
NUMBER 2 ! !
We 're NUMBER 2 !
Or 3 ?
YEAH ! We 're NUMBER 3 !
Or MAYBE 4 ! .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice to see that we are letting China get to Mars first.
Or India.
NUMBER 2!!
We're NUMBER 2!
Or 3?
YEAH! We're NUMBER 3!
Or MAYBE 4!...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921658</id>
	<title>Re:obviously</title>
	<author>AmericanGladiator</author>
	<datestamp>1264622760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would have voted for him if he had won the primary.  I think he felt a bit used by the Bush administration (perhaps rightly so) which led to a bit of a rift later in his cabinet position, but I still feel he's a good middle-ground candidate.  He's spent enough time in the military that he's not naive on defense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have voted for him if he had won the primary .
I think he felt a bit used by the Bush administration ( perhaps rightly so ) which led to a bit of a rift later in his cabinet position , but I still feel he 's a good middle-ground candidate .
He 's spent enough time in the military that he 's not naive on defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have voted for him if he had won the primary.
I think he felt a bit used by the Bush administration (perhaps rightly so) which led to a bit of a rift later in his cabinet position, but I still feel he's a good middle-ground candidate.
He's spent enough time in the military that he's not naive on defense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923598</id>
	<title>Absolutely</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1264584060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We do not need spaceflight - there will always be important problems that need solving right here on Earth.  The fact that some of the solutions might be off-planet is just wild speculation.  The sort of speculation that led to the integrated circuit, for one thing.</p><p>The leftist view of things is clearly that we need to treat the Earth as a closed system without any resources available from elsewhere.  Fine, but that means we need to be a lot more focused on population control than we are right now.  The pollution created by 6 billion people would be only half as much with 3 billion.  Sustainable?  Forget it - sustainable resource usage that could continue for centuries or millenia would require maybe 200 million people at a maximium.  We aren't going to get there without several big wars, and maybe not even then.</p><p>We are going to be lucky if the Western leaders aren't telling us in 20 years that we all need to cut back on our lifestyle.  Living through subsistance farming, for example.  Could the planet support 6 billion that way?  Hardly.  So there is your population control right there in a easy, non-political package.</p><p>Manned exploration - and all the risks that are wrapped up in it - is key.  There are two things this does: (a) it presents risks to be knocked down and solved, and (b) a new frontier for exploration.  Man is an explorer, and that frontier is needed.  Desperately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do not need spaceflight - there will always be important problems that need solving right here on Earth .
The fact that some of the solutions might be off-planet is just wild speculation .
The sort of speculation that led to the integrated circuit , for one thing.The leftist view of things is clearly that we need to treat the Earth as a closed system without any resources available from elsewhere .
Fine , but that means we need to be a lot more focused on population control than we are right now .
The pollution created by 6 billion people would be only half as much with 3 billion .
Sustainable ? Forget it - sustainable resource usage that could continue for centuries or millenia would require maybe 200 million people at a maximium .
We are n't going to get there without several big wars , and maybe not even then.We are going to be lucky if the Western leaders are n't telling us in 20 years that we all need to cut back on our lifestyle .
Living through subsistance farming , for example .
Could the planet support 6 billion that way ?
Hardly. So there is your population control right there in a easy , non-political package.Manned exploration - and all the risks that are wrapped up in it - is key .
There are two things this does : ( a ) it presents risks to be knocked down and solved , and ( b ) a new frontier for exploration .
Man is an explorer , and that frontier is needed .
Desperately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do not need spaceflight - there will always be important problems that need solving right here on Earth.
The fact that some of the solutions might be off-planet is just wild speculation.
The sort of speculation that led to the integrated circuit, for one thing.The leftist view of things is clearly that we need to treat the Earth as a closed system without any resources available from elsewhere.
Fine, but that means we need to be a lot more focused on population control than we are right now.
The pollution created by 6 billion people would be only half as much with 3 billion.
Sustainable?  Forget it - sustainable resource usage that could continue for centuries or millenia would require maybe 200 million people at a maximium.
We aren't going to get there without several big wars, and maybe not even then.We are going to be lucky if the Western leaders aren't telling us in 20 years that we all need to cut back on our lifestyle.
Living through subsistance farming, for example.
Could the planet support 6 billion that way?
Hardly.  So there is your population control right there in a easy, non-political package.Manned exploration - and all the risks that are wrapped up in it - is key.
There are two things this does: (a) it presents risks to be knocked down and solved, and (b) a new frontier for exploration.
Man is an explorer, and that frontier is needed.
Desperately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920326</id>
	<title>Reality!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very well said!</p><p>&ldquo;The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.&rdquo;<br>~O2BNTEXAS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very well said !    The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency .
It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president .
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama , who is a mere symptom of what ails us .
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince .
The republic can survive a Barack Obama , who is , after all , merely a fool .
It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.    ~ O2BNTEXAS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very well said!“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.
It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.
It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”~O2BNTEXAS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923020</id>
	<title>Canned Monkeys</title>
	<author>adipocere</author>
	<datestamp>1264625820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human spaceflight is, at this time, an enormous waste and will remain so for decades.</p><p>We need a Beanstalk and variants thereof to get canned monkeys up into space at a reasonable price point, and we need semi-autonomous probes and drones to build the colonies on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wherever, because this is not like the Frontier.  You can't just stumble onto the Martian surface, chop down some trees, build a lean-to, then set traps for bunnies.  We need drones to skitter through the Asteroid Belt, locate nickel-iron rich rocks, then smelt them down with either fusion (unlikely), fission (environmentally terrifying), or solar power to build three meter thick slabs of metal to shield the helpless, bored primates from the oncoming sleet of cosmic rays and other charming particles as they take a two year trek.  By the time they get there, hardy robots will have needed to build an enormous infrastructure to support now less-healthy monkeys in an environment not particularly compatible with terrestrial life of more than a few dozen cells in scope.</p><p>We do not have the robotics and IT to make this happen.  Instead, we get a metric/English issue and we slam probes down onto the surface of Mars.</p><p>Let me know when we get some reasonable colonization and return thereof from Antarctica.  It's a far more welcoming environment.  It's just not !!!SPACE!!! and therefore science-fiction fans everywhere do not get all excited about it.</p><p>Now I know everyone will get all excited about Tang and freeze-dried foods and all of the wonderful things we got out of our last serious space program.  Great.  What have we gotten since the Shuttle got started?  Well, not much.  Because we're doing the same old approach and have solved all of the technical issues encountered in doing that approach.  If we use that approach to get to Mars, we will develop few new technologies.</p><p>Or we could build the aforementioned probes and drones.  We'd learn a lot from that.  Sending some folks to the Moon again?  Not really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human spaceflight is , at this time , an enormous waste and will remain so for decades.We need a Beanstalk and variants thereof to get canned monkeys up into space at a reasonable price point , and we need semi-autonomous probes and drones to build the colonies on ... wherever , because this is not like the Frontier .
You ca n't just stumble onto the Martian surface , chop down some trees , build a lean-to , then set traps for bunnies .
We need drones to skitter through the Asteroid Belt , locate nickel-iron rich rocks , then smelt them down with either fusion ( unlikely ) , fission ( environmentally terrifying ) , or solar power to build three meter thick slabs of metal to shield the helpless , bored primates from the oncoming sleet of cosmic rays and other charming particles as they take a two year trek .
By the time they get there , hardy robots will have needed to build an enormous infrastructure to support now less-healthy monkeys in an environment not particularly compatible with terrestrial life of more than a few dozen cells in scope.We do not have the robotics and IT to make this happen .
Instead , we get a metric/English issue and we slam probes down onto the surface of Mars.Let me know when we get some reasonable colonization and return thereof from Antarctica .
It 's a far more welcoming environment .
It 's just not ! ! ! SPACE ! ! !
and therefore science-fiction fans everywhere do not get all excited about it.Now I know everyone will get all excited about Tang and freeze-dried foods and all of the wonderful things we got out of our last serious space program .
Great. What have we gotten since the Shuttle got started ?
Well , not much .
Because we 're doing the same old approach and have solved all of the technical issues encountered in doing that approach .
If we use that approach to get to Mars , we will develop few new technologies.Or we could build the aforementioned probes and drones .
We 'd learn a lot from that .
Sending some folks to the Moon again ?
Not really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human spaceflight is, at this time, an enormous waste and will remain so for decades.We need a Beanstalk and variants thereof to get canned monkeys up into space at a reasonable price point, and we need semi-autonomous probes and drones to build the colonies on ... wherever, because this is not like the Frontier.
You can't just stumble onto the Martian surface, chop down some trees, build a lean-to, then set traps for bunnies.
We need drones to skitter through the Asteroid Belt, locate nickel-iron rich rocks, then smelt them down with either fusion (unlikely), fission (environmentally terrifying), or solar power to build three meter thick slabs of metal to shield the helpless, bored primates from the oncoming sleet of cosmic rays and other charming particles as they take a two year trek.
By the time they get there, hardy robots will have needed to build an enormous infrastructure to support now less-healthy monkeys in an environment not particularly compatible with terrestrial life of more than a few dozen cells in scope.We do not have the robotics and IT to make this happen.
Instead, we get a metric/English issue and we slam probes down onto the surface of Mars.Let me know when we get some reasonable colonization and return thereof from Antarctica.
It's a far more welcoming environment.
It's just not !!!SPACE!!!
and therefore science-fiction fans everywhere do not get all excited about it.Now I know everyone will get all excited about Tang and freeze-dried foods and all of the wonderful things we got out of our last serious space program.
Great.  What have we gotten since the Shuttle got started?
Well, not much.
Because we're doing the same old approach and have solved all of the technical issues encountered in doing that approach.
If we use that approach to get to Mars, we will develop few new technologies.Or we could build the aforementioned probes and drones.
We'd learn a lot from that.
Sending some folks to the Moon again?
Not really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923390</id>
	<title>Re:Other priorities</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264583520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>humanity will go to the stars again.</i></p><p>Humanity has never gone farther than the moon. Our probes aren't much past the heliosphere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>humanity will go to the stars again.Humanity has never gone farther than the moon .
Our probes are n't much past the heliosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>humanity will go to the stars again.Humanity has never gone farther than the moon.
Our probes aren't much past the heliosphere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924354</id>
	<title>Re:Just Junk It</title>
	<author>ZOmegaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264586100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good paying jobs like being a rocket scientist?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good paying jobs like being a rocket scientist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good paying jobs like being a rocket scientist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922340</id>
	<title>Re:Leeme Get This Straight: So, Under Obama...</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1264624200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole point about trying to learn about other planets is it gives us a better perspective on our own planet.  It also works in reverse as NASA has been doing a lot of terrestrial research for years.
</p><p>Keep your ignorant political views out of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point about trying to learn about other planets is it gives us a better perspective on our own planet .
It also works in reverse as NASA has been doing a lot of terrestrial research for years .
Keep your ignorant political views out of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point about trying to learn about other planets is it gives us a better perspective on our own planet.
It also works in reverse as NASA has been doing a lot of terrestrial research for years.
Keep your ignorant political views out of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920392</id>
	<title>Re:Leeme Get This Straight: So, Under Obama...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not?  James Hansen, the biggest global warming loudmouth of all, works out of NASA.</p><p>Gotta convince people all that carbon taxation is necessary after all..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
James Hansen , the biggest global warming loudmouth of all , works out of NASA.Got ta convince people all that carbon taxation is necessary after all. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
James Hansen, the biggest global warming loudmouth of all, works out of NASA.Gotta convince people all that carbon taxation is necessary after all..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923926</id>
	<title>Re:Why? Because it's next ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264584780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not a motivation to spend millions.  We went to the moon because of nationalism and we thought we might find cool sh*t in the solar system.<br>Now that we now this cool sh*t is far away (if anywhere) I would rather spend money on unmanned space exploration on Europa, etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not a motivation to spend millions .
We went to the moon because of nationalism and we thought we might find cool sh * t in the solar system.Now that we now this cool sh * t is far away ( if anywhere ) I would rather spend money on unmanned space exploration on Europa , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not a motivation to spend millions.
We went to the moon because of nationalism and we thought we might find cool sh*t in the solar system.Now that we now this cool sh*t is far away (if anywhere) I would rather spend money on unmanned space exploration on Europa, etc...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921484</id>
	<title>Re:obviously</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1264622400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only wish Colin Powell would have run in 2000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only wish Colin Powell would have run in 2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only wish Colin Powell would have run in 2000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922032</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Keebler71</author>
	<datestamp>1264623540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... well it is more nuanced than that... he first said he would freeze constellation to butress education spending... he later changed his position once Florida came into play and he wanted to appeal to the space jobs there.  So is this keeping or breaking a promise?  I'm with those who believe his initial position was closer to his core beliefs and that his second position was more politically motivated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... well it is more nuanced than that... he first said he would freeze constellation to butress education spending... he later changed his position once Florida came into play and he wanted to appeal to the space jobs there .
So is this keeping or breaking a promise ?
I 'm with those who believe his initial position was closer to his core beliefs and that his second position was more politically motivated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... well it is more nuanced than that... he first said he would freeze constellation to butress education spending... he later changed his position once Florida came into play and he wanted to appeal to the space jobs there.
So is this keeping or breaking a promise?
I'm with those who believe his initial position was closer to his core beliefs and that his second position was more politically motivated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920804</id>
	<title>He's sending Hillary Clinton instead . . .</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1264620780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ms. Clinton does not seem amused, and according to anonymous officials, is refusing to pack her bags.
</p><p>The point of contention seems to be, like the Mars Rover, her trip to the Moon will be a one-way mission.
</p><p>Ms. Clinton commented through a spokesman, "I don't want to go on the cart!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ms. Clinton does not seem amused , and according to anonymous officials , is refusing to pack her bags .
The point of contention seems to be , like the Mars Rover , her trip to the Moon will be a one-way mission .
Ms. Clinton commented through a spokesman , " I do n't want to go on the cart !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ms. Clinton does not seem amused, and according to anonymous officials, is refusing to pack her bags.
The point of contention seems to be, like the Mars Rover, her trip to the Moon will be a one-way mission.
Ms. Clinton commented through a spokesman, "I don't want to go on the cart!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921400</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of Change, Not So Much Hope.</title>
	<author>meringuoid</author>
	<datestamp>1264622220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>an aspiring American rocket scientist</i>

<p>If you're a rocket scientist there'll still be plenty of work in America. But once the rockets are up, well... where they come down? That's not your department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an aspiring American rocket scientist If you 're a rocket scientist there 'll still be plenty of work in America .
But once the rockets are up , well... where they come down ?
That 's not your department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an aspiring American rocket scientist

If you're a rocket scientist there'll still be plenty of work in America.
But once the rockets are up, well... where they come down?
That's not your department.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929248</id>
	<title>Unmanned Space Exploration...</title>
	<author>Guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1264609620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I have a great love of science and discovery, and I believe machines are far more suitable solutions to the equations that trade-off between matter, energy, and time in space travel.  But I also realize that, scientists often face not a choice between an expensive human and a cheap disposable machine, but rather a choice between an expensive human and nothing; politically the decision to allocate a budget is often not based on NASA's production of data, but rather on NASA's production of Big Heroes and USA-Rah-Rah-Rah.  I have no doubt that the money saved by eliminating human exploration will largely <i>not</i> be re-purposed to more efficient manners of scientific discovery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I have a great love of science and discovery , and I believe machines are far more suitable solutions to the equations that trade-off between matter , energy , and time in space travel .
But I also realize that , scientists often face not a choice between an expensive human and a cheap disposable machine , but rather a choice between an expensive human and nothing ; politically the decision to allocate a budget is often not based on NASA 's production of data , but rather on NASA 's production of Big Heroes and USA-Rah-Rah-Rah .
I have no doubt that the money saved by eliminating human exploration will largely not be re-purposed to more efficient manners of scientific discovery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I have a great love of science and discovery, and I believe machines are far more suitable solutions to the equations that trade-off between matter, energy, and time in space travel.
But I also realize that, scientists often face not a choice between an expensive human and a cheap disposable machine, but rather a choice between an expensive human and nothing; politically the decision to allocate a budget is often not based on NASA's production of data, but rather on NASA's production of Big Heroes and USA-Rah-Rah-Rah.
I have no doubt that the money saved by eliminating human exploration will largely not be re-purposed to more efficient manners of scientific discovery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925624</id>
	<title>The earth is a space ship</title>
	<author>ctdownunder</author>
	<datestamp>1264589880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Trying to limit the 'snarkiness' factor and not be too trite, but I must say:

We already are in space. We already are traveling through the universe. We should probably shore up our current vessel before we send out recon ships from the mother ship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to limit the 'snarkiness ' factor and not be too trite , but I must say : We already are in space .
We already are traveling through the universe .
We should probably shore up our current vessel before we send out recon ships from the mother ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to limit the 'snarkiness' factor and not be too trite, but I must say:

We already are in space.
We already are traveling through the universe.
We should probably shore up our current vessel before we send out recon ships from the mother ship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925284</id>
	<title>War on Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264588920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Democrat War on Science continues apace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Democrat War on Science continues apace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Democrat War on Science continues apace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921078</id>
	<title>No Competition</title>
	<author>Beerdood</author>
	<datestamp>1264621500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe if some other countries had a serious plan to establish a moon base, the US would be more inclined to go back.  If China or Japan landed a man on the moon in 5 years, I'd bet the US would invest a lot more money to establish some sort of base there.  The cold war fueled most of the accomplishments in the space race - they weren't just done in the name of science.<br> <br>
One anonymous official said: 'We certainly don't need to go back to the moon.'"  Well, they don't need to go into back into space either.  They certainly COULD go back if they wanted to, it's been almost 40 years since the last landing and technology / cost / success rate would have to be significantly better than what it was in 1972.  .  Maybe they don't "need" to because no one else is planning to land on the moon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if some other countries had a serious plan to establish a moon base , the US would be more inclined to go back .
If China or Japan landed a man on the moon in 5 years , I 'd bet the US would invest a lot more money to establish some sort of base there .
The cold war fueled most of the accomplishments in the space race - they were n't just done in the name of science .
One anonymous official said : 'We certainly do n't need to go back to the moon .
' " Well , they do n't need to go into back into space either .
They certainly COULD go back if they wanted to , it 's been almost 40 years since the last landing and technology / cost / success rate would have to be significantly better than what it was in 1972. . Maybe they do n't " need " to because no one else is planning to land on the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if some other countries had a serious plan to establish a moon base, the US would be more inclined to go back.
If China or Japan landed a man on the moon in 5 years, I'd bet the US would invest a lot more money to establish some sort of base there.
The cold war fueled most of the accomplishments in the space race - they weren't just done in the name of science.
One anonymous official said: 'We certainly don't need to go back to the moon.
'"  Well, they don't need to go into back into space either.
They certainly COULD go back if they wanted to, it's been almost 40 years since the last landing and technology / cost / success rate would have to be significantly better than what it was in 1972.  .  Maybe they don't "need" to because no one else is planning to land on the moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926940</id>
	<title>Re:Same old garbage.</title>
	<author>WrongMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264594020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon.</p> </div><p>Are the Chinese building a time machine?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At this rate , without question the Chinese will be first to the moon .
Are the Chinese building a time machine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon.
Are the Chinese building a time machine?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929068</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264607760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt; Well, what was the reason for doing it in the first place? Why not do it because we can?<br><br>Because we can't<br><br>or at least we shouldn't, there are priorities<br><br>Who am I kidding, I'm talking to the faggots that mortgaged their ass off to buy LCDs and Hummers. No bitches, YOU CAN'T NOW</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Well , what was the reason for doing it in the first place ?
Why not do it because we can ? Because we can'tor at least we should n't , there are prioritiesWho am I kidding , I 'm talking to the faggots that mortgaged their ass off to buy LCDs and Hummers .
No bitches , YOU CA N'T NOW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Well, what was the reason for doing it in the first place?
Why not do it because we can?Because we can'tor at least we shouldn't, there are prioritiesWho am I kidding, I'm talking to the faggots that mortgaged their ass off to buy LCDs and Hummers.
No bitches, YOU CAN'T NOW</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920802</id>
	<title>Re:One small step for man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> We should have spent the 60's on healthcare reform...</p> </div><p>Sorry, we didn't "spend" the 60's on going to the moon.  That was a fun sideshow.</p><p>We "spent" the 60's fighting for civil rights.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should have spent the 60 's on healthcare reform... Sorry , we did n't " spend " the 60 's on going to the moon .
That was a fun sideshow.We " spent " the 60 's fighting for civil rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We should have spent the 60's on healthcare reform... Sorry, we didn't "spend" the 60's on going to the moon.
That was a fun sideshow.We "spent" the 60's fighting for civil rights.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30928186</id>
	<title>Automated Robotic Systems can give us more</title>
	<author>end15</author>
	<datestamp>1264600560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a great fondness for the human spaceflight program, especially the ISS which has given us some useful engineering and science.  For the most part however the human spaceflight program appears to be for PR reasons.  And that does have value as well but I think the real debate is what direction do we want to spend the bulk of the money going into NASA.</p><p>Probes like Cassini and landers like Phoenix, Spirit &amp; Opportunity have given us much more science at a fraction of the cost.  They have allowed us to understand the Earth (currently our only source survival), our solar system, and the greater universe in detail that we could not have gotten by trying to send humans everywhere.  It seems that it would be wise for us to continue to send out as many probes and robotic systems to every planet, moon, and asteroid in our solar system to gain deeper knowledge about their makeup.  If we are thinking in terms of human exploration of space we need to know what is out there before we start going ourselves.  It makes sense cost wise not to mention in terms human safety.</p><p>And really the bottom line right now is getting to the science and engineering benefits.  The AI research that goes into NASA alone has direct benefits that we can all enjoy.  It would be nice to see a century of robotic exploration followed by an effective human exploration program.</p><p>For those who suggest that this is a matter of survival, I would agree on a very long time scale.  But if we can not ecologically maintain Earth, which is rich with life, there is no way we are going to survive on a planet that is lifeless and or alien to our biology.</p><p>It hurts to let go of human space flight for now, but it might be the smarter thing to do in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a great fondness for the human spaceflight program , especially the ISS which has given us some useful engineering and science .
For the most part however the human spaceflight program appears to be for PR reasons .
And that does have value as well but I think the real debate is what direction do we want to spend the bulk of the money going into NASA.Probes like Cassini and landers like Phoenix , Spirit &amp; Opportunity have given us much more science at a fraction of the cost .
They have allowed us to understand the Earth ( currently our only source survival ) , our solar system , and the greater universe in detail that we could not have gotten by trying to send humans everywhere .
It seems that it would be wise for us to continue to send out as many probes and robotic systems to every planet , moon , and asteroid in our solar system to gain deeper knowledge about their makeup .
If we are thinking in terms of human exploration of space we need to know what is out there before we start going ourselves .
It makes sense cost wise not to mention in terms human safety.And really the bottom line right now is getting to the science and engineering benefits .
The AI research that goes into NASA alone has direct benefits that we can all enjoy .
It would be nice to see a century of robotic exploration followed by an effective human exploration program.For those who suggest that this is a matter of survival , I would agree on a very long time scale .
But if we can not ecologically maintain Earth , which is rich with life , there is no way we are going to survive on a planet that is lifeless and or alien to our biology.It hurts to let go of human space flight for now , but it might be the smarter thing to do in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a great fondness for the human spaceflight program, especially the ISS which has given us some useful engineering and science.
For the most part however the human spaceflight program appears to be for PR reasons.
And that does have value as well but I think the real debate is what direction do we want to spend the bulk of the money going into NASA.Probes like Cassini and landers like Phoenix, Spirit &amp; Opportunity have given us much more science at a fraction of the cost.
They have allowed us to understand the Earth (currently our only source survival), our solar system, and the greater universe in detail that we could not have gotten by trying to send humans everywhere.
It seems that it would be wise for us to continue to send out as many probes and robotic systems to every planet, moon, and asteroid in our solar system to gain deeper knowledge about their makeup.
If we are thinking in terms of human exploration of space we need to know what is out there before we start going ourselves.
It makes sense cost wise not to mention in terms human safety.And really the bottom line right now is getting to the science and engineering benefits.
The AI research that goes into NASA alone has direct benefits that we can all enjoy.
It would be nice to see a century of robotic exploration followed by an effective human exploration program.For those who suggest that this is a matter of survival, I would agree on a very long time scale.
But if we can not ecologically maintain Earth, which is rich with life, there is no way we are going to survive on a planet that is lifeless and or alien to our biology.It hurts to let go of human space flight for now, but it might be the smarter thing to do in the long run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921064</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I thought he said CONSTITUTION!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I thought he said CONSTITUTION !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I thought he said CONSTITUTION!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30931016</id>
	<title>What's the point in Nasa then?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we're not going off planet then we might as well consider the sky as a big blue roof. Who cares what the other planets, stars etc. are like if we're never going to go there?</p><p>I'm just glad it's not up to America alone. Commercialisation of space will get us out there and I just hope it doesn't take too long!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're not going off planet then we might as well consider the sky as a big blue roof .
Who cares what the other planets , stars etc .
are like if we 're never going to go there ? I 'm just glad it 's not up to America alone .
Commercialisation of space will get us out there and I just hope it does n't take too long !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we're not going off planet then we might as well consider the sky as a big blue roof.
Who cares what the other planets, stars etc.
are like if we're never going to go there?I'm just glad it's not up to America alone.
Commercialisation of space will get us out there and I just hope it doesn't take too long!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927246</id>
	<title>posting from a soon to be ghost town</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264595280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about your mass unemployment. A lot of businesses (including the non space related ones), schools, medical centers and other facilities that have been built around say Johnson Space Center are about to hit the unemployment lines. This hits JSC hard in my opinion. When contractors and civil servants no longer have jobs they will not be buying anything, heck they will probably be abandoning the homes for lack of an ability to pay. So the housing market tumbles further while small shops and/or chain stores will lose sales and start laying people off until they close down. So the surrounding areas will be ghost towns minus some work at the ship channels and in the energy districts.</p><p>yay change</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about your mass unemployment .
A lot of businesses ( including the non space related ones ) , schools , medical centers and other facilities that have been built around say Johnson Space Center are about to hit the unemployment lines .
This hits JSC hard in my opinion .
When contractors and civil servants no longer have jobs they will not be buying anything , heck they will probably be abandoning the homes for lack of an ability to pay .
So the housing market tumbles further while small shops and/or chain stores will lose sales and start laying people off until they close down .
So the surrounding areas will be ghost towns minus some work at the ship channels and in the energy districts.yay change</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about your mass unemployment.
A lot of businesses (including the non space related ones), schools, medical centers and other facilities that have been built around say Johnson Space Center are about to hit the unemployment lines.
This hits JSC hard in my opinion.
When contractors and civil servants no longer have jobs they will not be buying anything, heck they will probably be abandoning the homes for lack of an ability to pay.
So the housing market tumbles further while small shops and/or chain stores will lose sales and start laying people off until they close down.
So the surrounding areas will be ghost towns minus some work at the ship channels and in the energy districts.yay change</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920986</id>
	<title>What do we really need?</title>
	<author>Mayhem178</author>
	<datestamp>1264621260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We don't <i>need</i> to do a lot of things.  Magellan didn't <i>need</i> to circumnavigate the globe (yes, I'm aware he didn't quite make it, not the point).  Columbus didn't <i>need</i> to sail across the Atlantic.  You and I don't <i>need</i> to have hobbies.  We don't <i>need</i> to have a sense of adventure or exploration.  We don't <i>need</i> to have any amount of fun.  We don't <i>need</i> to be curious about the universe in which we live.<br> <br>

This is what happens when you put a politician in charge of anything.  The only thing they think we <i>need</i> to do is lead our drab little lives.  Go to work, be a good consumer, pay our taxes; all so they can live fat and happy on top of the world while we spend our lives toiling away, chained to the desk of some office job.  Sound fun to everyone?<br> <br>

To hell with politics and to hell with Obama.  I knew there was a reason I didn't vote for him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need to do a lot of things .
Magellan did n't need to circumnavigate the globe ( yes , I 'm aware he did n't quite make it , not the point ) .
Columbus did n't need to sail across the Atlantic .
You and I do n't need to have hobbies .
We do n't need to have a sense of adventure or exploration .
We do n't need to have any amount of fun .
We do n't need to be curious about the universe in which we live .
This is what happens when you put a politician in charge of anything .
The only thing they think we need to do is lead our drab little lives .
Go to work , be a good consumer , pay our taxes ; all so they can live fat and happy on top of the world while we spend our lives toiling away , chained to the desk of some office job .
Sound fun to everyone ?
To hell with politics and to hell with Obama .
I knew there was a reason I did n't vote for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need to do a lot of things.
Magellan didn't need to circumnavigate the globe (yes, I'm aware he didn't quite make it, not the point).
Columbus didn't need to sail across the Atlantic.
You and I don't need to have hobbies.
We don't need to have a sense of adventure or exploration.
We don't need to have any amount of fun.
We don't need to be curious about the universe in which we live.
This is what happens when you put a politician in charge of anything.
The only thing they think we need to do is lead our drab little lives.
Go to work, be a good consumer, pay our taxes; all so they can live fat and happy on top of the world while we spend our lives toiling away, chained to the desk of some office job.
Sound fun to everyone?
To hell with politics and to hell with Obama.
I knew there was a reason I didn't vote for him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921500</id>
	<title>Something more worth-while....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...like globalwarming?  He ALMOST had it right, except put the money somewhere useful, like paying off debt.  Climategate never ends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...like globalwarming ?
He ALMOST had it right , except put the money somewhere useful , like paying off debt .
Climategate never ends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...like globalwarming?
He ALMOST had it right, except put the money somewhere useful, like paying off debt.
Climategate never ends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920604</id>
	<title>Re:Leeme Get This Straight: So, Under Obama...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration. How does the atmosphere not fall into that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration .
How does the atmosphere not fall into that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration.
How does the atmosphere not fall into that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920972</id>
	<title>Re:And so dies humanity.</title>
	<author>wimme</author>
	<datestamp>1264621200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe you mean <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Mote\_in\_God's\_Eye" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The Mote in God's Eye</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe you mean The Mote in God 's Eye [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe you mean The Mote in God's Eye [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30930556</id>
	<title>Constellation wasn't a good an idea to begin with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you support the idea of space exploration or colonization doesn't mean that every dollar spent on NASA's manned space program was a dollar well spent. I am not a rocket scientist, but many rocket scientists were not happy with the Constellation program because they saw it as a boondoggle and a catastrophe waiting to happen. NASA has wasted billions over the last three decades on 'the next spacecraft' without making any real progress. Why should we have expected Constellation to have been any different?</p><p>For that matter, if you RTFA, you can see that NASA's total budget is seeing a slight increase - the program got cut, not neccessarially the manned spaceflight budget. (Exact information on where NASA's budget will be allocated doesn't seem to have been released yet.) Personally, I don't think our present government can ever be a strong or particularly effective supporter of human spaceflight - I doubt it can do anything right. Just because politicans and bureaucrats say dollars for NASA, or dollars for a NASA program in their district or department means more/better human spaceflight doesn't neccessarially make it true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you support the idea of space exploration or colonization does n't mean that every dollar spent on NASA 's manned space program was a dollar well spent .
I am not a rocket scientist , but many rocket scientists were not happy with the Constellation program because they saw it as a boondoggle and a catastrophe waiting to happen .
NASA has wasted billions over the last three decades on 'the next spacecraft ' without making any real progress .
Why should we have expected Constellation to have been any different ? For that matter , if you RTFA , you can see that NASA 's total budget is seeing a slight increase - the program got cut , not neccessarially the manned spaceflight budget .
( Exact information on where NASA 's budget will be allocated does n't seem to have been released yet .
) Personally , I do n't think our present government can ever be a strong or particularly effective supporter of human spaceflight - I doubt it can do anything right .
Just because politicans and bureaucrats say dollars for NASA , or dollars for a NASA program in their district or department means more/better human spaceflight does n't neccessarially make it true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you support the idea of space exploration or colonization doesn't mean that every dollar spent on NASA's manned space program was a dollar well spent.
I am not a rocket scientist, but many rocket scientists were not happy with the Constellation program because they saw it as a boondoggle and a catastrophe waiting to happen.
NASA has wasted billions over the last three decades on 'the next spacecraft' without making any real progress.
Why should we have expected Constellation to have been any different?For that matter, if you RTFA, you can see that NASA's total budget is seeing a slight increase - the program got cut, not neccessarially the manned spaceflight budget.
(Exact information on where NASA's budget will be allocated doesn't seem to have been released yet.
) Personally, I don't think our present government can ever be a strong or particularly effective supporter of human spaceflight - I doubt it can do anything right.
Just because politicans and bureaucrats say dollars for NASA, or dollars for a NASA program in their district or department means more/better human spaceflight doesn't neccessarially make it true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30932524</id>
	<title>Re:Same old garbage.</title>
	<author>meadowsp</author>
	<datestamp>1264690320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Credit where it's <b>due.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Credit where it 's due .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Credit where it's due.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924370</id>
	<title>Re:Personally bummed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264586100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> But I'd like something to take a little national pride in.  </i><br>I thought thats why you elected Obama.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 'd like something to take a little national pride in .
I thought thats why you elected Obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But I'd like something to take a little national pride in.
I thought thats why you elected Obama.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1264619160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we don't solve the terrestrial problems, we will suffocate, "...and disappear".  Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon, it's a waste of resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we do n't solve the terrestrial problems , we will suffocate , " ...and disappear " .
Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon , it 's a waste of resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we don't solve the terrestrial problems, we will suffocate, "...and disappear".
Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon, it's a waste of resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924326</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>Pedrito</author>
	<datestamp>1264585980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Explain to me the business case for the internet.</i> <br> <br>

The internet didn't just spring up out of nowhere. It started as a VERY small network and grew over a number of years. <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1.txt" title="rfc-editor.org">Check the date on that baby!</a> [rfc-editor.org] <br> <br>

It was initially a way for the DOD to stay in touch with researchers and a mechanism for sharing information among universities. So the DOD funded it because there WAS a business case for it.<br> <br>

Then, it 1993 (damn near a quarter century after that first RFC), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic\_(web\_browser)" title="wikipedia.org">the Mosaic</a> [wikipedia.org] web browser was released. The rest, as they say is history.

