<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_29_0430234</id>
	<title>Reported Obama Plan Would Privatize Manned Launches</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264762620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>couchslug writes with this excerpt from the not-yet-paywalled New York Times: <i>"President Obama will end NASA's return mission to the moon and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/space/29nasa.html">turn to private companies to launch astronauts into space</a> when he unveils his budget request to Congress next week, an administration official said Thursday. The shift would 'put NASA on a more sustainable and ambitious path to the future' said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. But the changes have angered some members of Congress, particularly from Texas, the location of the Johnson Space Center, and Florida, the location of the Kennedy Space Center. 'My biggest fear is that this amounts to a slow death of our nation's human space flight program,' Representative Bill Posey, Republican of Florida, said in a statement."</i> If true, this won't please the federal panel that <a href="https://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/22/1319234/Panel-Warns-NASA-On-Commercial-Astronaut-Transport">recommended against just such privatization</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>couchslug writes with this excerpt from the not-yet-paywalled New York Times : " President Obama will end NASA 's return mission to the moon and turn to private companies to launch astronauts into space when he unveils his budget request to Congress next week , an administration official said Thursday .
The shift would 'put NASA on a more sustainable and ambitious path to the future ' said the official , who spoke on condition of anonymity .
But the changes have angered some members of Congress , particularly from Texas , the location of the Johnson Space Center , and Florida , the location of the Kennedy Space Center .
'My biggest fear is that this amounts to a slow death of our nation 's human space flight program, ' Representative Bill Posey , Republican of Florida , said in a statement .
" If true , this wo n't please the federal panel that recommended against just such privatization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>couchslug writes with this excerpt from the not-yet-paywalled New York Times: "President Obama will end NASA's return mission to the moon and turn to private companies to launch astronauts into space when he unveils his budget request to Congress next week, an administration official said Thursday.
The shift would 'put NASA on a more sustainable and ambitious path to the future' said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
But the changes have angered some members of Congress, particularly from Texas, the location of the Johnson Space Center, and Florida, the location of the Kennedy Space Center.
'My biggest fear is that this amounts to a slow death of our nation's human space flight program,' Representative Bill Posey, Republican of Florida, said in a statement.
" If true, this won't please the federal panel that recommended against just such privatization.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948610</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>Necron69</author>
	<datestamp>1264776540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation."</p><p>Funny, that was my dream growing up in the 70s and 80s and guess what? We are absolutely no closer today than we were when I was five and the Apollo program was cancelled.</p><p>The simple fact is this - the US government will NEVER again pay to send people back to the Moon, let alone Mars. It isn't going to happen.</p><p>By getting the government out of the rocket building business, this decision will actually IMPROVE the chances of humans going into space to STAY. The next time we go, we'll do it for the best reasons of all - to make money and to live there.</p><p>Necron69</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When Obama said he 'll cancel Constellation , he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation .
" Funny , that was my dream growing up in the 70s and 80s and guess what ?
We are absolutely no closer today than we were when I was five and the Apollo program was cancelled.The simple fact is this - the US government will NEVER again pay to send people back to the Moon , let alone Mars .
It is n't going to happen.By getting the government out of the rocket building business , this decision will actually IMPROVE the chances of humans going into space to STAY .
The next time we go , we 'll do it for the best reasons of all - to make money and to live there.Necron69</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation.
"Funny, that was my dream growing up in the 70s and 80s and guess what?
We are absolutely no closer today than we were when I was five and the Apollo program was cancelled.The simple fact is this - the US government will NEVER again pay to send people back to the Moon, let alone Mars.
It isn't going to happen.By getting the government out of the rocket building business, this decision will actually IMPROVE the chances of humans going into space to STAY.
The next time we go, we'll do it for the best reasons of all - to make money and to live there.Necron69</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>diewlasing</author>
	<datestamp>1264772040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allow me to strongly disagree with you for a second.  While I think private space flight will be a good thing in the future, it's not now.  The technology is there, but funding, logistics and safety guidelines probably are not up to par with NASA's</p><p>I abhor your suggestion that we could sacrifice people to get private space flight off the ground.  Reminds me of the Star Trek Enterprise episode where the Klingons kidnap Dr. Phlox in order for him to help cure or restore the genetically altered Klingons who were dying.  He didn't have time and the Klingon general wanted to sacrifice some of his people as test subjects.  Phlox refused because it was unethical, but relented when given the option of millions of lives verses a few, and pressure from the Klingons.</p><p>  The point is it was unethical, but did it, for what was at the time, the only winning option</p><p>Sacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsible (and might turn off many people to privitization) and it stinks of the old Robber Baron's lives for profit attitude (sounds Ferengi, no?).</p><p>  So instead, if you want to go the private route, let me suggest a better short-medium term plan, which could be our winning option:  Streamline NASA.  Keep it's budget big, but dedicate it to ONLY spaceflight (and maybe atmospheric research) so as to try and have it waste less by setting goals for only that.  And have private companies haul cargo, like satellites and rovers into space.  That is something they are already capable of doing, and are doing it safely.  Now, it won't save as much money as privatizing manned-missions so soon, but it will save money and definitely save lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allow me to strongly disagree with you for a second .
While I think private space flight will be a good thing in the future , it 's not now .
The technology is there , but funding , logistics and safety guidelines probably are not up to par with NASA'sI abhor your suggestion that we could sacrifice people to get private space flight off the ground .
Reminds me of the Star Trek Enterprise episode where the Klingons kidnap Dr. Phlox in order for him to help cure or restore the genetically altered Klingons who were dying .
He did n't have time and the Klingon general wanted to sacrifice some of his people as test subjects .
Phlox refused because it was unethical , but relented when given the option of millions of lives verses a few , and pressure from the Klingons .
The point is it was unethical , but did it , for what was at the time , the only winning optionSacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsible ( and might turn off many people to privitization ) and it stinks of the old Robber Baron 's lives for profit attitude ( sounds Ferengi , no ? ) .
So instead , if you want to go the private route , let me suggest a better short-medium term plan , which could be our winning option : Streamline NASA .
Keep it 's budget big , but dedicate it to ONLY spaceflight ( and maybe atmospheric research ) so as to try and have it waste less by setting goals for only that .
And have private companies haul cargo , like satellites and rovers into space .
That is something they are already capable of doing , and are doing it safely .
Now , it wo n't save as much money as privatizing manned-missions so soon , but it will save money and definitely save lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allow me to strongly disagree with you for a second.
While I think private space flight will be a good thing in the future, it's not now.
The technology is there, but funding, logistics and safety guidelines probably are not up to par with NASA'sI abhor your suggestion that we could sacrifice people to get private space flight off the ground.
Reminds me of the Star Trek Enterprise episode where the Klingons kidnap Dr. Phlox in order for him to help cure or restore the genetically altered Klingons who were dying.
He didn't have time and the Klingon general wanted to sacrifice some of his people as test subjects.
Phlox refused because it was unethical, but relented when given the option of millions of lives verses a few, and pressure from the Klingons.
The point is it was unethical, but did it, for what was at the time, the only winning optionSacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsible (and might turn off many people to privitization) and it stinks of the old Robber Baron's lives for profit attitude (sounds Ferengi, no?).
So instead, if you want to go the private route, let me suggest a better short-medium term plan, which could be our winning option:  Streamline NASA.
Keep it's budget big, but dedicate it to ONLY spaceflight (and maybe atmospheric research) so as to try and have it waste less by setting goals for only that.
And have private companies haul cargo, like satellites and rovers into space.
That is something they are already capable of doing, and are doing it safely.
Now, it won't save as much money as privatizing manned-missions so soon, but it will save money and definitely save lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947982</id>
	<title>Privatisation</title>
	<author>bencoder</author>
	<datestamp>1264771560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Privatisation isn't privatisation when your primary customers and sources of funding come from the government. There is in fact no difference, just an illusion of competition. What is needed is for them to remove the regulations that exist against private space travel. Remove the monopolistic government funded NASA entirely, leaving the playing field completely open for private firms to build a true spot in the marketplace. That is the only way space exploration, tourism and travel will be able to survive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privatisation is n't privatisation when your primary customers and sources of funding come from the government .
There is in fact no difference , just an illusion of competition .
What is needed is for them to remove the regulations that exist against private space travel .
Remove the monopolistic government funded NASA entirely , leaving the playing field completely open for private firms to build a true spot in the marketplace .
That is the only way space exploration , tourism and travel will be able to survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privatisation isn't privatisation when your primary customers and sources of funding come from the government.
There is in fact no difference, just an illusion of competition.
What is needed is for them to remove the regulations that exist against private space travel.
Remove the monopolistic government funded NASA entirely, leaving the playing field completely open for private firms to build a true spot in the marketplace.
That is the only way space exploration, tourism and travel will be able to survive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949006</id>
	<title>No public option then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264778880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guess he's been scared off that. Won't get any crap in the Senate at least.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess he 's been scared off that .
Wo n't get any crap in the Senate at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess he's been scared off that.
Won't get any crap in the Senate at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30952904</id>
	<title>Thinking twice now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264793760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How's that "hope and change" thing working out for you now?<br><br>It's not about the money being saved. Lord knows they waste more than that every single day! When you figure out why he's doing this, then you'll be one step closer to knowing the truth about Obama.<br><br>We tried to warn you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that " hope and change " thing working out for you now ? It 's not about the money being saved .
Lord knows they waste more than that every single day !
When you figure out why he 's doing this , then you 'll be one step closer to knowing the truth about Obama.We tried to warn you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that "hope and change" thing working out for you now?It's not about the money being saved.
Lord knows they waste more than that every single day!
When you figure out why he's doing this, then you'll be one step closer to knowing the truth about Obama.We tried to warn you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951800</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of the spin.</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1264789620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the stimulus plan that the overwhelming majority of economists said was necessary to prevent a huge economic collapse, and a good chunk said was way too *small*?  That stimulus package?</p><p>In a tough economy, esp. after a financial meltdown, the government is the only entity that can readily borrow money.  In fact, they usually get good rates then because investors are looking for a safe place to keep their money.  After the economy recovers, however, industry can more easily raise capital and rates for the government rise.  So it's important for governments to *spend* during a downturn and *save* during an upturn.</p><p>We usually forget the latter part and just hand out tax cuts during upturns.  Bad government -- no biscuit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the stimulus plan that the overwhelming majority of economists said was necessary to prevent a huge economic collapse , and a good chunk said was way too * small * ?
That stimulus package ? In a tough economy , esp .
after a financial meltdown , the government is the only entity that can readily borrow money .
In fact , they usually get good rates then because investors are looking for a safe place to keep their money .
After the economy recovers , however , industry can more easily raise capital and rates for the government rise .
So it 's important for governments to * spend * during a downturn and * save * during an upturn.We usually forget the latter part and just hand out tax cuts during upturns .
Bad government -- no biscuit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the stimulus plan that the overwhelming majority of economists said was necessary to prevent a huge economic collapse, and a good chunk said was way too *small*?
That stimulus package?In a tough economy, esp.
after a financial meltdown, the government is the only entity that can readily borrow money.
In fact, they usually get good rates then because investors are looking for a safe place to keep their money.
After the economy recovers, however, industry can more easily raise capital and rates for the government rise.
So it's important for governments to *spend* during a downturn and *save* during an upturn.We usually forget the latter part and just hand out tax cuts during upturns.
Bad government -- no biscuit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948274</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>camcorder</author>
	<datestamp>1264774200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not monkeys that you send to the space and risk their lifes. It's humans and moreover highly trained *scientists*. Unfortunately number of 6 billions doesn't count for this. Risking life of an astronaut is much more costly than some elderly dying. You can build shuttles in a factory but it's not possible to build scientists in a known automated way, otherwise we would have thousands of Einsteins, frankly we only had one till now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not monkeys that you send to the space and risk their lifes .
It 's humans and moreover highly trained * scientists * .
Unfortunately number of 6 billions does n't count for this .
Risking life of an astronaut is much more costly than some elderly dying .
You can build shuttles in a factory but it 's not possible to build scientists in a known automated way , otherwise we would have thousands of Einsteins , frankly we only had one till now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not monkeys that you send to the space and risk their lifes.
It's humans and moreover highly trained *scientists*.
Unfortunately number of 6 billions doesn't count for this.
Risking life of an astronaut is much more costly than some elderly dying.
You can build shuttles in a factory but it's not possible to build scientists in a known automated way, otherwise we would have thousands of Einsteins, frankly we only had one till now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948318</id>
	<title>Cowards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264774680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real reason the government was running it previously was because of the incredible risk. They could ask Marines and other service-members to risk their lives, and they were excited for the chance to get into space. Those brave men and women are still there and more than ready to put their lives on the line for their country. Unfortunately, as more and more civilians crept into the program, their tolerance for risk evaporated to the point the just getting a rocket off the pad is a nightmare.</p><p>It is a tragedy that this country lost 2 shuttles. But in this country, about 100 people die in traffic related incidents EVERY DAY. Spaceflight is a RISKY proposition, but we MUST be willing to simply accept some of that risk. We should take reasonable and responsible precautions, but we are currently so risk intolerant that we don't have a real manned program right now. Not because we don't have smart and brave folks ready to go, but because the bureaucrats running the show are cowards.</p><p>They're so scared they are trying to pawn it off on industry, and we can expect tons a litigation and finger pointing from the government following the first INEVITABLE death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real reason the government was running it previously was because of the incredible risk .
They could ask Marines and other service-members to risk their lives , and they were excited for the chance to get into space .
Those brave men and women are still there and more than ready to put their lives on the line for their country .
Unfortunately , as more and more civilians crept into the program , their tolerance for risk evaporated to the point the just getting a rocket off the pad is a nightmare.It is a tragedy that this country lost 2 shuttles .
But in this country , about 100 people die in traffic related incidents EVERY DAY .
Spaceflight is a RISKY proposition , but we MUST be willing to simply accept some of that risk .
We should take reasonable and responsible precautions , but we are currently so risk intolerant that we do n't have a real manned program right now .
Not because we do n't have smart and brave folks ready to go , but because the bureaucrats running the show are cowards.They 're so scared they are trying to pawn it off on industry , and we can expect tons a litigation and finger pointing from the government following the first INEVITABLE death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real reason the government was running it previously was because of the incredible risk.
They could ask Marines and other service-members to risk their lives, and they were excited for the chance to get into space.
Those brave men and women are still there and more than ready to put their lives on the line for their country.
Unfortunately, as more and more civilians crept into the program, their tolerance for risk evaporated to the point the just getting a rocket off the pad is a nightmare.It is a tragedy that this country lost 2 shuttles.
But in this country, about 100 people die in traffic related incidents EVERY DAY.
Spaceflight is a RISKY proposition, but we MUST be willing to simply accept some of that risk.
We should take reasonable and responsible precautions, but we are currently so risk intolerant that we don't have a real manned program right now.
Not because we don't have smart and brave folks ready to go, but because the bureaucrats running the show are cowards.They're so scared they are trying to pawn it off on industry, and we can expect tons a litigation and finger pointing from the government following the first INEVITABLE death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948264</id>
	<title>The new airline industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264774080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This just sounds like another oligopoly to bail out.
Seriously how many different vendors will actually pop up?
I'm gonna apply to be a space vendor im pretty sure my back yard would make a nice site for a launch pad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just sounds like another oligopoly to bail out .
Seriously how many different vendors will actually pop up ?
I 'm gon na apply to be a space vendor im pretty sure my back yard would make a nice site for a launch pad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just sounds like another oligopoly to bail out.
Seriously how many different vendors will actually pop up?
I'm gonna apply to be a space vendor im pretty sure my back yard would make a nice site for a launch pad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951172</id>
	<title>What Would Make A Nice Symbol, on the Moon?</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1264787520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "Yellow Stars"? The "Spinning Wheel"? The "Rising Sun"?  Maybe NASA would consider changing "NASA White" to Pantone #14-0848, <a href="http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/pantone.aspx?pg=20634&amp;ca=10" title="pantone.com">"The color yellow exemplifies the warmth and nurturing quality of the sun, properties we as humans are naturally drawn to for reassurance"</a> [pantone.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Yellow Stars " ?
The " Spinning Wheel " ?
The " Rising Sun " ?
Maybe NASA would consider changing " NASA White " to Pantone # 14-0848 , " The color yellow exemplifies the warmth and nurturing quality of the sun , properties we as humans are naturally drawn to for reassurance " [ pantone.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Yellow Stars"?
The "Spinning Wheel"?
The "Rising Sun"?
Maybe NASA would consider changing "NASA White" to Pantone #14-0848, "The color yellow exemplifies the warmth and nurturing quality of the sun, properties we as humans are naturally drawn to for reassurance" [pantone.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948008</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264771740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any loss of life is unacceptable in any industry.  And you're naive if you think you'll be able to afford a private space flight in your lifetime, especially if all these private companies are going to do is milk their lucritive government contracts for every single taxpayer penny.  That's the problem with government contracts, there is often no incentive to deliver the product/service faster, better, or cheaper.  The only people the private industry are accountable to is their shareholders.  And the shareholders always love juicy government contracts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any loss of life is unacceptable in any industry .
And you 're naive if you think you 'll be able to afford a private space flight in your lifetime , especially if all these private companies are going to do is milk their lucritive government contracts for every single taxpayer penny .
That 's the problem with government contracts , there is often no incentive to deliver the product/service faster , better , or cheaper .
The only people the private industry are accountable to is their shareholders .
And the shareholders always love juicy government contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any loss of life is unacceptable in any industry.
And you're naive if you think you'll be able to afford a private space flight in your lifetime, especially if all these private companies are going to do is milk their lucritive government contracts for every single taxpayer penny.
That's the problem with government contracts, there is often no incentive to deliver the product/service faster, better, or cheaper.
The only people the private industry are accountable to is their shareholders.
And the shareholders always love juicy government contracts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948204</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1264773420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA would pay private companies to develop huge launchers necessary to conduct research and concentrate on building the payload itself. Ares was a wobbly piece of shit that couldn't even launch a test payload without destroying the launchpad, and slamming into the payload itself. That's because there are political reasons behind the design of spacecraft that end up fucking up NASA's ability to do shit. For instance, the Space Shuttle was designed to land cross country with bigger wings to accommodate the military's request to land at military bases. (The military stopped using the Shuttle and ended up using disposable launchers.) A private company wouldn't have that problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA would pay private companies to develop huge launchers necessary to conduct research and concentrate on building the payload itself .
Ares was a wobbly piece of shit that could n't even launch a test payload without destroying the launchpad , and slamming into the payload itself .
That 's because there are political reasons behind the design of spacecraft that end up fucking up NASA 's ability to do shit .
For instance , the Space Shuttle was designed to land cross country with bigger wings to accommodate the military 's request to land at military bases .
( The military stopped using the Shuttle and ended up using disposable launchers .
) A private company would n't have that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA would pay private companies to develop huge launchers necessary to conduct research and concentrate on building the payload itself.
Ares was a wobbly piece of shit that couldn't even launch a test payload without destroying the launchpad, and slamming into the payload itself.
That's because there are political reasons behind the design of spacecraft that end up fucking up NASA's ability to do shit.
For instance, the Space Shuttle was designed to land cross country with bigger wings to accommodate the military's request to land at military bases.
(The military stopped using the Shuttle and ended up using disposable launchers.
) A private company wouldn't have that problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949370</id>
	<title>Re:This is Good</title>
	<author>hargrand</author>
	<datestamp>1264780620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the government's the only buyer, then you're right.  If, commercial spaceflight corporations are able to increase efficiencies and reduce costs to the point that they become affordable to others, however...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government 's the only buyer , then you 're right .
If , commercial spaceflight corporations are able to increase efficiencies and reduce costs to the point that they become affordable to others , however.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government's the only buyer, then you're right.
If, commercial spaceflight corporations are able to increase efficiencies and reduce costs to the point that they become affordable to others, however...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948540</id>
	<title>They're going about this the wrong way...</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1264776120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I think the future of space travel will be in the hands of the private sector, NASA are currently the only ones really equipped to do this stuff.</p><p><b>fair warning: this may get a little "everybody just get along"-like, so I apologize in advance for any hippy attitude you take from this </b></p><p>It's hard nowadays to sell a space program to the public, but it can be a unifying thing.  Countries are still working seperately (except for the ISS, which is quite an achievement).  What really needs to happen is the space programs of the world need to come together and work together.  If all the nations with major or developing space programs pooled their knowledge and resources, we could have a moonbase going in the next 10 years and be on Mars shortly thereafter.  The problem is that each country has a few super brilliant people.  Space travel requires a LOT of brilliant people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I think the future of space travel will be in the hands of the private sector , NASA are currently the only ones really equipped to do this stuff.fair warning : this may get a little " everybody just get along " -like , so I apologize in advance for any hippy attitude you take from this It 's hard nowadays to sell a space program to the public , but it can be a unifying thing .
Countries are still working seperately ( except for the ISS , which is quite an achievement ) .
What really needs to happen is the space programs of the world need to come together and work together .
If all the nations with major or developing space programs pooled their knowledge and resources , we could have a moonbase going in the next 10 years and be on Mars shortly thereafter .
The problem is that each country has a few super brilliant people .
Space travel requires a LOT of brilliant people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I think the future of space travel will be in the hands of the private sector, NASA are currently the only ones really equipped to do this stuff.fair warning: this may get a little "everybody just get along"-like, so I apologize in advance for any hippy attitude you take from this It's hard nowadays to sell a space program to the public, but it can be a unifying thing.
Countries are still working seperately (except for the ISS, which is quite an achievement).
What really needs to happen is the space programs of the world need to come together and work together.
If all the nations with major or developing space programs pooled their knowledge and resources, we could have a moonbase going in the next 10 years and be on Mars shortly thereafter.
The problem is that each country has a few super brilliant people.
Space travel requires a LOT of brilliant people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947784</id>
	<title>obligatory xkcd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264768860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://xkcd.com/695/</p><p>somebody please think of the robots...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/695/somebody please think of the robots.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/695/somebody please think of the robots...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948806</id>
	<title>I can't wait to see how the pundits spin this</title>
	<author>Bloopie</author>
	<datestamp>1264777740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't wait to see how the conservative "Pundits" spin this.</p><p>Rush:  The companies developing space flight are going to have to borrow a lot of money.  What does that mean?  Banks.  What do banks mean?  Jews.  OMG Obama is taking money from teh Jews!</p><p>Glenn:  This draws interesting parallels with Germany in the late 1930s, when many things that had been run by the government were privatized.  OMG Obama is taking us down the road to Nazism!</p><p>The average Slashdotter:  This just opens the door to more government regulation of the companies developing space flight.  How's that hope and change working out for you?  [Gets modded up to +5, insightful]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait to see how the conservative " Pundits " spin this.Rush : The companies developing space flight are going to have to borrow a lot of money .
What does that mean ?
Banks. What do banks mean ?
Jews. OMG Obama is taking money from teh Jews ! Glenn : This draws interesting parallels with Germany in the late 1930s , when many things that had been run by the government were privatized .
OMG Obama is taking us down the road to Nazism ! The average Slashdotter : This just opens the door to more government regulation of the companies developing space flight .
How 's that hope and change working out for you ?
[ Gets modded up to + 5 , insightful ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait to see how the conservative "Pundits" spin this.Rush:  The companies developing space flight are going to have to borrow a lot of money.
What does that mean?
Banks.  What do banks mean?
Jews.  OMG Obama is taking money from teh Jews!Glenn:  This draws interesting parallels with Germany in the late 1930s, when many things that had been run by the government were privatized.
OMG Obama is taking us down the road to Nazism!The average Slashdotter:  This just opens the door to more government regulation of the companies developing space flight.
How's that hope and change working out for you?
[Gets modded up to +5, insightful]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950178</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1264783920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation.</p></div><p>The deficit has already crushed the dreams and hopes of our generation.  The best we can do is hope to have the debt paid off by the time we die, so the next generation can have the luxury to utilize their government funds for things like exploration.</p><p>(I'm an Obama support, I think we should raise taxes more than cut spending, etc., but the deficit and staggering debt are crushing.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Obama said he 'll cancel Constellation , he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation.The deficit has already crushed the dreams and hopes of our generation .
The best we can do is hope to have the debt paid off by the time we die , so the next generation can have the luxury to utilize their government funds for things like exploration .
( I 'm an Obama support , I think we should raise taxes more than cut spending , etc. , but the deficit and staggering debt are crushing .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation.The deficit has already crushed the dreams and hopes of our generation.
The best we can do is hope to have the debt paid off by the time we die, so the next generation can have the luxury to utilize their government funds for things like exploration.
(I'm an Obama support, I think we should raise taxes more than cut spending, etc., but the deficit and staggering debt are crushing.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947706</id>
	<title>BEGIN (partisanBickering)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264767780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone else see the irony in two Republican congressmen complaining about the privatization of space flight?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else see the irony in two Republican congressmen complaining about the privatization of space flight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else see the irony in two Republican congressmen complaining about the privatization of space flight?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</id>
	<title>"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1264768440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon (apart of the tycoons themselves)? Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars, building permanent bases on Mars and Moon, reaching Europa and exploring her oceans. Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.</p><p>In other words: FAIL!</p><p>When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives, if they had even the slightest affinity for science. That was science that inspired millions, and from the sci-fi movies of the 70's, I'd say people were probably less dumb on average than they are today ("Andromeda Strain", for one example. Compare that to the blockbuster space-operas some call "Sci-fi"). Nowadays scientists are only prodded to make cheaper electronic components and larger plasma screens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon ( apart of the tycoons themselves ) ?
Private companies will not undertake the large-scale , visionary projects like sending people to Mars , building permanent bases on Mars and Moon , reaching Europa and exploring her oceans .
Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with , putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce , and then keep it for themselves.In other words : FAIL ! When Obama said he 'll cancel Constellation , he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation .
Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives , if they had even the slightest affinity for science .
That was science that inspired millions , and from the sci-fi movies of the 70 's , I 'd say people were probably less dumb on average than they are today ( " Andromeda Strain " , for one example .
Compare that to the blockbuster space-operas some call " Sci-fi " ) .
Nowadays scientists are only prodded to make cheaper electronic components and larger plasma screens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon (apart of the tycoons themselves)?
Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars, building permanent bases on Mars and Moon, reaching Europa and exploring her oceans.
Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.In other words: FAIL!When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation.
Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives, if they had even the slightest affinity for science.
That was science that inspired millions, and from the sci-fi movies of the 70's, I'd say people were probably less dumb on average than they are today ("Andromeda Strain", for one example.
Compare that to the blockbuster space-operas some call "Sci-fi").
Nowadays scientists are only prodded to make cheaper electronic components and larger plasma screens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948230</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>jeroen94704</author>
	<datestamp>1264773720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the contrary.<br>
<br>
Especially BECAUSE NASA should focus its resources on those visionary missions does it make sense to shift to commercial partners for the initial launch part. Why? Because launching by itself is not all that interesting. There will never be a vehicle that will launch from Earth and fly to Mars in one go. The only sensible solution for manned deep-space missions is to develop pure space-vehicles, that never touch own on a solid surface. If NASA can simply purchase seats to LEO on a commercial launcher for its astronauts, this frees up a tremendous amount of resources it now spends on launchers to work on those deep-space vehicles.<br>
<br>
Of course, this assumes there will be something to replace the moon-landing portion of Constellation. Since NASA is actually expected to get an increased budget in the next few years, despite a general budget-freeze in many departments, I have some hopes for this. They have to spend the money on something, after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the contrary .
Especially BECAUSE NASA should focus its resources on those visionary missions does it make sense to shift to commercial partners for the initial launch part .
Why ? Because launching by itself is not all that interesting .
There will never be a vehicle that will launch from Earth and fly to Mars in one go .
The only sensible solution for manned deep-space missions is to develop pure space-vehicles , that never touch own on a solid surface .
If NASA can simply purchase seats to LEO on a commercial launcher for its astronauts , this frees up a tremendous amount of resources it now spends on launchers to work on those deep-space vehicles .
Of course , this assumes there will be something to replace the moon-landing portion of Constellation .
Since NASA is actually expected to get an increased budget in the next few years , despite a general budget-freeze in many departments , I have some hopes for this .
They have to spend the money on something , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the contrary.
Especially BECAUSE NASA should focus its resources on those visionary missions does it make sense to shift to commercial partners for the initial launch part.
Why? Because launching by itself is not all that interesting.
There will never be a vehicle that will launch from Earth and fly to Mars in one go.
The only sensible solution for manned deep-space missions is to develop pure space-vehicles, that never touch own on a solid surface.
If NASA can simply purchase seats to LEO on a commercial launcher for its astronauts, this frees up a tremendous amount of resources it now spends on launchers to work on those deep-space vehicles.
Of course, this assumes there will be something to replace the moon-landing portion of Constellation.
Since NASA is actually expected to get an increased budget in the next few years, despite a general budget-freeze in many departments, I have some hopes for this.
They have to spend the money on something, after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30954018</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>2short</author>
	<datestamp>1264755780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Communication lag and inflexibility."<br><br>Getting there and not dying.<br><br>
&nbsp; "If you instruct your robot to go 2 meters forward, and then wait 40 minutes at least, just t check if it got stuck or everything is fine, you're not going to do much science in a year."<br><br>So if your theory is correct, humans exploring Mars directly should get lots more done in a year than humans exploring via remote probes.  Well, let's check the scoreboard!  Hmmm, what year did you have in mind?  The last several all seem to say "Humans with probes: lots.  Humans going there: squat".<br><br>"Communication lag and inflexibility. That's why humans can do much, much more (like many orders of magnitude more) than any currently imaginable robot. Communication lag and inflexibility."<br><br>Getting there and not dying.  That's why humans with probes can do much, much more (like, infinity times more) than any currently actual humans with space suits.  Getting there and not dying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Communication lag and inflexibility .
" Getting there and not dying .
  " If you instruct your robot to go 2 meters forward , and then wait 40 minutes at least , just t check if it got stuck or everything is fine , you 're not going to do much science in a year .
" So if your theory is correct , humans exploring Mars directly should get lots more done in a year than humans exploring via remote probes .
Well , let 's check the scoreboard !
Hmmm , what year did you have in mind ?
The last several all seem to say " Humans with probes : lots .
Humans going there : squat " .
" Communication lag and inflexibility .
That 's why humans can do much , much more ( like many orders of magnitude more ) than any currently imaginable robot .
Communication lag and inflexibility .
" Getting there and not dying .
That 's why humans with probes can do much , much more ( like , infinity times more ) than any currently actual humans with space suits .
Getting there and not dying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Communication lag and inflexibility.
"Getting there and not dying.
  "If you instruct your robot to go 2 meters forward, and then wait 40 minutes at least, just t check if it got stuck or everything is fine, you're not going to do much science in a year.
"So if your theory is correct, humans exploring Mars directly should get lots more done in a year than humans exploring via remote probes.
Well, let's check the scoreboard!
Hmmm, what year did you have in mind?
The last several all seem to say "Humans with probes: lots.
Humans going there: squat".
"Communication lag and inflexibility.
That's why humans can do much, much more (like many orders of magnitude more) than any currently imaginable robot.
Communication lag and inflexibility.
"Getting there and not dying.
That's why humans with probes can do much, much more (like, infinity times more) than any currently actual humans with space suits.
Getting there and not dying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947878</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264770180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I understand your objection.  NASA would still be free to do big projects (horribly), they'd just have to buy the first ride from commercial providers.. which is really the way it should be.  NASA shouldn't do anything that can be bought off-the-shelf and, if it currently cant buy something off-the-shelf, it should be doing the work to ensure that it soon will be able to do so.  No commercial company has ever launched a person to orbit.  Suborbital was only done 5 years ago.  How freakin' disgraceful is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I understand your objection .
NASA would still be free to do big projects ( horribly ) , they 'd just have to buy the first ride from commercial providers.. which is really the way it should be .
NASA should n't do anything that can be bought off-the-shelf and , if it currently cant buy something off-the-shelf , it should be doing the work to ensure that it soon will be able to do so .
No commercial company has ever launched a person to orbit .
Suborbital was only done 5 years ago .
How freakin ' disgraceful is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I understand your objection.
NASA would still be free to do big projects (horribly), they'd just have to buy the first ride from commercial providers.. which is really the way it should be.
NASA shouldn't do anything that can be bought off-the-shelf and, if it currently cant buy something off-the-shelf, it should be doing the work to ensure that it soon will be able to do so.
No commercial company has ever launched a person to orbit.
Suborbital was only done 5 years ago.
How freakin' disgraceful is that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948122</id>
	<title>Re:How's that working out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264772520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I see this as a way to siphon off funds to be redirected to more social programs</p></div><p>TFA: "Mr. Obama&rsquo;s request, which will be announced on Monday, would add $6 billion over five years to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration&rsquo;s budget."</p><p>How is increasing NASA's budget and enabling it to buy space launches from private companies "siphoning off funds to be redirected to more social programs"? Your political bias is leading to illogical reasoning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see this as a way to siphon off funds to be redirected to more social programsTFA : " Mr. Obama    s request , which will be announced on Monday , would add $ 6 billion over five years to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration    s budget .
" How is increasing NASA 's budget and enabling it to buy space launches from private companies " siphoning off funds to be redirected to more social programs " ?
Your political bias is leading to illogical reasoning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see this as a way to siphon off funds to be redirected to more social programsTFA: "Mr. Obama’s request, which will be announced on Monday, would add $6 billion over five years to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s budget.
"How is increasing NASA's budget and enabling it to buy space launches from private companies "siphoning off funds to be redirected to more social programs"?
Your political bias is leading to illogical reasoning.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948744</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264777260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/09/11/1421233/Risk-Aversion-At-Odds-With-Manned-Space-Exploration" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">risk aversion at odds with manned spaceflight success</a> [slashdot.org] a few months ago?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't risk aversion at odds with manned spaceflight success [ slashdot.org ] a few months ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't risk aversion at odds with manned spaceflight success [slashdot.org] a few months ago?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948496</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1264775880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Plan : increase the budget to NASA, and ask for them to purchase rides to space from newly formed private companies."</p><p>I think that the free markets are the best mechanism we have for providing the vast bulk of goods and services.  However, they're not a universal solution that can be applied to every aspect of economic activity with ideal results.</p><p>A corporation isn't going to work for free.  Privatization makes sense when the private enterprise's profits and government cost savings could be achieved through efficiency, innovation and economy of scale.  In this case however, I believe that any "savings" to the government would be marginal (or negative), and profits would come from doing exactly what you described . . . cutting corners in the areas of quality and safety.  If the government's recent track record is any indication, we will end up with a government bureaucracy handing out lucrative (no-bid?) contracts to a bunch of corporations.  We will have intentionally obfuscated accounting mechanisms to prevent detection of fraud, and we'll end up with a more expensive and lower quality product.  Think KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater and all the other war profiteering contractors, sub-contractors, sub-sub-contractors, etc.</p><p>Interesting idea about increasing the danger of manned space flight as a population control mechanism however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Plan : increase the budget to NASA , and ask for them to purchase rides to space from newly formed private companies .
" I think that the free markets are the best mechanism we have for providing the vast bulk of goods and services .
However , they 're not a universal solution that can be applied to every aspect of economic activity with ideal results.A corporation is n't going to work for free .
Privatization makes sense when the private enterprise 's profits and government cost savings could be achieved through efficiency , innovation and economy of scale .
In this case however , I believe that any " savings " to the government would be marginal ( or negative ) , and profits would come from doing exactly what you described .
. .
cutting corners in the areas of quality and safety .
If the government 's recent track record is any indication , we will end up with a government bureaucracy handing out lucrative ( no-bid ?
) contracts to a bunch of corporations .
We will have intentionally obfuscated accounting mechanisms to prevent detection of fraud , and we 'll end up with a more expensive and lower quality product .
Think KBR , Halliburton , Blackwater and all the other war profiteering contractors , sub-contractors , sub-sub-contractors , etc.Interesting idea about increasing the danger of manned space flight as a population control mechanism however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Plan : increase the budget to NASA, and ask for them to purchase rides to space from newly formed private companies.
"I think that the free markets are the best mechanism we have for providing the vast bulk of goods and services.
However, they're not a universal solution that can be applied to every aspect of economic activity with ideal results.A corporation isn't going to work for free.
Privatization makes sense when the private enterprise's profits and government cost savings could be achieved through efficiency, innovation and economy of scale.
In this case however, I believe that any "savings" to the government would be marginal (or negative), and profits would come from doing exactly what you described .
. .
cutting corners in the areas of quality and safety.
If the government's recent track record is any indication, we will end up with a government bureaucracy handing out lucrative (no-bid?
) contracts to a bunch of corporations.
We will have intentionally obfuscated accounting mechanisms to prevent detection of fraud, and we'll end up with a more expensive and lower quality product.
Think KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater and all the other war profiteering contractors, sub-contractors, sub-sub-contractors, etc.Interesting idea about increasing the danger of manned space flight as a population control mechanism however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951394</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1264788300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm usually for the privatization of things but Space Travel?  I'm not so sure.  It seems that a sizable initial investment is necessary to start delving into the business of space travel and it could be many years before it pays back....if it ever pays back.  How many companies could afford to tell their share holders that they plan to sink $500 Million (start today) planning a 2020 flight to Mars which, if successful, COULD lead to space tourism by 2030.  Most of those shareholders (And indeed most of the executives at the company) probably could care less if the company is turning a huge profit in 2030.  They sure as heck will care about spending $500 Million starting today.</p><p>Just to draw a parallel from history (it seems somewhat relevant) the "New World" was discovered by Christopher Columbus (yeah yeah, Indigenous People, Leif Erickson...whatever).  It wasn't a company at the time but a country that founded the efforts of exploration.  Spain started throwing various types of people overseas to try to establish colonies, find stuff, trade with or kill and steal from Indians.  Eventually, when it was shown that yes, it was possible to get overseas and start a little colony and/or make some cash you saw the Virginia Company sending out Settlers to create Jamestown.  Heck, I think the Virginia Company was about to cut Jamestown loose before they stumbled upon tobacco.</p><p>The point is that the initial exploration was done by a kingdom and once proved to be profitable, moved onto private enterprise.  I personally envisioned Space Travel following this general pattern.  Unfortunately I don't think we are anywhere near profitable as far as space is concerned.  I could be very wrong about that though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm usually for the privatization of things but Space Travel ?
I 'm not so sure .
It seems that a sizable initial investment is necessary to start delving into the business of space travel and it could be many years before it pays back....if it ever pays back .
How many companies could afford to tell their share holders that they plan to sink $ 500 Million ( start today ) planning a 2020 flight to Mars which , if successful , COULD lead to space tourism by 2030 .
Most of those shareholders ( And indeed most of the executives at the company ) probably could care less if the company is turning a huge profit in 2030 .
They sure as heck will care about spending $ 500 Million starting today.Just to draw a parallel from history ( it seems somewhat relevant ) the " New World " was discovered by Christopher Columbus ( yeah yeah , Indigenous People , Leif Erickson...whatever ) .
It was n't a company at the time but a country that founded the efforts of exploration .
Spain started throwing various types of people overseas to try to establish colonies , find stuff , trade with or kill and steal from Indians .
Eventually , when it was shown that yes , it was possible to get overseas and start a little colony and/or make some cash you saw the Virginia Company sending out Settlers to create Jamestown .
Heck , I think the Virginia Company was about to cut Jamestown loose before they stumbled upon tobacco.The point is that the initial exploration was done by a kingdom and once proved to be profitable , moved onto private enterprise .
I personally envisioned Space Travel following this general pattern .
Unfortunately I do n't think we are anywhere near profitable as far as space is concerned .
I could be very wrong about that though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm usually for the privatization of things but Space Travel?
I'm not so sure.
It seems that a sizable initial investment is necessary to start delving into the business of space travel and it could be many years before it pays back....if it ever pays back.
How many companies could afford to tell their share holders that they plan to sink $500 Million (start today) planning a 2020 flight to Mars which, if successful, COULD lead to space tourism by 2030.
Most of those shareholders (And indeed most of the executives at the company) probably could care less if the company is turning a huge profit in 2030.
They sure as heck will care about spending $500 Million starting today.Just to draw a parallel from history (it seems somewhat relevant) the "New World" was discovered by Christopher Columbus (yeah yeah, Indigenous People, Leif Erickson...whatever).
It wasn't a company at the time but a country that founded the efforts of exploration.
Spain started throwing various types of people overseas to try to establish colonies, find stuff, trade with or kill and steal from Indians.
Eventually, when it was shown that yes, it was possible to get overseas and start a little colony and/or make some cash you saw the Virginia Company sending out Settlers to create Jamestown.
Heck, I think the Virginia Company was about to cut Jamestown loose before they stumbled upon tobacco.The point is that the initial exploration was done by a kingdom and once proved to be profitable, moved onto private enterprise.
I personally envisioned Space Travel following this general pattern.
Unfortunately I don't think we are anywhere near profitable as far as space is concerned.
I could be very wrong about that though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953756</id>
	<title>It's the end of the world!</title>
	<author>SoftwareArtist</author>
	<datestamp>1264797720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did I read that correctly?  A Republican just argued <i>against</i> privatizing a huge government program???  Beware the coming plague of locusts!  The apocalypse is near!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I read that correctly ?
A Republican just argued against privatizing a huge government program ? ? ?
Beware the coming plague of locusts !
The apocalypse is near !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I read that correctly?
A Republican just argued against privatizing a huge government program???
Beware the coming plague of locusts!
The apocalypse is near!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951502</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>Torino10</author>
	<datestamp>1264788600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it completely reprehensible that young men and women can volunteer to kill and possibly be killed for political agendas, but are barred from volunteering to advance spaceflight or medicine.</p><p>To volunteer to risk ones life for the betterment of humanity should not be limited to military service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it completely reprehensible that young men and women can volunteer to kill and possibly be killed for political agendas , but are barred from volunteering to advance spaceflight or medicine.To volunteer to risk ones life for the betterment of humanity should not be limited to military service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it completely reprehensible that young men and women can volunteer to kill and possibly be killed for political agendas, but are barred from volunteering to advance spaceflight or medicine.To volunteer to risk ones life for the betterment of humanity should not be limited to military service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948628</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>fedos</author>
	<datestamp>1264776660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I disagree with Obama's decision, I must say that your objection shows that you don't quite understand what his plan is. The government, through NASA, will still be paying for the space program. The difference will be that instead of issuing a contract to design and build a rocket/shuttle, the will instead issue a contract to provide a launch for such-and-such date or time period. The contract will also state what capabilities will be available to the astronauts while in space (ISS docking, experiments, space walks, etc.). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_private\_spaceflight\_companies" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">There are already companies working on private spaceflight vehicles.</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>That said, I do agree that this is a bad idea. The promise to return to the moon and subsequently proceed to Mars was the best policy to come out of the Bush administration.</p><p>Remember that Congress ultimately decides which government projects get funded, the president only makes budget proposals. If Congress wants the Ares I and Constellation to be completed then they can place language into the budget authorization and appropriation bills that prohibit NASA from diverting funds from the program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I disagree with Obama 's decision , I must say that your objection shows that you do n't quite understand what his plan is .
The government , through NASA , will still be paying for the space program .
The difference will be that instead of issuing a contract to design and build a rocket/shuttle , the will instead issue a contract to provide a launch for such-and-such date or time period .
The contract will also state what capabilities will be available to the astronauts while in space ( ISS docking , experiments , space walks , etc. ) .
There are already companies working on private spaceflight vehicles .
[ wikipedia.org ] That said , I do agree that this is a bad idea .
The promise to return to the moon and subsequently proceed to Mars was the best policy to come out of the Bush administration.Remember that Congress ultimately decides which government projects get funded , the president only makes budget proposals .
If Congress wants the Ares I and Constellation to be completed then they can place language into the budget authorization and appropriation bills that prohibit NASA from diverting funds from the program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I disagree with Obama's decision, I must say that your objection shows that you don't quite understand what his plan is.
The government, through NASA, will still be paying for the space program.
The difference will be that instead of issuing a contract to design and build a rocket/shuttle, the will instead issue a contract to provide a launch for such-and-such date or time period.
The contract will also state what capabilities will be available to the astronauts while in space (ISS docking, experiments, space walks, etc.).
There are already companies working on private spaceflight vehicles.
[wikipedia.org] That said, I do agree that this is a bad idea.
The promise to return to the moon and subsequently proceed to Mars was the best policy to come out of the Bush administration.Remember that Congress ultimately decides which government projects get funded, the president only makes budget proposals.
If Congress wants the Ares I and Constellation to be completed then they can place language into the budget authorization and appropriation bills that prohibit NASA from diverting funds from the program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</id>
	<title>A sound plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264767420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plan : increase the budget to NASA, and ask for them to purchase rides to space from newly formed private companies.</p><p>The article says that NASA has "50 years of institutional experience" in doing spaceflight, and that this would be a bad idea.</p><p>The "institutional" part of that statement is the problem.  NASA stinks for spaceflight.  The problem isn't in their engineering, it's in the fact that they have many, many masters all trying to stir the pot.  Their budget depends upon the whim of Congressmen, not performing to a contract.</p><p>Privatization has many failures.  There's a lot of goods and services that it doesn't make sense to privatize.  But I think the high tech industry of space travel is one that will benefit enormously from privatization.</p><p>The only downside?  Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost, but they'll be a little riskier.  More astronauts will be killed.  I don't see this as a problem : there's 6 billion people on the planet, and I for one if faced between possibly dying during a trip to space or dying from old age would choose the former.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plan : increase the budget to NASA , and ask for them to purchase rides to space from newly formed private companies.The article says that NASA has " 50 years of institutional experience " in doing spaceflight , and that this would be a bad idea.The " institutional " part of that statement is the problem .
NASA stinks for spaceflight .
The problem is n't in their engineering , it 's in the fact that they have many , many masters all trying to stir the pot .
Their budget depends upon the whim of Congressmen , not performing to a contract.Privatization has many failures .
There 's a lot of goods and services that it does n't make sense to privatize .
But I think the high tech industry of space travel is one that will benefit enormously from privatization.The only downside ?
Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost , but they 'll be a little riskier .
More astronauts will be killed .
I do n't see this as a problem : there 's 6 billion people on the planet , and I for one if faced between possibly dying during a trip to space or dying from old age would choose the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plan : increase the budget to NASA, and ask for them to purchase rides to space from newly formed private companies.The article says that NASA has "50 years of institutional experience" in doing spaceflight, and that this would be a bad idea.The "institutional" part of that statement is the problem.
NASA stinks for spaceflight.
The problem isn't in their engineering, it's in the fact that they have many, many masters all trying to stir the pot.
Their budget depends upon the whim of Congressmen, not performing to a contract.Privatization has many failures.
There's a lot of goods and services that it doesn't make sense to privatize.
But I think the high tech industry of space travel is one that will benefit enormously from privatization.The only downside?
Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost, but they'll be a little riskier.
More astronauts will be killed.
I don't see this as a problem : there's 6 billion people on the planet, and I for one if faced between possibly dying during a trip to space or dying from old age would choose the former.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947796</id>
	<title>SHpIT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264768920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">BSD style.' In the Romeo and Juliet departures of dying. Everyone</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>BSD style .
' In the Romeo and Juliet departures of dying .
Everyone [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BSD style.
' In the Romeo and Juliet departures of dying.
Everyone [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948618</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1264776600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>***Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon (apart of the tycoons themselves)? Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars,***</p><p>Does NASA show any sign of getting you to Mars?  Did it ever?  Those are rhetorical questions and the answer to both is "No".</p><p>In point of fact the MANNED spaceflight side of NASA has been an ongoing disaster for decades.  The space shuttle (which I opposed) was wildly overpromised and failed to deliver.  The International Space Station (which I opposed and continue to oppose) is pointless.  George the Clueless's Mars program (which I opposed) was overpromised and was never going to deliver.  We fortunate that the damn thing appears to have failed early on.</p><p>Pay private companies to put astronauts in space?  Sure, why not?  Just don't pay to many of them too much.  IMO, It is very unlikely that private companies will come up with safe, cheap methods to put folks and stuff into orbit.  But their chances are somewhat better than NASA's I think.</p><p>So, let's spend more on unmanned exploration vehicles.  Let's spend less on people in space.  And let's plug away at getting costs for spaceflight down to levels where human exploration of the solar system is practical.</p><p>When we get to the point where sending folks to Mars is practical and not too expensive, I'll support it -- except that won't happen until long after I'm dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon ( apart of the tycoons themselves ) ?
Private companies will not undertake the large-scale , visionary projects like sending people to Mars , * * * Does NASA show any sign of getting you to Mars ?
Did it ever ?
Those are rhetorical questions and the answer to both is " No " .In point of fact the MANNED spaceflight side of NASA has been an ongoing disaster for decades .
The space shuttle ( which I opposed ) was wildly overpromised and failed to deliver .
The International Space Station ( which I opposed and continue to oppose ) is pointless .
George the Clueless 's Mars program ( which I opposed ) was overpromised and was never going to deliver .
We fortunate that the damn thing appears to have failed early on.Pay private companies to put astronauts in space ?
Sure , why not ?
Just do n't pay to many of them too much .
IMO , It is very unlikely that private companies will come up with safe , cheap methods to put folks and stuff into orbit .
But their chances are somewhat better than NASA 's I think.So , let 's spend more on unmanned exploration vehicles .
Let 's spend less on people in space .
And let 's plug away at getting costs for spaceflight down to levels where human exploration of the solar system is practical.When we get to the point where sending folks to Mars is practical and not too expensive , I 'll support it -- except that wo n't happen until long after I 'm dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon (apart of the tycoons themselves)?
Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars,***Does NASA show any sign of getting you to Mars?
Did it ever?
Those are rhetorical questions and the answer to both is "No".In point of fact the MANNED spaceflight side of NASA has been an ongoing disaster for decades.
The space shuttle (which I opposed) was wildly overpromised and failed to deliver.
The International Space Station (which I opposed and continue to oppose) is pointless.
George the Clueless's Mars program (which I opposed) was overpromised and was never going to deliver.
We fortunate that the damn thing appears to have failed early on.Pay private companies to put astronauts in space?
Sure, why not?
Just don't pay to many of them too much.
IMO, It is very unlikely that private companies will come up with safe, cheap methods to put folks and stuff into orbit.
But their chances are somewhat better than NASA's I think.So, let's spend more on unmanned exploration vehicles.
Let's spend less on people in space.
And let's plug away at getting costs for spaceflight down to levels where human exploration of the solar system is practical.When we get to the point where sending folks to Mars is practical and not too expensive, I'll support it -- except that won't happen until long after I'm dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947704</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264767780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949476</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1264781040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars, building permanent bases on Mars and Moon, reaching <b>Europa</b> and exploring her oceans.</p></div></blockquote><p>Whoa whoa whoa, but we are to attempt no landing there!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Private companies will not undertake the large-scale , visionary projects like sending people to Mars , building permanent bases on Mars and Moon , reaching Europa and exploring her oceans.Whoa whoa whoa , but we are to attempt no landing there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars, building permanent bases on Mars and Moon, reaching Europa and exploring her oceans.Whoa whoa whoa, but we are to attempt no landing there!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947772</id>
	<title>Rant incoming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264768680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like some bigwigs with enough lobbying power in DC decided they wanted to rape the USA for more money. I mean, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the perfect models for contracting to civilians agencies, who take a 110 million dollar contract, and subcontract it, paying the subcontractors about 10\% and they get to pocket the rest. Of course with such public program, this could never happen you say. All it takes is some byzantine law that says they arent required to disclose budgets and suddenly we have no idea where the money goes (besides the pockets of corrupt politicians and greedy C level officers) They say in TFA they wan't to increase "entrepreneurial interests" WTF. I'm so sick and tired of washington politics it makes me so disappointed in my country. With the public fighting over partisanship ("Obama's the antichrist","Bush done it") people need to wake up and realize that the problem is greed for money and power. Both fucking parties are just as at fault for everything that is wrong with the USA right now. First step to a better America IMO is to completely stop the ability for corporations to make donations to any type of political party or anyone with political affiliation. Lobbying should be an intellectual exercise, not a who can buy off who exercise. This would proportionately seem to put more power back in the people hands, at least as a start. Second? American people need to start using their brains. Stop watching 5 hours of TV a day and read a good non-fiction book about the middle east, american politics, anything to expand your mind. Learn how to stop being so damn religious and start thinking rationally and objectively (all of these things are also parts of basic education, something which is also failing horribly) Washington needs to stop using their own heads and start listening to Think Tanks and people with practical experience equally. Have accountability in everything. The sad part? It will more than likely never happen. Its a prisoners dilemma sort of situation. Most of use know the government and corporations are horribly corrupt and inefficient, they screw us over all the time. So what is your response? "Well all I can do is look out for me and my family" which is the same thought process the corrupts people have. Everyone (with exceptions of course, comon, I'm making a bunch a generalizations to get my point across) has this attitude and it never changes. If you were that C level person, what would you do? Even if you think you would do the right thing, studies show that by nature to higher you get the more likely you are to be stricter about moral issues on other people but more lax on them with yourself. The problem is that it seems to be human nature. Send 50 people to colonize a new earth duplicate planet, and within months I guarantee there would be thievery, repression, greed ect. Yep, pretty much humanity seems to be like a virus, and one of these millennium the universe is likely to swallow us whole and try and start over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like some bigwigs with enough lobbying power in DC decided they wanted to rape the USA for more money .
I mean , the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the perfect models for contracting to civilians agencies , who take a 110 million dollar contract , and subcontract it , paying the subcontractors about 10 \ % and they get to pocket the rest .
Of course with such public program , this could never happen you say .
All it takes is some byzantine law that says they arent required to disclose budgets and suddenly we have no idea where the money goes ( besides the pockets of corrupt politicians and greedy C level officers ) They say in TFA they wa n't to increase " entrepreneurial interests " WTF .
I 'm so sick and tired of washington politics it makes me so disappointed in my country .
With the public fighting over partisanship ( " Obama 's the antichrist " , " Bush done it " ) people need to wake up and realize that the problem is greed for money and power .
Both fucking parties are just as at fault for everything that is wrong with the USA right now .
First step to a better America IMO is to completely stop the ability for corporations to make donations to any type of political party or anyone with political affiliation .
Lobbying should be an intellectual exercise , not a who can buy off who exercise .
This would proportionately seem to put more power back in the people hands , at least as a start .
Second ? American people need to start using their brains .
Stop watching 5 hours of TV a day and read a good non-fiction book about the middle east , american politics , anything to expand your mind .
Learn how to stop being so damn religious and start thinking rationally and objectively ( all of these things are also parts of basic education , something which is also failing horribly ) Washington needs to stop using their own heads and start listening to Think Tanks and people with practical experience equally .
Have accountability in everything .
The sad part ?
It will more than likely never happen .
Its a prisoners dilemma sort of situation .
Most of use know the government and corporations are horribly corrupt and inefficient , they screw us over all the time .
So what is your response ?
" Well all I can do is look out for me and my family " which is the same thought process the corrupts people have .
Everyone ( with exceptions of course , comon , I 'm making a bunch a generalizations to get my point across ) has this attitude and it never changes .
If you were that C level person , what would you do ?
Even if you think you would do the right thing , studies show that by nature to higher you get the more likely you are to be stricter about moral issues on other people but more lax on them with yourself .
The problem is that it seems to be human nature .
Send 50 people to colonize a new earth duplicate planet , and within months I guarantee there would be thievery , repression , greed ect .
Yep , pretty much humanity seems to be like a virus , and one of these millennium the universe is likely to swallow us whole and try and start over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like some bigwigs with enough lobbying power in DC decided they wanted to rape the USA for more money.
I mean, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the perfect models for contracting to civilians agencies, who take a 110 million dollar contract, and subcontract it, paying the subcontractors about 10\% and they get to pocket the rest.
Of course with such public program, this could never happen you say.
All it takes is some byzantine law that says they arent required to disclose budgets and suddenly we have no idea where the money goes (besides the pockets of corrupt politicians and greedy C level officers) They say in TFA they wan't to increase "entrepreneurial interests" WTF.
I'm so sick and tired of washington politics it makes me so disappointed in my country.
With the public fighting over partisanship ("Obama's the antichrist","Bush done it") people need to wake up and realize that the problem is greed for money and power.
Both fucking parties are just as at fault for everything that is wrong with the USA right now.
First step to a better America IMO is to completely stop the ability for corporations to make donations to any type of political party or anyone with political affiliation.
Lobbying should be an intellectual exercise, not a who can buy off who exercise.
This would proportionately seem to put more power back in the people hands, at least as a start.
Second? American people need to start using their brains.
Stop watching 5 hours of TV a day and read a good non-fiction book about the middle east, american politics, anything to expand your mind.
Learn how to stop being so damn religious and start thinking rationally and objectively (all of these things are also parts of basic education, something which is also failing horribly) Washington needs to stop using their own heads and start listening to Think Tanks and people with practical experience equally.
Have accountability in everything.
The sad part?
It will more than likely never happen.
Its a prisoners dilemma sort of situation.
Most of use know the government and corporations are horribly corrupt and inefficient, they screw us over all the time.
So what is your response?
"Well all I can do is look out for me and my family" which is the same thought process the corrupts people have.
Everyone (with exceptions of course, comon, I'm making a bunch a generalizations to get my point across) has this attitude and it never changes.
If you were that C level person, what would you do?
Even if you think you would do the right thing, studies show that by nature to higher you get the more likely you are to be stricter about moral issues on other people but more lax on them with yourself.
The problem is that it seems to be human nature.
Send 50 people to colonize a new earth duplicate planet, and within months I guarantee there would be thievery, repression, greed ect.
Yep, pretty much humanity seems to be like a virus, and one of these millennium the universe is likely to swallow us whole and try and start over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948422</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1264775460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost, but they'll be a little riskier.  More astronauts will be killed.  I don't see this as a problem : there's 6 billion people on the planet, and I for one if faced between possibly dying during a trip to space or dying from old age would choose the former.</p></div><p>And it's a great way to cull excess population without the social stigma of war...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost , but they 'll be a little riskier .
More astronauts will be killed .
I do n't see this as a problem : there 's 6 billion people on the planet , and I for one if faced between possibly dying during a trip to space or dying from old age would choose the former.And it 's a great way to cull excess population without the social stigma of war.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost, but they'll be a little riskier.
More astronauts will be killed.
I don't see this as a problem : there's 6 billion people on the planet, and I for one if faced between possibly dying during a trip to space or dying from old age would choose the former.And it's a great way to cull excess population without the social stigma of war...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950768</id>
	<title>Maybe There's an Up Side to This Decision?</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1264786140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are some very eloquent public speakers that will not enter the bathroom before turning on the light; so maybe going to the Moon is just to scary for some of them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some very eloquent public speakers that will not enter the bathroom before turning on the light ; so maybe going to the Moon is just to scary for some of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some very eloquent public speakers that will not enter the bathroom before turning on the light; so maybe going to the Moon is just to scary for some of them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949948</id>
	<title>Have we been primed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264783140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for accepting bigger risk in space exploration?</p><p>Lower cost (resulting in less safety) increases profits. Profit is not so important for NASA but it is important for commercial space exploration. It'd be great for that fledgling industry if it could start out with lower safety standards than what NASA now has to comply to.<br>It may work just so long as the consumer thinks it's acceptable, which in the case of space exploration is in part a matter of public opinion.</p><p><b>Risk Aversion At Odds With Manned Space Exploration</b><br><a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/09/11/1421233/Risk-Aversion-At-Odds-With-Manned-Space-Exploration" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/09/11/1421233/Risk-Aversion-At-Odds-With-Manned-Space-Exploration</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for accepting bigger risk in space exploration ? Lower cost ( resulting in less safety ) increases profits .
Profit is not so important for NASA but it is important for commercial space exploration .
It 'd be great for that fledgling industry if it could start out with lower safety standards than what NASA now has to comply to.It may work just so long as the consumer thinks it 's acceptable , which in the case of space exploration is in part a matter of public opinion.Risk Aversion At Odds With Manned Space Explorationhttp : //politics.slashdot.org/story/09/09/11/1421233/Risk-Aversion-At-Odds-With-Manned-Space-Exploration [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for accepting bigger risk in space exploration?Lower cost (resulting in less safety) increases profits.
Profit is not so important for NASA but it is important for commercial space exploration.
It'd be great for that fledgling industry if it could start out with lower safety standards than what NASA now has to comply to.It may work just so long as the consumer thinks it's acceptable, which in the case of space exploration is in part a matter of public opinion.Risk Aversion At Odds With Manned Space Explorationhttp://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/09/11/1421233/Risk-Aversion-At-Odds-With-Manned-Space-Exploration [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948048</id>
	<title>Re:How's that working out</title>
	<author>lottameez</author>
	<datestamp>1264772160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't all government programs poorly run and ineffective?  Isn't that what we keep hearing about health care? "If you want to have your health care be like the post office...blah blah blah".  Why is this different?  Can't private industry do a better job?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't all government programs poorly run and ineffective ?
Is n't that what we keep hearing about health care ?
" If you want to have your health care be like the post office...blah blah blah " .
Why is this different ?
Ca n't private industry do a better job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't all government programs poorly run and ineffective?
Isn't that what we keep hearing about health care?
"If you want to have your health care be like the post office...blah blah blah".
Why is this different?
Can't private industry do a better job?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950744</id>
	<title>Re:Fly Ryanair . . . to the Moon!</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1264786020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I was a kid I had a book called Space Age Mother Goose.  One of the poems went:

