<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_01_1435211</id>
	<title>Cool NASA Tech That Will Never See Space</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1265038380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes to tell us that with the "new and improved" <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013101058.html">NASA budget</a> on the way it looks like many of the cool projects NASA has in the works will <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020110-layer8-nasa-space-technology.html?hpg1=bn">never see the light of day</a>, let alone space.  The biggest cut looks to be the Ares heavy lift rocket but other cuts include a new composite spacecraft, deep space network, inflatable lunar habitat, and an electric moon-buggie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes to tell us that with the " new and improved " NASA budget on the way it looks like many of the cool projects NASA has in the works will never see the light of day , let alone space .
The biggest cut looks to be the Ares heavy lift rocket but other cuts include a new composite spacecraft , deep space network , inflatable lunar habitat , and an electric moon-buggie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes to tell us that with the "new and improved" NASA budget on the way it looks like many of the cool projects NASA has in the works will never see the light of day, let alone space.
The biggest cut looks to be the Ares heavy lift rocket but other cuts include a new composite spacecraft, deep space network, inflatable lunar habitat, and an electric moon-buggie.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985734</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265014800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen to that - I remember the day it was announced that NASA was being tasked w/ returning humans to the moon and mars. My initial impression was "this will never happen - there's no money and no interest!" Whoever is in charge of ill-conceived Republican ideas like Moon Race 2.0, Michael Steele, and opposing tax cuts because they originated from a Democrat, they need to just stop. It's painful to us all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen to that - I remember the day it was announced that NASA was being tasked w/ returning humans to the moon and mars .
My initial impression was " this will never happen - there 's no money and no interest !
" Whoever is in charge of ill-conceived Republican ideas like Moon Race 2.0 , Michael Steele , and opposing tax cuts because they originated from a Democrat , they need to just stop .
It 's painful to us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen to that - I remember the day it was announced that NASA was being tasked w/ returning humans to the moon and mars.
My initial impression was "this will never happen - there's no money and no interest!
" Whoever is in charge of ill-conceived Republican ideas like Moon Race 2.0, Michael Steele, and opposing tax cuts because they originated from a Democrat, they need to just stop.
It's painful to us all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991718</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>zigmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1265047200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's pretty sad that Constellation is being canceled but from the sounds of it, it was very broken. And at this point, yes it stinks we poured over $9 billion into it, but it's a sunk cost. I just hope that this new direction is good for NASA and the US as a whole. What's even worse is that this'll probably get blasted into orbit by Congress whether or not it's a good direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's pretty sad that Constellation is being canceled but from the sounds of it , it was very broken .
And at this point , yes it stinks we poured over $ 9 billion into it , but it 's a sunk cost .
I just hope that this new direction is good for NASA and the US as a whole .
What 's even worse is that this 'll probably get blasted into orbit by Congress whether or not it 's a good direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's pretty sad that Constellation is being canceled but from the sounds of it, it was very broken.
And at this point, yes it stinks we poured over $9 billion into it, but it's a sunk cost.
I just hope that this new direction is good for NASA and the US as a whole.
What's even worse is that this'll probably get blasted into orbit by Congress whether or not it's a good direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982298</id>
	<title>Commercial air travel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"One day it will be like commercial airline travel, just not yet," Griffin said. "It's like 1920. Lindbergh hasn't flown the Atlantic, and they're trying to sell 747s to Pan Am."</p></div> </blockquote><p>The first commercial airline was founded in 1909. The first regular commercial flight in the US was in 1914. KLM was founded in 1920.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" One day it will be like commercial airline travel , just not yet , " Griffin said .
" It 's like 1920 .
Lindbergh has n't flown the Atlantic , and they 're trying to sell 747s to Pan Am .
" The first commercial airline was founded in 1909 .
The first regular commercial flight in the US was in 1914 .
KLM was founded in 1920 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One day it will be like commercial airline travel, just not yet," Griffin said.
"It's like 1920.
Lindbergh hasn't flown the Atlantic, and they're trying to sell 747s to Pan Am.
" The first commercial airline was founded in 1909.
The first regular commercial flight in the US was in 1914.
KLM was founded in 1920.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982720</id>
	<title>Re:That's disappointing, but...</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1265046000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I made more money, I'd probably have a set of new golf clubs on my wish list for this spring. As it is, I don't have an unlimited budget, and there are other priorities which are higher, such as food, healthcare, and DirecTV. I mention that last one intentionally, by the way.</p><p>You see I could do without DirecTV and save myself enough to get a new set of golf clubs every year. Thing is my wife an daughter really like the programming. They don't begrudge me my greens fees or my high power rocket purchases. Each of us gets something from the family budget, though perhaps not all we want. We simply don't have the unlimited funds for that.</p><p>It's interesting what happens when you must have a balanced budget - certain choices have to be made.</p></div><p>You fail at comparisons, if you think a family is analogous to a nation of hundreds of millions. It isn't. Canceling a space program that could bring mankind to the moon, mars and beyond would produce a shitload of useful science and technology, it would inspire the whole nation, energize it and contribute to pulling it out from the doldrums. Your comparison of such a program with a set of golf clubs tells a lot about your contempt for science and space exploration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I made more money , I 'd probably have a set of new golf clubs on my wish list for this spring .
As it is , I do n't have an unlimited budget , and there are other priorities which are higher , such as food , healthcare , and DirecTV .
I mention that last one intentionally , by the way.You see I could do without DirecTV and save myself enough to get a new set of golf clubs every year .