NASA has been around a lot longer than the internet and there's still not much of a business case. Don't get me wrong. We've learned a great deal and there have been great applications to come from what we've learned. But the fact is, we have more pressing issues on Terra Firma at the moment. Things like finding me a fucking job so I can feed my family.<br> <br>

I mean, seriously, when I was 8 years old (back in the 70s), I wrote to the White House asking to go to the moon. This led to me gaining a pen pal at NASA who I corresponded with for years afterwards and I credit him with helping to spur my interest in science. I don't think I would be the person I am today without someone like that inspiring me. Sending me photographs autographed by astronauts and all sorts of PR stuff. For me as a kid, it was very special. So understand, NASA holds a very special place in my heart. But at the same time, we have an economic reality that and there are a lot of families struggling to put food on the table. We need to keep our eye on the ball.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain to me the business case for the internet .
The internet did n't just spring up out of nowhere .
It started as a VERY small network and grew over a number of years .
Check the date on that baby !
[ rfc-editor.org ] It was initially a way for the DOD to stay in touch with researchers and a mechanism for sharing information among universities .
So the DOD funded it because there WAS a business case for it .
Then , it 1993 ( damn near a quarter century after that first RFC ) , the Mosaic [ wikipedia.org ] web browser was released .
The rest , as they say is history .
NASA has been around a lot longer than the internet and there 's still not much of a business case .
Do n't get me wrong .
We 've learned a great deal and there have been great applications to come from what we 've learned .
But the fact is , we have more pressing issues on Terra Firma at the moment .
Things like finding me a fucking job so I can feed my family .
I mean , seriously , when I was 8 years old ( back in the 70s ) , I wrote to the White House asking to go to the moon .
This led to me gaining a pen pal at NASA who I corresponded with for years afterwards and I credit him with helping to spur my interest in science .
I do n't think I would be the person I am today without someone like that inspiring me .
Sending me photographs autographed by astronauts and all sorts of PR stuff .
For me as a kid , it was very special .
So understand , NASA holds a very special place in my heart .
But at the same time , we have an economic reality that and there are a lot of families struggling to put food on the table .
We need to keep our eye on the ball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain to me the business case for the internet.
The internet didn't just spring up out of nowhere.
It started as a VERY small network and grew over a number of years.
Check the date on that baby!
[rfc-editor.org]  

It was initially a way for the DOD to stay in touch with researchers and a mechanism for sharing information among universities.
So the DOD funded it because there WAS a business case for it.
Then, it 1993 (damn near a quarter century after that first RFC), the Mosaic [wikipedia.org] web browser was released.
The rest, as they say is history.
NASA has been around a lot longer than the internet and there's still not much of a business case.
Don't get me wrong.
We've learned a great deal and there have been great applications to come from what we've learned.
But the fact is, we have more pressing issues on Terra Firma at the moment.
Things like finding me a fucking job so I can feed my family.
I mean, seriously, when I was 8 years old (back in the 70s), I wrote to the White House asking to go to the moon.
This led to me gaining a pen pal at NASA who I corresponded with for years afterwards and I credit him with helping to spur my interest in science.
I don't think I would be the person I am today without someone like that inspiring me.
Sending me photographs autographed by astronauts and all sorts of PR stuff.
For me as a kid, it was very special.
So understand, NASA holds a very special place in my heart.
But at the same time, we have an economic reality that and there are a lot of families struggling to put food on the table.
We need to keep our eye on the ball.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921696</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1264622820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They administer the satellites that are in space?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They administer the satellites that are in space ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They administer the satellites that are in space?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921520</id>
	<title>Stick a fork in America!</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1264622460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I told you this years ago.  The next person to set foot on the moon will be Chinese.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I told you this years ago .
The next person to set foot on the moon will be Chinese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I told you this years ago.
The next person to set foot on the moon will be Chinese.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923968</id>
	<title>Re:Helium 3</title>
	<author>KeensMustard</author>
	<datestamp>1264584900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because if we really wanted to mine it from the moon, we STILL wouldn't need to send humans. Do you imagine that regolith is mined with a pick and shovel?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if we really wanted to mine it from the moon , we STILL would n't need to send humans .
Do you imagine that regolith is mined with a pick and shovel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if we really wanted to mine it from the moon, we STILL wouldn't need to send humans.
Do you imagine that regolith is mined with a pick and shovel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922508</id>
	<title>Nasa's dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got seriously flamed yesterday on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. for even suggesting NASA was a waste of money, that the private sector can do most of the important stuff better and that without NASA space exploration will surge forward. Now the shuttles that were outdated before they flew can be stuffed in museums. The launch pads leased. The idiotic prices NASA charged to put heavily subsidised commercial vehicles into space. Don't be sad... the journey is just gonna start getting a whole load more fun again, we've been held back for too long.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got seriously flamed yesterday on / .
for even suggesting NASA was a waste of money , that the private sector can do most of the important stuff better and that without NASA space exploration will surge forward .
Now the shuttles that were outdated before they flew can be stuffed in museums .
The launch pads leased .
The idiotic prices NASA charged to put heavily subsidised commercial vehicles into space .
Do n't be sad... the journey is just gon na start getting a whole load more fun again , we 've been held back for too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got seriously flamed yesterday on /.
for even suggesting NASA was a waste of money, that the private sector can do most of the important stuff better and that without NASA space exploration will surge forward.
Now the shuttles that were outdated before they flew can be stuffed in museums.
The launch pads leased.
The idiotic prices NASA charged to put heavily subsidised commercial vehicles into space.
Don't be sad... the journey is just gonna start getting a whole load more fun again, we've been held back for too long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927528</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>marsmark</author>
	<datestamp>1264596840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes, and that's a mission that can't be carried out by private enterprise.</p> </div><p>
Sorry...  not quite right.  Look a bit closer, and you'll find that in many cases, NASA only manages the development of those missions - the actual development, and often operation, of these *IS* being done by private enterprise.
<br> <br>
As much as I hate to use Wikipedia:<br>
  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep\_Space\_1" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Deep Space 1</a> [wikipedia.org] - built by Spectrum Astro<br>
  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep\_Impact\_(space\_mission)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Deep Impact</a> [wikipedia.org] - built by Ball Aerospace<br>
  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars\_Global\_Surveyor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Mars Global Surveyor</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars\_Odyssey" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Mars Odyssey</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix\_(spacecraft)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Phoenix</a> [wikipedia.org], and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars\_Reconnaissance\_Orbiter" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter</a> [wikipedia.org] - Lockheed Martin<br>
<br>
just to list a few...<br>
<br>
NASA really needs to get back in the core research business - aerodynamics, propulsion, atmospherics, etc., and let industry apply that knowledge to fly missions that answer questions that further our knowledge.  They don't need to be both the researcher and the manufacturer...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes , and that 's a mission that ca n't be carried out by private enterprise .
Sorry... not quite right .
Look a bit closer , and you 'll find that in many cases , NASA only manages the development of those missions - the actual development , and often operation , of these * IS * being done by private enterprise .
As much as I hate to use Wikipedia : Deep Space 1 [ wikipedia.org ] - built by Spectrum Astro Deep Impact [ wikipedia.org ] - built by Ball Aerospace Mars Global Surveyor [ wikipedia.org ] , Mars Odyssey [ wikipedia.org ] , Phoenix [ wikipedia.org ] , and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter [ wikipedia.org ] - Lockheed Martin just to list a few.. . NASA really needs to get back in the core research business - aerodynamics , propulsion , atmospherics , etc. , and let industry apply that knowledge to fly missions that answer questions that further our knowledge .
They do n't need to be both the researcher and the manufacturer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes, and that's a mission that can't be carried out by private enterprise.
Sorry...  not quite right.
Look a bit closer, and you'll find that in many cases, NASA only manages the development of those missions - the actual development, and often operation, of these *IS* being done by private enterprise.
As much as I hate to use Wikipedia:
  Deep Space 1 [wikipedia.org] - built by Spectrum Astro
  Deep Impact [wikipedia.org] - built by Ball Aerospace
  Mars Global Surveyor [wikipedia.org], Mars Odyssey [wikipedia.org], Phoenix [wikipedia.org], and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter [wikipedia.org] - Lockheed Martin

just to list a few...

NASA really needs to get back in the core research business - aerodynamics, propulsion, atmospherics, etc., and let industry apply that knowledge to fly missions that answer questions that further our knowledge.
They don't need to be both the researcher and the manufacturer...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926386</id>
	<title>Re:We choose</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1264592220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am NOT a jelly donut!</p><p>(Sorry for those who do not understand this quote)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am NOT a jelly donut !
( Sorry for those who do not understand this quote )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am NOT a jelly donut!
(Sorry for those who do not understand this quote)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216</id>
	<title>One small step for man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the wrong direction.  We should have spent the 60's on healthcare reform, increasing national spending, polarizing our government between the political parties, and copyright enforcement.  Yes, that would have given the 70's a golden age such as the one we enjoy now, except without microprocessors -- which we don't need.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the wrong direction .
We should have spent the 60 's on healthcare reform , increasing national spending , polarizing our government between the political parties , and copyright enforcement .
Yes , that would have given the 70 's a golden age such as the one we enjoy now , except without microprocessors -- which we do n't need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the wrong direction.
We should have spent the 60's on healthcare reform, increasing national spending, polarizing our government between the political parties, and copyright enforcement.
Yes, that would have given the 70's a golden age such as the one we enjoy now, except without microprocessors -- which we don't need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920912</id>
	<title>Re:obviously</title>
	<author>zero\_out</author>
	<datestamp>1264621020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Colin Powell wanted it, he could have ran against Clinton in 1996 as a Republican, and in my opinion, would have won.  The Republican party would have accepted him, but he just didn't want it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Colin Powell wanted it , he could have ran against Clinton in 1996 as a Republican , and in my opinion , would have won .
The Republican party would have accepted him , but he just did n't want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Colin Powell wanted it, he could have ran against Clinton in 1996 as a Republican, and in my opinion, would have won.
The Republican party would have accepted him, but he just didn't want it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921682</id>
	<title>Rare chance to cut the education budget too...</title>
	<author>CosmologyJello</author>
	<datestamp>1264622820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a rare opportunity to save on the education budget as well.  There's no point in studying math and science if there is nothing to do with your education.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a rare opportunity to save on the education budget as well .
There 's no point in studying math and science if there is nothing to do with your education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a rare opportunity to save on the education budget as well.
There's no point in studying math and science if there is nothing to do with your education.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929422</id>
	<title>Re:Just Junk It</title>
	<author>rally2xs</author>
	<datestamp>1264611720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA is not an industry, it is a government program.  I consumes, but does not produce.  It has no "sales."  Sure, lots of science gets done, but couldn't this science be done in a corporate settting, seeking answers to questions demanded by citizens willing to pay for it?  If not, then is it really worth doing?</p><p>We just have to quit this spend, spend, spend addiction we have.  We need to stop.  Balance the budget, by law.  That will see the end of these things that are simply money sinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is not an industry , it is a government program .
I consumes , but does not produce .
It has no " sales .
" Sure , lots of science gets done , but could n't this science be done in a corporate settting , seeking answers to questions demanded by citizens willing to pay for it ?
If not , then is it really worth doing ? We just have to quit this spend , spend , spend addiction we have .
We need to stop .
Balance the budget , by law .
That will see the end of these things that are simply money sinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA is not an industry, it is a government program.
I consumes, but does not produce.
It has no "sales.
"  Sure, lots of science gets done, but couldn't this science be done in a corporate settting, seeking answers to questions demanded by citizens willing to pay for it?
If not, then is it really worth doing?We just have to quit this spend, spend, spend addiction we have.
We need to stop.
Balance the budget, by law.
That will see the end of these things that are simply money sinks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920760</id>
	<title>The one thing I would be willing to pay for...</title>
	<author>zero\_out</author>
	<datestamp>1264620600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The vast majority of things the government spends money on, I would never be willing to contribute toward, if given the choice.  Military, medicare, an social security?  No way.  Police, roads, NASA and a return to the moon?  Absolutely.  Now they decide that it's not worth it to spend money on extraterrestrial projects?  It makes me ashamed to be an American.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast majority of things the government spends money on , I would never be willing to contribute toward , if given the choice .
Military , medicare , an social security ?
No way .
Police , roads , NASA and a return to the moon ?
Absolutely. Now they decide that it 's not worth it to spend money on extraterrestrial projects ?
It makes me ashamed to be an American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast majority of things the government spends money on, I would never be willing to contribute toward, if given the choice.
Military, medicare, an social security?
No way.
Police, roads, NASA and a return to the moon?
Absolutely.  Now they decide that it's not worth it to spend money on extraterrestrial projects?
It makes me ashamed to be an American.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922820</id>
	<title>Re:we've been to the moon . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264625280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be a failure. We already know that all we accomplish in the future is to tell tall tales and sing whaling tunes on the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be a failure .
We already know that all we accomplish in the future is to tell tall tales and sing whaling tunes on the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be a failure.
We already know that all we accomplish in the future is to tell tall tales and sing whaling tunes on the moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30933400</id>
	<title>Re: bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264695000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The private sector has different motives. One being profit. It can put satellites in orbit. It has no real incentive to explore. I think manned spaceflight is necessary for true exploration. Unmanned probes are useful, but limited at best. The Mars rover wouldn't be stuck if there was someone there to dig it out. Having it be NASA/USA creates a common national pride. A private company doesn't. Maybe that's not possible anymore with the polarity created by the current set of politicians. I think we've lost something along the way that nobody born after the 1970's or so will ever comprehend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The private sector has different motives .
One being profit .
It can put satellites in orbit .
It has no real incentive to explore .
I think manned spaceflight is necessary for true exploration .
Unmanned probes are useful , but limited at best .
The Mars rover would n't be stuck if there was someone there to dig it out .
Having it be NASA/USA creates a common national pride .
A private company does n't .
Maybe that 's not possible anymore with the polarity created by the current set of politicians .
I think we 've lost something along the way that nobody born after the 1970 's or so will ever comprehend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The private sector has different motives.
One being profit.
It can put satellites in orbit.
It has no real incentive to explore.
I think manned spaceflight is necessary for true exploration.
Unmanned probes are useful, but limited at best.
The Mars rover wouldn't be stuck if there was someone there to dig it out.
Having it be NASA/USA creates a common national pride.
A private company doesn't.
Maybe that's not possible anymore with the polarity created by the current set of politicians.
I think we've lost something along the way that nobody born after the 1970's or so will ever comprehend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920374</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>kellin</author>
	<datestamp>1264619460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all we need.  More governmental bureaucracy.  Another agency, more waste of money.</p><p>As much as NASA shouldn't really be involved in monitoring global warming, someone needs to just to put this entirely stupid argument to rest.  The self-centered arrogant right doesn't believe it exists, the bleeding heart left is screaming the end of the world.. its clearly somewhere between, but nobody really knows for sure unless we actually pay attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all we need .
More governmental bureaucracy .
Another agency , more waste of money.As much as NASA should n't really be involved in monitoring global warming , someone needs to just to put this entirely stupid argument to rest .
The self-centered arrogant right does n't believe it exists , the bleeding heart left is screaming the end of the world.. its clearly somewhere between , but nobody really knows for sure unless we actually pay attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all we need.
More governmental bureaucracy.
Another agency, more waste of money.As much as NASA shouldn't really be involved in monitoring global warming, someone needs to just to put this entirely stupid argument to rest.
The self-centered arrogant right doesn't believe it exists, the bleeding heart left is screaming the end of the world.. its clearly somewhere between, but nobody really knows for sure unless we actually pay attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920784</id>
	<title>NASA is due for a shakeout</title>
	<author>Greg Hullender</author>
	<datestamp>1264620720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA (quoting an anonymous administration official) ". . . it's time members of Congress recognize that NASA can't design space programs to create jobs in their districts."
<p>
The US Manned Space Program has been in sad shape for decades. The reusable shuttle that costs 3x as much per pound of payload as an expendable. (Why? The salaries of the staff needed to prepare it for each trip dominate the costs.) The ISS is the most expensive thing every constructed by man (by far), yet it produces little or no real science. (Why? Design tradeoffs again. Vibrates too much, too noisy, etc.) Given these programs have failed so badly, why weren't they cancelled ten or twenty years ago? Because of all the jobs they provide in countless congressional districts around the country.
</p><p>
We have thus arrived at a situation where most of NASA's money is spent on manned programs that just don't work, with just a pittance allocated to unmanned programs that do virtually all of the real science. That's a shame, because there are things people (and only people) can do. For example, a manned base on Phobos operating unmanned probes on the surface would be vastly cheaper than a manned mission to the surface of Mars, but vastly more productive than trying to operate probes from Earth. (With due respect to the fantastic accomplishments of the two Mars Rovers.) Scientists don't have to go to the sea floor to study it, but they do have to get their feet wet.
</p><p>
So I'm all for killing the current manned program, perhaps entirely, provided some planning is made to replace it with something sensible. I've long feared that if Congress cut the manned program, rather than give more money to unmanned missions, they'd probably cut those too. I'm still waiting to hear what the sensible replacement would be. The Augustine report was a step in the right direction, but I think it tried too hard to work inside the existing framework.
</p><p>
--Greg (the best thing about hitting yourself in the head with a hammer is that it feels so good when you stop)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA ( quoting an anonymous administration official ) " .
. .
it 's time members of Congress recognize that NASA ca n't design space programs to create jobs in their districts .
" The US Manned Space Program has been in sad shape for decades .
The reusable shuttle that costs 3x as much per pound of payload as an expendable .
( Why ? The salaries of the staff needed to prepare it for each trip dominate the costs .
) The ISS is the most expensive thing every constructed by man ( by far ) , yet it produces little or no real science .
( Why ? Design tradeoffs again .
Vibrates too much , too noisy , etc .
) Given these programs have failed so badly , why were n't they cancelled ten or twenty years ago ?
Because of all the jobs they provide in countless congressional districts around the country .
We have thus arrived at a situation where most of NASA 's money is spent on manned programs that just do n't work , with just a pittance allocated to unmanned programs that do virtually all of the real science .
That 's a shame , because there are things people ( and only people ) can do .
For example , a manned base on Phobos operating unmanned probes on the surface would be vastly cheaper than a manned mission to the surface of Mars , but vastly more productive than trying to operate probes from Earth .
( With due respect to the fantastic accomplishments of the two Mars Rovers .
) Scientists do n't have to go to the sea floor to study it , but they do have to get their feet wet .
So I 'm all for killing the current manned program , perhaps entirely , provided some planning is made to replace it with something sensible .
I 've long feared that if Congress cut the manned program , rather than give more money to unmanned missions , they 'd probably cut those too .
I 'm still waiting to hear what the sensible replacement would be .
The Augustine report was a step in the right direction , but I think it tried too hard to work inside the existing framework .
--Greg ( the best thing about hitting yourself in the head with a hammer is that it feels so good when you stop )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA (quoting an anonymous administration official) ".
. .
it's time members of Congress recognize that NASA can't design space programs to create jobs in their districts.
"