Some things will never change
Although we travel to the stars
Arriving on the Moon we'll find
Our luggage sent to Mars.


(My personal favorite was

Little Bo-Peep has lost her sheep
The radar has failed to find them
They'll all meet face-to-face in parallel space
preceding their leaders behind them.

)</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a kid I had a book called Space Age Mother Goose .
One of the poems went : Some things will never change Although we travel to the stars Arriving on the Moon we 'll find Our luggage sent to Mars .
( My personal favorite was Little Bo-Peep has lost her sheep The radar has failed to find them They 'll all meet face-to-face in parallel space preceding their leaders behind them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a kid I had a book called Space Age Mother Goose.
One of the poems went:

Some things will never change
Although we travel to the stars
Arriving on the Moon we'll find
Our luggage sent to Mars.
(My personal favorite was

Little Bo-Peep has lost her sheep
The radar has failed to find them
They'll all meet face-to-face in parallel space
preceding their leaders behind them.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948120</id>
	<title>Re:Fly Ryanair . . . to the Moon!</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1264772520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great - return flight to the Moon $50 (excluding optional $5,000,000,000 life-support surcharge).
</p><p>Of course, they say Moon, but actually its to the new state-of-the-art spaceport at L1, only a short bus ride away from the Moon. Well, they say new state-of-the-art spaceport... its actually an abandoned Apollo third stage with a Starbucks and a chemical toilet...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great - return flight to the Moon $ 50 ( excluding optional $ 5,000,000,000 life-support surcharge ) .
Of course , they say Moon , but actually its to the new state-of-the-art spaceport at L1 , only a short bus ride away from the Moon .
Well , they say new state-of-the-art spaceport... its actually an abandoned Apollo third stage with a Starbucks and a chemical toilet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great - return flight to the Moon $50 (excluding optional $5,000,000,000 life-support surcharge).
Of course, they say Moon, but actually its to the new state-of-the-art spaceport at L1, only a short bus ride away from the Moon.
Well, they say new state-of-the-art spaceport... its actually an abandoned Apollo third stage with a Starbucks and a chemical toilet...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30982478</id>
	<title>How about law enforcement and the military to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wait. There was a movie about that. Didn't work in fiction. What makes anyone think "for profit" will actually benefit the country in some way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait .
There was a movie about that .
Did n't work in fiction .
What makes anyone think " for profit " will actually benefit the country in some way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait.
There was a movie about that.
Didn't work in fiction.
What makes anyone think "for profit" will actually benefit the country in some way?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949092</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264779420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Spoken like a true ignoramus. Who do you think developed the automobile? The airplane? The microchip? Who develops the pharmaceuticals which keep us living twice as long as our great-grandparents? Who's creating newer, more efficient forms of power, whether it be solar, wind, or nuclear? Who created the high-yield crops which are the only thing staving off mass starvation?</p></div></blockquote><p>Let's see...</p><p>The automobile and airplane I'll grant you, with the proviso that after their development, government R&amp;D actually <em>did</em> contribute to their success and development (look up all the different things first NACA and then NASA did in developing aeronautics--for example, they discovered the "area rule" for supersonic flight in the '50s, which was applied with great success to a number of designs and paved the way for more breakthroughs)</p><p>Both TI and Fairchild had significant government funding when they developed the integrated circuit. Later, of course, further miniaturization of electronic components was often directly or indirectly funded by the government, for defense purposes or to gain advantages in other areas. Bell itself of course greatly benefited from being a monopoly, and all of these companies benefited from the increase in college enrollment after World War II, which was at least partially caused by the GI bill and other government measures.</p><p>Haven't you heard of the NIH? A full 28\% of the research funding into biomedical science in the US is funded directly by the US government. And I have a feeling that almost all of that is fundamental, "pure" biomedical research, while most of the rest is applied stuff, designed to turn things developed in the first part into useful therapies. While both sides are useful, you need both, and I doubt that corporations would due much pure stuff on their own (they don't in any other field, after all).</p><p>Again, all that stuff is pretty heavily government-supported. It might not be people being directly paid by the government, but when you need tax subsidies to be profitable... And, again, there is a lot of fundamental R&amp;D going on funded by the government, whether at national labs or at universities with research grants, into solar, wind, and nuclear energy.</p><p>The high-yield crops thing is hilarious--the "homes of the Green Revolution" aren't Monsanto or ADM, they're a series of non-profit research institutes funded by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations. That's right, it's essentially last century's version of the Gates Foundation going out and trying to help people in third-world countries. Still isn't the government, you're right, but it sure as shit ain't a for-profit company, either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken like a true ignoramus .
Who do you think developed the automobile ?
The airplane ?
The microchip ?
Who develops the pharmaceuticals which keep us living twice as long as our great-grandparents ?
Who 's creating newer , more efficient forms of power , whether it be solar , wind , or nuclear ?
Who created the high-yield crops which are the only thing staving off mass starvation ? Let 's see...The automobile and airplane I 'll grant you , with the proviso that after their development , government R&amp;D actually did contribute to their success and development ( look up all the different things first NACA and then NASA did in developing aeronautics--for example , they discovered the " area rule " for supersonic flight in the '50s , which was applied with great success to a number of designs and paved the way for more breakthroughs ) Both TI and Fairchild had significant government funding when they developed the integrated circuit .
Later , of course , further miniaturization of electronic components was often directly or indirectly funded by the government , for defense purposes or to gain advantages in other areas .
Bell itself of course greatly benefited from being a monopoly , and all of these companies benefited from the increase in college enrollment after World War II , which was at least partially caused by the GI bill and other government measures.Have n't you heard of the NIH ?
A full 28 \ % of the research funding into biomedical science in the US is funded directly by the US government .
And I have a feeling that almost all of that is fundamental , " pure " biomedical research , while most of the rest is applied stuff , designed to turn things developed in the first part into useful therapies .
While both sides are useful , you need both , and I doubt that corporations would due much pure stuff on their own ( they do n't in any other field , after all ) .Again , all that stuff is pretty heavily government-supported .
It might not be people being directly paid by the government , but when you need tax subsidies to be profitable... And , again , there is a lot of fundamental R&amp;D going on funded by the government , whether at national labs or at universities with research grants , into solar , wind , and nuclear energy.The high-yield crops thing is hilarious--the " homes of the Green Revolution " are n't Monsanto or ADM , they 're a series of non-profit research institutes funded by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations .
That 's right , it 's essentially last century 's version of the Gates Foundation going out and trying to help people in third-world countries .
Still is n't the government , you 're right , but it sure as shit ai n't a for-profit company , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken like a true ignoramus.
Who do you think developed the automobile?
The airplane?
The microchip?
Who develops the pharmaceuticals which keep us living twice as long as our great-grandparents?
Who's creating newer, more efficient forms of power, whether it be solar, wind, or nuclear?
Who created the high-yield crops which are the only thing staving off mass starvation?Let's see...The automobile and airplane I'll grant you, with the proviso that after their development, government R&amp;D actually did contribute to their success and development (look up all the different things first NACA and then NASA did in developing aeronautics--for example, they discovered the "area rule" for supersonic flight in the '50s, which was applied with great success to a number of designs and paved the way for more breakthroughs)Both TI and Fairchild had significant government funding when they developed the integrated circuit.
Later, of course, further miniaturization of electronic components was often directly or indirectly funded by the government, for defense purposes or to gain advantages in other areas.
Bell itself of course greatly benefited from being a monopoly, and all of these companies benefited from the increase in college enrollment after World War II, which was at least partially caused by the GI bill and other government measures.Haven't you heard of the NIH?
A full 28\% of the research funding into biomedical science in the US is funded directly by the US government.
And I have a feeling that almost all of that is fundamental, "pure" biomedical research, while most of the rest is applied stuff, designed to turn things developed in the first part into useful therapies.
While both sides are useful, you need both, and I doubt that corporations would due much pure stuff on their own (they don't in any other field, after all).Again, all that stuff is pretty heavily government-supported.
It might not be people being directly paid by the government, but when you need tax subsidies to be profitable... And, again, there is a lot of fundamental R&amp;D going on funded by the government, whether at national labs or at universities with research grants, into solar, wind, and nuclear energy.The high-yield crops thing is hilarious--the "homes of the Green Revolution" aren't Monsanto or ADM, they're a series of non-profit research institutes funded by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations.
That's right, it's essentially last century's version of the Gates Foundation going out and trying to help people in third-world countries.
Still isn't the government, you're right, but it sure as shit ain't a for-profit company, either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949756</id>
	<title>What happened to /.</title>
	<author>BenBenBen</author>
	<datestamp>1264782300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Soooo... no speculation about what SSTO or other solutions might already be floating around out there?