Thing is my wife an daughter really like the programming .
They do n't begrudge me my greens fees or my high power rocket purchases .
Each of us gets something from the family budget , though perhaps not all we want .
We simply do n't have the unlimited funds for that.It 's interesting what happens when you must have a balanced budget - certain choices have to be made.You fail at comparisons , if you think a family is analogous to a nation of hundreds of millions .
It is n't .
Canceling a space program that could bring mankind to the moon , mars and beyond would produce a shitload of useful science and technology , it would inspire the whole nation , energize it and contribute to pulling it out from the doldrums .
Your comparison of such a program with a set of golf clubs tells a lot about your contempt for science and space exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I made more money, I'd probably have a set of new golf clubs on my wish list for this spring.
As it is, I don't have an unlimited budget, and there are other priorities which are higher, such as food, healthcare, and DirecTV.
I mention that last one intentionally, by the way.You see I could do without DirecTV and save myself enough to get a new set of golf clubs every year.
Thing is my wife an daughter really like the programming.
They don't begrudge me my greens fees or my high power rocket purchases.
Each of us gets something from the family budget, though perhaps not all we want.
We simply don't have the unlimited funds for that.It's interesting what happens when you must have a balanced budget - certain choices have to be made.You fail at comparisons, if you think a family is analogous to a nation of hundreds of millions.
It isn't.
Canceling a space program that could bring mankind to the moon, mars and beyond would produce a shitload of useful science and technology, it would inspire the whole nation, energize it and contribute to pulling it out from the doldrums.
Your comparison of such a program with a set of golf clubs tells a lot about your contempt for science and space exploration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983164</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> The first lunar rover was Lunokhod 1, which landed on November 17, 1970:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod\_1</p><p>
&nbsp; The first Apollo rover landed a few months later with Apollo 15:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar\_Roving\_Vehicle</p><p>
&nbsp; The first object in space was the V-2:</p><p>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What\_was\_the\_first\_man-made\_object\_in\_space</p><p>
&nbsp; The X-15 didn't reach space until 1963, while Yuri Gagarin's flight was in 1961:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-15#Operational\_history<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri\_Gagarin</p><p>
&nbsp; Your remark about the Soviets putting the first satellite in orbit is the second statement of the grandparent, so, really, you didn't even reach line 2?<br>
&nbsp; Everything else you said was plain wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first lunar rover was Lunokhod 1 , which landed on November 17 , 1970 : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod \ _1   The first Apollo rover landed a few months later with Apollo 15 : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar \ _Roving \ _Vehicle   The first object in space was the V-2 : http : //wiki.answers.com/Q/What \ _was \ _the \ _first \ _man-made \ _object \ _in \ _space   The X-15 did n't reach space until 1963 , while Yuri Gagarin 's flight was in 1961 : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-15 # Operational \ _historyhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri \ _Gagarin   Your remark about the Soviets putting the first satellite in orbit is the second statement of the grandparent , so , really , you did n't even reach line 2 ?
  Everything else you said was plain wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The first lunar rover was Lunokhod 1, which landed on November 17, 1970:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod\_1
  The first Apollo rover landed a few months later with Apollo 15:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar\_Roving\_Vehicle
  The first object in space was the V-2:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What\_was\_the\_first\_man-made\_object\_in\_space
  The X-15 didn't reach space until 1963, while Yuri Gagarin's flight was in 1961:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-15#Operational\_historyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri\_Gagarin
  Your remark about the Soviets putting the first satellite in orbit is the second statement of the grandparent, so, really, you didn't even reach line 2?
  Everything else you said was plain wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983608</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget. It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again.</p><p>How come Bush's promises of massive explorations with no funding backing isnt stupid, but when Obama has to clean up Bush's mistakes and bring Bush's BS promises to a real budget, then suddenly he's the bad guy?</p></div><p>Look, Bush spent like a drunken sailor. I'm not gonna argue against that.<br>
<br>
The problem is that Obama is spending EVEN MORE. And now is cutting something useful, while still projecting a $1.6 Trillion deficit...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget .
It 's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again.How come Bush 's promises of massive explorations with no funding backing isnt stupid , but when Obama has to clean up Bush 's mistakes and bring Bush 's BS promises to a real budget , then suddenly he 's the bad guy ? Look , Bush spent like a drunken sailor .
I 'm not gon na argue against that .
The problem is that Obama is spending EVEN MORE .
And now is cutting something useful , while still projecting a $ 1.6 Trillion deficit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget.
It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again.How come Bush's promises of massive explorations with no funding backing isnt stupid, but when Obama has to clean up Bush's mistakes and bring Bush's BS promises to a real budget, then suddenly he's the bad guy?Look, Bush spent like a drunken sailor.
I'm not gonna argue against that.
The problem is that Obama is spending EVEN MORE.
And now is cutting something useful, while still projecting a $1.6 Trillion deficit...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982422</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>qmetaball</author>
	<datestamp>1265044860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's all well and good you see, but it was the competition with the US that drove them to do those things, it was called the "space race" for a reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all well and good you see , but it was the competition with the US that drove them to do those things , it was called the " space race " for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all well and good you see, but it was the competition with the US that drove them to do those things, it was called the "space race" for a reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982590</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth</p><p>I was following you until here.  Sure, we've learned more about Earth via the space program, but it seems like we <i>visited</i> Earth long before...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; If it was n't for NASA we would n't ever have visited or learned so much more about EarthI was following you until here .