The US Manned Space Program has been in sad shape for decades.
The reusable shuttle that costs 3x as much per pound of payload as an expendable.
(Why? The salaries of the staff needed to prepare it for each trip dominate the costs.
) The ISS is the most expensive thing every constructed by man (by far), yet it produces little or no real science.
(Why? Design tradeoffs again.
Vibrates too much, too noisy, etc.
) Given these programs have failed so badly, why weren't they cancelled ten or twenty years ago?
Because of all the jobs they provide in countless congressional districts around the country.
We have thus arrived at a situation where most of NASA's money is spent on manned programs that just don't work, with just a pittance allocated to unmanned programs that do virtually all of the real science.
That's a shame, because there are things people (and only people) can do.
For example, a manned base on Phobos operating unmanned probes on the surface would be vastly cheaper than a manned mission to the surface of Mars, but vastly more productive than trying to operate probes from Earth.
(With due respect to the fantastic accomplishments of the two Mars Rovers.
) Scientists don't have to go to the sea floor to study it, but they do have to get their feet wet.
So I'm all for killing the current manned program, perhaps entirely, provided some planning is made to replace it with something sensible.
I've long feared that if Congress cut the manned program, rather than give more money to unmanned missions, they'd probably cut those too.
I'm still waiting to hear what the sensible replacement would be.
The Augustine report was a step in the right direction, but I think it tried too hard to work inside the existing framework.
--Greg (the best thing about hitting yourself in the head with a hammer is that it feels so good when you stop)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923026</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>Gulthek</author>
	<datestamp>1264625820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you, exactly my point. Robots, robots, robots. Get them up there in the thousands and thousands and process the hell out of Mars and the rest of our solar system. Science, terraforming, resource extraction. None of those things require humans to physically leave Earth's orbit until we have another Earth to go to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , exactly my point .
Robots , robots , robots .
Get them up there in the thousands and thousands and process the hell out of Mars and the rest of our solar system .
Science , terraforming , resource extraction .
None of those things require humans to physically leave Earth 's orbit until we have another Earth to go to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, exactly my point.
Robots, robots, robots.
Get them up there in the thousands and thousands and process the hell out of Mars and the rest of our solar system.
Science, terraforming, resource extraction.
None of those things require humans to physically leave Earth's orbit until we have another Earth to go to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924400</id>
	<title>Sad...</title>
	<author>Schnoogs</author>
	<datestamp>1264586160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the US has simply become a joke when it comes to leading the world in science and technology.  Too busy spending that money on bailing out the economy and socializing everything.</p><p>China's reign certainly won't be threatened by this "has been" nation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the US has simply become a joke when it comes to leading the world in science and technology .
Too busy spending that money on bailing out the economy and socializing everything.China 's reign certainly wo n't be threatened by this " has been " nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the US has simply become a joke when it comes to leading the world in science and technology.
Too busy spending that money on bailing out the economy and socializing everything.China's reign certainly won't be threatened by this "has been" nation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920452</id>
	<title>FiRst</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>be fun. It use3 The project as a Their 4and...she</htmltext>
<tokenext>be fun .
It use3 The project as a Their 4and...she</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be fun.
It use3 The project as a Their 4and...she</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920222</id>
	<title>back?</title>
	<author>jaavaaguru</author>
	<datestamp>1264618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"back" to the moon?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" back " to the moon ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"back" to the moon?
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924862</id>
	<title>funny definitions of "humanity" and "stars"</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1264587600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>At some point Scudder and his followers will be out and humanity will go to the stars again.</i></p><p>Let me fix that for you: "a dozen or two highly educated, mostly-military people will go into orbit again.  And a couple of billionaires".</p><p>Just FYI, we've been doing the people-in-space thing for fifty years.  Haven't learned much for the trillions of dollars we've blown out the airlock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At some point Scudder and his followers will be out and humanity will go to the stars again.Let me fix that for you : " a dozen or two highly educated , mostly-military people will go into orbit again .
And a couple of billionaires " .Just FYI , we 've been doing the people-in-space thing for fifty years .
Have n't learned much for the trillions of dollars we 've blown out the airlock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> At some point Scudder and his followers will be out and humanity will go to the stars again.Let me fix that for you: "a dozen or two highly educated, mostly-military people will go into orbit again.
And a couple of billionaires".Just FYI, we've been doing the people-in-space thing for fifty years.
Haven't learned much for the trillions of dollars we've blown out the airlock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923738</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>santiago</author>
	<datestamp>1264584300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that it's a good thing, but that's because humans are terribly adapted for spaceflight.  The ridiculous costs for getting live humans out to space for a short jaunt and then back again are in no way offset by our ability to do anything useful out there.  The only reason to send people into space is for publicity grandstanding.  The money it would cost is far better spent on developing more capable robots that can get there at a fraction of the cost and risk, then be abandoned once they eventually fail years later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that it 's a good thing , but that 's because humans are terribly adapted for spaceflight .
The ridiculous costs for getting live humans out to space for a short jaunt and then back again are in no way offset by our ability to do anything useful out there .
The only reason to send people into space is for publicity grandstanding .
The money it would cost is far better spent on developing more capable robots that can get there at a fraction of the cost and risk , then be abandoned once they eventually fail years later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that it's a good thing, but that's because humans are terribly adapted for spaceflight.
The ridiculous costs for getting live humans out to space for a short jaunt and then back again are in no way offset by our ability to do anything useful out there.
The only reason to send people into space is for publicity grandstanding.
The money it would cost is far better spent on developing more capable robots that can get there at a fraction of the cost and risk, then be abandoned once they eventually fail years later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926508</id>
	<title>Re:Why? Because it's next ...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264592580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, good argument. And yes, people ARE hungry because we went to the moon. It cost lots of money, and the money could have gone to feed them instead.</p></div><p>Going to the moon was not the <em>cause</em> of those people being hungry, and you need to fix the cause to solve the problem. And, so far, all the money (which is a <em>lot</em>) poured into the problem did not solve it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , good argument .
And yes , people ARE hungry because we went to the moon .
It cost lots of money , and the money could have gone to feed them instead.Going to the moon was not the cause of those people being hungry , and you need to fix the cause to solve the problem .
And , so far , all the money ( which is a lot ) poured into the problem did not solve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, good argument.
And yes, people ARE hungry because we went to the moon.
It cost lots of money, and the money could have gone to feed them instead.Going to the moon was not the cause of those people being hungry, and you need to fix the cause to solve the problem.
And, so far, all the money (which is a lot) poured into the problem did not solve it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921204</id>
	<title>Re:we've been to the moon . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, if you want to send unwieldy animals into space, send Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh together in a Gemini capsule, and let them duke it out on the Moon. The survivor can return home a hero. Heck, send a bunch of such pairs up, and make a reality TV series about it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , if you want to send unwieldy animals into space , send Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh together in a Gemini capsule , and let them duke it out on the Moon .
The survivor can return home a hero .
Heck , send a bunch of such pairs up , and make a reality TV series about it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, if you want to send unwieldy animals into space, send Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh together in a Gemini capsule, and let them duke it out on the Moon.
The survivor can return home a hero.
Heck, send a bunch of such pairs up, and make a reality TV series about it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.31013134</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>mkarcher</author>
	<datestamp>1264967040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good.  It's dangerous up there.  He should let us go instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good .
It 's dangerous up there .
He should let us go instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good.
It's dangerous up there.
He should let us go instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927000</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264594140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can recommend <a href="http://politifact.com/" title="politifact.com" rel="nofollow">Politifact</a> [politifact.com].  He really is quite bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can recommend Politifact [ politifact.com ] .
He really is quite bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can recommend Politifact [politifact.com].
He really is quite bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921476</id>
	<title>Is this necessarily bad?</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1264622400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Was Constellation, specifically the Ares booster series, ever going to be practical?  Let's assume for a moment that the nay-sayers are right, and Ares would be a huge hole to dump money into that wouldn't yield a usable launch vehicle in a reasonable time frame.  If so, canceling the program provides a needed wake-up call for NASA, opens the door for consideration of lower-cost alternatives, and perhaps even gives a boost to the commercial spacecraft industry.  In the short term, it helps (if only by a tiny amount) stem the money hemorrhage.
</p><p>
I know it's hard to take, but the question I have to ask is -- do we want to get back to the moon at any cost?  Or should we take this opportunity to step back and see if there's a more practical way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was Constellation , specifically the Ares booster series , ever going to be practical ?
Let 's assume for a moment that the nay-sayers are right , and Ares would be a huge hole to dump money into that would n't yield a usable launch vehicle in a reasonable time frame .
If so , canceling the program provides a needed wake-up call for NASA , opens the door for consideration of lower-cost alternatives , and perhaps even gives a boost to the commercial spacecraft industry .
In the short term , it helps ( if only by a tiny amount ) stem the money hemorrhage .
I know it 's hard to take , but the question I have to ask is -- do we want to get back to the moon at any cost ?
Or should we take this opportunity to step back and see if there 's a more practical way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Was Constellation, specifically the Ares booster series, ever going to be practical?
Let's assume for a moment that the nay-sayers are right, and Ares would be a huge hole to dump money into that wouldn't yield a usable launch vehicle in a reasonable time frame.
If so, canceling the program provides a needed wake-up call for NASA, opens the door for consideration of lower-cost alternatives, and perhaps even gives a boost to the commercial spacecraft industry.
In the short term, it helps (if only by a tiny amount) stem the money hemorrhage.
I know it's hard to take, but the question I have to ask is -- do we want to get back to the moon at any cost?
Or should we take this opportunity to step back and see if there's a more practical way?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926108</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>Hittite Creosote</author>
	<datestamp>1264591320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it suddenly NASA's job to monitor global warming? </p></div><p>
Suddenly? Earth observation has been there from the beginning. NASA built the first TIROS weather satellite in 1960, the first LANDSAT in 1972. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it suddenly NASA 's job to monitor global warming ?
Suddenly ? Earth observation has been there from the beginning .
NASA built the first TIROS weather satellite in 1960 , the first LANDSAT in 1972 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it suddenly NASA's job to monitor global warming?
Suddenly? Earth observation has been there from the beginning.
NASA built the first TIROS weather satellite in 1960, the first LANDSAT in 1972. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30942470</id>
	<title>Re:Same old garbage.</title>
	<author>Z8</author>
	<datestamp>1264677660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. has already beaten China to the moon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At this rate , without question the Chinese will be first to the moon .
I hate to break it to you , but the U.S. has already beaten China to the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon.
I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. has already beaten China to the moon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921620</id>
	<title>We certainly don't need to go back to the moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The chinese are going to do it for us.  The fools!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The chinese are going to do it for us .
The fools !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chinese are going to do it for us.
The fools!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925082</id>
	<title>Re:New Heavy Lift Rocket?</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1264588260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pork, meet barrel.  If the project is allowed to complete, funding stops.  If they keep canceling it and starting over, the funding never stops, and no actual progress has to be shown; it's free money!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pork , meet barrel .
If the project is allowed to complete , funding stops .
If they keep canceling it and starting over , the funding never stops , and no actual progress has to be shown ; it 's free money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pork, meet barrel.
If the project is allowed to complete, funding stops.
If they keep canceling it and starting over, the funding never stops, and no actual progress has to be shown; it's free money!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921576</id>
	<title>Climategate anyone?</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1264622580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great idea. Reducing CO2, which has a negligible impact on the non-problem of global warming, instead of developing space science. And what's even more ridiculous: Satellites have been monitoring the temperature of the troposphere for about two decades showing that there has been no warming since the last 14 years. And the guy who's heading the program recently gave a lecture with the title: <a href="http://videolectures.net/kolokviji\_singer\_nnha/" title="videolectures.net" rel="nofollow">Nature, not human activity, rules the climate</a> [videolectures.net]. I think Obama is just annoyed that he didn't get his way in Carbonhagen.</p><p>And now please mod me down and bomb me with rebuttals because I am a climate denier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great idea .
Reducing CO2 , which has a negligible impact on the non-problem of global warming , instead of developing space science .
And what 's even more ridiculous : Satellites have been monitoring the temperature of the troposphere for about two decades showing that there has been no warming since the last 14 years .
And the guy who 's heading the program recently gave a lecture with the title : Nature , not human activity , rules the climate [ videolectures.net ] .
I think Obama is just annoyed that he did n't get his way in Carbonhagen.And now please mod me down and bomb me with rebuttals because I am a climate denier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great idea.
Reducing CO2, which has a negligible impact on the non-problem of global warming, instead of developing space science.
And what's even more ridiculous: Satellites have been monitoring the temperature of the troposphere for about two decades showing that there has been no warming since the last 14 years.
And the guy who's heading the program recently gave a lecture with the title: Nature, not human activity, rules the climate [videolectures.net].
I think Obama is just annoyed that he didn't get his way in Carbonhagen.And now please mod me down and bomb me with rebuttals because I am a climate denier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923812</id>
	<title>Re:Apologies to the Floyd...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264584540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You misspelled <a href="http://slashdot.org/~sm62704/journal/196984" title="slashdot.org">"dork".</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You misspelled " dork " .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You misspelled "dork".
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924192</id>
	<title>Re:Leeme Get This Straight: So, Under Obama...</title>
	<author>proslack</author>
	<datestamp>1264585620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, unlike the United States Geological Survey or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, which are obviously focused on studying socio-economics and quasars, respectively.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , unlike the United States Geological Survey or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration , which are obviously focused on studying socio-economics and quasars , respectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, unlike the United States Geological Survey or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, which are obviously focused on studying socio-economics and quasars, respectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925740</id>
	<title>And that's what you get...</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264590180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Under Obama, the Space Administration will be focused on terrestrial science?</p></div><p>He promised change, right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Under Obama , the Space Administration will be focused on terrestrial science ? He promised change , right ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under Obama, the Space Administration will be focused on terrestrial science?He promised change, right?
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922818</id>
	<title>Re:Why? Because it's next ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264625280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Sam Seaborn</b>: There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon. None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon.</p><p><b>Mallory O'Brian</b>: And we went to the moon. Do we really have to go to Mars?</p><p><b>Sam Seaborn</b>: Yes.</p><p><b>Mallory O'Brian</b>: Why?</p><p><b>Sam Seaborn</b>: 'Cause it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next. </p><p>- West Wing</p></div><p>Yes, well, that was fantasy. This is reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sam Seaborn : There are a lot of hungry people in the world , Mal , and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon .
None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon.Mallory O'Brian : And we went to the moon .
Do we really have to go to Mars ? Sam Seaborn : Yes.Mallory O'Brian : Why ? Sam Seaborn : 'Cause it 's next .
'Cause we came out of the cave , and we looked over the hill and we saw fire ; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west , and we took to the sky .
The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what 's next .
- West WingYes , well , that was fantasy .
This is reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sam Seaborn: There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon.
None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon.Mallory O'Brian: And we went to the moon.
Do we really have to go to Mars?Sam Seaborn: Yes.Mallory O'Brian: Why?Sam Seaborn: 'Cause it's next.
'Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky.
The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.
- West WingYes, well, that was fantasy.
This is reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922180</id>
	<title>Acronyms</title>
	<author>nomessages</author>
	<datestamp>1264623780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I welcome the day the "Department of Homeland Security" and "National Security Agency" are renamed "Department of Homeland Science" and "National Science Agency."