I mean, ya really think XB-70 was canned?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soooo... no speculation about what SSTO or other solutions might already be floating around out there ?
I mean , ya really think XB-70 was canned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soooo... no speculation about what SSTO or other solutions might already be floating around out there?
I mean, ya really think XB-70 was canned?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948470</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1264775760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.</p></div><p>Spoken like a true ignoramus.  Who do you think developed the automobile?  The airplane?  The microchip?  Who develops the pharmaceuticals which keep us living twice as long as our great-grandparents?  Who's creating newer, more efficient forms of power, whether it be solar, wind, or nuclear?  Who created the high-yield crops which are the only thing staving off mass starvation?</p><p>Private industry does more R&amp;D than all the government organizations put together.  Most of the great advances in our history were created by private individuals and small companies, and most of the incremental changes around us are driven by private industry.  Governments are great for putting together huge research projects like the LHC and the ITER which cost billions and have no immediate practical application, but for everyday innovation and discovery nothing beats private business in search of larger profits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with , putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce , and then keep it for themselves.Spoken like a true ignoramus .
Who do you think developed the automobile ?
The airplane ?
The microchip ?
Who develops the pharmaceuticals which keep us living twice as long as our great-grandparents ?
Who 's creating newer , more efficient forms of power , whether it be solar , wind , or nuclear ?
Who created the high-yield crops which are the only thing staving off mass starvation ? Private industry does more R&amp;D than all the government organizations put together .
Most of the great advances in our history were created by private individuals and small companies , and most of the incremental changes around us are driven by private industry .
Governments are great for putting together huge research projects like the LHC and the ITER which cost billions and have no immediate practical application , but for everyday innovation and discovery nothing beats private business in search of larger profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.Spoken like a true ignoramus.
Who do you think developed the automobile?
The airplane?
The microchip?
Who develops the pharmaceuticals which keep us living twice as long as our great-grandparents?
Who's creating newer, more efficient forms of power, whether it be solar, wind, or nuclear?
Who created the high-yield crops which are the only thing staving off mass starvation?Private industry does more R&amp;D than all the government organizations put together.
Most of the great advances in our history were created by private individuals and small companies, and most of the incremental changes around us are driven by private industry.
Governments are great for putting together huge research projects like the LHC and the ITER which cost billions and have no immediate practical application, but for everyday innovation and discovery nothing beats private business in search of larger profits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947946</id>
	<title>Russians have it all ready in place.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264771020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the Space Industry overthere is privatized. They even build an original Space Shuttle (since the American one is a theft design) and are launching stuff into space you would not believe. But hey, let's talk about Chinese Censorship. Did you know they sank a whole USA fleet in 2003 and nobody ever reported about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the Space Industry overthere is privatized .
They even build an original Space Shuttle ( since the American one is a theft design ) and are launching stuff into space you would not believe .
But hey , let 's talk about Chinese Censorship .
Did you know they sank a whole USA fleet in 2003 and nobody ever reported about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the Space Industry overthere is privatized.
They even build an original Space Shuttle (since the American one is a theft design) and are launching stuff into space you would not believe.
But hey, let's talk about Chinese Censorship.
Did you know they sank a whole USA fleet in 2003 and nobody ever reported about it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948200</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>thewiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264773300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only downside? Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost, but they'll be a little riskier. <b>More astronauts will be killed.</b> </i></p><p>After a few launches where astronauts get killed, we'll hear the screaming to let NASA go back to manned space flight.  The problem with using private firms/corporations is that they only care about how much money they make in a year.  Yes, the astronauts know the risks of climbing into a rocket and being launched into space; we shouldn't go backwards and increase the risks they face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only downside ?
Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost , but they 'll be a little riskier .
More astronauts will be killed .
After a few launches where astronauts get killed , we 'll hear the screaming to let NASA go back to manned space flight .
The problem with using private firms/corporations is that they only care about how much money they make in a year .
Yes , the astronauts know the risks of climbing into a rocket and being launched into space ; we should n't go backwards and increase the risks they face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only downside?
Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost, but they'll be a little riskier.
More astronauts will be killed.
After a few launches where astronauts get killed, we'll hear the screaming to let NASA go back to manned space flight.
The problem with using private firms/corporations is that they only care about how much money they make in a year.
Yes, the astronauts know the risks of climbing into a rocket and being launched into space; we shouldn't go backwards and increase the risks they face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947800</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264769040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost, but they'll be a little riskier. More astronauts will be killed. I don't see this as a problem : there's 6 billion people on the planet, and I for one if faced between possibly dying during a trip to space or dying from old age would choose the former.</p></div><p>Kind of agree. The dying thing is a turnoff, but like the people who decide to be soldiers or drive stunt cars, they know or at least should be vaguely aware that death is a possibility.</p><p>What I really do agree about is the sheer potential increase in quantity. Fuel consumption will suck, but the ridiculous increase in quantity of launches will cause far more innovations and research for future craft than the current trend of not so many launches. According to Wikipedia and a little bit from NASA, there've been around 130 shuttle missions in the last 30ish years. That's about 4 launches a year give or take?</p><p>Bump that number up to 1 a month, combine it with the fact we might have multiple shuttle/rocket designs going up a year due to different companies sending up different designs and the set of data we'll have about what makes a good shuttle/rocket will have increase by quite a lot after 10 years.</p><p>Thumbs up to privatization. Maybe they can get NASA to do more hardcore research with less of the headache that comes from administration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost , but they 'll be a little riskier .
More astronauts will be killed .
I do n't see this as a problem : there 's 6 billion people on the planet , and I for one if faced between possibly dying during a trip to space or dying from old age would choose the former.Kind of agree .
The dying thing is a turnoff , but like the people who decide to be soldiers or drive stunt cars , they know or at least should be vaguely aware that death is a possibility.What I really do agree about is the sheer potential increase in quantity .
Fuel consumption will suck , but the ridiculous increase in quantity of launches will cause far more innovations and research for future craft than the current trend of not so many launches .
According to Wikipedia and a little bit from NASA , there 've been around 130 shuttle missions in the last 30ish years .
That 's about 4 launches a year give or take ? Bump that number up to 1 a month , combine it with the fact we might have multiple shuttle/rocket designs going up a year due to different companies sending up different designs and the set of data we 'll have about what makes a good shuttle/rocket will have increase by quite a lot after 10 years.Thumbs up to privatization .
Maybe they can get NASA to do more hardcore research with less of the headache that comes from administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost, but they'll be a little riskier.
More astronauts will be killed.
I don't see this as a problem : there's 6 billion people on the planet, and I for one if faced between possibly dying during a trip to space or dying from old age would choose the former.Kind of agree.
The dying thing is a turnoff, but like the people who decide to be soldiers or drive stunt cars, they know or at least should be vaguely aware that death is a possibility.What I really do agree about is the sheer potential increase in quantity.
Fuel consumption will suck, but the ridiculous increase in quantity of launches will cause far more innovations and research for future craft than the current trend of not so many launches.
According to Wikipedia and a little bit from NASA, there've been around 130 shuttle missions in the last 30ish years.
That's about 4 launches a year give or take?Bump that number up to 1 a month, combine it with the fact we might have multiple shuttle/rocket designs going up a year due to different companies sending up different designs and the set of data we'll have about what makes a good shuttle/rocket will have increase by quite a lot after 10 years.Thumbs up to privatization.
Maybe they can get NASA to do more hardcore research with less of the headache that comes from administration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949872</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1264782720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might feel the same as you, but I like the idea of privatization more.</p><p>Try it on this way, there's nothing *visionary* at all about LEO launches.  There's not even much *visionary* about high-orbit launches, or even escape launches.  The time for launching from Earth to be *visionary* was long ago, and it's long over.</p><p>If we want to do anything *visionary* out there, we need to be doing final assembly in orbit and launching from there.  Launching the kinds of *visionary* things you and I both want to see from Earth is like folding up a covered wagon in England, tucking it into a ship that can barely hold it, and sending it to America. Then when it reaches shore it deploys its wheels, unfolds the top, unships the horses from the hold, and starts on the trail to California.</p><p>We need rich tycoons in LEO, I hate to say.  We need Bigelow's hotel in LEO.  Once we get enough of that garbage into LEO, costs will come down.  THEN we can afford a real space station instead of the budget butchery called the ISS.  At a real space station we can build real spaceships and send them for some real *visionary* stuff.  I share your annoyance and bitterness, but I also think we're at the awkward point right now.  If we can just make LEO cheap, the rest can come a lot more simply.</p><p>Now for another thought about sending people beyond cislunar space...  The big problem is radiation - a lifetime's worth on the simplest Mars mission.  One of the better radiation shields is polyethylene - odd but true.  I could envision a veritable blimp on its way to Mars - with minimal inflation between layers of polyethylene - the gas selected for its radiation shielding properties.  Maybe even an inside-out spacecraft at the center of that blimp with the crew compartment central, surrounded by water (or what else?) tanks for additional shielding.  That would be built along some sort of truss with VASMIR engines at the ends, as well sensors, anchor points for the inflated shielding, etc.  Now THAT's something you'll never fold into a 33ft diameter payload and launch from Earth.</p><p>More near-term thought...  Space probes begin with "the standard truss", available in several lengths and load ratings.  Attach one of several standard engines, standard ion or VASMIR, with the "LEO departure chemical booster" being optional.  There would be several solar panel options, based on electricity needs and how far out it's going, in addition to several RTG options.  Ditto for communications subsystems, rated on distance, bitrate, etc.  Finally you start bolting your scientific packages onto the truss.  There are the stock mechanical attachment points, the stock power connectors, and the stock data connectors.  The ONLY part you really have to worry about is your scientific package.  The rest is standard - out of a catalog.  Then when something even more *visionary* comes up, that the catalog parts can't meet, for one reason or another, design a new part and add it to the catalog, for the next guy.  Now that's *visionary*!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might feel the same as you , but I like the idea of privatization more.Try it on this way , there 's nothing * visionary * at all about LEO launches .
There 's not even much * visionary * about high-orbit launches , or even escape launches .
The time for launching from Earth to be * visionary * was long ago , and it 's long over.If we want to do anything * visionary * out there , we need to be doing final assembly in orbit and launching from there .
Launching the kinds of * visionary * things you and I both want to see from Earth is like folding up a covered wagon in England , tucking it into a ship that can barely hold it , and sending it to America .
Then when it reaches shore it deploys its wheels , unfolds the top , unships the horses from the hold , and starts on the trail to California.We need rich tycoons in LEO , I hate to say .
We need Bigelow 's hotel in LEO .
Once we get enough of that garbage into LEO , costs will come down .
THEN we can afford a real space station instead of the budget butchery called the ISS .
At a real space station we can build real spaceships and send them for some real * visionary * stuff .
I share your annoyance and bitterness , but I also think we 're at the awkward point right now .
If we can just make LEO cheap , the rest can come a lot more simply.Now for another thought about sending people beyond cislunar space... The big problem is radiation - a lifetime 's worth on the simplest Mars mission .
One of the better radiation shields is polyethylene - odd but true .
I could envision a veritable blimp on its way to Mars - with minimal inflation between layers of polyethylene - the gas selected for its radiation shielding properties .
Maybe even an inside-out spacecraft at the center of that blimp with the crew compartment central , surrounded by water ( or what else ?
) tanks for additional shielding .
That would be built along some sort of truss with VASMIR engines at the ends , as well sensors , anchor points for the inflated shielding , etc .
Now THAT 's something you 'll never fold into a 33ft diameter payload and launch from Earth.More near-term thought... Space probes begin with " the standard truss " , available in several lengths and load ratings .
Attach one of several standard engines , standard ion or VASMIR , with the " LEO departure chemical booster " being optional .
There would be several solar panel options , based on electricity needs and how far out it 's going , in addition to several RTG options .
Ditto for communications subsystems , rated on distance , bitrate , etc .
Finally you start bolting your scientific packages onto the truss .
There are the stock mechanical attachment points , the stock power connectors , and the stock data connectors .
The ONLY part you really have to worry about is your scientific package .
The rest is standard - out of a catalog .
Then when something even more * visionary * comes up , that the catalog parts ca n't meet , for one reason or another , design a new part and add it to the catalog , for the next guy .
Now that 's * visionary * !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might feel the same as you, but I like the idea of privatization more.Try it on this way, there's nothing *visionary* at all about LEO launches.
There's not even much *visionary* about high-orbit launches, or even escape launches.
The time for launching from Earth to be *visionary* was long ago, and it's long over.If we want to do anything *visionary* out there, we need to be doing final assembly in orbit and launching from there.
Launching the kinds of *visionary* things you and I both want to see from Earth is like folding up a covered wagon in England, tucking it into a ship that can barely hold it, and sending it to America.
Then when it reaches shore it deploys its wheels, unfolds the top, unships the horses from the hold, and starts on the trail to California.We need rich tycoons in LEO, I hate to say.
We need Bigelow's hotel in LEO.
Once we get enough of that garbage into LEO, costs will come down.
THEN we can afford a real space station instead of the budget butchery called the ISS.
At a real space station we can build real spaceships and send them for some real *visionary* stuff.
I share your annoyance and bitterness, but I also think we're at the awkward point right now.
If we can just make LEO cheap, the rest can come a lot more simply.Now for another thought about sending people beyond cislunar space...  The big problem is radiation - a lifetime's worth on the simplest Mars mission.
One of the better radiation shields is polyethylene - odd but true.
I could envision a veritable blimp on its way to Mars - with minimal inflation between layers of polyethylene - the gas selected for its radiation shielding properties.
Maybe even an inside-out spacecraft at the center of that blimp with the crew compartment central, surrounded by water (or what else?
) tanks for additional shielding.
That would be built along some sort of truss with VASMIR engines at the ends, as well sensors, anchor points for the inflated shielding, etc.
Now THAT's something you'll never fold into a 33ft diameter payload and launch from Earth.More near-term thought...  Space probes begin with "the standard truss", available in several lengths and load ratings.
Attach one of several standard engines, standard ion or VASMIR, with the "LEO departure chemical booster" being optional.
There would be several solar panel options, based on electricity needs and how far out it's going, in addition to several RTG options.
Ditto for communications subsystems, rated on distance, bitrate, etc.
Finally you start bolting your scientific packages onto the truss.
There are the stock mechanical attachment points, the stock power connectors, and the stock data connectors.
The ONLY part you really have to worry about is your scientific package.
The rest is standard - out of a catalog.
Then when something even more *visionary* comes up, that the catalog parts can't meet, for one reason or another, design a new part and add it to the catalog, for the next guy.
Now that's *visionary*!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951622</id>
	<title>Privatizing by a Democrat...</title>
	<author>kellin</author>
	<datestamp>1264789020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From reading a few of the posts, it already proves what Im about to say.</p><p>Does anyone find it funny that the Republicans want to privatize \_everything\_, and the Democrats want to government-ize everything..   and yet, here's a Democrat wanting to privatize a govt sector, and the Republicans are screaming the end of the world?</p><p>It also continues to strengthen my belief that the Democrats and Republicans are brothers who fight over everything because they're too immature to talk about things rationally, and are taking us all down with them.</p><p>Need more Libertarians, damnit.  Stop thinking you're throwing your vote away if you dont vote for a Republicrat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From reading a few of the posts , it already proves what Im about to say.Does anyone find it funny that the Republicans want to privatize \ _everything \ _ , and the Democrats want to government-ize everything.. and yet , here 's a Democrat wanting to privatize a govt sector , and the Republicans are screaming the end of the world ? It also continues to strengthen my belief that the Democrats and Republicans are brothers who fight over everything because they 're too immature to talk about things rationally , and are taking us all down with them.Need more Libertarians , damnit .
Stop thinking you 're throwing your vote away if you dont vote for a Republicrat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From reading a few of the posts, it already proves what Im about to say.Does anyone find it funny that the Republicans want to privatize \_everything\_, and the Democrats want to government-ize everything..   and yet, here's a Democrat wanting to privatize a govt sector, and the Republicans are screaming the end of the world?It also continues to strengthen my belief that the Democrats and Republicans are brothers who fight over everything because they're too immature to talk about things rationally, and are taking us all down with them.Need more Libertarians, damnit.
Stop thinking you're throwing your vote away if you dont vote for a Republicrat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953820</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>2short</author>
	<datestamp>1264798140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Because what the Rovers have accomplished in [roughly] 4000 rover days could have been done in [roughly] 20 man days and probably done better to boot."<br><br>Rovers haven't acomplished squat.   Humans using rovers to manage the difficulties of space have accomplished quite a lot.  Humans using spacesuits to do so have spent a lot more money, to much less effect.<br><br>Your argument would suggest exploration by humans who go there is much more effective than exploration by humans who operate remote probes.  So why have the humans who operate remote probes accomplished lots of exploration on Mars with a tiny fraction of the budget of the humans who go there, who are skimming the atmosphere exploring a can they built?<br><br>
&nbsp; In deciding humans who go there are a better way to solve the problem, you are ignoring the difficulty of getting there and remaining operational.  Well, here's a hint:   Getting there and remaining operational is the entire problem.  Nothing about exploring Mars is tricky in the least besides getting there and not dying.  The solution that makes it easiest to get to Mars and do stuff is the best one, because that's the problem.  Remote probes are a better way to get to Mars and do stuff.<br><br>Saying a human with a shovel would dig a hole on Mars faster than a slow rover with a wimpy little scoop is stupid; a hundred-ton backhoe is obviously the way to go if you don't care about the cost of getting there.  Wait... I'm not sure of the rules, does he get to use a shovel, or do only bare hands count as actual digging?  This no-using-the-right tools thing doesn't make sense to me.<br><br>"In practice, the missions are almost always one shots, if a probe is lost it's game over for that mission"<br>So then you do another mission.  And after a thousand or so, you'll have used up the budget and time required for a manned mission.  We've lost some probes; we've sent more.  No biggie, and we're getting results.  Meanwhile, at fantastic expense, I hear the ISS guys managed to get their toilet working again, and have high hopes it will keep going for a few more years until we get tired of paying and the whole thing slips from "barely beyond the atmosphere" into burning up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Because what the Rovers have accomplished in [ roughly ] 4000 rover days could have been done in [ roughly ] 20 man days and probably done better to boot .
" Rovers have n't acomplished squat .
Humans using rovers to manage the difficulties of space have accomplished quite a lot .
Humans using spacesuits to do so have spent a lot more money , to much less effect.Your argument would suggest exploration by humans who go there is much more effective than exploration by humans who operate remote probes .
So why have the humans who operate remote probes accomplished lots of exploration on Mars with a tiny fraction of the budget of the humans who go there , who are skimming the atmosphere exploring a can they built ?
  In deciding humans who go there are a better way to solve the problem , you are ignoring the difficulty of getting there and remaining operational .
Well , here 's a hint : Getting there and remaining operational is the entire problem .
Nothing about exploring Mars is tricky in the least besides getting there and not dying .
The solution that makes it easiest to get to Mars and do stuff is the best one , because that 's the problem .
Remote probes are a better way to get to Mars and do stuff.Saying a human with a shovel would dig a hole on Mars faster than a slow rover with a wimpy little scoop is stupid ; a hundred-ton backhoe is obviously the way to go if you do n't care about the cost of getting there .
Wait... I 'm not sure of the rules , does he get to use a shovel , or do only bare hands count as actual digging ?
This no-using-the-right tools thing does n't make sense to me .
" In practice , the missions are almost always one shots , if a probe is lost it 's game over for that mission " So then you do another mission .
And after a thousand or so , you 'll have used up the budget and time required for a manned mission .
We 've lost some probes ; we 've sent more .
No biggie , and we 're getting results .
Meanwhile , at fantastic expense , I hear the ISS guys managed to get their toilet working again , and have high hopes it will keep going for a few more years until we get tired of paying and the whole thing slips from " barely beyond the atmosphere " into burning up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Because what the Rovers have accomplished in [roughly] 4000 rover days could have been done in [roughly] 20 man days and probably done better to boot.
"Rovers haven't acomplished squat.
Humans using rovers to manage the difficulties of space have accomplished quite a lot.
Humans using spacesuits to do so have spent a lot more money, to much less effect.Your argument would suggest exploration by humans who go there is much more effective than exploration by humans who operate remote probes.
So why have the humans who operate remote probes accomplished lots of exploration on Mars with a tiny fraction of the budget of the humans who go there, who are skimming the atmosphere exploring a can they built?
  In deciding humans who go there are a better way to solve the problem, you are ignoring the difficulty of getting there and remaining operational.
Well, here's a hint:   Getting there and remaining operational is the entire problem.
Nothing about exploring Mars is tricky in the least besides getting there and not dying.
The solution that makes it easiest to get to Mars and do stuff is the best one, because that's the problem.
Remote probes are a better way to get to Mars and do stuff.Saying a human with a shovel would dig a hole on Mars faster than a slow rover with a wimpy little scoop is stupid; a hundred-ton backhoe is obviously the way to go if you don't care about the cost of getting there.
Wait... I'm not sure of the rules, does he get to use a shovel, or do only bare hands count as actual digging?
This no-using-the-right tools thing doesn't make sense to me.
"In practice, the missions are almost always one shots, if a probe is lost it's game over for that mission"So then you do another mission.
And after a thousand or so, you'll have used up the budget and time required for a manned mission.
We've lost some probes; we've sent more.
No biggie, and we're getting results.
Meanwhile, at fantastic expense, I hear the ISS guys managed to get their toilet working again, and have high hopes it will keep going for a few more years until we get tired of paying and the whole thing slips from "barely beyond the atmosphere" into burning up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948250</id>
	<title>This is actually an awesome thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264773960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those of you who are wondering about this and not just using it to blast Obama/dems with ever breath,<br><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19548.0" title="nasaspaceflight.com" rel="nofollow">then read the last 10 pages of the Direct forum</a> [nasaspaceflight.com].<br>In a nut shell, Boeing, et. al. will be building Direct and offering it for commercial space. Yes, SpaceX, Orbital, and even the EELVs will have their role in space. HOWEVER, direct will now be allowed to be developed by Boeing and offered for commercial launches. Once that happens AND they have 2 launches per year via commercial, it will drop the price per launch. And what commercial space will be interested in this? Well Bigelow figures VERY prominently in this. That is why we are seeing them suddenly get active. That is also why they shifted their schedule to have station in 2015. Basically, we are about to see a MASSIVE expansion into space,  but via the commercial world. Think of the railroads for USA in the mid 1800's.</p><p>This is not the end of America's human flights. It is the FINALLY the beginning of it. Most importantly, it will remove Space from politicians hands like W's who said that we were going to the moon and the provided next to ZERO funding for it. Heck, only in 2007 and 2008 did NASA budget increase. Prior to that it was being cut.<br>NASA will instead do what it does best; high tech RD as well as getting all parties to connect well (ignoring a mars probe).<br>Windbourne.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you who are wondering about this and not just using it to blast Obama/dems with ever breath,then read the last 10 pages of the Direct forum [ nasaspaceflight.com ] .In a nut shell , Boeing , et .
al. will be building Direct and offering it for commercial space .
Yes , SpaceX , Orbital , and even the EELVs will have their role in space .
HOWEVER , direct will now be allowed to be developed by Boeing and offered for commercial launches .
Once that happens AND they have 2 launches per year via commercial , it will drop the price per launch .
And what commercial space will be interested in this ?
Well Bigelow figures VERY prominently in this .
That is why we are seeing them suddenly get active .
That is also why they shifted their schedule to have station in 2015 .
Basically , we are about to see a MASSIVE expansion into space , but via the commercial world .
Think of the railroads for USA in the mid 1800 's.This is not the end of America 's human flights .
It is the FINALLY the beginning of it .
Most importantly , it will remove Space from politicians hands like W 's who said that we were going to the moon and the provided next to ZERO funding for it .
Heck , only in 2007 and 2008 did NASA budget increase .
Prior to that it was being cut.NASA will instead do what it does best ; high tech RD as well as getting all parties to connect well ( ignoring a mars probe ) .Windbourne .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you who are wondering about this and not just using it to blast Obama/dems with ever breath,then read the last 10 pages of the Direct forum [nasaspaceflight.com].In a nut shell, Boeing, et.
al. will be building Direct and offering it for commercial space.
Yes, SpaceX, Orbital, and even the EELVs will have their role in space.
HOWEVER, direct will now be allowed to be developed by Boeing and offered for commercial launches.
Once that happens AND they have 2 launches per year via commercial, it will drop the price per launch.
And what commercial space will be interested in this?
Well Bigelow figures VERY prominently in this.
That is why we are seeing them suddenly get active.
That is also why they shifted their schedule to have station in 2015.
Basically, we are about to see a MASSIVE expansion into space,  but via the commercial world.
Think of the railroads for USA in the mid 1800's.This is not the end of America's human flights.
It is the FINALLY the beginning of it.
Most importantly, it will remove Space from politicians hands like W's who said that we were going to the moon and the provided next to ZERO funding for it.
Heck, only in 2007 and 2008 did NASA budget increase.
Prior to that it was being cut.NASA will instead do what it does best; high tech RD as well as getting all parties to connect well (ignoring a mars probe).Windbourne.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949534</id>
	<title>Re:This is really Big Space vs Little Space...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264781340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As someone who has personal (and close) contacts and friendships with people in the various X-Prize contests (<a href="http://www.masten-space.com/" title="masten-space.com" rel="nofollow">including the latest winner</a> [masten-space.com]), I'm a bit biased here.</p></div><p>Correct so far.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, what Obama is talking about is really changing the ways that NASA procures it's systems.  Right now, they get practically everything from one of about 3 or 4 big contractors, and essentially run like a massive Defense Contractor, complete with problems around innovation and cost-inflation.</p><p>The proposals are to quit funneling every significant contract just to these Big Space corps. </p></div><p>Sorry, no.  You are projecting what you <i>want</i> to be true.</p><p>There seems to be <i>nothing</i> in the new plan to feed contracts to the small players, rather than to the large aerospace corporations.  "Privatize" doesn't mean "privatize to the small companies only."</p><p>Actually, I think that's good.  The <i>worst</i> thing that could possibly happen to Space-X would be to win a ten-billion dollar contract from the government.  They're doing good right the way they are now, with a small (by aerospace standards) contract to develop a rocket to deliver cargo to the ISS.  The NASA COTS contract is the best thing NASA has done in years, and I am dreadfully afraid that this new plan is going to bollox it up completely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has personal ( and close ) contacts and friendships with people in the various X-Prize contests ( including the latest winner [ masten-space.com ] ) , I 'm a bit biased here.Correct so far.However , what Obama is talking about is really changing the ways that NASA procures it 's systems .
Right now , they get practically everything from one of about 3 or 4 big contractors , and essentially run like a massive Defense Contractor , complete with problems around innovation and cost-inflation.The proposals are to quit funneling every significant contract just to these Big Space corps .
Sorry , no .
You are projecting what you want to be true.There seems to be nothing in the new plan to feed contracts to the small players , rather than to the large aerospace corporations .
" Privatize " does n't mean " privatize to the small companies only .
" Actually , I think that 's good .
The worst thing that could possibly happen to Space-X would be to win a ten-billion dollar contract from the government .
They 're doing good right the way they are now , with a small ( by aerospace standards ) contract to develop a rocket to deliver cargo to the ISS .
The NASA COTS contract is the best thing NASA has done in years , and I am dreadfully afraid that this new plan is going to bollox it up completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has personal (and close) contacts and friendships with people in the various X-Prize contests (including the latest winner [masten-space.com]), I'm a bit biased here.Correct so far.However, what Obama is talking about is really changing the ways that NASA procures it's systems.
Right now, they get practically everything from one of about 3 or 4 big contractors, and essentially run like a massive Defense Contractor, complete with problems around innovation and cost-inflation.The proposals are to quit funneling every significant contract just to these Big Space corps.
Sorry, no.
You are projecting what you want to be true.There seems to be nothing in the new plan to feed contracts to the small players, rather than to the large aerospace corporations.
"Privatize" doesn't mean "privatize to the small companies only.
"Actually, I think that's good.
The worst thing that could possibly happen to Space-X would be to win a ten-billion dollar contract from the government.
They're doing good right the way they are now, with a small (by aerospace standards) contract to develop a rocket to deliver cargo to the ISS.
The NASA COTS contract is the best thing NASA has done in years, and I am dreadfully afraid that this new plan is going to bollox it up completely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949202</id>
	<title>Hell Yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264779900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wanna work in the Space Industry! Whoohoo!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wan na work in the Space Industry !
Whoohoo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wanna work in the Space Industry!
Whoohoo!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950694</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of the spin.</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1264785900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lets see now. Who filled their cabinet posts with lobbyist after vowing not to?</p></div><p>Yes, he broke his promise on not allowing lobbyists in his administration.
<br> <br>
However he did provide a transparency mechanism to see who is a lobbyist in his administration and has fewer of them than any president in modern times. It's not perfect, nor arguably even good enough, but it is <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/27/barack-obama/obama-says-lobbyists-have-been-excluded-policy-mak/" title="politifact.com">better</a> [politifact.com].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Who campaigned with the transparency pledge then developed a health care plan behind closed doors and limited examination of the bill to 72 hours before the vote??</p></div><p>The Senate.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country?</p></div><p>Don't know yet.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What has this guy done to help this country? You don't need to believe what any news the media "filters".</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/" title="politifact.com">A lot</a> [politifact.com]. It's easy to argue he hasn't done enough. I tend to agree, more on quality than quantity though. He's been relatively prolific, although I'd rather he focus solidly on some of the big issues rather than the hands off approach he's taken to them so far.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Listen to the mans own words and match what he says and what he does for yourself. They don't add up. What gives you reason to believe this or anything else he says? If he has a plan, why not present it now? Learn from the past. The spin you need to watch out for is coming from him.</p></div><p>I agree with you more here. He's president, not a dictator and he can't enforce a lot of the policies he wants to change. I think he can take a more active role and influence things better than he is now, and his State of the Union  seemed to indicate this. I wonder if he has the force of personality to get a lot of it done.
<br> <br>
Of course there are some things he's back pedaled on that give me no end of frustration, but those are mostly Liberal issues that, frankly, he probably never had the power to do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see now .
Who filled their cabinet posts with lobbyist after vowing not to ? Yes , he broke his promise on not allowing lobbyists in his administration .
However he did provide a transparency mechanism to see who is a lobbyist in his administration and has fewer of them than any president in modern times .
It 's not perfect , nor arguably even good enough , but it is better [ politifact.com ] .Who campaigned with the transparency pledge then developed a health care plan behind closed doors and limited examination of the bill to 72 hours before the vote ?
? The Senate.How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country ? Do n't know yet.What has this guy done to help this country ?
You do n't need to believe what any news the media " filters " .
A lot [ politifact.com ] .
It 's easy to argue he has n't done enough .
I tend to agree , more on quality than quantity though .
He 's been relatively prolific , although I 'd rather he focus solidly on some of the big issues rather than the hands off approach he 's taken to them so far.Listen to the mans own words and match what he says and what he does for yourself .
They do n't add up .
What gives you reason to believe this or anything else he says ?
If he has a plan , why not present it now ?
Learn from the past .
The spin you need to watch out for is coming from him.I agree with you more here .
He 's president , not a dictator and he ca n't enforce a lot of the policies he wants to change .
I think he can take a more active role and influence things better than he is now , and his State of the Union seemed to indicate this .
I wonder if he has the force of personality to get a lot of it done .
Of course there are some things he 's back pedaled on that give me no end of frustration , but those are mostly Liberal issues that , frankly , he probably never had the power to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see now.
Who filled their cabinet posts with lobbyist after vowing not to?Yes, he broke his promise on not allowing lobbyists in his administration.
However he did provide a transparency mechanism to see who is a lobbyist in his administration and has fewer of them than any president in modern times.
It's not perfect, nor arguably even good enough, but it is better [politifact.com].Who campaigned with the transparency pledge then developed a health care plan behind closed doors and limited examination of the bill to 72 hours before the vote?
?The Senate.How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country?Don't know yet.What has this guy done to help this country?
You don't need to believe what any news the media "filters".
A lot [politifact.com].
It's easy to argue he hasn't done enough.
I tend to agree, more on quality than quantity though.
He's been relatively prolific, although I'd rather he focus solidly on some of the big issues rather than the hands off approach he's taken to them so far.Listen to the mans own words and match what he says and what he does for yourself.
They don't add up.
What gives you reason to believe this or anything else he says?
If he has a plan, why not present it now?
Learn from the past.
The spin you need to watch out for is coming from him.I agree with you more here.
He's president, not a dictator and he can't enforce a lot of the policies he wants to change.
I think he can take a more active role and influence things better than he is now, and his State of the Union  seemed to indicate this.
I wonder if he has the force of personality to get a lot of it done.
Of course there are some things he's back pedaled on that give me no end of frustration, but those are mostly Liberal issues that, frankly, he probably never had the power to do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947902</id>
	<title>Fly Ryanair . . . to the Moon!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264770540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No check-in.  You have to schlep all your moonwalk gear yourself to the launch vehicle: "All you can carry." This cuts down on excess weight, saving fuel costs.  Do you really need that extra oxygen tank?
</p><p>A glass of Tang? "That will be 10&euro;, sir."
</p><p>Online Gambling!  Your now have no incentive to return safely to the Earth . . . you are now bankrupt.
</p><p> . . . and when you do get back, they lost your luggage filled with priceless moon rocks . . .
</p><p>"I'm sorry, sir, your baggage was inadvertently placed on one of our flights to Mars.  We should have it back for you in a couple of years time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No check-in .