Sure , we 've learned more about Earth via the space program , but it seems like we visited Earth long before.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about EarthI was following you until here.
Sure, we've learned more about Earth via the space program, but it seems like we visited Earth long before...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987814</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Hotawa Hawk-eye</author>
	<datestamp>1265022060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no idea what private industry could <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8480556.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">possibly do (warning: video)</a> [bbc.co.uk] with the technology for inflatable buildings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea what private industry could possibly do ( warning : video ) [ bbc.co.uk ] with the technology for inflatable buildings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea what private industry could possibly do (warning: video) [bbc.co.uk] with the technology for inflatable buildings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982436</id>
	<title>This looks like a job for the private sector.</title>
	<author>Higaran</author>
	<datestamp>1265044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks, like the private sector is going to be pickup up the slack, with space ship one and so on.  I love NASA and its whole legacy, but I do think that is time for some change with our space program, maybe it should just get absorbed into the airforce, beause that's who is putting most of our sattelites into orbit anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks , like the private sector is going to be pickup up the slack , with space ship one and so on .
I love NASA and its whole legacy , but I do think that is time for some change with our space program , maybe it should just get absorbed into the airforce , beause that 's who is putting most of our sattelites into orbit anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks, like the private sector is going to be pickup up the slack, with space ship one and so on.
I love NASA and its whole legacy, but I do think that is time for some change with our space program, maybe it should just get absorbed into the airforce, beause that's who is putting most of our sattelites into orbit anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983510</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Keebler71</author>
	<datestamp>1265049180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>1st landing on Mars - Soviet Union</i> <p>

Hmm... if you count <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration\_of\_Mars" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">operating for 20 seconds</a> [wikipedia.org] a successful landing... then maybe... not very useful though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1st landing on Mars - Soviet Union Hmm... if you count operating for 20 seconds [ wikipedia.org ] a successful landing... then maybe... not very useful though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1st landing on Mars - Soviet Union 

Hmm... if you count operating for 20 seconds [wikipedia.org] a successful landing... then maybe... not very useful though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982370</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget. It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again. We are draining Earth resources and should try to expand to space. If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth. This way we never get intergalactic flights nor can live on other planets.</p></div><p>If he thought Massachussetts was a 'Disaster' wait til November, 2010. He will become a LAME DUCK for the rest of his term. Without Florida, Alabama, Texas and California he will not stand a chance at passing 'ANYTHING!' And guess what, those states will go red because they are the one's with most to loose as a result of this 'stupid' decision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget .
It 's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again .
We are draining Earth resources and should try to expand to space .
If it was n't for NASA we would n't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth .
This way we never get intergalactic flights nor can live on other planets.If he thought Massachussetts was a 'Disaster ' wait til November , 2010 .
He will become a LAME DUCK for the rest of his term .
Without Florida , Alabama , Texas and California he will not stand a chance at passing 'ANYTHING !
' And guess what , those states will go red because they are the one 's with most to loose as a result of this 'stupid ' decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget.
It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again.
We are draining Earth resources and should try to expand to space.
If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth.
This way we never get intergalactic flights nor can live on other planets.If he thought Massachussetts was a 'Disaster' wait til November, 2010.
He will become a LAME DUCK for the rest of his term.
Without Florida, Alabama, Texas and California he will not stand a chance at passing 'ANYTHING!
' And guess what, those states will go red because they are the one's with most to loose as a result of this 'stupid' decision.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983592</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1265049540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nice business model:<br>
&nbsp; 1) Get handed billions of dollars in taxpayer money<br>
&nbsp; 2) Use that money to develop expensive technology<br>
&nbsp; 3) License that technology to the same taxpayers for yet more money, claiming it as a measure to save taxpayer money<br>
&nbsp; 4) Profit</p><p>Congratulations, You've solved step 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nice business model :   1 ) Get handed billions of dollars in taxpayer money   2 ) Use that money to develop expensive technology   3 ) License that technology to the same taxpayers for yet more money , claiming it as a measure to save taxpayer money   4 ) ProfitCongratulations , You 've solved step 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nice business model:
  1) Get handed billions of dollars in taxpayer money
  2) Use that money to develop expensive technology
  3) License that technology to the same taxpayers for yet more money, claiming it as a measure to save taxpayer money
  4) ProfitCongratulations, You've solved step 3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987804</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of that is the new tech, it's old tech they were done with.</p><p>I think he was aiming at NASA giving out the incomplete tech to allow private companies to finish it off for NASA to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of that is the new tech , it 's old tech they were done with.I think he was aiming at NASA giving out the incomplete tech to allow private companies to finish it off for NASA to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of that is the new tech, it's old tech they were done with.I think he was aiming at NASA giving out the incomplete tech to allow private companies to finish it off for NASA to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982856</id>
	<title>Only point I'd like to make...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that the list of 'Soviet firsts' should really be 'captured German engineers working for the Soviets firsts'.</p><p>And the later 'American firsts' ought to be 'captured German engineers working for the Americans firsts'.</p><p>I can't think of any early space-flight that did not depend on lots of German know-how and support. Perhaps the British 'Black Knight' and 'Blue Streak' programs, which were pretty well entirely home-grown. But even they only did this because the Germans had shown that it could be done first....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that the list of 'Soviet firsts ' should really be 'captured German engineers working for the Soviets firsts'.And the later 'American firsts ' ought to be 'captured German engineers working for the Americans firsts'.I ca n't think of any early space-flight that did not depend on lots of German know-how and support .