Oh well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I welcome the day the " Department of Homeland Security " and " National Security Agency " are renamed " Department of Homeland Science " and " National Science Agency .
" Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I welcome the day the "Department of Homeland Security" and "National Security Agency" are renamed "Department of Homeland Science" and "National Science Agency.
"

Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924534</id>
	<title>Republicans love NASA</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264586640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In a sense, this should be giving Republicans what they want: less money spent by governmen</i></p><p>But we don't want this it all.  Republicans aren't against all government spending.  They are against things that could be done by private enterprise or not in the national interest.  Building expertise in spaceflight is a strategic national interest, just as much as building an aircraft carrier is.</p><p>The amount of people happy with this decision are just either libertarian fruitcakes, or leftist fruitcakes on either side of the aisle.</p><p>I hate Obama and the Democrats and the Republicans that go along with this, with all of my heart and soul.  They've ruined this country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a sense , this should be giving Republicans what they want : less money spent by governmenBut we do n't want this it all .
Republicans are n't against all government spending .
They are against things that could be done by private enterprise or not in the national interest .
Building expertise in spaceflight is a strategic national interest , just as much as building an aircraft carrier is.The amount of people happy with this decision are just either libertarian fruitcakes , or leftist fruitcakes on either side of the aisle.I hate Obama and the Democrats and the Republicans that go along with this , with all of my heart and soul .
They 've ruined this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a sense, this should be giving Republicans what they want: less money spent by governmenBut we don't want this it all.
Republicans aren't against all government spending.
They are against things that could be done by private enterprise or not in the national interest.
Building expertise in spaceflight is a strategic national interest, just as much as building an aircraft carrier is.The amount of people happy with this decision are just either libertarian fruitcakes, or leftist fruitcakes on either side of the aisle.I hate Obama and the Democrats and the Republicans that go along with this, with all of my heart and soul.
They've ruined this country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920240</id>
	<title>Mars?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1264619040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does killing Moon rockets also kill any Mars programs too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does killing Moon rockets also kill any Mars programs too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does killing Moon rockets also kill any Mars programs too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922442</id>
	<title>Re:Democratic infighting</title>
	<author>amliebsch</author>
	<datestamp>1264624440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check the figures.  The project is cut, but not NASA's budget.  No money is saved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check the figures .
The project is cut , but not NASA 's budget .
No money is saved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check the figures.
The project is cut, but not NASA's budget.
No money is saved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921156</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>O.K., one thing. He promised one thing that he is making happen.</p><p>Compared to the whoopers like "hope and change", we got more of the same and worse compared to the previous Administration, spending-wise, by a factor of 4. "No lobbyists" promise, guess Barak must of forgotten he made that promise. "No earmarks", yeah, that was a good one, huh? Oh and "transparency" in the debate on health care reform -- wait, I could have sworn -- uh, nope, not even close on this one either.</p><p>Barak is about on on the "worse" side of scale of politicians promising things and not making them happen, or conveniently forgetting their promises.</p><p>Barak makes Bill Clinton look like an honest up-standing citizen in comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>O.K. , one thing .
He promised one thing that he is making happen.Compared to the whoopers like " hope and change " , we got more of the same and worse compared to the previous Administration , spending-wise , by a factor of 4 .
" No lobbyists " promise , guess Barak must of forgotten he made that promise .
" No earmarks " , yeah , that was a good one , huh ?
Oh and " transparency " in the debate on health care reform -- wait , I could have sworn -- uh , nope , not even close on this one either.Barak is about on on the " worse " side of scale of politicians promising things and not making them happen , or conveniently forgetting their promises.Barak makes Bill Clinton look like an honest up-standing citizen in comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O.K., one thing.
He promised one thing that he is making happen.Compared to the whoopers like "hope and change", we got more of the same and worse compared to the previous Administration, spending-wise, by a factor of 4.
"No lobbyists" promise, guess Barak must of forgotten he made that promise.
"No earmarks", yeah, that was a good one, huh?
Oh and "transparency" in the debate on health care reform -- wait, I could have sworn -- uh, nope, not even close on this one either.Barak is about on on the "worse" side of scale of politicians promising things and not making them happen, or conveniently forgetting their promises.Barak makes Bill Clinton look like an honest up-standing citizen in comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920742</id>
	<title>Well that's too bad...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but perhaps something better will come out of it.  Like when I was a kid and I really wanted something and I didn't get it I'd sometimes have the phenomenon that I didn't really want it all that bad after all and found something better.  Two steps forward one step back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but perhaps something better will come out of it .
Like when I was a kid and I really wanted something and I did n't get it I 'd sometimes have the phenomenon that I did n't really want it all that bad after all and found something better .
Two steps forward one step back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but perhaps something better will come out of it.
Like when I was a kid and I really wanted something and I didn't get it I'd sometimes have the phenomenon that I didn't really want it all that bad after all and found something better.
Two steps forward one step back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30932224</id>
	<title>Re:we've been to the moon . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264688280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, next space race is not about taking a flag somewhere, it will be about doing it cheapest. governments have already lost that race</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , next space race is not about taking a flag somewhere , it will be about doing it cheapest .
governments have already lost that race</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, next space race is not about taking a flag somewhere, it will be about doing it cheapest.
governments have already lost that race</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920400</id>
	<title>obviously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only reason Obama ran as Democrat is the Republican party is too racist to accept black people into positions of real power.
Instead this scumbag misrepresented and out right lied about his political views. And now we get intellectually incurious, voodoo ecomics conservatard in office again.
<br>
Obviously there is no reason to go to the moon, it's not like we need Hellium-3 from there for fusion reasearch. 
By the time all the math and prototypes of rockets for returning to the moon would be completed, first fusion reactor prototypes would be finished.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason Obama ran as Democrat is the Republican party is too racist to accept black people into positions of real power .
Instead this scumbag misrepresented and out right lied about his political views .
And now we get intellectually incurious , voodoo ecomics conservatard in office again .
Obviously there is no reason to go to the moon , it 's not like we need Hellium-3 from there for fusion reasearch .
By the time all the math and prototypes of rockets for returning to the moon would be completed , first fusion reactor prototypes would be finished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason Obama ran as Democrat is the Republican party is too racist to accept black people into positions of real power.
Instead this scumbag misrepresented and out right lied about his political views.
And now we get intellectually incurious, voodoo ecomics conservatard in office again.
Obviously there is no reason to go to the moon, it's not like we need Hellium-3 from there for fusion reasearch.
By the time all the math and prototypes of rockets for returning to the moon would be completed, first fusion reactor prototypes would be finished.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264</id>
	<title>Leeme Get This Straight: So, Under Obama...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the Space Administration will be focused on terrestrial science?</p><p>Man, some days the jokes just write themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the Space Administration will be focused on terrestrial science ? Man , some days the jokes just write themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the Space Administration will be focused on terrestrial science?Man, some days the jokes just write themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923922</id>
	<title>Yes We Can</title>
	<author>LuckyKnave</author>
	<datestamp>1264584780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes We Can<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not go back to the moon.