You have to schlep all your moonwalk gear yourself to the launch vehicle : " All you can carry .
" This cuts down on excess weight , saving fuel costs .
Do you really need that extra oxygen tank ?
A glass of Tang ?
" That will be 10    , sir .
" Online Gambling !
Your now have no incentive to return safely to the Earth .
. .
you are now bankrupt .
. .
. and when you do get back , they lost your luggage filled with priceless moon rocks .
. .
" I 'm sorry , sir , your baggage was inadvertently placed on one of our flights to Mars .
We should have it back for you in a couple of years time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No check-in.
You have to schlep all your moonwalk gear yourself to the launch vehicle: "All you can carry.
" This cuts down on excess weight, saving fuel costs.
Do you really need that extra oxygen tank?
A glass of Tang?
"That will be 10€, sir.
"
Online Gambling!
Your now have no incentive to return safely to the Earth .
. .
you are now bankrupt.
. .
. and when you do get back, they lost your luggage filled with priceless moon rocks .
. .
"I'm sorry, sir, your baggage was inadvertently placed on one of our flights to Mars.
We should have it back for you in a couple of years time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950204</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1264784040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You don't need manned space flight to do any of those things. In-fact manned space flight is a terrible way to do those things. We're already doing awesome things and producing great science using robots. Why on earth would you want to do it with humans?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because what the Rovers have accomplished in [roughly] 4000 rover days could have been done in [roughly] 20 man days and probably done better to boot.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>The risk of failure is much higher. If a human life is lost then it's a huge tragedy and setback. If a robot is lost it's a financial setback and you sit down and work out what went wrong and then have another go. No huge political or moral setback.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's the theory.  In practice, the missions are almost always one shots, if a probe is lost it's game over for that mission.  (The sole exception on Mars to date is the Phoenix lander, a cobbled together low budget 'replacement' for the lost Mars Polar Lander.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need manned space flight to do any of those things .
In-fact manned space flight is a terrible way to do those things .
We 're already doing awesome things and producing great science using robots .
Why on earth would you want to do it with humans ? Because what the Rovers have accomplished in [ roughly ] 4000 rover days could have been done in [ roughly ] 20 man days and probably done better to boot .
  The risk of failure is much higher .
If a human life is lost then it 's a huge tragedy and setback .
If a robot is lost it 's a financial setback and you sit down and work out what went wrong and then have another go .
No huge political or moral setback.That 's the theory .
In practice , the missions are almost always one shots , if a probe is lost it 's game over for that mission .
( The sole exception on Mars to date is the Phoenix lander , a cobbled together low budget 'replacement ' for the lost Mars Polar Lander .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need manned space flight to do any of those things.
In-fact manned space flight is a terrible way to do those things.
We're already doing awesome things and producing great science using robots.
Why on earth would you want to do it with humans?Because what the Rovers have accomplished in [roughly] 4000 rover days could have been done in [roughly] 20 man days and probably done better to boot.
  The risk of failure is much higher.
If a human life is lost then it's a huge tragedy and setback.
If a robot is lost it's a financial setback and you sit down and work out what went wrong and then have another go.
No huge political or moral setback.That's the theory.
In practice, the missions are almost always one shots, if a probe is lost it's game over for that mission.
(The sole exception on Mars to date is the Phoenix lander, a cobbled together low budget 'replacement' for the lost Mars Polar Lander.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948420</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1264775460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>More astronauts will be killed. I don't see this as a problem</i></p><p>Well, there's also the potential for more people <i>on the ground</i> to be killed from bad launches/re-entries.</p><p>Astronauts know what they're getting into, they have the choice to make.  People living along flight-paths... not-so-much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More astronauts will be killed .
I do n't see this as a problemWell , there 's also the potential for more people on the ground to be killed from bad launches/re-entries.Astronauts know what they 're getting into , they have the choice to make .
People living along flight-paths... not-so-much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More astronauts will be killed.
I don't see this as a problemWell, there's also the potential for more people on the ground to be killed from bad launches/re-entries.Astronauts know what they're getting into, they have the choice to make.
People living along flight-paths... not-so-much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950286</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>roystgnr</author>
	<datestamp>1264784340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsible</i></p><p>Boy, I hope you don't use any wood products, live or work in any large buildings (or any small buildings with roofs, for that matter), eat any fish (or anything grown on a farm, even), use any electricity, buy anything that was shipped in a truck... or, wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding.  Is profiting from others' deaths in risky occupations <b>always</b> irresponsible, or just when those deaths are spectacular enough to get network news time?</p><p>Ironically, in the long run I would expect space travel to become less risky in a competitive private market.  Not because launch company CEOs wouldn't include cheap bastards willing to risk pilots lives, but because they'd include cheap bastards unwilling to risk expensive space vehicles.  Building disposable launch vehicles made sense for getting a few people into space fast and scoring political points internationally.  Building launch vehicles that have to be regularly rebuilt by standing armies makes sense for bringing jobs to your district and scoring political points domestically.  But generally when people who are worried about the bottom line build something expensive, they want to get it back in one piece after each use.  Let's just hope that the funding strings and the barriers to entry here aren't too high to keep the launch vehicle industry from ever resembling a competitive private market.  It's easy to ignore the bottom line if you're working on a cost-plus contract and you don't see any potential competitors with years of expertise and billions of dollars of R&amp;D money lying around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsibleBoy , I hope you do n't use any wood products , live or work in any large buildings ( or any small buildings with roofs , for that matter ) , eat any fish ( or anything grown on a farm , even ) , use any electricity , buy anything that was shipped in a truck... or , wait , maybe I 'm misunderstanding .
Is profiting from others ' deaths in risky occupations always irresponsible , or just when those deaths are spectacular enough to get network news time ? Ironically , in the long run I would expect space travel to become less risky in a competitive private market .
Not because launch company CEOs would n't include cheap bastards willing to risk pilots lives , but because they 'd include cheap bastards unwilling to risk expensive space vehicles .
Building disposable launch vehicles made sense for getting a few people into space fast and scoring political points internationally .
Building launch vehicles that have to be regularly rebuilt by standing armies makes sense for bringing jobs to your district and scoring political points domestically .
But generally when people who are worried about the bottom line build something expensive , they want to get it back in one piece after each use .
Let 's just hope that the funding strings and the barriers to entry here are n't too high to keep the launch vehicle industry from ever resembling a competitive private market .
It 's easy to ignore the bottom line if you 're working on a cost-plus contract and you do n't see any potential competitors with years of expertise and billions of dollars of R&amp;D money lying around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsibleBoy, I hope you don't use any wood products, live or work in any large buildings (or any small buildings with roofs, for that matter), eat any fish (or anything grown on a farm, even), use any electricity, buy anything that was shipped in a truck... or, wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Is profiting from others' deaths in risky occupations always irresponsible, or just when those deaths are spectacular enough to get network news time?Ironically, in the long run I would expect space travel to become less risky in a competitive private market.
Not because launch company CEOs wouldn't include cheap bastards willing to risk pilots lives, but because they'd include cheap bastards unwilling to risk expensive space vehicles.
Building disposable launch vehicles made sense for getting a few people into space fast and scoring political points internationally.
Building launch vehicles that have to be regularly rebuilt by standing armies makes sense for bringing jobs to your district and scoring political points domestically.
But generally when people who are worried about the bottom line build something expensive, they want to get it back in one piece after each use.
Let's just hope that the funding strings and the barriers to entry here aren't too high to keep the launch vehicle industry from ever resembling a competitive private market.
It's easy to ignore the bottom line if you're working on a cost-plus contract and you don't see any potential competitors with years of expertise and billions of dollars of R&amp;D money lying around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949114</id>
	<title>This shouldn't have become a problem...</title>
	<author>acalltoreason</author>
	<datestamp>1264779540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This wouldn't have become an issue if the budgeting committees had actually given NASA a budget to work with. Their current budget stands around 19 billion dollars. Now if that sounds like a lot to you, to put it in perspective, the DoD received over 3/4 of a trillion dollar for FY 2009.
<a href="http://www.federalbudget.com/" title="federalbudget.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.federalbudget.com/</a> [federalbudget.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would n't have become an issue if the budgeting committees had actually given NASA a budget to work with .
Their current budget stands around 19 billion dollars .
Now if that sounds like a lot to you , to put it in perspective , the DoD received over 3/4 of a trillion dollar for FY 2009 . http : //www.federalbudget.com/ [ federalbudget.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This wouldn't have become an issue if the budgeting committees had actually given NASA a budget to work with.
Their current budget stands around 19 billion dollars.
Now if that sounds like a lot to you, to put it in perspective, the DoD received over 3/4 of a trillion dollar for FY 2009.
http://www.federalbudget.com/ [federalbudget.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949264</id>
	<title>THIS JUST IN:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264780200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama concedes that government doesn't have all the answers to mankind's problems, and announces his switch to Libertarianism!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama concedes that government does n't have all the answers to mankind 's problems , and announces his switch to Libertarianism !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama concedes that government doesn't have all the answers to mankind's problems, and announces his switch to Libertarianism!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948718</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>Afty0r</author>
	<datestamp>1264777080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsible</p></div></blockquote><p>Surely that should be left up to the individuals involved? Why is it up to you to decide on a maximum level of risk they should be allowed to expose themselves to?</p><p>Bear in mind, that by saving a little money by allowing more risky space flights you will be lowering the taxes of Americans - this extra money can then be spent on goods and services more directly relevant to quality of life - ultimately perhaps allowing people better sanitation, nutrition or medical care.</p><p>Allowing a dozen or so astronauts to die per year, to save a trillion dollars may yield many thousands of longer (or saved) lives due to the resources being spent elsewhere... and perhaps what is most important is that everyone involves will be doing what *THEY* want - it will be a more consensual, and more free system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsibleSurely that should be left up to the individuals involved ?
Why is it up to you to decide on a maximum level of risk they should be allowed to expose themselves to ? Bear in mind , that by saving a little money by allowing more risky space flights you will be lowering the taxes of Americans - this extra money can then be spent on goods and services more directly relevant to quality of life - ultimately perhaps allowing people better sanitation , nutrition or medical care.Allowing a dozen or so astronauts to die per year , to save a trillion dollars may yield many thousands of longer ( or saved ) lives due to the resources being spent elsewhere... and perhaps what is most important is that everyone involves will be doing what * THEY * want - it will be a more consensual , and more free system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsibleSurely that should be left up to the individuals involved?
Why is it up to you to decide on a maximum level of risk they should be allowed to expose themselves to?Bear in mind, that by saving a little money by allowing more risky space flights you will be lowering the taxes of Americans - this extra money can then be spent on goods and services more directly relevant to quality of life - ultimately perhaps allowing people better sanitation, nutrition or medical care.Allowing a dozen or so astronauts to die per year, to save a trillion dollars may yield many thousands of longer (or saved) lives due to the resources being spent elsewhere... and perhaps what is most important is that everyone involves will be doing what *THEY* want - it will be a more consensual, and more free system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950148</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1264783800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm... fyi, a scientist working for the British Ministry of Defense came up with the idea of the microchip, though he didn't create one himself.</p><p>Also, pharmaceutical companies generally just take drugs that have been found promising in publicly funded academic research, and do the lifting necessary to get them approved by the FDA and into humans; they usually don't do much of the basic research that finds these drugs (or that points to where these drugs could be).</p><p>Basically, discounting publicly funded academic research is a bad idea. Private industry turns basic research into stuff you can use, but it rarely does that basic research in the first place - because funding basic research requires that you think in terms of decades, not next quarter's financial statements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm... fyi , a scientist working for the British Ministry of Defense came up with the idea of the microchip , though he did n't create one himself.Also , pharmaceutical companies generally just take drugs that have been found promising in publicly funded academic research , and do the lifting necessary to get them approved by the FDA and into humans ; they usually do n't do much of the basic research that finds these drugs ( or that points to where these drugs could be ) .Basically , discounting publicly funded academic research is a bad idea .
Private industry turns basic research into stuff you can use , but it rarely does that basic research in the first place - because funding basic research requires that you think in terms of decades , not next quarter 's financial statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm... fyi, a scientist working for the British Ministry of Defense came up with the idea of the microchip, though he didn't create one himself.Also, pharmaceutical companies generally just take drugs that have been found promising in publicly funded academic research, and do the lifting necessary to get them approved by the FDA and into humans; they usually don't do much of the basic research that finds these drugs (or that points to where these drugs could be).Basically, discounting publicly funded academic research is a bad idea.
Private industry turns basic research into stuff you can use, but it rarely does that basic research in the first place - because funding basic research requires that you think in terms of decades, not next quarter's financial statements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948740</id>
	<title>Re:Outsourcing to China</title>
	<author>Necron69</author>
	<datestamp>1264777200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, hello? We've been outsourcing a lot of manned space flights (to the ISS) to Russia for years since the Columbia disintegrated, plus lots of cargo flights too.</p><p>The Ares rocket program is already years behind and billions over budget. The design has huge flaws that may actually make it completely unusable.</p><p>So ask yourself this question as an American taxpayer: Do I want NASA to pay the Russians to hitch a ride to the ISS, or should we, oh gee I don't know, pay an American company for the same thing?</p><p>Those of you flipping out about this really need to take a look at the web page of SpaceX <a href="http://www.spacex.com/" title="spacex.com">http://www.spacex.com/</a> [spacex.com] In just a few years, they have built a fantastic family of rockets, from scratch, for vastly less than NASA spends in one year, and also much less than the pre-existing space industry giants.</p><p>NASA, for all of its past glory, is the absolute worst government bureaucracy there is. We CAN do better!</p><p>Necron69</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , hello ?
We 've been outsourcing a lot of manned space flights ( to the ISS ) to Russia for years since the Columbia disintegrated , plus lots of cargo flights too.The Ares rocket program is already years behind and billions over budget .
The design has huge flaws that may actually make it completely unusable.So ask yourself this question as an American taxpayer : Do I want NASA to pay the Russians to hitch a ride to the ISS , or should we , oh gee I do n't know , pay an American company for the same thing ? Those of you flipping out about this really need to take a look at the web page of SpaceX http : //www.spacex.com/ [ spacex.com ] In just a few years , they have built a fantastic family of rockets , from scratch , for vastly less than NASA spends in one year , and also much less than the pre-existing space industry giants.NASA , for all of its past glory , is the absolute worst government bureaucracy there is .
We CAN do better ! Necron69</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, hello?
We've been outsourcing a lot of manned space flights (to the ISS) to Russia for years since the Columbia disintegrated, plus lots of cargo flights too.The Ares rocket program is already years behind and billions over budget.
The design has huge flaws that may actually make it completely unusable.So ask yourself this question as an American taxpayer: Do I want NASA to pay the Russians to hitch a ride to the ISS, or should we, oh gee I don't know, pay an American company for the same thing?Those of you flipping out about this really need to take a look at the web page of SpaceX http://www.spacex.com/ [spacex.com] In just a few years, they have built a fantastic family of rockets, from scratch, for vastly less than NASA spends in one year, and also much less than the pre-existing space industry giants.NASA, for all of its past glory, is the absolute worst government bureaucracy there is.
We CAN do better!Necron69</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950800</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of the spin.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264786200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lets see now. Who filled their cabinet posts with lobbyist after vowing not to? Who campaigned with the transparency pledge then developed a health care plan behind closed doors and limited examination of the bill to 72 hours before the vote?? How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country? What has this guy done to help this country? You don't need to believe what any news the media "filters". Listen to the mans own words and match what he says and what he does for yourself. They don't add up. What gives you reason to believe this or anything else he says? If he has a plan, why not present it now? Learn from the past. The spin you need to watch out for is coming from him.</p></div><p>Who went to War because he's got a daddy problem-my 1 trillion ups your 1 trillion...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see now .
Who filled their cabinet posts with lobbyist after vowing not to ?
Who campaigned with the transparency pledge then developed a health care plan behind closed doors and limited examination of the bill to 72 hours before the vote ? ?
How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country ?
What has this guy done to help this country ?
You do n't need to believe what any news the media " filters " .
Listen to the mans own words and match what he says and what he does for yourself .
They do n't add up .
What gives you reason to believe this or anything else he says ?
If he has a plan , why not present it now ?
Learn from the past .
The spin you need to watch out for is coming from him.Who went to War because he 's got a daddy problem-my 1 trillion ups your 1 trillion.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see now.
Who filled their cabinet posts with lobbyist after vowing not to?
Who campaigned with the transparency pledge then developed a health care plan behind closed doors and limited examination of the bill to 72 hours before the vote??
How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country?
What has this guy done to help this country?
You don't need to believe what any news the media "filters".
Listen to the mans own words and match what he says and what he does for yourself.
They don't add up.
What gives you reason to believe this or anything else he says?
If he has a plan, why not present it now?
Learn from the past.
The spin you need to watch out for is coming from him.Who went to War because he's got a daddy problem-my 1 trillion ups your 1 trillion...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947630</id>
	<title>Beware of the spin.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264766460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before anyone jumps up and shouts make sure that you're not being taken in by lobbyists who are trying to either support specific companies or jobs in specific states. They are apt to shout out about the sky falling before the real information is known.</p><p>Sit back, relax and wait until the report is actually published, read it and make up your own mind. Don't believe what has been filtered through potentially biased news media companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before anyone jumps up and shouts make sure that you 're not being taken in by lobbyists who are trying to either support specific companies or jobs in specific states .
They are apt to shout out about the sky falling before the real information is known.Sit back , relax and wait until the report is actually published , read it and make up your own mind .
Do n't believe what has been filtered through potentially biased news media companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before anyone jumps up and shouts make sure that you're not being taken in by lobbyists who are trying to either support specific companies or jobs in specific states.
They are apt to shout out about the sky falling before the real information is known.Sit back, relax and wait until the report is actually published, read it and make up your own mind.
Don't believe what has been filtered through potentially biased news media companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30956218</id>
	<title>I completely agree</title>
	<author>stonewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1264764600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got to see the Challenger launch before NASA and Thiokol blew it up. I was at the launch of STS-41B. I was an officer in a chapter of the AIAA that sponsored a get away special canister (G-008) that flew on Challenger carrying experiments put together by local high school and college students.</p><p>The engineer who blew the whistle on the deadly o-rings was a member of our chapter. We held a special meeting in hist honor. Funny, isn't it, that just behaving according the expected standards of your profession can make you a hero. But, it is true, so few people live up to the minimal expected standards of morality or professionalism that when someone does it proves that they are a hero.</p><p>What a lot of us learned from the destruction of the Challenger and her crew was that NASA lies. (I'm not talking about the idiots who think we never went to the moon... god what idiots...) I'm talking about the kind of lies they tell to get what they want. They lie about what projects will cost. They lie about safety. They lie about performance. Can anyone name a successful space launch vehicle created by NASA in the last 20 years? (And, no, the shuttle doesn't count. That project started, officially, around 1966. In reality it started a lot earlier. Maybe as far back as the late 1930s or early 1940s.) I can't. I can give you a long list of failed projects. Even NASA's very successful Mars explores caught a ride on commercial Delta IIs.</p><p>NASA is primarily in the business of keeping its self alive. NASA is not in the business of exploring space. In fact, it has worked hard to keep people who wanted to explore space, or do business in space, or even build a high performance rocket, from being able to do any thing. It took decades to the legal system in place that is needed to allow private operations. It took decades not because our representatives didn't try, but because NASA with the help of the DOD worked as hard as they possibly could spreading FUD to stop the laws from passing. I know you won't believe me on this. So what, ask Jerry Pournelle he has been following and reporting on NASA's lies for longer than anyone. Go ahead, ask him. (No his is not a friend of mine. But, he is the guy who taught me about 75\% of what I know about flame wars. Yeah, back in the days of the ARPA net...)</p><p>Ever wondered why space shuttles are so damned expensive? Ever wondered why there are so few of them? Ever wondered who owns the shuttles and the tooling to make space shuttles? If you ask you'll be told that there are so few of them because they are so expensive. They are so expensive because they are so high tech and complex. And, of course, everyone knows that NASA owns the shuttles and everything having to do with them. How about this question "Why do the space shuttles have a hypersonic glide capability with a 1500 mile cross range capability?" A cargo van doesn't need to be able to drive like a formula 1 race car. Giving the space shuttle those capabilities added weight, reduced payload, and dramatically increased its cost. So, why did they do it? BTW, One of the last shuttle designs considered, before the current design, reentered with the body and wings perpendicular to its direction of travel and only switched to gliding, rather than falling, after slowed to below mach one. It had a landing speed as slow, or slower, than a commercial airliner and could land on any runway and was not capable of flying at supersonic speed.</p><p>When you start saying that only NASA can build a manned space craft please remember that NASA approved the designs of the original Apollo that cremated its crew. They also approved the design of the space shuttle that has so far killed two crews in 134 flights. If a commercial aircraft had that kind of safety record in testing it would never be allowed to operate. Home built aircraft have a better safety record because of the inspection requirements for licensing. Even the X-15 which was a purely experimental aircraft that was deliberately flown at speeds and altitudes never before reached by any manned</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got to see the Challenger launch before NASA and Thiokol blew it up .
I was at the launch of STS-41B .
I was an officer in a chapter of the AIAA that sponsored a get away special canister ( G-008 ) that flew on Challenger carrying experiments put together by local high school and college students.The engineer who blew the whistle on the deadly o-rings was a member of our chapter .
We held a special meeting in hist honor .
Funny , is n't it , that just behaving according the expected standards of your profession can make you a hero .
But , it is true , so few people live up to the minimal expected standards of morality or professionalism that when someone does it proves that they are a hero.What a lot of us learned from the destruction of the Challenger and her crew was that NASA lies .
( I 'm not talking about the idiots who think we never went to the moon... god what idiots... ) I 'm talking about the kind of lies they tell to get what they want .
They lie about what projects will cost .
They lie about safety .
They lie about performance .
Can anyone name a successful space launch vehicle created by NASA in the last 20 years ?
( And , no , the shuttle does n't count .
That project started , officially , around 1966 .
In reality it started a lot earlier .
Maybe as far back as the late 1930s or early 1940s .
) I ca n't .
I can give you a long list of failed projects .
Even NASA 's very successful Mars explores caught a ride on commercial Delta IIs.NASA is primarily in the business of keeping its self alive .
NASA is not in the business of exploring space .
In fact , it has worked hard to keep people who wanted to explore space , or do business in space , or even build a high performance rocket , from being able to do any thing .
It took decades to the legal system in place that is needed to allow private operations .
It took decades not because our representatives did n't try , but because NASA with the help of the DOD worked as hard as they possibly could spreading FUD to stop the laws from passing .
I know you wo n't believe me on this .
So what , ask Jerry Pournelle he has been following and reporting on NASA 's lies for longer than anyone .
Go ahead , ask him .
( No his is not a friend of mine .
But , he is the guy who taught me about 75 \ % of what I know about flame wars .
Yeah , back in the days of the ARPA net... ) Ever wondered why space shuttles are so damned expensive ?
Ever wondered why there are so few of them ?
Ever wondered who owns the shuttles and the tooling to make space shuttles ?
If you ask you 'll be told that there are so few of them because they are so expensive .
They are so expensive because they are so high tech and complex .
And , of course , everyone knows that NASA owns the shuttles and everything having to do with them .
How about this question " Why do the space shuttles have a hypersonic glide capability with a 1500 mile cross range capability ?
" A cargo van does n't need to be able to drive like a formula 1 race car .
Giving the space shuttle those capabilities added weight , reduced payload , and dramatically increased its cost .
So , why did they do it ?
BTW , One of the last shuttle designs considered , before the current design , reentered with the body and wings perpendicular to its direction of travel and only switched to gliding , rather than falling , after slowed to below mach one .
It had a landing speed as slow , or slower , than a commercial airliner and could land on any runway and was not capable of flying at supersonic speed.When you start saying that only NASA can build a manned space craft please remember that NASA approved the designs of the original Apollo that cremated its crew .
They also approved the design of the space shuttle that has so far killed two crews in 134 flights .
If a commercial aircraft had that kind of safety record in testing it would never be allowed to operate .
Home built aircraft have a better safety record because of the inspection requirements for licensing .
Even the X-15 which was a purely experimental aircraft that was deliberately flown at speeds and altitudes never before reached by any manned</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got to see the Challenger launch before NASA and Thiokol blew it up.
I was at the launch of STS-41B.
I was an officer in a chapter of the AIAA that sponsored a get away special canister (G-008) that flew on Challenger carrying experiments put together by local high school and college students.The engineer who blew the whistle on the deadly o-rings was a member of our chapter.
We held a special meeting in hist honor.
Funny, isn't it, that just behaving according the expected standards of your profession can make you a hero.
But, it is true, so few people live up to the minimal expected standards of morality or professionalism that when someone does it proves that they are a hero.What a lot of us learned from the destruction of the Challenger and her crew was that NASA lies.
(I'm not talking about the idiots who think we never went to the moon... god what idiots...) I'm talking about the kind of lies they tell to get what they want.
They lie about what projects will cost.
They lie about safety.
They lie about performance.
Can anyone name a successful space launch vehicle created by NASA in the last 20 years?
(And, no, the shuttle doesn't count.
That project started, officially, around 1966.
In reality it started a lot earlier.
Maybe as far back as the late 1930s or early 1940s.
) I can't.
I can give you a long list of failed projects.
Even NASA's very successful Mars explores caught a ride on commercial Delta IIs.NASA is primarily in the business of keeping its self alive.
NASA is not in the business of exploring space.
In fact, it has worked hard to keep people who wanted to explore space, or do business in space, or even build a high performance rocket, from being able to do any thing.
It took decades to the legal system in place that is needed to allow private operations.
It took decades not because our representatives didn't try, but because NASA with the help of the DOD worked as hard as they possibly could spreading FUD to stop the laws from passing.
I know you won't believe me on this.
So what, ask Jerry Pournelle he has been following and reporting on NASA's lies for longer than anyone.
Go ahead, ask him.
(No his is not a friend of mine.
But, he is the guy who taught me about 75\% of what I know about flame wars.
Yeah, back in the days of the ARPA net...)Ever wondered why space shuttles are so damned expensive?
Ever wondered why there are so few of them?
Ever wondered who owns the shuttles and the tooling to make space shuttles?
If you ask you'll be told that there are so few of them because they are so expensive.
They are so expensive because they are so high tech and complex.
And, of course, everyone knows that NASA owns the shuttles and everything having to do with them.
How about this question "Why do the space shuttles have a hypersonic glide capability with a 1500 mile cross range capability?
" A cargo van doesn't need to be able to drive like a formula 1 race car.
Giving the space shuttle those capabilities added weight, reduced payload, and dramatically increased its cost.
So, why did they do it?
BTW, One of the last shuttle designs considered, before the current design, reentered with the body and wings perpendicular to its direction of travel and only switched to gliding, rather than falling, after slowed to below mach one.
It had a landing speed as slow, or slower, than a commercial airliner and could land on any runway and was not capable of flying at supersonic speed.When you start saying that only NASA can build a manned space craft please remember that NASA approved the designs of the original Apollo that cremated its crew.
They also approved the design of the space shuttle that has so far killed two crews in 134 flights.
If a commercial aircraft had that kind of safety record in testing it would never be allowed to operate.
Home built aircraft have a better safety record because of the inspection requirements for licensing.
Even the X-15 which was a purely experimental aircraft that was deliberately flown at speeds and altitudes never before reached by any manned</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948394</id>
	<title>This is retarded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264775220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Private industry has proven no capability yet in space, yet alone one which is reliable.   This is truly putting the cart before the horse.  Another bad move is to cut out returning to the moon.  The moon is far easier and far safer (if one can truly use that word in space) as a first attempt at man setting up any form of long term camp/colony.  There is something to be said about learning to crawl, walk and run in that order.   I'm not sure we are even past crawling yet.  There is no reason why we should attempt to do this on a far more distant planet without first having proven the technologies feasible closer to home where failure need not necessarily mean a death sentence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Private industry has proven no capability yet in space , yet alone one which is reliable .
This is truly putting the cart before the horse .
Another bad move is to cut out returning to the moon .
The moon is far easier and far safer ( if one can truly use that word in space ) as a first attempt at man setting up any form of long term camp/colony .
There is something to be said about learning to crawl , walk and run in that order .
I 'm not sure we are even past crawling yet .
There is no reason why we should attempt to do this on a far more distant planet without first having proven the technologies feasible closer to home where failure need not necessarily mean a death sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private industry has proven no capability yet in space, yet alone one which is reliable.
This is truly putting the cart before the horse.
Another bad move is to cut out returning to the moon.
The moon is far easier and far safer (if one can truly use that word in space) as a first attempt at man setting up any form of long term camp/colony.
There is something to be said about learning to crawl, walk and run in that order.
I'm not sure we are even past crawling yet.
There is no reason why we should attempt to do this on a far more distant planet without first having proven the technologies feasible closer to home where failure need not necessarily mean a death sentence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950236</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1264784160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't need manned space flight to do any of those things. In-fact manned space flight is a terrible way to do those things. We're already doing awesome things and producing great science using robots. Why on earth would you want to do it with humans?</p></div><p>You need humans if you want to do any of those, except maybe building a base on the Moon. Why, you say? Communication lag and inflexibility. If you instruct your robot to go 2 meters forward, and then wait 40 minutes <b>at least</b>, just to check if it got stuck or everything is fine, you're not going to do much science in a year. A human could do in a day what the two robots on Mars did in all these years. And the lag becomes even more problematic with Europa. Plus, in Europa the robot will probably not have the luxury of waiting for a new command every two to three hours, because it will be diving in the ocean (hopefully this is a submarine robot), because we can't estimate the currents and turbulency existing there.</p><p>Communication lag and inflexibility. That's why humans can do much, much more (like many orders of magnitude more) than any currently imaginable robot. Communication lag and inflexibility.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need manned space flight to do any of those things .
In-fact manned space flight is a terrible way to do those things .
We 're already doing awesome things and producing great science using robots .
Why on earth would you want to do it with humans ? You need humans if you want to do any of those , except maybe building a base on the Moon .
Why , you say ?
Communication lag and inflexibility .
If you instruct your robot to go 2 meters forward , and then wait 40 minutes at least , just to check if it got stuck or everything is fine , you 're not going to do much science in a year .
A human could do in a day what the two robots on Mars did in all these years .
And the lag becomes even more problematic with Europa .
Plus , in Europa the robot will probably not have the luxury of waiting for a new command every two to three hours , because it will be diving in the ocean ( hopefully this is a submarine robot ) , because we ca n't estimate the currents and turbulency existing there.Communication lag and inflexibility .
That 's why humans can do much , much more ( like many orders of magnitude more ) than any currently imaginable robot .
Communication lag and inflexibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need manned space flight to do any of those things.
In-fact manned space flight is a terrible way to do those things.
We're already doing awesome things and producing great science using robots.
Why on earth would you want to do it with humans?You need humans if you want to do any of those, except maybe building a base on the Moon.
Why, you say?
Communication lag and inflexibility.
If you instruct your robot to go 2 meters forward, and then wait 40 minutes at least, just to check if it got stuck or everything is fine, you're not going to do much science in a year.
A human could do in a day what the two robots on Mars did in all these years.
And the lag becomes even more problematic with Europa.
Plus, in Europa the robot will probably not have the luxury of waiting for a new command every two to three hours, because it will be diving in the ocean (hopefully this is a submarine robot), because we can't estimate the currents and turbulency existing there.Communication lag and inflexibility.
That's why humans can do much, much more (like many orders of magnitude more) than any currently imaginable robot.
Communication lag and inflexibility.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30954664</id>
	<title>Re:This is really Big Space vs Little Space...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>NASA current designs the car, but farms out the manufacturing and design of the parts to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2</p></div><p>That is close, but not quite right.  They levy the requirements and oversee the design.  They do NOT perform low level design work, the contractor does. <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p> Putting people into orbit is not that difficult anymore</p></div><p>Then why has no private company done it yet as of today? 10-min sub-orbital flights do not count. This could be putting all our eggs into a non-existing basket.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA current designs the car , but farms out the manufacturing and design of the parts to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2That is close , but not quite right .
They levy the requirements and oversee the design .
They do NOT perform low level design work , the contractor does .
    Putting people into orbit is not that difficult anymoreThen why has no private company done it yet as of today ?
10-min sub-orbital flights do not count .
This could be putting all our eggs into a non-existing basket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA current designs the car, but farms out the manufacturing and design of the parts to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2That is close, but not quite right.
They levy the requirements and oversee the design.
They do NOT perform low level design work, the contractor does.
  