Perhaps the British 'Black Knight ' and 'Blue Streak ' programs , which were pretty well entirely home-grown .
But even they only did this because the Germans had shown that it could be done first... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that the list of 'Soviet firsts' should really be 'captured German engineers working for the Soviets firsts'.And the later 'American firsts' ought to be 'captured German engineers working for the Americans firsts'.I can't think of any early space-flight that did not depend on lots of German know-how and support.
Perhaps the British 'Black Knight' and 'Blue Streak' programs, which were pretty well entirely home-grown.
But even they only did this because the Germans had shown that it could be done first....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982652</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1265045700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget. It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again.</p><p>How come Bush's promises of massive explorations with no funding backing isnt stupid, but when Obama has to clean up Bush's mistakes and bring Bush's BS promises to a real budget, then suddenly he's the bad guy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget .
It 's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again.How come Bush 's promises of massive explorations with no funding backing isnt stupid , but when Obama has to clean up Bush 's mistakes and bring Bush 's BS promises to a real budget , then suddenly he 's the bad guy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget.
It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again.How come Bush's promises of massive explorations with no funding backing isnt stupid, but when Obama has to clean up Bush's mistakes and bring Bush's BS promises to a real budget, then suddenly he's the bad guy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983900</id>
	<title>What has happened will happen again...</title>
	<author>ZonkerWilliam</author>
	<datestamp>1265050740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's to another 30 years in orbit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's to another 30 years in orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's to another 30 years in orbit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982918</id>
	<title>This is why.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electric moon buggies and inflatable habitats are nothing new.  Both were developed in the 1960s.  (The inflatable habitat wasn't used, of course, although a version of it featured in the film "Moontrap".)</p><p>Re-inventing the wheel over and over again -- without actually doing anything with it -- is one big reason why NASA's projects are being cut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electric moon buggies and inflatable habitats are nothing new .
Both were developed in the 1960s .
( The inflatable habitat was n't used , of course , although a version of it featured in the film " Moontrap " .
) Re-inventing the wheel over and over again -- without actually doing anything with it -- is one big reason why NASA 's projects are being cut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electric moon buggies and inflatable habitats are nothing new.
Both were developed in the 1960s.
(The inflatable habitat wasn't used, of course, although a version of it featured in the film "Moontrap".
)Re-inventing the wheel over and over again -- without actually doing anything with it -- is one big reason why NASA's projects are being cut.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30988374</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Peter H.S.</author>
	<datestamp>1265024580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I follow your logic that a good economy makes a good budget however I don't agree that this means NASA's budget now relates to it's future budget in that way. NASA's budget is too small of a percentage of government spending to have that kind of effect on the future economy. It could be raised quite a bit and this would still be true.</i></p><p>Oh, just cutting NASA's budget a bit won't in itself solve the overall problem, but the point is that the US debt situation is so serious that all government institutions have to contribute. And yes a billion there and a billion there all add up especially since this will be billions that won't draw interest in the future. I don't believe that the US can solve its future debt problem with slashing budgets alone, investments are needed too, and primary education, R&amp;D (like NASA do) and health care are historically the best investments a nation can make.</p><p>Another thing is, that cutting NASA's budget now in a highly visible but planned way may protect it from sudden and aggressive deep cuts in the future if a lot of voters deeply marked by a bad economy starts to see it as a frivolous waste of money; "they can put a man on the moon, but I am on food stamps...!" etc. etc.</p><p>--<br>Regards</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I follow your logic that a good economy makes a good budget however I do n't agree that this means NASA 's budget now relates to it 's future budget in that way .
NASA 's budget is too small of a percentage of government spending to have that kind of effect on the future economy .
It could be raised quite a bit and this would still be true.Oh , just cutting NASA 's budget a bit wo n't in itself solve the overall problem , but the point is that the US debt situation is so serious that all government institutions have to contribute .
And yes a billion there and a billion there all add up especially since this will be billions that wo n't draw interest in the future .
I do n't believe that the US can solve its future debt problem with slashing budgets alone , investments are needed too , and primary education , R&amp;D ( like NASA do ) and health care are historically the best investments a nation can make.Another thing is , that cutting NASA 's budget now in a highly visible but planned way may protect it from sudden and aggressive deep cuts in the future if a lot of voters deeply marked by a bad economy starts to see it as a frivolous waste of money ; " they can put a man on the moon , but I am on food stamps... !
" etc .
etc.--Regards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I follow your logic that a good economy makes a good budget however I don't agree that this means NASA's budget now relates to it's future budget in that way.
NASA's budget is too small of a percentage of government spending to have that kind of effect on the future economy.
It could be raised quite a bit and this would still be true.Oh, just cutting NASA's budget a bit won't in itself solve the overall problem, but the point is that the US debt situation is so serious that all government institutions have to contribute.
And yes a billion there and a billion there all add up especially since this will be billions that won't draw interest in the future.
I don't believe that the US can solve its future debt problem with slashing budgets alone, investments are needed too, and primary education, R&amp;D (like NASA do) and health care are historically the best investments a nation can make.Another thing is, that cutting NASA's budget now in a highly visible but planned way may protect it from sudden and aggressive deep cuts in the future if a lot of voters deeply marked by a bad economy starts to see it as a frivolous waste of money; "they can put a man on the moon, but I am on food stamps...!