Yes We Can<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Give Up On Space Exploration!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes We Can ... not go back to the moon .
Yes We Can ... Give Up On Space Exploration !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes We Can ... not go back to the moon.
Yes We Can ... Give Up On Space Exploration!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921688</id>
	<title>Proof Democrats are worthless</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264622820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's face it, we've just got a bunch of homeboys up in DC now looting for every last federal cent to dole out to crackheads.  That's great, instead of putting more people in space and on the moon, my tax dollars can now finance a bunch of crackwhores getting abortions and methadone.</p><p>We now officially have a government of the crooked, stealing on behalf of the useless.</p><p>Way to go, socialists, you win.</p><p>I hate you, I hate you,and I will teach my children to hate you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's face it , we 've just got a bunch of homeboys up in DC now looting for every last federal cent to dole out to crackheads .
That 's great , instead of putting more people in space and on the moon , my tax dollars can now finance a bunch of crackwhores getting abortions and methadone.We now officially have a government of the crooked , stealing on behalf of the useless.Way to go , socialists , you win.I hate you , I hate you,and I will teach my children to hate you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's face it, we've just got a bunch of homeboys up in DC now looting for every last federal cent to dole out to crackheads.
That's great, instead of putting more people in space and on the moon, my tax dollars can now finance a bunch of crackwhores getting abortions and methadone.We now officially have a government of the crooked, stealing on behalf of the useless.Way to go, socialists, you win.I hate you, I hate you,and I will teach my children to hate you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208</id>
	<title>Sad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Space is the future. If you don't go out there we will stagnate and disappear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Space is the future .
If you do n't go out there we will stagnate and disappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space is the future.
If you don't go out there we will stagnate and disappear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921480</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1264622400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this, but I think this is great. NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes, and that's a mission that can't be carried out by private enterprise. The shuttle and the ISS, however, are pure pork and nationalism; now that the cold war is over, the politicians cover the crewed space program with a thin veneer of scientific research, but the amount of good science that comes out of *crewed* spaceflight is not in reasonable proportion to the cost. We need to get NASA out of the business of doing things that the private sector can do, because otherwise the private sector will never get off the ground in those areas. Suborbital and LEO space tourism are the killer apps for private-sector crewed spaceflight. Let's unleash their energy and creativity to get that going, rather than spending public money on poorly engineered concepts for going back to to the moon.</p></div><p>Explain to me the business case for the internet. Not retroactively. I mean try to explain it to me as a businessman you want to fund it. Why the hell would I want to create an interoperable network that everyone can use? Who pays for it? How do we charge people for it? What do you mean there's not an hourly meter? What are you, some kind of fucking hippie?</p><p>Explain to me the business case for the interstate highway system, as a businessman you want to fund it.</p><p>Explain to me the business case for running telephone service and electricity out to rural areas where it costs more to service them than I'd ever make back on fees. Explain why I should be using my fat profits from the lucrative city accounts to pay for it. Why the hell should I give a fuck about shitkickers and hillbillies?</p><p>The answer to all those things is that there are some things business is good at and there's some things government is good at. Some things you can't get a business to do willingly and you have to make them do it by law or just offer bids and let whoever wants to fill the bid do so.</p><p>You never could have convinced private business to setup the internet the way it was. If it was redesigned from scratch, we'd be back to the days of AOL and Compuserve. Because for-profit business isn't about meeting the public good but maximizing revenue.</p><p>You can get businesses to handle local utilities by granting a monopoly. The business will agree to a situation that provides a guaranteed profit and no competition by servicing all customers in the area, regardless of how profitable they are. The business agrees to the reduced risk of the monopoly by accepting the reduced profit of serving everybody. And that's usually seen as a win-win.</p><p>I'm gratified to see Scaled Composites making progress on the suborbital tourist ship. I'm happy that internet billionaire is having good luck with his unmanned rockets. But the stuff we need to be doing in space, those ideas are too big for mere businesses to wrap their heads around. The stuff we need to be doing, it needs government sponsorship. Now NASA has made a fucking mess of itself and the manned program is pretty embarrassing. But I'm not seeing many good ideas from the defense contractors NASA currently contracts with. I'd be very happy if NASA adopted a DARPA role and started funding start-ups with real potential instead of throwing big bucks down the politically-connected corporate rathole. I want solar power sats. I want a space elevator. I want something with more vision than that stupid Constellation program.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this , but I think this is great .
NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes , and that 's a mission that ca n't be carried out by private enterprise .
The shuttle and the ISS , however , are pure pork and nationalism ; now that the cold war is over , the politicians cover the crewed space program with a thin veneer of scientific research , but the amount of good science that comes out of * crewed * spaceflight is not in reasonable proportion to the cost .
We need to get NASA out of the business of doing things that the private sector can do , because otherwise the private sector will never get off the ground in those areas .
Suborbital and LEO space tourism are the killer apps for private-sector crewed spaceflight .
Let 's unleash their energy and creativity to get that going , rather than spending public money on poorly engineered concepts for going back to to the moon.Explain to me the business case for the internet .
Not retroactively .
I mean try to explain it to me as a businessman you want to fund it .
Why the hell would I want to create an interoperable network that everyone can use ?
Who pays for it ?
How do we charge people for it ?
What do you mean there 's not an hourly meter ?
What are you , some kind of fucking hippie ? Explain to me the business case for the interstate highway system , as a businessman you want to fund it.Explain to me the business case for running telephone service and electricity out to rural areas where it costs more to service them than I 'd ever make back on fees .
Explain why I should be using my fat profits from the lucrative city accounts to pay for it .
Why the hell should I give a fuck about shitkickers and hillbillies ? The answer to all those things is that there are some things business is good at and there 's some things government is good at .
Some things you ca n't get a business to do willingly and you have to make them do it by law or just offer bids and let whoever wants to fill the bid do so.You never could have convinced private business to setup the internet the way it was .
If it was redesigned from scratch , we 'd be back to the days of AOL and Compuserve .
Because for-profit business is n't about meeting the public good but maximizing revenue.You can get businesses to handle local utilities by granting a monopoly .
The business will agree to a situation that provides a guaranteed profit and no competition by servicing all customers in the area , regardless of how profitable they are .
The business agrees to the reduced risk of the monopoly by accepting the reduced profit of serving everybody .
And that 's usually seen as a win-win.I 'm gratified to see Scaled Composites making progress on the suborbital tourist ship .
I 'm happy that internet billionaire is having good luck with his unmanned rockets .
But the stuff we need to be doing in space , those ideas are too big for mere businesses to wrap their heads around .
The stuff we need to be doing , it needs government sponsorship .
Now NASA has made a fucking mess of itself and the manned program is pretty embarrassing .
But I 'm not seeing many good ideas from the defense contractors NASA currently contracts with .
I 'd be very happy if NASA adopted a DARPA role and started funding start-ups with real potential instead of throwing big bucks down the politically-connected corporate rathole .
I want solar power sats .
I want a space elevator .
I want something with more vision than that stupid Constellation program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this, but I think this is great.
NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes, and that's a mission that can't be carried out by private enterprise.
The shuttle and the ISS, however, are pure pork and nationalism; now that the cold war is over, the politicians cover the crewed space program with a thin veneer of scientific research, but the amount of good science that comes out of *crewed* spaceflight is not in reasonable proportion to the cost.
We need to get NASA out of the business of doing things that the private sector can do, because otherwise the private sector will never get off the ground in those areas.
Suborbital and LEO space tourism are the killer apps for private-sector crewed spaceflight.
Let's unleash their energy and creativity to get that going, rather than spending public money on poorly engineered concepts for going back to to the moon.Explain to me the business case for the internet.
Not retroactively.
I mean try to explain it to me as a businessman you want to fund it.
Why the hell would I want to create an interoperable network that everyone can use?
Who pays for it?
How do we charge people for it?
What do you mean there's not an hourly meter?
What are you, some kind of fucking hippie?Explain to me the business case for the interstate highway system, as a businessman you want to fund it.Explain to me the business case for running telephone service and electricity out to rural areas where it costs more to service them than I'd ever make back on fees.
Explain why I should be using my fat profits from the lucrative city accounts to pay for it.
Why the hell should I give a fuck about shitkickers and hillbillies?The answer to all those things is that there are some things business is good at and there's some things government is good at.
Some things you can't get a business to do willingly and you have to make them do it by law or just offer bids and let whoever wants to fill the bid do so.You never could have convinced private business to setup the internet the way it was.
If it was redesigned from scratch, we'd be back to the days of AOL and Compuserve.
Because for-profit business isn't about meeting the public good but maximizing revenue.You can get businesses to handle local utilities by granting a monopoly.
The business will agree to a situation that provides a guaranteed profit and no competition by servicing all customers in the area, regardless of how profitable they are.
The business agrees to the reduced risk of the monopoly by accepting the reduced profit of serving everybody.
And that's usually seen as a win-win.I'm gratified to see Scaled Composites making progress on the suborbital tourist ship.
I'm happy that internet billionaire is having good luck with his unmanned rockets.
But the stuff we need to be doing in space, those ideas are too big for mere businesses to wrap their heads around.
The stuff we need to be doing, it needs government sponsorship.
Now NASA has made a fucking mess of itself and the manned program is pretty embarrassing.
But I'm not seeing many good ideas from the defense contractors NASA currently contracts with.
I'd be very happy if NASA adopted a DARPA role and started funding start-ups with real potential instead of throwing big bucks down the politically-connected corporate rathole.
I want solar power sats.
I want a space elevator.
I want something with more vision than that stupid Constellation program.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921674</id>
	<title>Re:One small step for man</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1264622820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that  wasn't so clear in the 1960s.</p><p>In 1960, American spent about 5.1\% of the GDP on health care.  Now it's somewhere around 16\% and <em>still</em> rising.  That's in relative terms, mind you.  Given the growth of GDP, the expenditure increases are simply astounding.</p><p>Now total federal spending, after peaking as a percent of GDP in the 1970s, is now roughly where it was in 1962: a bit more than 18\%.</p><p>So in rough terms, we spend about the same fraction of our generated wealth on all Federal uses as we did in 1960, but more than 3x what we did on health care, so now health care is approximately equal to all Federal expenditures.</p><p>If somebody had said in 1962, "We'll take over health care spending, but in fifty years it will double the size of Federal spending relative to the economy,"  you'd have looked at them like they were nuts.  That would clearly hamstring the American economy.  But in gross terms it wouldn't have made any difference if we'd gone for that deal, and the strange thing is we seem to accept this state of affairs as normal, even though it continues to get worse.  We look around, and wonder why our economy is so sluggish at generating jobs.  Now there's lots of reasons of course. In part it's <em>normal</em> for jobs to lag growth in a recovery.  But at the same time its worth remembering that the price tag for most of those jobs includes health insurance.</p><p>If somebody had said in 1962, "The Federal government will take over health care spending, and it will only increase the share of GDP spent by the government 1.5x," you'd have looked at them like they were nuts.  But if you could go back in a time machine and take that deal, it'd look pretty good by today's standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that was n't so clear in the 1960s.In 1960 , American spent about 5.1 \ % of the GDP on health care .
Now it 's somewhere around 16 \ % and still rising .
That 's in relative terms , mind you .
Given the growth of GDP , the expenditure increases are simply astounding.Now total federal spending , after peaking as a percent of GDP in the 1970s , is now roughly where it was in 1962 : a bit more than 18 \ % .So in rough terms , we spend about the same fraction of our generated wealth on all Federal uses as we did in 1960 , but more than 3x what we did on health care , so now health care is approximately equal to all Federal expenditures.If somebody had said in 1962 , " We 'll take over health care spending , but in fifty years it will double the size of Federal spending relative to the economy , " you 'd have looked at them like they were nuts .
That would clearly hamstring the American economy .
But in gross terms it would n't have made any difference if we 'd gone for that deal , and the strange thing is we seem to accept this state of affairs as normal , even though it continues to get worse .
We look around , and wonder why our economy is so sluggish at generating jobs .
Now there 's lots of reasons of course .
In part it 's normal for jobs to lag growth in a recovery .
But at the same time its worth remembering that the price tag for most of those jobs includes health insurance.If somebody had said in 1962 , " The Federal government will take over health care spending , and it will only increase the share of GDP spent by the government 1.5x , " you 'd have looked at them like they were nuts .
But if you could go back in a time machine and take that deal , it 'd look pretty good by today 's standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that  wasn't so clear in the 1960s.In 1960, American spent about 5.1\% of the GDP on health care.
Now it's somewhere around 16\% and still rising.
That's in relative terms, mind you.
Given the growth of GDP, the expenditure increases are simply astounding.Now total federal spending, after peaking as a percent of GDP in the 1970s, is now roughly where it was in 1962: a bit more than 18\%.So in rough terms, we spend about the same fraction of our generated wealth on all Federal uses as we did in 1960, but more than 3x what we did on health care, so now health care is approximately equal to all Federal expenditures.If somebody had said in 1962, "We'll take over health care spending, but in fifty years it will double the size of Federal spending relative to the economy,"  you'd have looked at them like they were nuts.
That would clearly hamstring the American economy.
But in gross terms it wouldn't have made any difference if we'd gone for that deal, and the strange thing is we seem to accept this state of affairs as normal, even though it continues to get worse.
We look around, and wonder why our economy is so sluggish at generating jobs.
Now there's lots of reasons of course.
In part it's normal for jobs to lag growth in a recovery.
But at the same time its worth remembering that the price tag for most of those jobs includes health insurance.If somebody had said in 1962, "The Federal government will take over health care spending, and it will only increase the share of GDP spent by the government 1.5x," you'd have looked at them like they were nuts.
But if you could go back in a time machine and take that deal, it'd look pretty good by today's standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920752</id>
	<title>Re:We choose</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1264620600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The original draft of the JFK speech read "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because it is difficult...and also because the commies just showed us up and we need to save face by finally being first at <i>something</i>."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original draft of the JFK speech read " We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things , not because they are easy , but because it is difficult...and also because the commies just showed us up and we need to save face by finally being first at something .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original draft of the JFK speech read "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because it is difficult...and also because the commies just showed us up and we need to save face by finally being first at something.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926522</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1264592640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just killing of the useless programs; like science, research, knowledge; and making available more money for useful things; like welfare, prisons for people chosing the wrong insurance programs, and registering people 50 or more times to vote.</p><p>Who needs those nasty science things anyway? All they get you is giant killer robots, and expensive serches for unobtanium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just killing of the useless programs ; like science , research , knowledge ; and making available more money for useful things ; like welfare , prisons for people chosing the wrong insurance programs , and registering people 50 or more times to vote.Who needs those nasty science things anyway ?
All they get you is giant killer robots , and expensive serches for unobtanium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just killing of the useless programs; like science, research, knowledge; and making available more money for useful things; like welfare, prisons for people chosing the wrong insurance programs, and registering people 50 or more times to vote.Who needs those nasty science things anyway?
All they get you is giant killer robots, and expensive serches for unobtanium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921448</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, what was the reason for doing it in the first place? Why not do it <i>because we can</i>?</p></div><p>How would humans benefit from going back to the moon?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , what was the reason for doing it in the first place ?
Why not do it because we can ? How would humans benefit from going back to the moon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, what was the reason for doing it in the first place?
Why not do it because we can?How would humans benefit from going back to the moon?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927506</id>
	<title>It's simple</title>
	<author>reboot246</author>
	<datestamp>1264596720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we don't explore space, every other country on Earth will.<br><br>Get used to being last.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we do n't explore space , every other country on Earth will.Get used to being last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we don't explore space, every other country on Earth will.Get used to being last.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923624</id>
	<title>Actually</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264584120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>    * Promise Kept   91<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Compromise 33<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Promise Broken 15<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Stalled 87<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * In the Works 275<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Not yet rated</p><p>Only 15 outright broken, and 91 kept? Not bad at all. For a politician.<br>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Promise Kept 91         * Compromise 33         * Promise Broken 15         * Stalled 87         * In the Works 275         * Not yet ratedOnly 15 outright broken , and 91 kept ?
Not bad at all .
For a politician.http : //www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    * Promise Kept   91
        * Compromise 33
        * Promise Broken 15
        * Stalled 87
        * In the Works 275
        * Not yet ratedOnly 15 outright broken, and 91 kept?
Not bad at all.
For a politician.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929178</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264609080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this, but...</p></div><p>Meh. You <i>may</i> have assigned a bit too much importance to your thoughts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this , but...Meh .
You may have assigned a bit too much importance to your thoughts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this, but...Meh.
You may have assigned a bit too much importance to your thoughts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921420</id>
	<title>Re:We choose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those things existed in the 60s, and we somehow managed to plant a flag on the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those things existed in the 60s , and we somehow managed to plant a flag on the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those things existed in the 60s, and we somehow managed to plant a flag on the moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922338</id>
	<title>Re:Helium 3</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That'll be done by a private company. and far far better than NASA would ever be able to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'll be done by a private company .
and far far better than NASA would ever be able to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'll be done by a private company.
and far far better than NASA would ever be able to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924140</id>
	<title>Ed Lu at Google</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1264585440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The astronaut Ed Lu is one of the smarter more capable people I know and I noticed recently that he has moved on to google.  Perhaps this is the reason why?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The astronaut Ed Lu is one of the smarter more capable people I know and I noticed recently that he has moved on to google .
Perhaps this is the reason why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The astronaut Ed Lu is one of the smarter more capable people I know and I noticed recently that he has moved on to google.
Perhaps this is the reason why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920548</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1264619940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody should act surprised. He said he was going to kill Constellation during his original campaign.</p></div><p>Congratulations Obama for finally keeping a promise you made during the campaign.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody should act surprised .
He said he was going to kill Constellation during his original campaign.Congratulations Obama for finally keeping a promise you made during the campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody should act surprised.
He said he was going to kill Constellation during his original campaign.Congratulations Obama for finally keeping a promise you made during the campaign.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522</id>
	<title>Plenty of Change, Not So Much Hope.</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1264619880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the Shuttle put to bed, and now Constellation, NASA is done.  Yeah, maybe a few robot probes will go out, but that's not what people get excited about (and are thus willing to fund).  If it's not welfare or war, it's up for cancellation with this government.  The global warming crowd will still get some funding since that's still seen as a viable power grab (not enough people can add, apparently) but that can't last.  It seems the commercial launchers will handle what the Air Force can't for government satellite needs.</p><p>So, does an aspiring American rocket scientist try to find work in China or hope to get one of the few jobs with Space X, Scaled Composites, or Virgin Galactic?</p><p>Amazing - the one government program even Penn &amp; Teller can't bring themselves to hate is the first to fall.  Ah, well, competitive forces at play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the Shuttle put to bed , and now Constellation , NASA is done .
Yeah , maybe a few robot probes will go out , but that 's not what people get excited about ( and are thus willing to fund ) .
If it 's not welfare or war , it 's up for cancellation with this government .
The global warming crowd will still get some funding since that 's still seen as a viable power grab ( not enough people can add , apparently ) but that ca n't last .
It seems the commercial launchers will handle what the Air Force ca n't for government satellite needs.So , does an aspiring American rocket scientist try to find work in China or hope to get one of the few jobs with Space X , Scaled Composites , or Virgin Galactic ? Amazing - the one government program even Penn &amp; Teller ca n't bring themselves to hate is the first to fall .
Ah , well , competitive forces at play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the Shuttle put to bed, and now Constellation, NASA is done.
Yeah, maybe a few robot probes will go out, but that's not what people get excited about (and are thus willing to fund).
If it's not welfare or war, it's up for cancellation with this government.
The global warming crowd will still get some funding since that's still seen as a viable power grab (not enough people can add, apparently) but that can't last.
It seems the commercial launchers will handle what the Air Force can't for government satellite needs.So, does an aspiring American rocket scientist try to find work in China or hope to get one of the few jobs with Space X, Scaled Composites, or Virgin Galactic?Amazing - the one government program even Penn &amp; Teller can't bring themselves to hate is the first to fall.
Ah, well, competitive forces at play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920534</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>bbroerman</author>
	<datestamp>1264619940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "space race" in the 60's and 70's were for national prestige. We couldn't let the Soviets beat "us"... and everyone was afraid of having Soviet dominating Space... imagine having Soviet missile platforms overhead and us not able to do anything about it... So, now, lets let China take over space... After all, they're the West's best friends and would never take undue advantage of their leadership position. They are currently on track for dominating science and engineering completely as well...  Maybe they'll ferry our secret spy satellites and our military hardware for us? We can have them send our astronauts up as well. After all, the name of the game in this country is outsource everything! We don't need no stinking jobs or industry!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " space race " in the 60 's and 70 's were for national prestige .
We could n't let the Soviets beat " us " ... and everyone was afraid of having Soviet dominating Space... imagine having Soviet missile platforms overhead and us not able to do anything about it... So , now , lets let China take over space... After all , they 're the West 's best friends and would never take undue advantage of their leadership position .
They are currently on track for dominating science and engineering completely as well... Maybe they 'll ferry our secret spy satellites and our military hardware for us ?
We can have them send our astronauts up as well .
After all , the name of the game in this country is outsource everything !
We do n't need no stinking jobs or industry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "space race" in the 60's and 70's were for national prestige.
We couldn't let the Soviets beat "us"... and everyone was afraid of having Soviet dominating Space... imagine having Soviet missile platforms overhead and us not able to do anything about it... So, now, lets let China take over space... After all, they're the West's best friends and would never take undue advantage of their leadership position.
They are currently on track for dominating science and engineering completely as well...  Maybe they'll ferry our secret spy satellites and our military hardware for us?
We can have them send our astronauts up as well.
After all, the name of the game in this country is outsource everything!
We don't need no stinking jobs or industry!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927438</id>
	<title>Disclosure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264596360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclosure</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclosure</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclosure</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30931220</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1264676280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Learning how to grow food in mineral-less soil</p></div><p>And learning how to grow ponies in a hard vacuum!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Learning how to grow food in mineral-less soilAnd learning how to grow ponies in a hard vacuum !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Learning how to grow food in mineral-less soilAnd learning how to grow ponies in a hard vacuum!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30931884</id>
	<title>Obi Bama</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264685460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Obi Bama explained eloquently, "That's no moon."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Obi Bama explained eloquently , " That 's no moon .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Obi Bama explained eloquently, "That's no moon.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>Usually Unlucky </author>
	<datestamp>1264621260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What better way to learn how to live with dwindling resources here on earth than learning to live in a place with NO RESOURCES!<br><br>The possible environmentally important spin-off technologies from a moon/mars mission are endless<br><br>Advanced hydroponics<br>Advance carbon dioxide filtering techniques<br>Learning how to grow food in mineral-less soil<br><br>Think of Mars or the Moon as a laboratory.<br><br>If we can figure out how to live there, we can possibly figure out what it takes to live in harmony with any environment, even our own.<br><br>PLUS when you say waste of resources, what do you mean? Money? NASA budget is minuscule to the amount of money the US government throws away. Scientist? Aerospace engineers don't care about environmental science, it isn't their field, it is not like you will be keeping them from solving terrestrial problems by having them work on spacecraft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What better way to learn how to live with dwindling resources here on earth than learning to live in a place with NO RESOURCES ! The possible environmentally important spin-off technologies from a moon/mars mission are endlessAdvanced hydroponicsAdvance carbon dioxide filtering techniquesLearning how to grow food in mineral-less soilThink of Mars or the Moon as a laboratory.If we can figure out how to live there , we can possibly figure out what it takes to live in harmony with any environment , even our own.PLUS when you say waste of resources , what do you mean ?
Money ? NASA budget is minuscule to the amount of money the US government throws away .
Scientist ? Aerospace engineers do n't care about environmental science , it is n't their field , it is not like you will be keeping them from solving terrestrial problems by having them work on spacecraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What better way to learn how to live with dwindling resources here on earth than learning to live in a place with NO RESOURCES!The possible environmentally important spin-off technologies from a moon/mars mission are endlessAdvanced hydroponicsAdvance carbon dioxide filtering techniquesLearning how to grow food in mineral-less soilThink of Mars or the Moon as a laboratory.If we can figure out how to live there, we can possibly figure out what it takes to live in harmony with any environment, even our own.PLUS when you say waste of resources, what do you mean?
Money? NASA budget is minuscule to the amount of money the US government throws away.
Scientist? Aerospace engineers don't care about environmental science, it isn't their field, it is not like you will be keeping them from solving terrestrial problems by having them work on spacecraft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920360</id>
	<title>Re:National Aeronautics and Space Administration</title>
	<author>snmpkid</author>
	<datestamp>1264619400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the Director of the Goddard SPACE flight center is the lightning rod character that in the 70's cried foul about the ozone layer depletion that was going to freeze the earth, then he reversed himself with no supporting data to cry foul about global warming in the late 90's and AlGore then saw his opportunity.</p><p>Now the Earth Observation Systems at Goddard get funded for whatever they want and they want to study earth more for the lemmings that follow along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the Director of the Goddard SPACE flight center is the lightning rod character that in the 70 's cried foul about the ozone layer depletion that was going to freeze the earth , then he reversed himself with no supporting data to cry foul about global warming in the late 90 's and AlGore then saw his opportunity.Now the Earth Observation Systems at Goddard get funded for whatever they want and they want to study earth more for the lemmings that follow along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the Director of the Goddard SPACE flight center is the lightning rod character that in the 70's cried foul about the ozone layer depletion that was going to freeze the earth, then he reversed himself with no supporting data to cry foul about global warming in the late 90's and AlGore then saw his opportunity.Now the Earth Observation Systems at Goddard get funded for whatever they want and they want to study earth more for the lemmings that follow along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922762</id>
	<title>Private Sector?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264625160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this mean we'll see a push with privatization of space travel now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this mean we 'll see a push with privatization of space travel now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this mean we'll see a push with privatization of space travel now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922830</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1264625280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unmanned spaceflight isn't exactly justified by the costs, either, assuming we're only considering the <em>utilitarian</em> value.   If things like learning Martian geology etc. are useful at all, it's certainly not in the short term.  It would make much more sense to ignore space altogether until computer and materials science is much more advanced, and in the meantime limit ourselves strictly to earth-centric projects (mostly in the form of satellites).

</p><p>However, I don't particularly care about simply optimizing every ounce of resource over the course of humanity's multi-million year future, or whatever it may chance to be.  I'm looking at, say, 70 more years of life, and if it all at possible I want to see the Mars landing and semi-viable space colonies.  Probably not going to happen, but as one of the people who is taxed to fund this program, I'm just putting in my vote.