   Putting people into orbit is not that difficult anymoreThen why has no private company done it yet as of today?
10-min sub-orbital flights do not count.
This could be putting all our eggs into a non-existing basket.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948114</id>
	<title>this is the american model</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264772460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>most nations recognize the value of capitalism, but they yoke it with socially-conscious goals, to effective and ineffective results</p><p>but the usa is a cult of capitalism. they think it answers every question (it doesn't). they invoke market principles where market principles make no sense, such as in healthcare. they remove financial regulations and then act surprised when the markets bubble and burst (and then some of them, in their denial, even blame the government, magically somehow, for the market's failure, confusing cause and effect)</p><p>that space exploration should be privatized is yet another absurdity of the monomaniacal american obsession with elevating market principles as the driving force behind everything in the world. americans: of course capitalism is important. of course capitalism works. but capitalism is a beast of burden, it needs to be tamed and controlled. it needs to be fenced and given limits, or it will run roughshod and destroy your society with its extremes and stampedes of panic or greed. you need social safety nets, and you need to tame the excesses. understand this or understand nothing and be just a market fundamentalist, as foolish and blind to reality as any religious fundamentalist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>most nations recognize the value of capitalism , but they yoke it with socially-conscious goals , to effective and ineffective resultsbut the usa is a cult of capitalism .
they think it answers every question ( it does n't ) .
they invoke market principles where market principles make no sense , such as in healthcare .
they remove financial regulations and then act surprised when the markets bubble and burst ( and then some of them , in their denial , even blame the government , magically somehow , for the market 's failure , confusing cause and effect ) that space exploration should be privatized is yet another absurdity of the monomaniacal american obsession with elevating market principles as the driving force behind everything in the world .
americans : of course capitalism is important .
of course capitalism works .
but capitalism is a beast of burden , it needs to be tamed and controlled .
it needs to be fenced and given limits , or it will run roughshod and destroy your society with its extremes and stampedes of panic or greed .
you need social safety nets , and you need to tame the excesses .
understand this or understand nothing and be just a market fundamentalist , as foolish and blind to reality as any religious fundamentalist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most nations recognize the value of capitalism, but they yoke it with socially-conscious goals, to effective and ineffective resultsbut the usa is a cult of capitalism.
they think it answers every question (it doesn't).
they invoke market principles where market principles make no sense, such as in healthcare.
they remove financial regulations and then act surprised when the markets bubble and burst (and then some of them, in their denial, even blame the government, magically somehow, for the market's failure, confusing cause and effect)that space exploration should be privatized is yet another absurdity of the monomaniacal american obsession with elevating market principles as the driving force behind everything in the world.
americans: of course capitalism is important.
of course capitalism works.
but capitalism is a beast of burden, it needs to be tamed and controlled.
it needs to be fenced and given limits, or it will run roughshod and destroy your society with its extremes and stampedes of panic or greed.
you need social safety nets, and you need to tame the excesses.
understand this or understand nothing and be just a market fundamentalist, as foolish and blind to reality as any religious fundamentalist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949482</id>
	<title>Re:BEGIN (partisanBickering)</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1264781040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone else see the irony in two Republican congressmen complaining about the privatization of space flight?</p></div><p>No, because they're in districts with heavy NASA jobs, and fear losing them. This is simply a case of local interest, regardless of party. Ted Kennedy, the so-called "liberal lion", was never known as a friend of defense companies, and yet when the Navy canceled the Zumwalt-class stealth destroyer, he fought tooth and nail to save that expensive boondoggle. Because the ships would be built in Massachusetts, and at the end of the day, regardless of your party, local economics trumps party ideology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else see the irony in two Republican congressmen complaining about the privatization of space flight ? No , because they 're in districts with heavy NASA jobs , and fear losing them .
This is simply a case of local interest , regardless of party .
Ted Kennedy , the so-called " liberal lion " , was never known as a friend of defense companies , and yet when the Navy canceled the Zumwalt-class stealth destroyer , he fought tooth and nail to save that expensive boondoggle .
Because the ships would be built in Massachusetts , and at the end of the day , regardless of your party , local economics trumps party ideology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else see the irony in two Republican congressmen complaining about the privatization of space flight?No, because they're in districts with heavy NASA jobs, and fear losing them.
This is simply a case of local interest, regardless of party.
Ted Kennedy, the so-called "liberal lion", was never known as a friend of defense companies, and yet when the Navy canceled the Zumwalt-class stealth destroyer, he fought tooth and nail to save that expensive boondoggle.
Because the ships would be built in Massachusetts, and at the end of the day, regardless of your party, local economics trumps party ideology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30954640</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of the spin.</title>
	<author>jjk3</author>
	<datestamp>1264758240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is a great site that tracks the more then 500 promises that Obama made during the campaign. While obviously breaking some promises are a bigger deal then others, it's the only place that I have seen that it pretty subjective on the matter.</p><p><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]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a great site that tracks the more then 500 promises that Obama made during the campaign .
While obviously breaking some promises are a bigger deal then others , it 's the only place that I have seen that it pretty subjective on the matter.http : //www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [ politifact.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a great site that tracks the more then 500 promises that Obama made during the campaign.
While obviously breaking some promises are a bigger deal then others, it's the only place that I have seen that it pretty subjective on the matter.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [politifact.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951292</id>
	<title>ASAP Panel Members</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1264787940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From posting summary: "If true, this won't please the federal panel that recommended against just such privatization."</p><p>ASAP is not a 'federal panel' in that it is a panel of members of a federal agency. The members are primarily consultants for and members of commercial concerns in aerospace. When tasked with something like an accident investigation or other safety related issue, they do a fine, objective job. When they undertake to advise NASA on what do to when it comes to contracting and such, they invariably favor themselves and their clients, which so far have not been the start ups that the Obama administration is considering using for future human spaceflight.</p><p>The panel members are listed, along with their relationships to the areospace community, in attachment 5 of the 2009 ASAP/NASA report at <a href="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oer/asap/documents/2009\_ASAP\_Annual\_Report.pdf" title="nasa.gov">http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oer/asap/documents/2009\_ASAP\_Annual\_Report.pdf</a> [nasa.gov] For those listed as consultants and giving the name of some consultancy concern, go to the web site of that agency and see who they consult to. The answers aren't very surprising given the recommendations that suggest NASA stick with the BigAero companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From posting summary : " If true , this wo n't please the federal panel that recommended against just such privatization .
" ASAP is not a 'federal panel ' in that it is a panel of members of a federal agency .
The members are primarily consultants for and members of commercial concerns in aerospace .
When tasked with something like an accident investigation or other safety related issue , they do a fine , objective job .
When they undertake to advise NASA on what do to when it comes to contracting and such , they invariably favor themselves and their clients , which so far have not been the start ups that the Obama administration is considering using for future human spaceflight.The panel members are listed , along with their relationships to the areospace community , in attachment 5 of the 2009 ASAP/NASA report at http : //www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oer/asap/documents/2009 \ _ASAP \ _Annual \ _Report.pdf [ nasa.gov ] For those listed as consultants and giving the name of some consultancy concern , go to the web site of that agency and see who they consult to .
The answers are n't very surprising given the recommendations that suggest NASA stick with the BigAero companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From posting summary: "If true, this won't please the federal panel that recommended against just such privatization.
"ASAP is not a 'federal panel' in that it is a panel of members of a federal agency.
The members are primarily consultants for and members of commercial concerns in aerospace.
When tasked with something like an accident investigation or other safety related issue, they do a fine, objective job.
When they undertake to advise NASA on what do to when it comes to contracting and such, they invariably favor themselves and their clients, which so far have not been the start ups that the Obama administration is considering using for future human spaceflight.The panel members are listed, along with their relationships to the areospace community, in attachment 5 of the 2009 ASAP/NASA report at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oer/asap/documents/2009\_ASAP\_Annual\_Report.pdf [nasa.gov] For those listed as consultants and giving the name of some consultancy concern, go to the web site of that agency and see who they consult to.
The answers aren't very surprising given the recommendations that suggest NASA stick with the BigAero companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30955976</id>
	<title>Re:this is the american model</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264763580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was a very nice rant, but could you give some specifics on why you think NASA's current model of using single-source cost-plus contracts and keeping tight control on the design is better than the proposed model of multiple companies competing for fixed-price contracts for launch services? Keep in mind that the latter model is what NASA already uses for all of its unmanned launches -- do you think this was a bad idea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was a very nice rant , but could you give some specifics on why you think NASA 's current model of using single-source cost-plus contracts and keeping tight control on the design is better than the proposed model of multiple companies competing for fixed-price contracts for launch services ?
Keep in mind that the latter model is what NASA already uses for all of its unmanned launches -- do you think this was a bad idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was a very nice rant, but could you give some specifics on why you think NASA's current model of using single-source cost-plus contracts and keeping tight control on the design is better than the proposed model of multiple companies competing for fixed-price contracts for launch services?
Keep in mind that the latter model is what NASA already uses for all of its unmanned launches -- do you think this was a bad idea?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949050</id>
	<title>Obamas legacy  ...</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1264779180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He gave up space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He gave up space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He gave up space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948078</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264772280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a dark day for exploration.  The day we turned to the unexplored and unmastered and said "fuck it, we don't care."  The space program has always been a huge source of national pride for me.  I guess not so much for many other people.  But then again, most people consider "national pride" to be anything the other party doesn't want.</p><p>You said it best, it crushed the hopes and dreams of OUR generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a dark day for exploration .
The day we turned to the unexplored and unmastered and said " fuck it , we do n't care .
" The space program has always been a huge source of national pride for me .
I guess not so much for many other people .
But then again , most people consider " national pride " to be anything the other party does n't want.You said it best , it crushed the hopes and dreams of OUR generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a dark day for exploration.
The day we turned to the unexplored and unmastered and said "fuck it, we don't care.
"  The space program has always been a huge source of national pride for me.
I guess not so much for many other people.
But then again, most people consider "national pride" to be anything the other party doesn't want.You said it best, it crushed the hopes and dreams of OUR generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947850</id>
	<title>This is Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264769640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every damn article posted on Slashdot about privatization of space has been packed with complaints that this is the end of the world. It's really not. God willing, it may be the start of a new one.</p><p>NASA was pursuing a completely impossible architecture. Ares was underfunded and unable to be effectively used until 2017 at the latest. By forcing NASA to buy services from private corporations we can develop our domestic launch infrastructure as opposed to keeping it under government control.</p><p>And yes, I said BUY! This is not cost-plus contracting, which defense contractors famously use to rip us off every chance they get. This is a straight purchase of services, cash for deliveries and milestones met. In other words, actual free-market capitalism.</p><p>As for those claiming that we should have blown our cash on another Apollo-like shot: what cash? Obama is not a dictator, he's a President. His budget requests have to be approved by Congress which would have balked at any substantial increase in spending on space exploration. Not to mention that we tried Apollo and it was nowhere near substainable. Development of regular deliveries to orbital space by private companies - that's sustainable. That's what will provide us with the groundwork to move beyond earth orbit and lower the cost to orbit to the point where we can actually do something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every damn article posted on Slashdot about privatization of space has been packed with complaints that this is the end of the world .
It 's really not .
God willing , it may be the start of a new one.NASA was pursuing a completely impossible architecture .
Ares was underfunded and unable to be effectively used until 2017 at the latest .
By forcing NASA to buy services from private corporations we can develop our domestic launch infrastructure as opposed to keeping it under government control.And yes , I said BUY !
This is not cost-plus contracting , which defense contractors famously use to rip us off every chance they get .
This is a straight purchase of services , cash for deliveries and milestones met .
In other words , actual free-market capitalism.As for those claiming that we should have blown our cash on another Apollo-like shot : what cash ?
Obama is not a dictator , he 's a President .
His budget requests have to be approved by Congress which would have balked at any substantial increase in spending on space exploration .
Not to mention that we tried Apollo and it was nowhere near substainable .
Development of regular deliveries to orbital space by private companies - that 's sustainable .
That 's what will provide us with the groundwork to move beyond earth orbit and lower the cost to orbit to the point where we can actually do something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every damn article posted on Slashdot about privatization of space has been packed with complaints that this is the end of the world.
It's really not.
God willing, it may be the start of a new one.NASA was pursuing a completely impossible architecture.
Ares was underfunded and unable to be effectively used until 2017 at the latest.
By forcing NASA to buy services from private corporations we can develop our domestic launch infrastructure as opposed to keeping it under government control.And yes, I said BUY!
This is not cost-plus contracting, which defense contractors famously use to rip us off every chance they get.
This is a straight purchase of services, cash for deliveries and milestones met.
In other words, actual free-market capitalism.As for those claiming that we should have blown our cash on another Apollo-like shot: what cash?
Obama is not a dictator, he's a President.
His budget requests have to be approved by Congress which would have balked at any substantial increase in spending on space exploration.
Not to mention that we tried Apollo and it was nowhere near substainable.
Development of regular deliveries to orbital space by private companies - that's sustainable.
That's what will provide us with the groundwork to move beyond earth orbit and lower the cost to orbit to the point where we can actually do something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948040</id>
	<title>Obama is as Republican as they come.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264772160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's done nothing for the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's done nothing for the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's done nothing for the people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.31075478</id>
	<title>Re:Privatisation</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1265744040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What is needed is for them to remove the regulations that exist against private space travel.</i></p><p>Sweet, then space pilots will have to work a second job to stay off food stamps, just like airline pilots.  And launch command staff can be working on 2 hours of sleep between shifts, just like air traffic controllers.  Because hey, you can always sue the parent company for damages when a rocket plows into your apartment complex.  Unless you live in a tort reform state, of course.</p><p>And in the end, it wont save you one red cent, because all the gains in efficiency (i.e. skimping on safety and slashing staff and staff compensation) will go into the pockets of the board of directors.</p><p>Smashing, yeah capitalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is needed is for them to remove the regulations that exist against private space travel.Sweet , then space pilots will have to work a second job to stay off food stamps , just like airline pilots .
And launch command staff can be working on 2 hours of sleep between shifts , just like air traffic controllers .
Because hey , you can always sue the parent company for damages when a rocket plows into your apartment complex .
Unless you live in a tort reform state , of course.And in the end , it wont save you one red cent , because all the gains in efficiency ( i.e .
skimping on safety and slashing staff and staff compensation ) will go into the pockets of the board of directors.Smashing , yeah capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is needed is for them to remove the regulations that exist against private space travel.Sweet, then space pilots will have to work a second job to stay off food stamps, just like airline pilots.
And launch command staff can be working on 2 hours of sleep between shifts, just like air traffic controllers.
Because hey, you can always sue the parent company for damages when a rocket plows into your apartment complex.
Unless you live in a tort reform state, of course.And in the end, it wont save you one red cent, because all the gains in efficiency (i.e.
skimping on safety and slashing staff and staff compensation) will go into the pockets of the board of directors.Smashing, yeah capitalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949486</id>
	<title>So, apparently the free market works, except ....</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1264781100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, apparently the free market works, except near Houston, Texas, or the Cape in Florida. Interesting. Does this imply that these two areas are in fact, socialist states, or that they want to be? Their congressman's reaction certainly implies this.</p><p>Stay tuned to this blog for further developments....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , apparently the free market works , except near Houston , Texas , or the Cape in Florida .
Interesting. Does this imply that these two areas are in fact , socialist states , or that they want to be ?
Their congressman 's reaction certainly implies this.Stay tuned to this blog for further developments... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, apparently the free market works, except near Houston, Texas, or the Cape in Florida.
Interesting. Does this imply that these two areas are in fact, socialist states, or that they want to be?
Their congressman's reaction certainly implies this.Stay tuned to this blog for further developments....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950764</id>
	<title>Re:This is really Big Space vs Little Space...</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1264786080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I hate to break it to everyone, but LEO Rocket Science is no longer, well, Rocket Science. Masten won the latest X-prize with a staff of 10, working out of a small machine shop, using only about $2 million.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's roughly as impressive as a high school electronics class building a four bit computer.  I mean, it is impressive that they can do it at all, but comparing it to even a low end laptop is the ultimate in apples and oranges.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Putting people into orbit is not that difficult anymore (though, it's still dangerous)</p></div></blockquote><p>Let's ask SpaceX how difficult it is to put <i>anything</i> in orbit, and then lets look at the track record of alt.space in putting people into orbit.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>The proposals are to quit funneling every significant contract just to these Big Space corps. Rather, the "hobbyist" rocket industry is now sufficiently mature to begin competing for real space equipment.</p></div></blockquote><p>In the same way the above mentioned high school class is ready to begin competing against an MIT computer science class to design and build a supercomputer.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>To use the tired car analogy: NASA current designs the car, but farms out the manufacturing and design of the parts to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2, all of which use the notorious "cost-plus" method of development. Instead, Obama wants NASA to be deciding the PURPOSE of the car, and the desired CAPABILITIES of it, but then put out for bid all the different parts to anyone capable of making that part to the desired specs.</p></div></blockquote><p>I hate to break it to you - but NASA *already* puts everything out to bid, even the construction of things it designs.  The contracts keep going to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2 because they have the facilities and trained personnel to execute the contract.  Alt.space - doesn't.  And unless Congress changes the rules to relax the legal requirements surrounding technical ability to bid  (technical as in technology and ability to execute the contract), things aren't going to change much.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>As someone who has personal (and close) contacts and friendships with people in the various X-Prize contests (including the latest winner), I'm a bit biased here.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not a 'little' biased, but completely biased.  You've essentially repeated alt.space's propaganda pretty much word for word above.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to break it to everyone , but LEO Rocket Science is no longer , well , Rocket Science .
Masten won the latest X-prize with a staff of 10 , working out of a small machine shop , using only about $ 2 million.That 's roughly as impressive as a high school electronics class building a four bit computer .
I mean , it is impressive that they can do it at all , but comparing it to even a low end laptop is the ultimate in apples and oranges .
  Putting people into orbit is not that difficult anymore ( though , it 's still dangerous ) Let 's ask SpaceX how difficult it is to put anything in orbit , and then lets look at the track record of alt.space in putting people into orbit .
  The proposals are to quit funneling every significant contract just to these Big Space corps .
Rather , the " hobbyist " rocket industry is now sufficiently mature to begin competing for real space equipment.In the same way the above mentioned high school class is ready to begin competing against an MIT computer science class to design and build a supercomputer .
  To use the tired car analogy : NASA current designs the car , but farms out the manufacturing and design of the parts to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2 , all of which use the notorious " cost-plus " method of development .
Instead , Obama wants NASA to be deciding the PURPOSE of the car , and the desired CAPABILITIES of it , but then put out for bid all the different parts to anyone capable of making that part to the desired specs.I hate to break it to you - but NASA * already * puts everything out to bid , even the construction of things it designs .
The contracts keep going to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2 because they have the facilities and trained personnel to execute the contract .
Alt.space - does n't .
And unless Congress changes the rules to relax the legal requirements surrounding technical ability to bid ( technical as in technology and ability to execute the contract ) , things are n't going to change much .
    As someone who has personal ( and close ) contacts and friendships with people in the various X-Prize contests ( including the latest winner ) , I 'm a bit biased here.Not a 'little ' biased , but completely biased .
You 've essentially repeated alt.space 's propaganda pretty much word for word above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to break it to everyone, but LEO Rocket Science is no longer, well, Rocket Science.
Masten won the latest X-prize with a staff of 10, working out of a small machine shop, using only about $2 million.That's roughly as impressive as a high school electronics class building a four bit computer.
I mean, it is impressive that they can do it at all, but comparing it to even a low end laptop is the ultimate in apples and oranges.
  Putting people into orbit is not that difficult anymore (though, it's still dangerous)Let's ask SpaceX how difficult it is to put anything in orbit, and then lets look at the track record of alt.space in putting people into orbit.
  The proposals are to quit funneling every significant contract just to these Big Space corps.
Rather, the "hobbyist" rocket industry is now sufficiently mature to begin competing for real space equipment.In the same way the above mentioned high school class is ready to begin competing against an MIT computer science class to design and build a supercomputer.
  To use the tired car analogy: NASA current designs the car, but farms out the manufacturing and design of the parts to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2, all of which use the notorious "cost-plus" method of development.
Instead, Obama wants NASA to be deciding the PURPOSE of the car, and the desired CAPABILITIES of it, but then put out for bid all the different parts to anyone capable of making that part to the desired specs.I hate to break it to you - but NASA *already* puts everything out to bid, even the construction of things it designs.
The contracts keep going to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2 because they have the facilities and trained personnel to execute the contract.
Alt.space - doesn't.
And unless Congress changes the rules to relax the legal requirements surrounding technical ability to bid  (technical as in technology and ability to execute the contract), things aren't going to change much.
  