" etc.
etc.--Regards</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991548</id>
	<title>Re:The myth of private industry</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1265045220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts</i></p><p>
&nbsp; <i> <b>Trillions</b></i>  of dollars in taxpayer <i>FUNDED</i> bailouts.</p><p>
&nbsp; Sorry, had to fix that for you, no offense.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts   Trillions of dollars in taxpayer FUNDED bailouts .
  Sorry , had to fix that for you , no offense.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts
   Trillions  of dollars in taxpayer FUNDED bailouts.
  Sorry, had to fix that for you, no offense.SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30988252</id>
	<title>Re:Meaningless talking point.</title>
	<author>sckeener</author>
	<datestamp>1265024100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously... all this talk about Obama "cleaning up", and what has he really done?  It's just a talking point, utterly meaningless.</p></div><p>Of course he is just a talking point.  He's the president.  All he can do is veto something that congress sends him or start a war.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... all this talk about Obama " cleaning up " , and what has he really done ?
It 's just a talking point , utterly meaningless.Of course he is just a talking point .
He 's the president .
All he can do is veto something that congress sends him or start a war.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... all this talk about Obama "cleaning up", and what has he really done?
It's just a talking point, utterly meaningless.Of course he is just a talking point.
He's the president.
All he can do is veto something that congress sends him or start a war.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983904</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the Germans weren't the first to put an object in space</p></div></blockquote><p>V-2.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Germans were n't the first to put an object in spaceV-2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Germans weren't the first to put an object in spaceV-2.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30988514</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are cutting old programs and replacing them with new technologies. Our NASA program has been running off of conventions set in the 50s to get us into space fast. That is not the right way. The ticket to space is now being held by private companies who are being brought in to explore the possibility of commercial "space taxis".</p><p>NASA is getting a facelift and a boob-job with this one. It's a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are cutting old programs and replacing them with new technologies .
Our NASA program has been running off of conventions set in the 50s to get us into space fast .
That is not the right way .
The ticket to space is now being held by private companies who are being brought in to explore the possibility of commercial " space taxis " .NASA is getting a facelift and a boob-job with this one .
It 's a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are cutting old programs and replacing them with new technologies.
Our NASA program has been running off of conventions set in the 50s to get us into space fast.
That is not the right way.
The ticket to space is now being held by private companies who are being brought in to explore the possibility of commercial "space taxis".NASA is getting a facelift and a boob-job with this one.
It's a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30995886</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1265128500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem for you, gad\_zuki

A lot of people share my outlook on NASA funding.
<p>
With Human in space activities, we support large budgets.
</p><p>
Robotic only activities, we support a budget of zero dollars.
</p><p>
The robotic science missions are interesting, and I support a mix of manned and robotic missions, but as a "meatbag" replacement with only unmanned?
</p><p>
As far as I am concerned, if us meatbags are not in the equation, why do we care about  the surface of Io or just about anything on Mars. We're not going there.  There is interesting science to be sure. But if you want to find out what is there, go generate your own funding. Maybe a nice bake sale.
</p><p>
Then get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem for you , gad \ _zuki A lot of people share my outlook on NASA funding .
With Human in space activities , we support large budgets .
Robotic only activities , we support a budget of zero dollars .
The robotic science missions are interesting , and I support a mix of manned and robotic missions , but as a " meatbag " replacement with only unmanned ?
As far as I am concerned , if us meatbags are not in the equation , why do we care about the surface of Io or just about anything on Mars .
We 're not going there .
There is interesting science to be sure .
But if you want to find out what is there , go generate your own funding .
Maybe a nice bake sale .
Then get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem for you, gad\_zuki

A lot of people share my outlook on NASA funding.
With Human in space activities, we support large budgets.
Robotic only activities, we support a budget of zero dollars.
The robotic science missions are interesting, and I support a mix of manned and robotic missions, but as a "meatbag" replacement with only unmanned?
As far as I am concerned, if us meatbags are not in the equation, why do we care about  the surface of Io or just about anything on Mars.
We're not going there.
There is interesting science to be sure.
But if you want to find out what is there, go generate your own funding.
Maybe a nice bake sale.
Then get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982654</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Germans put a V2 in "space".<br>The Russians put Luna 2 on the moon 10 years before Apollo 11.</p><p>1st photographs from space<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... USA. (they were pictures of the Earth)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Germans put a V2 in " space " .The Russians put Luna 2 on the moon 10 years before Apollo 11.1st photographs from space ... USA. ( they were pictures of the Earth )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Germans put a V2 in "space".The Russians put Luna 2 on the moon 10 years before Apollo 11.1st photographs from space ... USA. (they were pictures of the Earth)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, Mr Checkov, you are mistaken. The Soviets neither landed on nor put a rover on the moon before the US (we landed manned moon buggies), and the Germans weren't the first to put an object in space, that was in fact the Soviets. The US went to the edge of space with the X-15 plane, but the Soviets beat us (and the Germans) to space proper.</p><p>The Soviets also put the first satellite in space.</p><p>"Interesting" would have been an accurate mod, but informative it was not. More like misinformative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , Mr Checkov , you are mistaken .
The Soviets neither landed on nor put a rover on the moon before the US ( we landed manned moon buggies ) , and the Germans were n't the first to put an object in space , that was in fact the Soviets .
The US went to the edge of space with the X-15 plane , but the Soviets beat us ( and the Germans ) to space proper.The Soviets also put the first satellite in space .
" Interesting " would have been an accurate mod , but informative it was not .
More like misinformative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, Mr Checkov, you are mistaken.