</p><p>Anyway, while it would be inordinately pleasant to convince ourselves that Obama just wants to see NASA's resources used more effectively, let's not kid.  It's not like this idea is coming attached with any extra funds (such as would say, "I think this is a valuable effort"), and congress's unfailing habit has been to slash NASA's budget. If, as you say, the manned program is "pure pork and nationalism," well, what do you think is going to happen to our space program without those incentives for funding it?  Is congress suddenly going to realize the value of pure research?  Nah, they're just going to view it as an even more tempting piggy bank for when they want to bail out banks but also want to pretend they have some vague notions about balancing the budget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unmanned spaceflight is n't exactly justified by the costs , either , assuming we 're only considering the utilitarian value .
If things like learning Martian geology etc .
are useful at all , it 's certainly not in the short term .
It would make much more sense to ignore space altogether until computer and materials science is much more advanced , and in the meantime limit ourselves strictly to earth-centric projects ( mostly in the form of satellites ) .
However , I do n't particularly care about simply optimizing every ounce of resource over the course of humanity 's multi-million year future , or whatever it may chance to be .
I 'm looking at , say , 70 more years of life , and if it all at possible I want to see the Mars landing and semi-viable space colonies .
Probably not going to happen , but as one of the people who is taxed to fund this program , I 'm just putting in my vote .
Anyway , while it would be inordinately pleasant to convince ourselves that Obama just wants to see NASA 's resources used more effectively , let 's not kid .
It 's not like this idea is coming attached with any extra funds ( such as would say , " I think this is a valuable effort " ) , and congress 's unfailing habit has been to slash NASA 's budget .
If , as you say , the manned program is " pure pork and nationalism , " well , what do you think is going to happen to our space program without those incentives for funding it ?
Is congress suddenly going to realize the value of pure research ?
Nah , they 're just going to view it as an even more tempting piggy bank for when they want to bail out banks but also want to pretend they have some vague notions about balancing the budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unmanned spaceflight isn't exactly justified by the costs, either, assuming we're only considering the utilitarian value.
If things like learning Martian geology etc.
are useful at all, it's certainly not in the short term.
It would make much more sense to ignore space altogether until computer and materials science is much more advanced, and in the meantime limit ourselves strictly to earth-centric projects (mostly in the form of satellites).
However, I don't particularly care about simply optimizing every ounce of resource over the course of humanity's multi-million year future, or whatever it may chance to be.
I'm looking at, say, 70 more years of life, and if it all at possible I want to see the Mars landing and semi-viable space colonies.
Probably not going to happen, but as one of the people who is taxed to fund this program, I'm just putting in my vote.
Anyway, while it would be inordinately pleasant to convince ourselves that Obama just wants to see NASA's resources used more effectively, let's not kid.
It's not like this idea is coming attached with any extra funds (such as would say, "I think this is a valuable effort"), and congress's unfailing habit has been to slash NASA's budget.
If, as you say, the manned program is "pure pork and nationalism," well, what do you think is going to happen to our space program without those incentives for funding it?
Is congress suddenly going to realize the value of pure research?
Nah, they're just going to view it as an even more tempting piggy bank for when they want to bail out banks but also want to pretend they have some vague notions about balancing the budget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922278</id>
	<title>Re:Why? Because it's next ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"'Cause it's next."</p><p>Yeah, good argument. And yes, people ARE hungry because we went to the moon. It cost lots of money, and the money could have gone to feed them instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'Cause it 's next .
" Yeah , good argument .
And yes , people ARE hungry because we went to the moon .
It cost lots of money , and the money could have gone to feed them instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"'Cause it's next.
"Yeah, good argument.
And yes, people ARE hungry because we went to the moon.
It cost lots of money, and the money could have gone to feed them instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920724</id>
	<title>Another 2 decades wasted</title>
	<author>Xinvoker</author>
	<datestamp>1264620540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Ares V gets canceled, that's another 2 decades wasted in Low Earth Orbit. So much for inspiration and opening new frontiers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Ares V gets canceled , that 's another 2 decades wasted in Low Earth Orbit .
So much for inspiration and opening new frontiers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Ares V gets canceled, that's another 2 decades wasted in Low Earth Orbit.
So much for inspiration and opening new frontiers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921124</id>
	<title>No we can't!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe this change!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe this change !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe this change!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922772</id>
	<title>Re:good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264625220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why don't you spend your money on private sector and make NASA a business rather than innovation. And why don't you spend your money on losers like Octomom and yourself while the rest of the world gets ahead and actually spends on innovation. It is dump asses like you who makes the US look like a wimp...I regret voting for Obama...never making that mistake again...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why do n't you spend your money on private sector and make NASA a business rather than innovation .
And why do n't you spend your money on losers like Octomom and yourself while the rest of the world gets ahead and actually spends on innovation .
It is dump asses like you who makes the US look like a wimp...I regret voting for Obama...never making that mistake again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why don't you spend your money on private sector and make NASA a business rather than innovation.
And why don't you spend your money on losers like Octomom and yourself while the rest of the world gets ahead and actually spends on innovation.
It is dump asses like you who makes the US look like a wimp...I regret voting for Obama...never making that mistake again...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921194</id>
	<title>Re:We choose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we choose not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, because they are easy, not because they are hard, because that goal would serve to waste and disregard the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we have already accepted, one we are willing to postpone revisiting, and one which we have already win, and the others, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we choose not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things , because they are easy , not because they are hard , because that goal would serve to waste and disregard the best of our energies and skills , because that challenge is one that we have already accepted , one we are willing to postpone revisiting , and one which we have already win , and the others , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we choose not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, because they are easy, not because they are hard, because that goal would serve to waste and disregard the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we have already accepted, one we are willing to postpone revisiting, and one which we have already win, and the others, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</id>
	<title>good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this, but I think this is great. NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes, and that's a mission that can't be carried out by private enterprise. The shuttle and the ISS, however, are pure pork and nationalism; now that the cold war is over, the politicians cover the crewed space program with a thin veneer of scientific research, but the amount of good science that comes out of *crewed* spaceflight is not in reasonable proportion to the cost. We need to get NASA out of the business of doing things that the private sector can do, because otherwise the private sector will never get off the ground in those areas. Suborbital and LEO space tourism are the killer apps for private-sector crewed spaceflight. Let's unleash their energy and creativity to get that going, rather than spending public money on poorly engineered concepts for going back to to the moon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this , but I think this is great .
NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes , and that 's a mission that ca n't be carried out by private enterprise .
The shuttle and the ISS , however , are pure pork and nationalism ; now that the cold war is over , the politicians cover the crewed space program with a thin veneer of scientific research , but the amount of good science that comes out of * crewed * spaceflight is not in reasonable proportion to the cost .
We need to get NASA out of the business of doing things that the private sector can do , because otherwise the private sector will never get off the ground in those areas .
Suborbital and LEO space tourism are the killer apps for private-sector crewed spaceflight .
Let 's unleash their energy and creativity to get that going , rather than spending public money on poorly engineered concepts for going back to to the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this, but I think this is great.
NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes, and that's a mission that can't be carried out by private enterprise.
The shuttle and the ISS, however, are pure pork and nationalism; now that the cold war is over, the politicians cover the crewed space program with a thin veneer of scientific research, but the amount of good science that comes out of *crewed* spaceflight is not in reasonable proportion to the cost.
We need to get NASA out of the business of doing things that the private sector can do, because otherwise the private sector will never get off the ground in those areas.
Suborbital and LEO space tourism are the killer apps for private-sector crewed spaceflight.
Let's unleash their energy and creativity to get that going, rather than spending public money on poorly engineered concepts for going back to to the moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922524</id>
	<title>Abuse of moderation</title>
	<author>whatajoke</author>
	<datestamp>1264624620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoever marked this post as troll deserves to be meta moderated. It can be moderated insightful, overrated or underrated. But most probably it got marked as troll because the moderator did not agree to the post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever marked this post as troll deserves to be meta moderated .
It can be moderated insightful , overrated or underrated .
But most probably it got marked as troll because the moderator did not agree to the post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever marked this post as troll deserves to be meta moderated.
It can be moderated insightful, overrated or underrated.
But most probably it got marked as troll because the moderator did not agree to the post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924092</id>
	<title>Re:Helium 3</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1264585320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why isn't the abundance of Helium-3 more of a selling point for the return to the moon?</p></div><p>Because Helium-3 is useless unless we already have controlled fusion.</p><p>Which is still 50 years away, as it has been for the last 50 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't the abundance of Helium-3 more of a selling point for the return to the moon ? Because Helium-3 is useless unless we already have controlled fusion.Which is still 50 years away , as it has been for the last 50 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't the abundance of Helium-3 more of a selling point for the return to the moon?Because Helium-3 is useless unless we already have controlled fusion.Which is still 50 years away, as it has been for the last 50 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920734</id>
	<title>Re:We choose</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1264620540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I'm disappointed at this announcement, I see that there are higher, more immediate priorities.  Considering the environment, terrorism, the economy, it's far easier and practical to scale back space ambitions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm disappointed at this announcement , I see that there are higher , more immediate priorities .
Considering the environment , terrorism , the economy , it 's far easier and practical to scale back space ambitions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm disappointed at this announcement, I see that there are higher, more immediate priorities.
Considering the environment, terrorism, the economy, it's far easier and practical to scale back space ambitions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926588</id>
	<title>Re:Why? Because it's next ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264592820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not necessarily "next".  There's a lot of science still left to be done on the gigantic laboratory that is planet Earth.  People just want space to be "next" because they watched too much Star Trek and have a burning need to give up on Earth so they can go somewhere new and trash it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not necessarily " next " .
There 's a lot of science still left to be done on the gigantic laboratory that is planet Earth .
People just want space to be " next " because they watched too much Star Trek and have a burning need to give up on Earth so they can go somewhere new and trash it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not necessarily "next".
There's a lot of science still left to be done on the gigantic laboratory that is planet Earth.
People just want space to be "next" because they watched too much Star Trek and have a burning need to give up on Earth so they can go somewhere new and trash it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920314</id>
	<title>It's a big floating rock in the sky</title>
	<author>justicenfa</author>
	<datestamp>1264619280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would we need to go there!  Why would we want to build anything there!

Seems pointless to me!



They should try and colonize the moon!  A big las vegas in the sky!

What happens on the moon, stays on the moon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would we need to go there !
Why would we want to build anything there !
Seems pointless to me !
They should try and colonize the moon !
A big las vegas in the sky !
What happens on the moon , stays on the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would we need to go there!
Why would we want to build anything there!
Seems pointless to me!
They should try and colonize the moon!
A big las vegas in the sky!
What happens on the moon, stays on the moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926832</id>
	<title>What a date to kill the US Manned space program...</title>
	<author>Ellis D. Tripp</author>
	<datestamp>1264593600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being the anniversary of Apollo 1...</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo\_1" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo\_1</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being the anniversary of Apollo 1...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo \ _1 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being the anniversary of Apollo 1...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo\_1 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921860</id>
	<title>And I know why.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264623240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because any person with half a fucking brain knows that the moon already has humans and ET life on it, and they do not want to let everyone know that they have been lieing to us for the last 60 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because any person with half a fucking brain knows that the moon already has humans and ET life on it , and they do not want to let everyone know that they have been lieing to us for the last 60 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because any person with half a fucking brain knows that the moon already has humans and ET life on it, and they do not want to let everyone know that they have been lieing to us for the last 60 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310</id>
	<title>Democratic infighting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're used to seeing the arguments in partisan terms, but Obama has struggled as much with his own party as with Republicans.</p><p>In a sense, this should be giving Republicans what they want: less money spent by government.  Assuming, of course, that this ends up as at least a small reduction in the overall NASA budget, and is not merely money being relocated.</p><p>I'd actually support that relocation; I think that going to the moon is little more than trying to win a pissing contest.  Yeah, Tang, velcro, space pens, whatever.  Money for science is money for science and I don't see why manned missions are somehow better than unmanned ones for fostering innovation, dollar for dollar.</p><p>Still, Obama is going to get a lot of pushback from his own party.  (And one big loser: Parker Griffith, an Alabama representative, who became a Republican and now loses a bunch of money to his district.)</p><p>Democrats will fight to get that money put back, and we'll see if Obama gets any credit for actually trying to save money.  Unfortunately, while talk of deficit reduction is always popular, actual spending cuts are always portrayed as apocalyptic by those affected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're used to seeing the arguments in partisan terms , but Obama has struggled as much with his own party as with Republicans.In a sense , this should be giving Republicans what they want : less money spent by government .
Assuming , of course , that this ends up as at least a small reduction in the overall NASA budget , and is not merely money being relocated.I 'd actually support that relocation ; I think that going to the moon is little more than trying to win a pissing contest .
Yeah , Tang , velcro , space pens , whatever .
Money for science is money for science and I do n't see why manned missions are somehow better than unmanned ones for fostering innovation , dollar for dollar.Still , Obama is going to get a lot of pushback from his own party .
( And one big loser : Parker Griffith , an Alabama representative , who became a Republican and now loses a bunch of money to his district .
) Democrats will fight to get that money put back , and we 'll see if Obama gets any credit for actually trying to save money .
Unfortunately , while talk of deficit reduction is always popular , actual spending cuts are always portrayed as apocalyptic by those affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're used to seeing the arguments in partisan terms, but Obama has struggled as much with his own party as with Republicans.In a sense, this should be giving Republicans what they want: less money spent by government.
Assuming, of course, that this ends up as at least a small reduction in the overall NASA budget, and is not merely money being relocated.I'd actually support that relocation; I think that going to the moon is little more than trying to win a pissing contest.
Yeah, Tang, velcro, space pens, whatever.
Money for science is money for science and I don't see why manned missions are somehow better than unmanned ones for fostering innovation, dollar for dollar.Still, Obama is going to get a lot of pushback from his own party.
(And one big loser: Parker Griffith, an Alabama representative, who became a Republican and now loses a bunch of money to his district.
)Democrats will fight to get that money put back, and we'll see if Obama gets any credit for actually trying to save money.
Unfortunately, while talk of deficit reduction is always popular, actual spending cuts are always portrayed as apocalyptic by those affected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925266</id>
	<title>Re:Helium 3</title>
	<author>RoboRay</author>
	<datestamp>1264588860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, I don't know... maybe it's the current total lack of fusion reactors that would use it for fuel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I do n't know... maybe it 's the current total lack of fusion reactors that would use it for fuel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I don't know... maybe it's the current total lack of fusion reactors that would use it for fuel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926230</id>
	<title>Re:Unsurprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264591680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; we got more of the same and worse compared to the previous Administration, spending-wise, by a factor of 4</p><p>Are you claiming this year's budget is twelve trillion dollars?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; we got more of the same and worse compared to the previous Administration , spending-wise , by a factor of 4Are you claiming this year 's budget is twelve trillion dollars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; we got more of the same and worse compared to the previous Administration, spending-wise, by a factor of 4Are you claiming this year's budget is twelve trillion dollars?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921486</id>
	<title>Frusterating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing that frusterates me most about descisions like this are the jobs that are lost. How many aerospace employees will lose their jobs? How many starbuck employees that servered coffee to the aerospace employees? McD's? We could go on and on, and it isnt just this program, look at the F-22 budget. The JSF, funding for research projects.

And how many of all of those high level employed people will get unemployement benifits? UNEMPLOYMENT CREATES NO ECONOMIC VALUE! Suddenly, their are fewer jobs the deficit is higher and we have absolutely nothing to show for it. No technological progression. As an economist, and as any other economist will tell you, economic increase comes down to cultural changes, technology, and education.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that frusterates me most about descisions like this are the jobs that are lost .
How many aerospace employees will lose their jobs ?
How many starbuck employees that servered coffee to the aerospace employees ?
McD 's ? We could go on and on , and it isnt just this program , look at the F-22 budget .
The JSF , funding for research projects .
And how many of all of those high level employed people will get unemployement benifits ?
UNEMPLOYMENT CREATES NO ECONOMIC VALUE !
Suddenly , their are fewer jobs the deficit is higher and we have absolutely nothing to show for it .
No technological progression .
As an economist , and as any other economist will tell you , economic increase comes down to cultural changes , technology , and education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that frusterates me most about descisions like this are the jobs that are lost.
How many aerospace employees will lose their jobs?
How many starbuck employees that servered coffee to the aerospace employees?
McD's? We could go on and on, and it isnt just this program, look at the F-22 budget.
The JSF, funding for research projects.
And how many of all of those high level employed people will get unemployement benifits?
UNEMPLOYMENT CREATES NO ECONOMIC VALUE!
Suddenly, their are fewer jobs the deficit is higher and we have absolutely nothing to show for it.
No technological progression.
As an economist, and as any other economist will tell you, economic increase comes down to cultural changes, technology, and education.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922366</id>
	<title>How about the James Cameron Path?</title>
	<author>Yoda2</author>
	<datestamp>1264624260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wish they would just tell us that we'll be on Mars in five years, give the 18B to James Cameron, and have him fake one hell of a Mars expedition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wish they would just tell us that we 'll be on Mars in five years , give the 18B to James Cameron , and have him fake one hell of a Mars expedition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wish they would just tell us that we'll be on Mars in five years, give the 18B to James Cameron, and have him fake one hell of a Mars expedition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30933198</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1264694100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ecological systems can be studied much more effectively and for a fraction of the price here on earth. It might be harder to get significant funding without the space aspect, but in essence it would be a waste of resources to do experiments on the moon that can be done perfectly well on earth, only that you have to spend tens of thousands of dollars for every kilogram of material.<br>The scientific merit of sending men to the moon is limited. For the same budget we could do significantly more and better space science by launching robotic probes and observatories. And these fields are chronically underfunded compared to the value of the science we get from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ecological systems can be studied much more effectively and for a fraction of the price here on earth .
It might be harder to get significant funding without the space aspect , but in essence it would be a waste of resources to do experiments on the moon that can be done perfectly well on earth , only that you have to spend tens of thousands of dollars for every kilogram of material.The scientific merit of sending men to the moon is limited .
For the same budget we could do significantly more and better space science by launching robotic probes and observatories .
And these fields are chronically underfunded compared to the value of the science we get from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ecological systems can be studied much more effectively and for a fraction of the price here on earth.
It might be harder to get significant funding without the space aspect, but in essence it would be a waste of resources to do experiments on the moon that can be done perfectly well on earth, only that you have to spend tens of thousands of dollars for every kilogram of material.The scientific merit of sending men to the moon is limited.
For the same budget we could do significantly more and better space science by launching robotic probes and observatories.
And these fields are chronically underfunded compared to the value of the science we get from them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30932650</id>
	<title>Re:Apologies to the Floyd...</title>
	<author>dylan\_-</author>
	<datestamp>1264690980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is no dark side of the moon really.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, there is. It's the side, that at night, doesn't get any earthshine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no dark side of the moon really.Actually , there is .
It 's the side , that at night , does n't get any earthshine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no dark side of the moon really.Actually, there is.
It's the side, that at night, doesn't get any earthshine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926514</id>
	<title>Re:Sad, but...</title>
	<author>Grygus</author>
	<datestamp>1264592580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True in a classroom.  In reality on the other hand, we could afford to send the probes but not the scientist so it's not a robot vs human scenario so much as robot vs nothing.  Given the reality, the probe was the right choice and a clear winner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True in a classroom .
In reality on the other hand , we could afford to send the probes but not the scientist so it 's not a robot vs human scenario so much as robot vs nothing .
Given the reality , the probe was the right choice and a clear winner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True in a classroom.
In reality on the other hand, we could afford to send the probes but not the scientist so it's not a robot vs human scenario so much as robot vs nothing.
Given the reality, the probe was the right choice and a clear winner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30934326</id>
	<title>Re:Same old garbage.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>//At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon//</p><p>Er, you know America went to the moon 40 years ago right?</p><p>Anyway, you guys shouldn't be scared about the chance that the Chinese might land on the moon. Instead you guys should welcome it, nothing stirs space investment like a space race, and the potential for a red moon will certainly get the government to pump money into NASA again. It was Sputnik, not JFK that motivated us to go to the moon, not because it was hard but because we didn't want the Reds to get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>//At this rate , without question the Chinese will be first to the moon//Er , you know America went to the moon 40 years ago right ? Anyway , you guys should n't be scared about the chance that the Chinese might land on the moon .
Instead you guys should welcome it , nothing stirs space investment like a space race , and the potential for a red moon will certainly get the government to pump money into NASA again .
It was Sputnik , not JFK that motivated us to go to the moon , not because it was hard but because we did n't want the Reds to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>//At this rate, without question the Chinese will be first to the moon//Er, you know America went to the moon 40 years ago right?Anyway, you guys shouldn't be scared about the chance that the Chinese might land on the moon.
Instead you guys should welcome it, nothing stirs space investment like a space race, and the potential for a red moon will certainly get the government to pump money into NASA again.
It was Sputnik, not JFK that motivated us to go to the moon, not because it was hard but because we didn't want the Reds to get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924520</id>
	<title>What about the ISS?</title>
	<author>frank249</author>
	<datestamp>1264586640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they still planning to let the most expensive structure in the history of mankind de-orbit in a few years and just burn up?  Would it not be worth it to boost it to a higher orbit and use all or parts of it for future missions? Could it be sent to Mars and parked on Phobos as a research base?  It would take a long time but it could be sent unmanned and then have a crew on a fast transit meet up with it.  It just seems like a collosal waste of money to let it burn up after such a short time after completion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they still planning to let the most expensive structure in the history of mankind de-orbit in a few years and just burn up ?
Would it not be worth it to boost it to a higher orbit and use all or parts of it for future missions ?
Could it be sent to Mars and parked on Phobos as a research base ?
It would take a long time but it could be sent unmanned and then have a crew on a fast transit meet up with it .
It just seems like a collosal waste of money to let it burn up after such a short time after completion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they still planning to let the most expensive structure in the history of mankind de-orbit in a few years and just burn up?
Would it not be worth it to boost it to a higher orbit and use all or parts of it for future missions?
Could it be sent to Mars and parked on Phobos as a research base?
It would take a long time but it could be sent unmanned and then have a crew on a fast transit meet up with it.
It just seems like a collosal waste of money to let it burn up after such a short time after completion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929236</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of Change, Not So Much Hope.</title>
	<author>gatechman</author>
	<datestamp>1264609500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With the Shuttle put to bed, and now Constellation, NASA is done.</p>  </div><p>NASA is by no means done nor are they sending up just a few probes. In addition to MSL, there are several missions getting ready to launch over the next few years to Jupiter and other bodies. We are sending up a number of Earth science satellites to get the data to prove or disprove the claims of global warming and to find out new information about our planet. In addition there are missions that are in development to get samples from the moon and to go to Venus. Finally, some of our probes are still traveling to their targets deep in space.