  As someone who has personal (and close) contacts and friendships with people in the various X-Prize contests (including the latest winner), I'm a bit biased here.Not a 'little' biased, but completely biased.
You've essentially repeated alt.space's propaganda pretty much word for word above.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948432</id>
	<title>This is really Big Space vs Little Space...</title>
	<author>trims</author>
	<datestamp>1264775520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who has personal (and close) contacts and friendships with people in the various X-Prize contests (<a href="http://www.masten-space.com/" title="masten-space.com">including the latest winner</a> [masten-space.com]), I'm a bit biased here.

</p><p>However, what Obama is talking about is really changing the ways that NASA procures it's systems.  Right now, they get practically everything from one of about 3 or 4 big contractors, and essentially run like a massive Defense Contractor, complete with problems around innovation and cost-inflation.

</p><p>The proposals are to quit funneling every significant contract just to these Big Space corps.  Rather, the "hobbyist" rocket industry is now sufficiently mature to begin competing for real space equipment.  What it needs to continue to grow and innovate are a steady, reliable supply of work. NASA is the only place this can happen right now (though, likely once the market is more mature, private space use/trips will fund more and more of industry). Breaking the grip of Big Space means that NASA can continue to use it's hard-won knowledge of manned missions as a information resource for these "space entrepreneurs", and at the same time, open up the infrastructure for better efficiencies.

</p><p>Of course, Big Space sees the end of the NASA-funded (and guarantied) gravy train, so they squeal about safety and other issues that Little Space couldn't possibly (no, never!) do, forgetting (conveniently) that they themselves were once Little, and only became Big by sucking on NASA's teat.  What we're talking about here is NASA enabling a new, vibrant market for space systems from a wide variety of suppliers.

</p><p>To use the tired car analogy:  NASA current designs the car, but farms out the manufacturing and design of the parts to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2, all of which use the notorious "cost-plus" method of development.  Instead, Obama wants NASA to be deciding the PURPOSE of the car, and the desired CAPABILITIES of it, but then put out for bid all the different parts to anyone capable of making that part to the desired specs.  So, perhaps we get a Volt, an Accord, and a Caravan all offered from various suppliers, rather than a Greyhound bus with all but 5 seats removed, as we would under the old system.