The Soviets neither landed on nor put a rover on the moon before the US (we landed manned moon buggies), and the Germans weren't the first to put an object in space, that was in fact the Soviets.
The US went to the edge of space with the X-15 plane, but the Soviets beat us (and the Germans) to space proper.The Soviets also put the first satellite in space.
"Interesting" would have been an accurate mod, but informative it was not.
More like misinformative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672</id>
	<title>NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget. It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again. We are draining Earth resources and should try to expand to space. If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth. This way we never get intergalactic flights nor can live on other planets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget .
It 's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again .
We are draining Earth resources and should try to expand to space .
If it was n't for NASA we would n't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth .
This way we never get intergalactic flights nor can live on other planets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget.
It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again.
We are draining Earth resources and should try to expand to space.
If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth.
This way we never get intergalactic flights nor can live on other planets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984558</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1265053560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science is made by meatbags. Scientists are meatbags that don't hope to earn much money or fame (save for the very few that get a Nobel prize). No, our motivation is the science and the great things it can do for humankind. Specifically, my research is related to technology that can potentially be used on spacecraft/deep space probes. But if I knew it will only be used so that a rich banker can go to LEO, fuck it, I can go back to a job in industry and make about twice the money I make now. I can easily imagine that manned exploration of the Moon and Mars would similarly invigorate and inspire tens of thousands of US scientists, not to mention the other people involved, and the american public in general. The american nation could again have a big, common dream that transcends their short existence.</p><p>The Moon is very important because we can learn how to survive there, and then use that experience ans science to build a base on Mars. Yes, the Moon is in many ways harsher than Mars, but as far as things we can learn, it is still very useful, and the proximity of Earth is very useful in case of unexpected problems. Besides, if Constellation is out, Mars is out, too. It's *not* on.</p><p>Finally, I'd like to emphasize the need for manned exploration of Mars and other remote objects, as radio-delay makes robotic probes severely crippled to the point of being useless, compared to humans. A human can find ways to dislodge a stuck wheel, for one thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is made by meatbags .
Scientists are meatbags that do n't hope to earn much money or fame ( save for the very few that get a Nobel prize ) .
No , our motivation is the science and the great things it can do for humankind .
Specifically , my research is related to technology that can potentially be used on spacecraft/deep space probes .
But if I knew it will only be used so that a rich banker can go to LEO , fuck it , I can go back to a job in industry and make about twice the money I make now .
I can easily imagine that manned exploration of the Moon and Mars would similarly invigorate and inspire tens of thousands of US scientists , not to mention the other people involved , and the american public in general .
The american nation could again have a big , common dream that transcends their short existence.The Moon is very important because we can learn how to survive there , and then use that experience ans science to build a base on Mars .
Yes , the Moon is in many ways harsher than Mars , but as far as things we can learn , it is still very useful , and the proximity of Earth is very useful in case of unexpected problems .
Besides , if Constellation is out , Mars is out , too .
It 's * not * on.Finally , I 'd like to emphasize the need for manned exploration of Mars and other remote objects , as radio-delay makes robotic probes severely crippled to the point of being useless , compared to humans .
A human can find ways to dislodge a stuck wheel , for one thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is made by meatbags.
Scientists are meatbags that don't hope to earn much money or fame (save for the very few that get a Nobel prize).
No, our motivation is the science and the great things it can do for humankind.
Specifically, my research is related to technology that can potentially be used on spacecraft/deep space probes.
But if I knew it will only be used so that a rich banker can go to LEO, fuck it, I can go back to a job in industry and make about twice the money I make now.
I can easily imagine that manned exploration of the Moon and Mars would similarly invigorate and inspire tens of thousands of US scientists, not to mention the other people involved, and the american public in general.
The american nation could again have a big, common dream that transcends their short existence.The Moon is very important because we can learn how to survive there, and then use that experience ans science to build a base on Mars.
Yes, the Moon is in many ways harsher than Mars, but as far as things we can learn, it is still very useful, and the proximity of Earth is very useful in case of unexpected problems.
Besides, if Constellation is out, Mars is out, too.
It's *not* on.Finally, I'd like to emphasize the need for manned exploration of Mars and other remote objects, as radio-delay makes robotic probes severely crippled to the point of being useless, compared to humans.
A human can find ways to dislodge a stuck wheel, for one thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982490</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>jstults</author>
	<datestamp>1265045100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No more external fuel tanks are being manufactured, the rest of the parts chain is shutting down. When the shuttle is gone, America loses manned access to space</p></div><p>There are still enough residual ETs to do some interesting prototyping things, such as a shuttle derived heavy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Constellation program sounded like a real soup sandwich. Cancelling it would be a good thing if it paved the way for something done right. But that's not happening</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>The shuttle was just farting around in LEO.</p></div><p>See SpaceX's first Falcon 9 in the hangar at the cape, at least it's got the possibility of farting around in LEO more cheaply.  Diverting money from Constellation to COTS is paving the way.

</p><p> <a href="http://j-stults.blogspot.com/2010/02/closing-post-shuttle-gap-faster.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Here's a round-up of the recent news</a> [blogspot.com] with links describing that stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No more external fuel tanks are being manufactured , the rest of the parts chain is shutting down .
When the shuttle is gone , America loses manned access to spaceThere are still enough residual ETs to do some interesting prototyping things , such as a shuttle derived heavy.The Constellation program sounded like a real soup sandwich .
Cancelling it would be a good thing if it paved the way for something done right .