As for Constellation, I for one think this will be a boon for NASA. Constellation and its dream of easy manned space flight in our time was a waste of money and resources. We want a real mission, lets go to MARS! Forget the moon. If anything Constellation was an exercise in engineering not science and exploration. This decision does not set us back but frees up money for NASA to do some real science. Lets face it, a rad-hardened, thermally tolerant robot that can take huge accelerations and feed on sunlight is way better than a sack of meat.

PS I work for JPL so I kinda have a stake in this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the Shuttle put to bed , and now Constellation , NASA is done .
NASA is by no means done nor are they sending up just a few probes .
In addition to MSL , there are several missions getting ready to launch over the next few years to Jupiter and other bodies .
We are sending up a number of Earth science satellites to get the data to prove or disprove the claims of global warming and to find out new information about our planet .
In addition there are missions that are in development to get samples from the moon and to go to Venus .
Finally , some of our probes are still traveling to their targets deep in space .
As for Constellation , I for one think this will be a boon for NASA .
Constellation and its dream of easy manned space flight in our time was a waste of money and resources .
We want a real mission , lets go to MARS !
Forget the moon .
If anything Constellation was an exercise in engineering not science and exploration .
This decision does not set us back but frees up money for NASA to do some real science .
Lets face it , a rad-hardened , thermally tolerant robot that can take huge accelerations and feed on sunlight is way better than a sack of meat .
PS I work for JPL so I kinda have a stake in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the Shuttle put to bed, and now Constellation, NASA is done.
NASA is by no means done nor are they sending up just a few probes.
In addition to MSL, there are several missions getting ready to launch over the next few years to Jupiter and other bodies.
We are sending up a number of Earth science satellites to get the data to prove or disprove the claims of global warming and to find out new information about our planet.
In addition there are missions that are in development to get samples from the moon and to go to Venus.
Finally, some of our probes are still traveling to their targets deep in space.
As for Constellation, I for one think this will be a boon for NASA.
Constellation and its dream of easy manned space flight in our time was a waste of money and resources.
We want a real mission, lets go to MARS!
Forget the moon.
If anything Constellation was an exercise in engineering not science and exploration.
This decision does not set us back but frees up money for NASA to do some real science.
Lets face it, a rad-hardened, thermally tolerant robot that can take huge accelerations and feed on sunlight is way better than a sack of meat.
PS I work for JPL so I kinda have a stake in this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924558</id>
	<title>Yes you will.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264586760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this, but I think this is great.</i></p><p>You sure will.  I hate you. I curse you and everyone else that likes this decision for 10,000 years.</p><p>God damn you all to hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this , but I think this is great.You sure will .
I hate you .
I curse you and everyone else that likes this decision for 10,000 years.God damn you all to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this, but I think this is great.You sure will.
I hate you.
I curse you and everyone else that likes this decision for 10,000 years.God damn you all to hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920678</id>
	<title>Re:Sad news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon, it's a waste of resources.</p></div><p>Had we planned on staying this time... building a small base or research station to leave men on the moon for extended periods of time... then it would have been worth it. But it was clear that we weren't going to do that. We were basically just going back to relive old glories, when it gets right down to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon , it 's a waste of resources.Had we planned on staying this time... building a small base or research station to leave men on the moon for extended periods of time... then it would have been worth it .
But it was clear that we were n't going to do that .
We were basically just going back to relive old glories , when it gets right down to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon, it's a waste of resources.Had we planned on staying this time... building a small base or research station to leave men on the moon for extended periods of time... then it would have been worth it.
But it was clear that we weren't going to do that.
We were basically just going back to relive old glories, when it gets right down to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920664</id>
	<title>Re:We choose</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1264620360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is <b>much cheaper and we have no money.</b>'</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things , not because they are hard , but because not doing so is much cheaper and we have no money .
'Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is much cheaper and we have no money.
'Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923856</id>
	<title>I know Why</title>
	<author>mattwrock</author>
	<datestamp>1264584660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They apparently have all of the bugs figured out for the Space elevator, and are secretly working on the space "escalator"....</htmltext>
<tokenext>They apparently have all of the bugs figured out for the Space elevator , and are secretly working on the space " escalator " ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They apparently have all of the bugs figured out for the Space elevator, and are secretly working on the space "escalator"....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921066</id>
	<title>Re:We choose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is easy'</p></div></blockquote><p>A very sad, yet accurate, commentary.  I consider the moon landing to be humankind's single greatest achievement.  If the most prosperous nation on Earth is not going to lead the charge back to the moon and on to Mars, then greatness is probably behind us.</p><p>Perhaps we don't <i>need</i> to go to the moon or Mars, but doing so serves a very important purpose.  As has been the case throughout history, traveling to that "undiscovered country" demonstrates that humankind is capable of great things if only we put our minds to it.  The human condition seem much more hopeless without it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things , not because they are hard , but because not doing so is easy'A very sad , yet accurate , commentary .
I consider the moon landing to be humankind 's single greatest achievement .
If the most prosperous nation on Earth is not going to lead the charge back to the moon and on to Mars , then greatness is probably behind us.Perhaps we do n't need to go to the moon or Mars , but doing so serves a very important purpose .
As has been the case throughout history , traveling to that " undiscovered country " demonstrates that humankind is capable of great things if only we put our minds to it .
The human condition seem much more hopeless without it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is easy'A very sad, yet accurate, commentary.
I consider the moon landing to be humankind's single greatest achievement.
If the most prosperous nation on Earth is not going to lead the charge back to the moon and on to Mars, then greatness is probably behind us.Perhaps we don't need to go to the moon or Mars, but doing so serves a very important purpose.
As has been the case throughout history, traveling to that "undiscovered country" demonstrates that humankind is capable of great things if only we put our minds to it.
The human condition seem much more hopeless without it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924622</id>
	<title>Re:Helium 3</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1264586880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make an actual functioning He3 fusion reactor, and it would sell better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make an actual functioning He3 fusion reactor , and it would sell better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make an actual functioning He3 fusion reactor, and it would sell better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925774</id>
	<title>Re:Democratic infighting</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1264590300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... I don't see why manned missions are somehow better than unmanned ones for fostering innovation, dollar for dollar.</p></div><p>I would have disagreed with that pre-Hubble on the basis that humans get excited about seeing humans breaking into new frontiers, but I have to say that the value of "pretty pictures of space" in terms of motivating the public to explore seems to be massive. In fact, I'd suggest that we create a revenue-neutral space exploration effort that is entirely funded by a Fathom Events-like screening of each new round of exploration images. Make it a big PR event and charge $100 per seat. At a guess, I think you could make as much money on unmanned exploration of mars, the asteroid belt, the gas giants and the outer solar system that we've barely explored at all with just a screening a year.</p><p>In fact, you could even get Hollywood involved. I bet you cold hard cash that Cameron would sign on to run the direction component. It's exactly what he loves (which is why Avatar was the first time he'd done a non-documentary in 10 years... he was too busy filming the ocean floor).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I do n't see why manned missions are somehow better than unmanned ones for fostering innovation , dollar for dollar.I would have disagreed with that pre-Hubble on the basis that humans get excited about seeing humans breaking into new frontiers , but I have to say that the value of " pretty pictures of space " in terms of motivating the public to explore seems to be massive .
In fact , I 'd suggest that we create a revenue-neutral space exploration effort that is entirely funded by a Fathom Events-like screening of each new round of exploration images .
Make it a big PR event and charge $ 100 per seat .
At a guess , I think you could make as much money on unmanned exploration of mars , the asteroid belt , the gas giants and the outer solar system that we 've barely explored at all with just a screening a year.In fact , you could even get Hollywood involved .
I bet you cold hard cash that Cameron would sign on to run the direction component .
It 's exactly what he loves ( which is why Avatar was the first time he 'd done a non-documentary in 10 years... he was too busy filming the ocean floor ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... I don't see why manned missions are somehow better than unmanned ones for fostering innovation, dollar for dollar.I would have disagreed with that pre-Hubble on the basis that humans get excited about seeing humans breaking into new frontiers, but I have to say that the value of "pretty pictures of space" in terms of motivating the public to explore seems to be massive.
In fact, I'd suggest that we create a revenue-neutral space exploration effort that is entirely funded by a Fathom Events-like screening of each new round of exploration images.
Make it a big PR event and charge $100 per seat.
At a guess, I think you could make as much money on unmanned exploration of mars, the asteroid belt, the gas giants and the outer solar system that we've barely explored at all with just a screening a year.In fact, you could even get Hollywood involved.
I bet you cold hard cash that Cameron would sign on to run the direction component.
It's exactly what he loves (which is why Avatar was the first time he'd done a non-documentary in 10 years... he was too busy filming the ocean floor).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925968</id>
	<title>Misleading Summary, Misleading source article</title>
	<author>dlapine</author>
	<datestamp>1264590900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> The article from the "Orlando Sentinel" is just a bit slanted. Perhaps things aren't as bleak as that article and the summary suggest. </p><p> If we lose Constellation, it doesn't follow that the Manned Space Program is gone- just that we can't afford Constellation. See the Augustine Commission's report that claims that Constellation will only work if we give it another <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WN/AheadoftheCurve/space-program-major-revision-augustine-commission/story?id=8892321" title="go.com">$3 billion a year</a> [go.com]. And this would have been for a program 5 years behind schedule, with no real test flights and several significant safety issues that haven't been resolved as of yet.</p><p> So what alternatives does the Obama administration have to look at? Well, as the article notes, Nasa will look at other heavy lift launch designs and come up with a plan to use one of those to replace the Ares V. As the Ares I was for Crew only, Nasa will look at the commercial launch vehicles such as <a href="http://www.spacex.com/" title="spacex.com">the Dragon</a> [spacex.com] that we can use to ferry astronauts to the ISS and back. Nasa will get $200-300 million more a year to look at the new designs. This seems like a reasonable idea. We'll use commercial space services to lift the light stuff, and let NASA design the expensive, heavy lift vehicles.</p><p> The other point made in the article is that a new program won't be ready any time soon, implying that the new program would be starting from scratch. Given that Constellation wasn't going to be ready before 2017 at best, I'm not sure that we're going to lose any time we would have made up with Constellation. The other thing is that we won't be starting from scratch. Worst case, we start with the NLS review <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nls.htm" title="astronautix.com">vehicle</a> [astronautix.com] that NASA worked on back in 1993. Best case, we let those hard-working NASA engineers start with the <a href="http://www.directlauncher.com/" title="directlauncher.com">DIRECT V3</a> [directlauncher.com] proposal and get something up by 2015, a full 2 years before Ares would have been ready. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article from the " Orlando Sentinel " is just a bit slanted .
Perhaps things are n't as bleak as that article and the summary suggest .
If we lose Constellation , it does n't follow that the Manned Space Program is gone- just that we ca n't afford Constellation .
See the Augustine Commission 's report that claims that Constellation will only work if we give it another $ 3 billion a year [ go.com ] .
And this would have been for a program 5 years behind schedule , with no real test flights and several significant safety issues that have n't been resolved as of yet .
So what alternatives does the Obama administration have to look at ?
Well , as the article notes , Nasa will look at other heavy lift launch designs and come up with a plan to use one of those to replace the Ares V. As the Ares I was for Crew only , Nasa will look at the commercial launch vehicles such as the Dragon [ spacex.com ] that we can use to ferry astronauts to the ISS and back .
Nasa will get $ 200-300 million more a year to look at the new designs .
This seems like a reasonable idea .
We 'll use commercial space services to lift the light stuff , and let NASA design the expensive , heavy lift vehicles .
The other point made in the article is that a new program wo n't be ready any time soon , implying that the new program would be starting from scratch .
Given that Constellation was n't going to be ready before 2017 at best , I 'm not sure that we 're going to lose any time we would have made up with Constellation .
The other thing is that we wo n't be starting from scratch .
Worst case , we start with the NLS review vehicle [ astronautix.com ] that NASA worked on back in 1993 .
Best case , we let those hard-working NASA engineers start with the DIRECT V3 [ directlauncher.com ] proposal and get something up by 2015 , a full 2 years before Ares would have been ready .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The article from the "Orlando Sentinel" is just a bit slanted.
Perhaps things aren't as bleak as that article and the summary suggest.
If we lose Constellation, it doesn't follow that the Manned Space Program is gone- just that we can't afford Constellation.
See the Augustine Commission's report that claims that Constellation will only work if we give it another $3 billion a year [go.com].
And this would have been for a program 5 years behind schedule, with no real test flights and several significant safety issues that haven't been resolved as of yet.
So what alternatives does the Obama administration have to look at?
Well, as the article notes, Nasa will look at other heavy lift launch designs and come up with a plan to use one of those to replace the Ares V. As the Ares I was for Crew only, Nasa will look at the commercial launch vehicles such as the Dragon [spacex.com] that we can use to ferry astronauts to the ISS and back.
Nasa will get $200-300 million more a year to look at the new designs.
This seems like a reasonable idea.
We'll use commercial space services to lift the light stuff, and let NASA design the expensive, heavy lift vehicles.
The other point made in the article is that a new program won't be ready any time soon, implying that the new program would be starting from scratch.
Given that Constellation wasn't going to be ready before 2017 at best, I'm not sure that we're going to lose any time we would have made up with Constellation.
The other thing is that we won't be starting from scratch.
Worst case, we start with the NLS review vehicle [astronautix.com] that NASA worked on back in 1993.
Best case, we let those hard-working NASA engineers start with the DIRECT V3 [directlauncher.com] proposal and get something up by 2015, a full 2 years before Ares would have been ready. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920528</id>
	<title>Re:One small step for man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In the wrong direction. We should have spent the 60's on healthcare reform, increasing national spending, polarizing our government between the political parties, and copyright enforcement.</i></p><p>Guess what?  All these things <b>did</b> happen in the 60's.  Including healthcare reform (Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965 under LBJ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the wrong direction .
We should have spent the 60 's on healthcare reform , increasing national spending , polarizing our government between the political parties , and copyright enforcement.Guess what ?
All these things did happen in the 60 's .
Including healthcare reform ( Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965 under LBJ ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the wrong direction.
We should have spent the 60's on healthcare reform, increasing national spending, polarizing our government between the political parties, and copyright enforcement.Guess what?
All these things did happen in the 60's.
Including healthcare reform (Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965 under LBJ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30928922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30942470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30931220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30931190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30933198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30932650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30933400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30932224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30934326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30932524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30930420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30930426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1725236_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30932224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30932524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30934326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30930420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30942470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920992
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922420
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929640
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30933198
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30931220
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30931190
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929006
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30928922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929068
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30930426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30929178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30933400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30932650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30923766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30926742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1725236.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30920310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30924534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30922442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30921504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30927494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1725236.30925774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