</p><p>I hate to break it to everyone, but LEO Rocket Science is no longer, well, Rocket Science. Masten won the latest X-prize with a staff of 10, working out of a small machine shop, using only about $2 million.  Putting people into orbit is not that difficult anymore (though, it's still dangerous), and it's entirely reasonable to start moving away from the single-entity agency and into a more competitive, cost-effective marketplace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has personal ( and close ) contacts and friendships with people in the various X-Prize contests ( including the latest winner [ masten-space.com ] ) , I 'm a bit biased here .
However , what Obama is talking about is really changing the ways that NASA procures it 's systems .
Right now , they get practically everything from one of about 3 or 4 big contractors , and essentially run like a massive Defense Contractor , complete with problems around innovation and cost-inflation .
The proposals are to quit funneling every significant contract just to these Big Space corps .
Rather , the " hobbyist " rocket industry is now sufficiently mature to begin competing for real space equipment .
What it needs to continue to grow and innovate are a steady , reliable supply of work .
NASA is the only place this can happen right now ( though , likely once the market is more mature , private space use/trips will fund more and more of industry ) .
Breaking the grip of Big Space means that NASA can continue to use it 's hard-won knowledge of manned missions as a information resource for these " space entrepreneurs " , and at the same time , open up the infrastructure for better efficiencies .
Of course , Big Space sees the end of the NASA-funded ( and guarantied ) gravy train , so they squeal about safety and other issues that Little Space could n't possibly ( no , never !
) do , forgetting ( conveniently ) that they themselves were once Little , and only became Big by sucking on NASA 's teat .
What we 're talking about here is NASA enabling a new , vibrant market for space systems from a wide variety of suppliers .
To use the tired car analogy : NASA current designs the car , but farms out the manufacturing and design of the parts to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2 , all of which use the notorious " cost-plus " method of development .
Instead , Obama wants NASA to be deciding the PURPOSE of the car , and the desired CAPABILITIES of it , but then put out for bid all the different parts to anyone capable of making that part to the desired specs .
So , perhaps we get a Volt , an Accord , and a Caravan all offered from various suppliers , rather than a Greyhound bus with all but 5 seats removed , as we would under the old system .
I hate to break it to everyone , but LEO Rocket Science is no longer , well , Rocket Science .
Masten won the latest X-prize with a staff of 10 , working out of a small machine shop , using only about $ 2 million .
Putting people into orbit is not that difficult anymore ( though , it 's still dangerous ) , and it 's entirely reasonable to start moving away from the single-entity agency and into a more competitive , cost-effective marketplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has personal (and close) contacts and friendships with people in the various X-Prize contests (including the latest winner [masten-space.com]), I'm a bit biased here.
However, what Obama is talking about is really changing the ways that NASA procures it's systems.
Right now, they get practically everything from one of about 3 or 4 big contractors, and essentially run like a massive Defense Contractor, complete with problems around innovation and cost-inflation.
The proposals are to quit funneling every significant contract just to these Big Space corps.
Rather, the "hobbyist" rocket industry is now sufficiently mature to begin competing for real space equipment.
What it needs to continue to grow and innovate are a steady, reliable supply of work.
NASA is the only place this can happen right now (though, likely once the market is more mature, private space use/trips will fund more and more of industry).
Breaking the grip of Big Space means that NASA can continue to use it's hard-won knowledge of manned missions as a information resource for these "space entrepreneurs", and at the same time, open up the infrastructure for better efficiencies.
Of course, Big Space sees the end of the NASA-funded (and guarantied) gravy train, so they squeal about safety and other issues that Little Space couldn't possibly (no, never!
) do, forgetting (conveniently) that they themselves were once Little, and only became Big by sucking on NASA's teat.
What we're talking about here is NASA enabling a new, vibrant market for space systems from a wide variety of suppliers.
To use the tired car analogy:  NASA current designs the car, but farms out the manufacturing and design of the parts to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2, all of which use the notorious "cost-plus" method of development.
Instead, Obama wants NASA to be deciding the PURPOSE of the car, and the desired CAPABILITIES of it, but then put out for bid all the different parts to anyone capable of making that part to the desired specs.
So, perhaps we get a Volt, an Accord, and a Caravan all offered from various suppliers, rather than a Greyhound bus with all but 5 seats removed, as we would under the old system.
I hate to break it to everyone, but LEO Rocket Science is no longer, well, Rocket Science.
Masten won the latest X-prize with a staff of 10, working out of a small machine shop, using only about $2 million.
Putting people into orbit is not that difficult anymore (though, it's still dangerous), and it's entirely reasonable to start moving away from the single-entity agency and into a more competitive, cost-effective marketplace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of the spin.</title>
	<author>redkcir</author>
	<datestamp>1264771260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets see now. Who filled their cabinet posts with lobbyist after vowing not to? Who campaigned with the transparency pledge then developed a health care plan behind closed doors and limited examination of the bill to 72 hours before the vote?? How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country? What has this guy done to help this country? You don't need to believe what any news the media "filters". Listen to the mans own words and match what he says and what he does for yourself. They don't add up. What gives you reason to believe this or anything else he says? If he has a plan, why not present it now? Learn from the past. The spin you need to watch out for is coming from him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see now .
Who filled their cabinet posts with lobbyist after vowing not to ?
Who campaigned with the transparency pledge then developed a health care plan behind closed doors and limited examination of the bill to 72 hours before the vote ? ?
How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country ?
What has this guy done to help this country ?
You do n't need to believe what any news the media " filters " .
Listen to the mans own words and match what he says and what he does for yourself .
They do n't add up .
What gives you reason to believe this or anything else he says ?
If he has a plan , why not present it now ?
Learn from the past .
The spin you need to watch out for is coming from him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see now.
Who filled their cabinet posts with lobbyist after vowing not to?
Who campaigned with the transparency pledge then developed a health care plan behind closed doors and limited examination of the bill to 72 hours before the vote??
How did that stimulus bill work out for the middle class and poor of the country?
What has this guy done to help this country?
You don't need to believe what any news the media "filters".
Listen to the mans own words and match what he says and what he does for yourself.
They don't add up.
What gives you reason to believe this or anything else he says?
If he has a plan, why not present it now?
Learn from the past.
The spin you need to watch out for is coming from him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949452</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264780920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nerd...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nerd.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nerd...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30958712</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>Chris Gunn</author>
	<datestamp>1264780200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon (apart of the tycoons themselves)? Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars, building permanent bases on Mars and Moon, reaching Europa and exploring her oceans. Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.</p><p>In other words: FAIL!</p><p>When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives, if they had even the slightest affinity for science. That was science that inspired millions, and from the sci-fi movies of the 70's, I'd say people were probably less dumb on average than they are today ("Andromeda Strain", for one example. Compare that to the blockbuster space-operas some call "Sci-fi"). Nowadays scientists are only prodded to make cheaper electronic components and larger plasma screens.</p></div><p>Actually, the only reason Musk started SpaceX was to further his dreams of puting a greenhouse on Mars. He got the idea of starting SpaceX after he failed to purchase a private launch from the Russians.

Now, I don't think he dreamt of financing any manned projects himself, but he wanted to influence people in that direction. Cheaper launches will help. Your dreams are not likely to be met with billion dollar launches.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon ( apart of the tycoons themselves ) ?
Private companies will not undertake the large-scale , visionary projects like sending people to Mars , building permanent bases on Mars and Moon , reaching Europa and exploring her oceans .
Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with , putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce , and then keep it for themselves.In other words : FAIL ! When Obama said he 'll cancel Constellation , he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation .
Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives , if they had even the slightest affinity for science .
That was science that inspired millions , and from the sci-fi movies of the 70 's , I 'd say people were probably less dumb on average than they are today ( " Andromeda Strain " , for one example .
Compare that to the blockbuster space-operas some call " Sci-fi " ) .
Nowadays scientists are only prodded to make cheaper electronic components and larger plasma screens.Actually , the only reason Musk started SpaceX was to further his dreams of puting a greenhouse on Mars .
He got the idea of starting SpaceX after he failed to purchase a private launch from the Russians .
Now , I do n't think he dreamt of financing any manned projects himself , but he wanted to influence people in that direction .
Cheaper launches will help .
Your dreams are not likely to be met with billion dollar launches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon (apart of the tycoons themselves)?
Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars, building permanent bases on Mars and Moon, reaching Europa and exploring her oceans.
Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.In other words: FAIL!When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation.
Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives, if they had even the slightest affinity for science.
That was science that inspired millions, and from the sci-fi movies of the 70's, I'd say people were probably less dumb on average than they are today ("Andromeda Strain", for one example.
Compare that to the blockbuster space-operas some call "Sci-fi").
Nowadays scientists are only prodded to make cheaper electronic components and larger plasma screens.Actually, the only reason Musk started SpaceX was to further his dreams of puting a greenhouse on Mars.
He got the idea of starting SpaceX after he failed to purchase a private launch from the Russians.
Now, I don't think he dreamt of financing any manned projects himself, but he wanted to influence people in that direction.
Cheaper launches will help.
Your dreams are not likely to be met with billion dollar launches.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948034</id>
	<title>Outsourcing to China</title>
	<author>coolmoose25</author>
	<datestamp>1264772100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Privatization may seem like a good idea, and I hope it will turn out to be.  But I doubt it.  Right now, the US has one - count them - one man-rated orbital vehicle.  That's the shuttle, and it will be ending soon.  Without a replacement, the US will be forced to hitch rides in the short term with Russia, maybe even China.  In fact, since we've outsourced much of our manufacturing base to China anyway, why not our space program?  Well here's why:  other countries, maybe even private companies in the future will fly in space.  Maybe they'll let the US hitch rides.  Maybe not.  Either way they won't be building their launchers and space vehicles with US program goals in mind.  They'll be building whatever makes sense for them.  It may or may not be what makes sense for US goals.  So in the end, we'll have an ISS that we continue to pay for - funding for that is in the budget, and no way to get there from the US.  Excellent.  The Mercury astronauts had it right... No Bucks, No Buck Rogers.  We'll continue to send neat probes to other planets.  And we'll continue to get amazing pictures.  But in the end, people will tire of that too.  That'll leave us with No Bucks.  When you look back 200 years from now, this will be the moment that people say the US "jumped the shark"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privatization may seem like a good idea , and I hope it will turn out to be .
But I doubt it .
Right now , the US has one - count them - one man-rated orbital vehicle .
That 's the shuttle , and it will be ending soon .
Without a replacement , the US will be forced to hitch rides in the short term with Russia , maybe even China .
In fact , since we 've outsourced much of our manufacturing base to China anyway , why not our space program ?
Well here 's why : other countries , maybe even private companies in the future will fly in space .
Maybe they 'll let the US hitch rides .
Maybe not .
Either way they wo n't be building their launchers and space vehicles with US program goals in mind .
They 'll be building whatever makes sense for them .
It may or may not be what makes sense for US goals .
So in the end , we 'll have an ISS that we continue to pay for - funding for that is in the budget , and no way to get there from the US .
Excellent. The Mercury astronauts had it right... No Bucks , No Buck Rogers .
We 'll continue to send neat probes to other planets .
And we 'll continue to get amazing pictures .
But in the end , people will tire of that too .
That 'll leave us with No Bucks .
When you look back 200 years from now , this will be the moment that people say the US " jumped the shark " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privatization may seem like a good idea, and I hope it will turn out to be.
But I doubt it.
Right now, the US has one - count them - one man-rated orbital vehicle.
That's the shuttle, and it will be ending soon.
Without a replacement, the US will be forced to hitch rides in the short term with Russia, maybe even China.
In fact, since we've outsourced much of our manufacturing base to China anyway, why not our space program?
Well here's why:  other countries, maybe even private companies in the future will fly in space.
Maybe they'll let the US hitch rides.
Maybe not.
Either way they won't be building their launchers and space vehicles with US program goals in mind.
They'll be building whatever makes sense for them.
It may or may not be what makes sense for US goals.
So in the end, we'll have an ISS that we continue to pay for - funding for that is in the budget, and no way to get there from the US.
Excellent.  The Mercury astronauts had it right... No Bucks, No Buck Rogers.
We'll continue to send neat probes to other planets.
And we'll continue to get amazing pictures.
But in the end, people will tire of that too.
That'll leave us with No Bucks.
When you look back 200 years from now, this will be the moment that people say the US "jumped the shark"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948660</id>
	<title>Re:Fly Ryanair . . . to the Moon!</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1264776840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, they really will put a Starbucks anywhere</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , they really will put a Starbucks anywhere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, they really will put a Starbucks anywhere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949242</id>
	<title>wtf?</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1264780080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't anyone else see the irony that, when the Republicans talk about privatizing things, like Social Security, or keeping health care private (as opposed to the public option), they think it's a good idea. Now, when Obama wants to private something, all of a sudden, those same Republicans scream bloody murder?!?!<p>

The truth is, if we really want to succeed in space, we have to privatize. Government cannot (and should not) be the only ones going up there. Once private industry realizes the resources (and hence, the money) that's available in outer space, they'll want to get there. In the long term, that will include going to Mars, the outer plants, the asteroid belt, and mining (think, "gold rush", except on a larger scale). In the near term, it could potentially be quite lucrative for a company to develop its own near-Earth transit system, not only for trips to the ISS, but also to launch and maintain the vast array of satellites that other corporations use (and deem quite vital) to earth-based activity.</p><p>

It's kind of like the Internet. The government got that started, too. That led to a mad dash by everybody to get websites and to make some money on the Internet, which led to our economic successes of the 1990s. Perhaps the same thing will eventually happen with space travel? It may take longer than the next decade, but maybe 2020 or 2030,. . . 2040? That's the future! The future is not simply having government be the only ones with the ticket to space, though,...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't anyone else see the irony that , when the Republicans talk about privatizing things , like Social Security , or keeping health care private ( as opposed to the public option ) , they think it 's a good idea .
Now , when Obama wants to private something , all of a sudden , those same Republicans scream bloody murder ? ! ? !
The truth is , if we really want to succeed in space , we have to privatize .
Government can not ( and should not ) be the only ones going up there .
Once private industry realizes the resources ( and hence , the money ) that 's available in outer space , they 'll want to get there .
In the long term , that will include going to Mars , the outer plants , the asteroid belt , and mining ( think , " gold rush " , except on a larger scale ) .
In the near term , it could potentially be quite lucrative for a company to develop its own near-Earth transit system , not only for trips to the ISS , but also to launch and maintain the vast array of satellites that other corporations use ( and deem quite vital ) to earth-based activity .
It 's kind of like the Internet .
The government got that started , too .
That led to a mad dash by everybody to get websites and to make some money on the Internet , which led to our economic successes of the 1990s .
Perhaps the same thing will eventually happen with space travel ?
It may take longer than the next decade , but maybe 2020 or 2030,. . .
2040 ? That 's the future !
The future is not simply having government be the only ones with the ticket to space , though,.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't anyone else see the irony that, when the Republicans talk about privatizing things, like Social Security, or keeping health care private (as opposed to the public option), they think it's a good idea.
Now, when Obama wants to private something, all of a sudden, those same Republicans scream bloody murder?!?!
The truth is, if we really want to succeed in space, we have to privatize.
Government cannot (and should not) be the only ones going up there.
Once private industry realizes the resources (and hence, the money) that's available in outer space, they'll want to get there.
In the long term, that will include going to Mars, the outer plants, the asteroid belt, and mining (think, "gold rush", except on a larger scale).
In the near term, it could potentially be quite lucrative for a company to develop its own near-Earth transit system, not only for trips to the ISS, but also to launch and maintain the vast array of satellites that other corporations use (and deem quite vital) to earth-based activity.
It's kind of like the Internet.
The government got that started, too.
That led to a mad dash by everybody to get websites and to make some money on the Internet, which led to our economic successes of the 1990s.
Perhaps the same thing will eventually happen with space travel?
It may take longer than the next decade, but maybe 2020 or 2030,. . .
2040? That's the future!
The future is not simply having government be the only ones with the ticket to space, though,...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948220</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1264773600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If NASA says: "We'll buy the service, and we are willing to spend X on it" a lot of private companies would jump at it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If NASA says : " We 'll buy the service , and we are willing to spend X on it " a lot of private companies would jump at it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If NASA says: "We'll buy the service, and we are willing to spend X on it" a lot of private companies would jump at it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30956884</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264767660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Governments are great for putting together huge research projects like the LHC and the ITER which cost billions and have no immediate practical application, but for everyday innovation and discovery nothing beats private business in search of larger profits.</p></div><p>See, I think the problem is that there are so many MORE huge research projects like those that SHOULD be done, and that COULD be done but for lack of funding that have no immediate practical application but that spur our imagination and provide a foundation, both upon which these companies can build, and which will inspire people to want to go work for those companies.  As for "everyday innovation", whatever that means, done by corporations; those serve THEIR interests, which will HOPEFULLY serve ours (Monsanto's greed has bankrupted countries, Pharmaceuticals are pushing drugs with advertising that people don't need and making us the most drugged country in the world, AND exporting all the drugs/phych issues to the rest of the world, telling people in Japan that they are depressed and then selling them anti-depressants, for example).  If I could trust big corporations anymore I might agree with you.  I'd like to trust them again, I'd like to be able to believe in the "Captains of Industry" but they have FUCKED us and the world over so hard for the past couple generations that it's really really difficult.<br>Little businesses are mostly fine, but I dono that a little business could muster the money-power, ooh, except maybe by Gov't grants? or providing a tax-credit to people that invest in small businesses?  Don't remember seeing the Republicans stand up and clap for that one, but even in they did, would they vote for it unless it matched ONLY to EVERYTHING they wanted?  Where's they're sense of compromise?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Sorry, got a little off track there.  Basically: It's hard to trust big companies now-a-days.  Really, really hard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments are great for putting together huge research projects like the LHC and the ITER which cost billions and have no immediate practical application , but for everyday innovation and discovery nothing beats private business in search of larger profits.See , I think the problem is that there are so many MORE huge research projects like those that SHOULD be done , and that COULD be done but for lack of funding that have no immediate practical application but that spur our imagination and provide a foundation , both upon which these companies can build , and which will inspire people to want to go work for those companies .
As for " everyday innovation " , whatever that means , done by corporations ; those serve THEIR interests , which will HOPEFULLY serve ours ( Monsanto 's greed has bankrupted countries , Pharmaceuticals are pushing drugs with advertising that people do n't need and making us the most drugged country in the world , AND exporting all the drugs/phych issues to the rest of the world , telling people in Japan that they are depressed and then selling them anti-depressants , for example ) .
If I could trust big corporations anymore I might agree with you .
I 'd like to trust them again , I 'd like to be able to believe in the " Captains of Industry " but they have FUCKED us and the world over so hard for the past couple generations that it 's really really difficult.Little businesses are mostly fine , but I dono that a little business could muster the money-power , ooh , except maybe by Gov't grants ?
or providing a tax-credit to people that invest in small businesses ?
Do n't remember seeing the Republicans stand up and clap for that one , but even in they did , would they vote for it unless it matched ONLY to EVERYTHING they wanted ?
Where 's they 're sense of compromise ?
...Sorry , got a little off track there .
Basically : It 's hard to trust big companies now-a-days .
Really , really hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Governments are great for putting together huge research projects like the LHC and the ITER which cost billions and have no immediate practical application, but for everyday innovation and discovery nothing beats private business in search of larger profits.See, I think the problem is that there are so many MORE huge research projects like those that SHOULD be done, and that COULD be done but for lack of funding that have no immediate practical application but that spur our imagination and provide a foundation, both upon which these companies can build, and which will inspire people to want to go work for those companies.
As for "everyday innovation", whatever that means, done by corporations; those serve THEIR interests, which will HOPEFULLY serve ours (Monsanto's greed has bankrupted countries, Pharmaceuticals are pushing drugs with advertising that people don't need and making us the most drugged country in the world, AND exporting all the drugs/phych issues to the rest of the world, telling people in Japan that they are depressed and then selling them anti-depressants, for example).
If I could trust big corporations anymore I might agree with you.
I'd like to trust them again, I'd like to be able to believe in the "Captains of Industry" but they have FUCKED us and the world over so hard for the past couple generations that it's really really difficult.Little businesses are mostly fine, but I dono that a little business could muster the money-power, ooh, except maybe by Gov't grants?
or providing a tax-credit to people that invest in small businesses?
Don't remember seeing the Republicans stand up and clap for that one, but even in they did, would they vote for it unless it matched ONLY to EVERYTHING they wanted?
Where's they're sense of compromise?
...Sorry, got a little off track there.
Basically: It's hard to trust big companies now-a-days.
Really, really hard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947956</id>
	<title>I feel divided about this.</title>
	<author>starbugs</author>
	<datestamp>1264771080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On one side I know that (in this economy) there are many more ways to spend money than space.<br>But few things united the US as much as the space program.</p><p>When the political climate was different, the reasons for going to space were different.<br>Now that the Cold War is over, space has become a primarily scientific endeavor. I'm happy that science (instead of politics) is the motivator, but now it seems that politics is choking one of the greatest achievements of our species.</p><p>The idea behind this "private taxi service" to space could go either way. We all know how recent new aircraft have suffered delay after delay. But what if a more competitive environment brings innovation that otherwise would have been unattainable? After-all it was a competitive environment that pushed us to be the first on the moon.</p><p>What I am really sad about though is the lack of interest in the moon. I believe that a permanent, <b>self sufficient</b> (however difficult that might be) settlement on the moon should be a priority. And if we don't start soon, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/4788143/India-to-spend-1.7bn-sending-man-to-the-moon.html" title="telegraph.co.uk">India</a> [telegraph.co.uk] or <a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/10/content\_10987119.htm" title="xinhuanet.com">China</a> [xinhuanet.com] might beat us to it.</p><p>While I believe that any mission to the moon is an international event, other countries/cultures might not share that view. I would prefer for us to set the bar in both - returning to the moon, and sharing that experience with the rest of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On one side I know that ( in this economy ) there are many more ways to spend money than space.But few things united the US as much as the space program.When the political climate was different , the reasons for going to space were different.Now that the Cold War is over , space has become a primarily scientific endeavor .
I 'm happy that science ( instead of politics ) is the motivator , but now it seems that politics is choking one of the greatest achievements of our species.The idea behind this " private taxi service " to space could go either way .
We all know how recent new aircraft have suffered delay after delay .
But what if a more competitive environment brings innovation that otherwise would have been unattainable ?
After-all it was a competitive environment that pushed us to be the first on the moon.What I am really sad about though is the lack of interest in the moon .
I believe that a permanent , self sufficient ( however difficult that might be ) settlement on the moon should be a priority .
And if we do n't start soon , India [ telegraph.co.uk ] or China [ xinhuanet.com ] might beat us to it.While I believe that any mission to the moon is an international event , other countries/cultures might not share that view .
I would prefer for us to set the bar in both - returning to the moon , and sharing that experience with the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one side I know that (in this economy) there are many more ways to spend money than space.But few things united the US as much as the space program.When the political climate was different, the reasons for going to space were different.Now that the Cold War is over, space has become a primarily scientific endeavor.
I'm happy that science (instead of politics) is the motivator, but now it seems that politics is choking one of the greatest achievements of our species.The idea behind this "private taxi service" to space could go either way.
We all know how recent new aircraft have suffered delay after delay.
But what if a more competitive environment brings innovation that otherwise would have been unattainable?
After-all it was a competitive environment that pushed us to be the first on the moon.What I am really sad about though is the lack of interest in the moon.
I believe that a permanent, self sufficient (however difficult that might be) settlement on the moon should be a priority.
And if we don't start soon, India [telegraph.co.uk] or China [xinhuanet.com] might beat us to it.While I believe that any mission to the moon is an international event, other countries/cultures might not share that view.
I would prefer for us to set the bar in both - returning to the moon, and sharing that experience with the rest of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948332</id>
	<title>Take my temperature</title>
	<author>LaissezFaire</author>
	<datestamp>1264774860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I agree with something the President said.  Now, if we can guarantee property rights for those companies in space, too, this'd be amazing!  Maybe Mr. Obama read Robert Heinlein when he was a kid and hasn't told anyone yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I agree with something the President said .
Now , if we can guarantee property rights for those companies in space , too , this 'd be amazing !
Maybe Mr. Obama read Robert Heinlein when he was a kid and has n't told anyone yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I agree with something the President said.
Now, if we can guarantee property rights for those companies in space, too, this'd be amazing!
Maybe Mr. Obama read Robert Heinlein when he was a kid and hasn't told anyone yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950448</id>
	<title>Re:This is really Big Space vs Little Space...</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1264784940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of the X-prize stuff put anyone into orbit, they put them into space.  There's a difference.  Spaceshipone is not LEO capable, spaceshiptwo won't be either, and neither will spaceshipthree.  They pretty much just fly pretty fast (about mach 3) at very high altitude (100+ km).  To actually achieve LEO, you need to go about 3 times higher and about 8 times faster.</p><p>Going by the site, Masten doesn't even have the aim of going into orbit, they're focused solely on suborbital work, which is useful for some things, but it's not gonna take you to a space station.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of the X-prize stuff put anyone into orbit , they put them into space .
There 's a difference .
Spaceshipone is not LEO capable , spaceshiptwo wo n't be either , and neither will spaceshipthree .
They pretty much just fly pretty fast ( about mach 3 ) at very high altitude ( 100 + km ) .
To actually achieve LEO , you need to go about 3 times higher and about 8 times faster.Going by the site , Masten does n't even have the aim of going into orbit , they 're focused solely on suborbital work , which is useful for some things , but it 's not gon na take you to a space station .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of the X-prize stuff put anyone into orbit, they put them into space.
There's a difference.
Spaceshipone is not LEO capable, spaceshiptwo won't be either, and neither will spaceshipthree.
They pretty much just fly pretty fast (about mach 3) at very high altitude (100+ km).
To actually achieve LEO, you need to go about 3 times higher and about 8 times faster.Going by the site, Masten doesn't even have the aim of going into orbit, they're focused solely on suborbital work, which is useful for some things, but it's not gonna take you to a space station.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950014</id>
	<title>Great news, libertarians!</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1264783380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, you get to test the limits of your faith in the "free market" panacea literally with your lives!  All aboard!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , you get to test the limits of your faith in the " free market " panacea literally with your lives !
All aboard ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, you get to test the limits of your faith in the "free market" panacea literally with your lives!
All aboard!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948786</id>
	<title>At last...</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1264777560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It took a black Democratic president to finally drive a stake through the heart of that white middle class welfare program that's been holding whites back from the space frontier.  Whites should sing Obama's praises for freeing them:
<p>
Free at last!  Free at last! Thank God Almighty whites are free at last!
</p><p>
Well, except from a <i>generally</i> <a href="http://laboratoryofthestates.org/" title="laboratory...states.org">unconstitutional Federal government</a> [laboratory...states.org]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It took a black Democratic president to finally drive a stake through the heart of that white middle class welfare program that 's been holding whites back from the space frontier .
Whites should sing Obama 's praises for freeing them : Free at last !
Free at last !
Thank God Almighty whites are free at last !
Well , except from a generally unconstitutional Federal government [ laboratory...states.org ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took a black Democratic president to finally drive a stake through the heart of that white middle class welfare program that's been holding whites back from the space frontier.
Whites should sing Obama's praises for freeing them:

Free at last!
Free at last!
Thank God Almighty whites are free at last!
Well, except from a generally unconstitutional Federal government [laboratory...states.org]...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950506</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1264785180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsible (and might turn off many people to privitization) and it stinks of the old Robber Baron's lives for profit attitude (sounds Ferengi, no?).</p></div><p>I'm glad that European settlers didn't feel that way about America. If Britain, France, and Spain waited for Atlantic crossing to become safe and efficient before allowing anyone to try, it never would've become safe and efficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsible ( and might turn off many people to privitization ) and it stinks of the old Robber Baron 's lives for profit attitude ( sounds Ferengi , no ?
) .I 'm glad that European settlers did n't feel that way about America .
If Britain , France , and Spain waited for Atlantic crossing to become safe and efficient before allowing anyone to try , it never would 've become safe and efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsible (and might turn off many people to privitization) and it stinks of the old Robber Baron's lives for profit attitude (sounds Ferengi, no?
).I'm glad that European settlers didn't feel that way about America.
If Britain, France, and Spain waited for Atlantic crossing to become safe and efficient before allowing anyone to try, it never would've become safe and efficient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948404</id>
	<title>First Class has wine and an in-flight meal...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1264775340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Coach passengers may opt to purchase oxygen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coach passengers may opt to purchase oxygen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coach passengers may opt to purchase oxygen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953116</id>
	<title>Re:Privatisation</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264794600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Privatisation isn't privatisation when your primary customers and sources of funding come from the government.</p></div><p>What more, it's the worst of both worlds. You get all the for-profit overhead of private, and all the agility of public...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privatisation is n't privatisation when your primary customers and sources of funding come from the government.What more , it 's the worst of both worlds .
You get all the for-profit overhead of private , and all the agility of public.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privatisation isn't privatisation when your primary customers and sources of funding come from the government.What more, it's the worst of both worlds.
You get all the for-profit overhead of private, and all the agility of public...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948126</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264772580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars, building permanent bases on Mars and Moon, reaching Europa and exploring her oceans.</i> <br> <br>

You don't need manned space flight to do any of those things. In-fact manned space flight is a terrible way to do those things. We're already doing awesome things and producing great science using robots. Why on earth would you want to do it with humans?<br>
 - We need food and oxygen. We can't run on solar power. Food and oxygen is added weight which given the cost of launching is the last thing you need.<br>
 - The risk of failure is much higher. If a human life is lost then it's a huge tragedy and setback. If a robot is lost it's a financial setback and you sit down and work out what went wrong and then have another go. No huge political or moral setback.<br>
 - We can push our knowledge of robotics to the limit and make new discoveries related to robotics.<br> <br>

<i>When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation.</i> <br> I'm in my 20's and I didn't feel very crushed. Let's say we do go back to the moon. What're people going to say? I'm imagining it would go something like: "Oh great we did that half a century ago. What's new?" Certainly going to Mars would be an enormous victory but you need to balance between spending huge amounts of money on something which has enormous propaganda but huge risks associated with failure vs. spending relatively little continuing to send robots up and generating tonnes of new scientific knowledge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Private companies will not undertake the large-scale , visionary projects like sending people to Mars , building permanent bases on Mars and Moon , reaching Europa and exploring her oceans .
You do n't need manned space flight to do any of those things .
In-fact manned space flight is a terrible way to do those things .
We 're already doing awesome things and producing great science using robots .
Why on earth would you want to do it with humans ?
- We need food and oxygen .
We ca n't run on solar power .
Food and oxygen is added weight which given the cost of launching is the last thing you need .
- The risk of failure is much higher .
If a human life is lost then it 's a huge tragedy and setback .
If a robot is lost it 's a financial setback and you sit down and work out what went wrong and then have another go .
No huge political or moral setback .
- We can push our knowledge of robotics to the limit and make new discoveries related to robotics .
When Obama said he 'll cancel Constellation , he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation .
I 'm in my 20 's and I did n't feel very crushed .
Let 's say we do go back to the moon .
What 're people going to say ?
I 'm imagining it would go something like : " Oh great we did that half a century ago .
What 's new ?
" Certainly going to Mars would be an enormous victory but you need to balance between spending huge amounts of money on something which has enormous propaganda but huge risks associated with failure vs. spending relatively little continuing to send robots up and generating tonnes of new scientific knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars, building permanent bases on Mars and Moon, reaching Europa and exploring her oceans.
You don't need manned space flight to do any of those things.
In-fact manned space flight is a terrible way to do those things.
We're already doing awesome things and producing great science using robots.
Why on earth would you want to do it with humans?
- We need food and oxygen.
We can't run on solar power.
Food and oxygen is added weight which given the cost of launching is the last thing you need.
- The risk of failure is much higher.
If a human life is lost then it's a huge tragedy and setback.
If a robot is lost it's a financial setback and you sit down and work out what went wrong and then have another go.
No huge political or moral setback.
- We can push our knowledge of robotics to the limit and make new discoveries related to robotics.
When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation.
I'm in my 20's and I didn't feel very crushed.
Let's say we do go back to the moon.
What're people going to say?
I'm imagining it would go something like: "Oh great we did that half a century ago.
What's new?
" Certainly going to Mars would be an enormous victory but you need to balance between spending huge amounts of money on something which has enormous propaganda but huge risks associated with failure vs. spending relatively little continuing to send robots up and generating tonnes of new scientific knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948076</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264772280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Nasa would pay the private company to perform a mission. If they don't do what Nasa says, then nasa probably won't pay them. If your being paid to do science, you can't just not do anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Nasa would pay the private company to perform a mission .
If they do n't do what Nasa says , then nasa probably wo n't pay them .
If your being paid to do science , you ca n't just not do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Nasa would pay the private company to perform a mission.
If they don't do what Nasa says, then nasa probably won't pay them.
If your being paid to do science, you can't just not do anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950400</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1264784820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.</p></div></blockquote><p>Spoken like a true ignoramus. Who do you think developed the automobile? The airplane? The microchip? Who develops the pharmaceuticals which keep us living twice as long as our great-grandparents? Who's creating newer, more efficient forms of power, whether it be solar, wind, or nuclear? Who created the high-yield crops which are the only thing staving off mass starvation?</p></div></blockquote><p>Prior to WWII, private industry based on privately funded research.  After WII, increasingly private industry based on government funded university research or goverment funded research.<br>
&nbsp; <br>In particular, aviation vastly benefited from the work of the NACA - a predecessor to NASA.  Microchips benefited greatly from government investment in the form of the government pushing development and buying much of the early production for missile guidance systems.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Nuclear power got it's big boost, and continuing funding, for the Navy's nuclear power program.  Solar cells, until very recently, depended largely on NASA funding for much of their research.  Wind power also has gotten tremendous support from NASA and the DOE.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Most of the great advances in our history were created by private individuals and small companies</p></div></blockquote><p>For most of history women were virtually property - and that too has changed in recent decades.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with , putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce , and then keep it for themselves.Spoken like a true ignoramus .
Who do you think developed the automobile ?
The airplane ?
The microchip ?
Who develops the pharmaceuticals which keep us living twice as long as our great-grandparents ?
Who 's creating newer , more efficient forms of power , whether it be solar , wind , or nuclear ?
Who created the high-yield crops which are the only thing staving off mass starvation ? Prior to WWII , private industry based on privately funded research .
After WII , increasingly private industry based on government funded university research or goverment funded research .
  In particular , aviation vastly benefited from the work of the NACA - a predecessor to NASA .
Microchips benefited greatly from government investment in the form of the government pushing development and buying much of the early production for missile guidance systems .
  Nuclear power got it 's big boost , and continuing funding , for the Navy 's nuclear power program .
Solar cells , until very recently , depended largely on NASA funding for much of their research .
Wind power also has gotten tremendous support from NASA and the DOE .
  Most of the great advances in our history were created by private individuals and small companiesFor most of history women were virtually property - and that too has changed in recent decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.Spoken like a true ignoramus.
Who do you think developed the automobile?
The airplane?
The microchip?
Who develops the pharmaceuticals which keep us living twice as long as our great-grandparents?
Who's creating newer, more efficient forms of power, whether it be solar, wind, or nuclear?
Who created the high-yield crops which are the only thing staving off mass starvation?Prior to WWII, private industry based on privately funded research.
After WII, increasingly private industry based on government funded university research or goverment funded research.
  In particular, aviation vastly benefited from the work of the NACA - a predecessor to NASA.
Microchips benefited greatly from government investment in the form of the government pushing development and buying much of the early production for missile guidance systems.
  Nuclear power got it's big boost, and continuing funding, for the Navy's nuclear power program.
Solar cells, until very recently, depended largely on NASA funding for much of their research.
Wind power also has gotten tremendous support from NASA and the DOE.
  Most of the great advances in our history were created by private individuals and small companiesFor most of history women were virtually property - and that too has changed in recent decades.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950808</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of the spin.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264786260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you're being sarcastic... otherwise you're a fucking moron and YOU are what's wrong with our country. Ignorance and stupidity = America... and our country was supposed to be republic NOT a democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you 're being sarcastic... otherwise you 're a fucking moron and YOU are what 's wrong with our country .
Ignorance and stupidity = America... and our country was supposed to be republic NOT a democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you're being sarcastic... otherwise you're a fucking moron and YOU are what's wrong with our country.
Ignorance and stupidity = America... and our country was supposed to be republic NOT a democracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953656</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>cyberthanasis12</author>
	<datestamp>1264797240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Certainly going to Mars would be an enormous victory but you need to balance between spending huge amounts of money on something which has enormous propaganda but huge risks associated with failure vs. spending relatively little continuing to send robots up and generating tonnes of new scientific knowledge.</p></div><p>Please read "The case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin. The risks are reasonable and the cost is certainly not huge (less than the 1st moon landing).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly going to Mars would be an enormous victory but you need to balance between spending huge amounts of money on something which has enormous propaganda but huge risks associated with failure vs. spending relatively little continuing to send robots up and generating tonnes of new scientific knowledge.Please read " The case for Mars " by Robert Zubrin .
The risks are reasonable and the cost is certainly not huge ( less than the 1st moon landing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly going to Mars would be an enormous victory but you need to balance between spending huge amounts of money on something which has enormous propaganda but huge risks associated with failure vs. spending relatively little continuing to send robots up and generating tonnes of new scientific knowledge.Please read "The case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin.
The risks are reasonable and the cost is certainly not huge (less than the 1st moon landing).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948700</id>
	<title>Did anyone read the story about India and Space?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264776960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/27/1931202/India-Moves-To-Put-Its-First-Man-In-Space-By-2016?art\_pos=1</p><p>It seems like an awful coincidence that as the U.S. cannot afford to fund space flights and is seeking to privatize launches,  India (and China) are seeking to invest in manned launches.   Why do we in the U.S. continue to "invest" in things like the "War on Terror,"  yet can't see fit to invest in science or the education of our children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/27/1931202/India-Moves-To-Put-Its-First-Man-In-Space-By-2016 ? art \ _pos = 1It seems like an awful coincidence that as the U.S. can not afford to fund space flights and is seeking to privatize launches , India ( and China ) are seeking to invest in manned launches .
Why do we in the U.S. continue to " invest " in things like the " War on Terror , " yet ca n't see fit to invest in science or the education of our children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/27/1931202/India-Moves-To-Put-Its-First-Man-In-Space-By-2016?art\_pos=1It seems like an awful coincidence that as the U.S. cannot afford to fund space flights and is seeking to privatize launches,  India (and China) are seeking to invest in manned launches.
Why do we in the U.S. continue to "invest" in things like the "War on Terror,"  yet can't see fit to invest in science or the education of our children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30952532</id>
	<title>Re:This is Good</title>
	<author>Diagoras</author>
	<datestamp>1264792200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words, actual free-market capitalism.</p></div><p>It's not free market capitalism when the government's doing the buying.</p></div><p>That's a common misconception. The introduction of state actors does not suddenly and magically make an economic system less free. When the government is engaging in activities like cost-plus contracting, there's a point to suggestions that this distorts true market prices and encourages suppliers of goods and services to overcharge the government. However, when the government purchases services in the same way that a regular buyer would (ie. Do this and I'll give you x dollars) then its just acting like another buyer. And that's what's happening with this whole privatization shindig.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , actual free-market capitalism.It 's not free market capitalism when the government 's doing the buying.That 's a common misconception .
The introduction of state actors does not suddenly and magically make an economic system less free .
When the government is engaging in activities like cost-plus contracting , there 's a point to suggestions that this distorts true market prices and encourages suppliers of goods and services to overcharge the government .
However , when the government purchases services in the same way that a regular buyer would ( ie .
Do this and I 'll give you x dollars ) then its just acting like another buyer .
And that 's what 's happening with this whole privatization shindig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, actual free-market capitalism.It's not free market capitalism when the government's doing the buying.That's a common misconception.
The introduction of state actors does not suddenly and magically make an economic system less free.
When the government is engaging in activities like cost-plus contracting, there's a point to suggestions that this distorts true market prices and encourages suppliers of goods and services to overcharge the government.
However, when the government purchases services in the same way that a regular buyer would (ie.
Do this and I'll give you x dollars) then its just acting like another buyer.
And that's what's happening with this whole privatization shindig.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948056</id>
	<title>Re:BEGIN (partisanBickering)</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1264772220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone else see the irony in two Republican congressmen complaining about the privatization of space flight?</p></div><p>They're just following the first rule of politics - no government spending is wasteful if it occurs in your district.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else see the irony in two Republican congressmen complaining about the privatization of space flight ? They 're just following the first rule of politics - no government spending is wasteful if it occurs in your district .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else see the irony in two Republican congressmen complaining about the privatization of space flight?They're just following the first rule of politics - no government spending is wasteful if it occurs in your district.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30955926</id>
	<title>Re:Privatisation</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264763400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is in fact no difference, just an illusion of competition. What is needed is for them to remove the regulations that exist against private space travel.</p></div><p>One of the things mentioned in this year's SOTU address was reform of ITAR, which is one of the larger regulatory messes facing private space companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is in fact no difference , just an illusion of competition .
What is needed is for them to remove the regulations that exist against private space travel.One of the things mentioned in this year 's SOTU address was reform of ITAR , which is one of the larger regulatory messes facing private space companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is in fact no difference, just an illusion of competition.
What is needed is for them to remove the regulations that exist against private space travel.One of the things mentioned in this year's SOTU address was reform of ITAR, which is one of the larger regulatory messes facing private space companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30967808</id>
	<title>Go buy your own snacks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264868700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geez, am I really the only person who thought that read 'Reported Plan Would Privative Manned <i>Lunches'</i>?.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geez , am I really the only person who thought that read 'Reported Plan Would Privative Manned Lunches ' ? .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geez, am I really the only person who thought that read 'Reported Plan Would Privative Manned Lunches'?.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949660</id>
	<title>NASA Wasn't Always Like We See It Now</title>
	<author>VoxMagis</author>
	<datestamp>1264781880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The politics of NASA killed the plans of NASA.</p><p>At one time, they had a plan that would have put a base on the Moon by the end of the 70's and missions to Mars in the 80's.  Some of the Apollo astronauts saw themselves as part of that.</p><p>After we went to the Moon, Nixon killed the hope.  Under his 'leadership' we  scrapped the last three planned Moon missions, stopped building anything new outside of an under-funded (and possibly ill-advised) Space Shuttle, and those that led us to space, from Astronauts to Engineers to Machinists and Janitors, left NASA with the cuts.  We never regained the drive, or the ability we had since then.  NASA had become a tool of politics, which it hadn't really been before.</p><p>Sure, we went to the Moon to beat the Russians.  Along the way, we learned things, and we even maybe pulled the nation and the world a BIT more together.  Is that so bad?</p><p>Whether you like Obama or not, whether the realities of our current crises are the end, are we not losing sight of the grand picture given us by those who came before?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The politics of NASA killed the plans of NASA.At one time , they had a plan that would have put a base on the Moon by the end of the 70 's and missions to Mars in the 80 's .
Some of the Apollo astronauts saw themselves as part of that.After we went to the Moon , Nixon killed the hope .
Under his 'leadership ' we scrapped the last three planned Moon missions , stopped building anything new outside of an under-funded ( and possibly ill-advised ) Space Shuttle , and those that led us to space , from Astronauts to Engineers to Machinists and Janitors , left NASA with the cuts .
We never regained the drive , or the ability we had since then .
NASA had become a tool of politics , which it had n't really been before.Sure , we went to the Moon to beat the Russians .
Along the way , we learned things , and we even maybe pulled the nation and the world a BIT more together .
Is that so bad ? Whether you like Obama or not , whether the realities of our current crises are the end , are we not losing sight of the grand picture given us by those who came before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The politics of NASA killed the plans of NASA.At one time, they had a plan that would have put a base on the Moon by the end of the 70's and missions to Mars in the 80's.
Some of the Apollo astronauts saw themselves as part of that.After we went to the Moon, Nixon killed the hope.
Under his 'leadership' we  scrapped the last three planned Moon missions, stopped building anything new outside of an under-funded (and possibly ill-advised) Space Shuttle, and those that led us to space, from Astronauts to Engineers to Machinists and Janitors, left NASA with the cuts.
We never regained the drive, or the ability we had since then.
NASA had become a tool of politics, which it hadn't really been before.Sure, we went to the Moon to beat the Russians.
Along the way, we learned things, and we even maybe pulled the nation and the world a BIT more together.
Is that so bad?Whether you like Obama or not, whether the realities of our current crises are the end, are we not losing sight of the grand picture given us by those who came before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947688</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of the spin.</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1264767480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>read it and make up your own mind.</p></div><p>What are you, some kind of commie? This is America! We think what our favorite cable news pundit tells us to think! That's how democracy works!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>read it and make up your own mind.What are you , some kind of commie ?
This is America !
We think what our favorite cable news pundit tells us to think !
That 's how democracy works !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>read it and make up your own mind.What are you, some kind of commie?
This is America!
We think what our favorite cable news pundit tells us to think!
That's how democracy works!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950166</id>
	<title>Re:BEGIN (partisanBickering)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264783860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or the irony of privatization of spaceflight while arguing against privatization of social security.  Both sides are being hypocritical here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the irony of privatization of spaceflight while arguing against privatization of social security .
Both sides are being hypocritical here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the irony of privatization of spaceflight while arguing against privatization of social security.
Both sides are being hypocritical here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948032</id>
	<title>Re:This is Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264772100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words, actual free-market capitalism.</p></div><p>It's not free market capitalism when the government's doing the buying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , actual free-market capitalism.It 's not free market capitalism when the government 's doing the buying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, actual free-market capitalism.It's not free market capitalism when the government's doing the buying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947628</id>
	<title>Corks will be popping!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264766400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More cash for Jesse Jackson and friends!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More cash for Jesse Jackson and friends !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More cash for Jesse Jackson and friends!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950900</id>
	<title>Re:Outsourcing to China</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264786560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Right now, the US has one - count them - one man-rated orbital vehicle.</p></div><p>Bzzzt! Wrong! The US has zero - count them - zero man-rated orbital vehicles. If you disagree, then do this simple exercise. Find any man-rating standards you can. Then look at the requirements for abort at and after launch. See that the Shuttle can't possibly abort within 5 minutes or so of launch. Conclude that the Shuttle is not a man-rated vehicle.<br> <br>

For bonus points, take that same man-rating standard and look at the engineering margin for structural members. Note that the Soyuz doesn't meet that margin. Conclude that the Soyuz isn't man-rated either! Nor anything else (aside from the Shuttle) that has ever flown people into orbit.<br> <br>

Conclude that the human race never had man-rated vehicles! Wonder what the purpose of man-rating actually is. (Hint: it was to rationalize the selection of the paper rocket, Ares I over the real commercial rockets, Delta IV and Atlas V).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , the US has one - count them - one man-rated orbital vehicle.Bzzzt !
Wrong ! The US has zero - count them - zero man-rated orbital vehicles .
If you disagree , then do this simple exercise .
Find any man-rating standards you can .
Then look at the requirements for abort at and after launch .
See that the Shuttle ca n't possibly abort within 5 minutes or so of launch .
Conclude that the Shuttle is not a man-rated vehicle .
For bonus points , take that same man-rating standard and look at the engineering margin for structural members .
Note that the Soyuz does n't meet that margin .
Conclude that the Soyuz is n't man-rated either !
Nor anything else ( aside from the Shuttle ) that has ever flown people into orbit .
Conclude that the human race never had man-rated vehicles !
Wonder what the purpose of man-rating actually is .
( Hint : it was to rationalize the selection of the paper rocket , Ares I over the real commercial rockets , Delta IV and Atlas V ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, the US has one - count them - one man-rated orbital vehicle.Bzzzt!
Wrong! The US has zero - count them - zero man-rated orbital vehicles.
If you disagree, then do this simple exercise.
Find any man-rating standards you can.
Then look at the requirements for abort at and after launch.
See that the Shuttle can't possibly abort within 5 minutes or so of launch.
Conclude that the Shuttle is not a man-rated vehicle.
For bonus points, take that same man-rating standard and look at the engineering margin for structural members.
Note that the Soyuz doesn't meet that margin.
Conclude that the Soyuz isn't man-rated either!
Nor anything else (aside from the Shuttle) that has ever flown people into orbit.
Conclude that the human race never had man-rated vehicles!
Wonder what the purpose of man-rating actually is.
(Hint: it was to rationalize the selection of the paper rocket, Ares I over the real commercial rockets, Delta IV and Atlas V).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953904</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of the spin.</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1264798500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All Bills are negotiated in their final stages behind closed doors.  The only thing new here is that Sen. Dem's decided not to invite Republicans, because they certainly won't going to contribute anything.</p><p>How do you evaluate the effect of the stimulus as having not helped?  While you may judge it poor because it didn't bring us back to pre-recession unemployment rates, you have to admit it is equally likely that not doing the stimulus would have resulted in a full blow depression with much worse results.</p><p>All your talking points are 100\% RepubliFox fud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All Bills are negotiated in their final stages behind closed doors .
The only thing new here is that Sen. Dem 's decided not to invite Republicans , because they certainly wo n't going to contribute anything.How do you evaluate the effect of the stimulus as having not helped ?
While you may judge it poor because it did n't bring us back to pre-recession unemployment rates , you have to admit it is equally likely that not doing the stimulus would have resulted in a full blow depression with much worse results.All your talking points are 100 \ % RepubliFox fud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Bills are negotiated in their final stages behind closed doors.
The only thing new here is that Sen. Dem's decided not to invite Republicans, because they certainly won't going to contribute anything.How do you evaluate the effect of the stimulus as having not helped?
While you may judge it poor because it didn't bring us back to pre-recession unemployment rates, you have to admit it is equally likely that not doing the stimulus would have resulted in a full blow depression with much worse results.All your talking points are 100\% RepubliFox fud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953862</id>
	<title>Re:"Launch astronauts into space"?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264798320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives, if they had even the slightest affinity for science.</p></div> </blockquote><p>If the governments have the preceding ~3 decades hadn't crushed the dreams and hopes of the next couple generations after yours by knocking the wheels off the expansion of the middle class at the center of the broad post-War prosperity in the US, maybe he wouldn't have needed to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Obama said he 'll cancel Constellation , he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation .
Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives , if they had even the slightest affinity for science .
If the governments have the preceding ~ 3 decades had n't crushed the dreams and hopes of the next couple generations after yours by knocking the wheels off the expansion of the middle class at the center of the broad post-War prosperity in the US , maybe he would n't have needed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation.
Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives, if they had even the slightest affinity for science.
If the governments have the preceding ~3 decades hadn't crushed the dreams and hopes of the next couple generations after yours by knocking the wheels off the expansion of the middle class at the center of the broad post-War prosperity in the US, maybe he wouldn't have needed to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947730</id>
	<title>How's that working out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264768140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is that Hope and Change working out for you NASA.

I see this as a way to siphon off funds to be redirected to more social programs (I mean buy votes).

Flame On!</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is that Hope and Change working out for you NASA .
I see this as a way to siphon off funds to be redirected to more social programs ( I mean buy votes ) .
Flame On !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is that Hope and Change working out for you NASA.
I see this as a way to siphon off funds to be redirected to more social programs (I mean buy votes).
Flame On!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953192</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of the spin.</title>
	<author>JackieBrown</author>
	<datestamp>1264794960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't need to believe what any news the media "filters".</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/" title="politifact.com">A lot</a> [politifact.com]</p> </div><p>Its funny to answer  the question of what has he done (while mentioning media filters) you refer to a media filter.  In fact, you used the same filter for all you rebuttles.  But then, I guess they have the word <b>fact</b> in their url so it is probably a good source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need to believe what any news the media " filters " .
A lot [ politifact.com ] Its funny to answer the question of what has he done ( while mentioning media filters ) you refer to a media filter .
In fact , you used the same filter for all you rebuttles .
But then , I guess they have the word fact in their url so it is probably a good source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need to believe what any news the media "filters".
A lot [politifact.com] Its funny to answer  the question of what has he done (while mentioning media filters) you refer to a media filter.
In fact, you used the same filter for all you rebuttles.
But then, I guess they have the word fact in their url so it is probably a good source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30957898</id>
	<title>Re:A sound plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264773240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Space flight needs to be privatized badly. There are real commercial reasons to be in space, and as long as NASA holds the keys to the gate the business potential of space will never be realized. NASA should focus on robotic exploration, blimps on titan, ice drillers on europa, rovers on mars and venus. Let's land on asteroids and plunge into pluto. That's what nasa should be doing. Not shuttling people up to the ISS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Space flight needs to be privatized badly .
There are real commercial reasons to be in space , and as long as NASA holds the keys to the gate the business potential of space will never be realized .
NASA should focus on robotic exploration , blimps on titan , ice drillers on europa , rovers on mars and venus .
Let 's land on asteroids and plunge into pluto .
That 's what nasa should be doing .
Not shuttling people up to the ISS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space flight needs to be privatized badly.
There are real commercial reasons to be in space, and as long as NASA holds the keys to the gate the business potential of space will never be realized.
NASA should focus on robotic exploration, blimps on titan, ice drillers on europa, rovers on mars and venus.
Let's land on asteroids and plunge into pluto.
That's what nasa should be doing.
Not shuttling people up to the ISS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30954664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30956884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30957898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30956218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30954018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30955926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.31075478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30955976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30958712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30952532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30954640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0430234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30956218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30957898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30954664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950694
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30951800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30954640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30952532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30958712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950236
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30954018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950204
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30956884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30949242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30955926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30953116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.31075478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30947902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30950744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0430234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30948114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0430234.30955976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