But that 's not happeningThe shuttle was just farting around in LEO.See SpaceX 's first Falcon 9 in the hangar at the cape , at least it 's got the possibility of farting around in LEO more cheaply .
Diverting money from Constellation to COTS is paving the way .
Here 's a round-up of the recent news [ blogspot.com ] with links describing that stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No more external fuel tanks are being manufactured, the rest of the parts chain is shutting down.
When the shuttle is gone, America loses manned access to spaceThere are still enough residual ETs to do some interesting prototyping things, such as a shuttle derived heavy.The Constellation program sounded like a real soup sandwich.
Cancelling it would be a good thing if it paved the way for something done right.
But that's not happeningThe shuttle was just farting around in LEO.See SpaceX's first Falcon 9 in the hangar at the cape, at least it's got the possibility of farting around in LEO more cheaply.
Diverting money from Constellation to COTS is paving the way.
Here's a round-up of the recent news [blogspot.com] with links describing that stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984142</id>
	<title>Re:What do we need NASA for now?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1265051700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars, she literally started crying. How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her?"</p><p>Wait, so it's Obama's fault that you're a bad parent? First, there is still a NASA and a space program. Second, help the kid find some other interests. We live in a world of almost an infinite number of things to study, to learn, and to do. Help your kid broaden her horizons a little bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars , she literally started crying .
How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she 's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her ?
" Wait , so it 's Obama 's fault that you 're a bad parent ?
First , there is still a NASA and a space program .
Second , help the kid find some other interests .
We live in a world of almost an infinite number of things to study , to learn , and to do .
Help your kid broaden her horizons a little bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars, she literally started crying.
How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her?
"Wait, so it's Obama's fault that you're a bad parent?
First, there is still a NASA and a space program.
Second, help the kid find some other interests.
We live in a world of almost an infinite number of things to study, to learn, and to do.
Help your kid broaden her horizons a little bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991822</id>
	<title>Solve the problem, not run from it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe instead of trying to escape Earth, we should first focus on solving the issues we already have on Earth? It's not like we won't end up dragging said issues with us if/when we expand further..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe instead of trying to escape Earth , we should first focus on solving the issues we already have on Earth ?
It 's not like we wo n't end up dragging said issues with us if/when we expand further. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe instead of trying to escape Earth, we should first focus on solving the issues we already have on Earth?
It's not like we won't end up dragging said issues with us if/when we expand further..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982188</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1265044080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you <i>sure</i> that if it wasn't for NASA, we wouldn't ever have visited Earth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure that if it was n't for NASA , we would n't ever have visited Earth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure that if it wasn't for NASA, we wouldn't ever have visited Earth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982660</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>WhiteWolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1265045760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*shrug*</p><p>I'm all for the commercialization of Space. NASA was/is a waste of time and money.</p><p> <i>You don't have to be much of a science fiction fan to appreciate the opportunities created by a serious presence in space. Even if we teleoperated everything from the ground, orbital power is a winner. Asteroid mining to prevent the destruction of our own environment down here is a winner. And human history has proven time and time again that opportunities can be opened up by endeavors and scientific discovery that we couldn't even begin to imagine at the outset.</i> </p><p> <i>There's so much more we should be doing up there. The shuttle was just farting around in LEO. We should end it to do something better, not end it to abandon a manned presence in space. If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will. And we will have ceded the high frontier.</i> </p><p>The reason for this is simple. The energy requirements of achieving orbit are simply too high given that mankind is mired in the chemical-energy age. A real human presence outside of LEO cannot be achieved without nuclear propulsion. There simply is no other way around the energy requirements.</p><p>Why do I say this? Because mankind has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Orion\_(nuclear\_propulsion)" title="wikipedia.org">already given up</a> [wikipedia.org] a 60 year old technology capable of boosting entire cities anywhere in the solar system, and even for achieving low relativistic velocities.</p><p>Cost estimates projected that for 1\% of the US GDP (a paltry $130 billion, not even 10\% of the dual stimulus and bank bailouts) we could build an operate an 8 <i>million</i> ton vehicle in the solar system. This is an estimate based on using <i>1958</i> materials, and a craft designed with modern, strong materials (carbon fibers and the like) could be significantly heavier.</p><p>It is *simply impossible* to fathom that this $130 billion dollar investment would not achieve greater dividends than, say, Obama stimulus. It may have even been superior to the economic effects of the TARP.</p><p>And I'd hazard a guess that it would improve both the economy and health care (through technological advances) if we spent the $900 billion Obama is allocating for HCR on Orion vessels (we could build a fleet of ships the size of Star War's Star Destroyers!).</p><p>Space Factories. Space Farms. Fleets of Solar Power Satellites. High Energy Risk Free Research Stations. Cities on the Moon. Cities on Mars. Massive Scale Asteroid Belt Mining. Construction and operation of additional vessels outside the Earth's magnetosphere.</p><p>So we have to detonated some nuclear explosives in the Earth's atmosphere to get it going. Mankind did this for years, and old for war purposes, not science/economic. Not to mention, the launching of Solar Power Satellites would probably result in a net reduction of radiation emissions due to man's activities.</p><p>Even then, the total fallout from an Orion program would be minimal:</p><p> <i>But the main unsolved problem for a launch from the surface of the Earth was thought to be nuclear fallout. Any explosions within the magnetosphere would carry fissionables back to earth unless the spaceship were launched from a polar region such as a barge in the higher regions of the Arctic, with the initial launching explosion to be a large mass of conventional high explosive only to significantly reduce fallout; subsequent detonations would be in the air and therefore much cleaner. Antarctica is not viable, as this would require enormous legal changes as the continent is presently an international wildlife preserve. Freeman Dyson, group leader on the project, estimated back in the '60s that with conventional nuclear weapons, each launch would cause on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout.[14] Danger to human life was not a reason given for shelving the project - those included lack of mission requirement (no-one in the US Government could think of any reason to put thousands of tons of payload into orbit), the decision to focus on rockets (for the Moon mis</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* shrug * I 'm all for the commercialization of Space .
NASA was/is a waste of time and money .
You do n't have to be much of a science fiction fan to appreciate the opportunities created by a serious presence in space .
Even if we teleoperated everything from the ground , orbital power is a winner .
Asteroid mining to prevent the destruction of our own environment down here is a winner .
And human history has proven time and time again that opportunities can be opened up by endeavors and scientific discovery that we could n't even begin to imagine at the outset .
There 's so much more we should be doing up there .
The shuttle was just farting around in LEO .
We should end it to do something better , not end it to abandon a manned presence in space .
If we 're not going to move forward up there , other nations will .
And we will have ceded the high frontier .
The reason for this is simple .
The energy requirements of achieving orbit are simply too high given that mankind is mired in the chemical-energy age .
A real human presence outside of LEO can not be achieved without nuclear propulsion .
There simply is no other way around the energy requirements.Why do I say this ?
Because mankind has already given up [ wikipedia.org ] a 60 year old technology capable of boosting entire cities anywhere in the solar system , and even for achieving low relativistic velocities.Cost estimates projected that for 1 \ % of the US GDP ( a paltry $ 130 billion , not even 10 \ % of the dual stimulus and bank bailouts ) we could build an operate an 8 million ton vehicle in the solar system .
This is an estimate based on using 1958 materials , and a craft designed with modern , strong materials ( carbon fibers and the like ) could be significantly heavier.It is * simply impossible * to fathom that this $ 130 billion dollar investment would not achieve greater dividends than , say , Obama stimulus .
It may have even been superior to the economic effects of the TARP.And I 'd hazard a guess that it would improve both the economy and health care ( through technological advances ) if we spent the $ 900 billion Obama is allocating for HCR on Orion vessels ( we could build a fleet of ships the size of Star War 's Star Destroyers !
) .Space Factories .
Space Farms .
Fleets of Solar Power Satellites .
High Energy Risk Free Research Stations .
Cities on the Moon .
Cities on Mars .
Massive Scale Asteroid Belt Mining .
Construction and operation of additional vessels outside the Earth 's magnetosphere.So we have to detonated some nuclear explosives in the Earth 's atmosphere to get it going .
Mankind did this for years , and old for war purposes , not science/economic .
Not to mention , the launching of Solar Power Satellites would probably result in a net reduction of radiation emissions due to man 's activities.Even then , the total fallout from an Orion program would be minimal : But the main unsolved problem for a launch from the surface of the Earth was thought to be nuclear fallout .
Any explosions within the magnetosphere would carry fissionables back to earth unless the spaceship were launched from a polar region such as a barge in the higher regions of the Arctic , with the initial launching explosion to be a large mass of conventional high explosive only to significantly reduce fallout ; subsequent detonations would be in the air and therefore much cleaner .
Antarctica is not viable , as this would require enormous legal changes as the continent is presently an international wildlife preserve .
Freeman Dyson , group leader on the project , estimated back in the '60s that with conventional nuclear weapons , each launch would cause on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout .
[ 14 ] Danger to human life was not a reason given for shelving the project - those included lack of mission requirement ( no-one in the US Government could think of any reason to put thousands of tons of payload into orbit ) , the decision to focus on rockets ( for the Moon mis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*shrug*I'm all for the commercialization of Space.
NASA was/is a waste of time and money.
You don't have to be much of a science fiction fan to appreciate the opportunities created by a serious presence in space.
Even if we teleoperated everything from the ground, orbital power is a winner.
Asteroid mining to prevent the destruction of our own environment down here is a winner.
And human history has proven time and time again that opportunities can be opened up by endeavors and scientific discovery that we couldn't even begin to imagine at the outset.
There's so much more we should be doing up there.
The shuttle was just farting around in LEO.
We should end it to do something better, not end it to abandon a manned presence in space.
If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will.
And we will have ceded the high frontier.
The reason for this is simple.
The energy requirements of achieving orbit are simply too high given that mankind is mired in the chemical-energy age.
A real human presence outside of LEO cannot be achieved without nuclear propulsion.
There simply is no other way around the energy requirements.Why do I say this?
Because mankind has already given up [wikipedia.org] a 60 year old technology capable of boosting entire cities anywhere in the solar system, and even for achieving low relativistic velocities.Cost estimates projected that for 1\% of the US GDP (a paltry $130 billion, not even 10\% of the dual stimulus and bank bailouts) we could build an operate an 8 million ton vehicle in the solar system.
This is an estimate based on using 1958 materials, and a craft designed with modern, strong materials (carbon fibers and the like) could be significantly heavier.It is *simply impossible* to fathom that this $130 billion dollar investment would not achieve greater dividends than, say, Obama stimulus.
It may have even been superior to the economic effects of the TARP.And I'd hazard a guess that it would improve both the economy and health care (through technological advances) if we spent the $900 billion Obama is allocating for HCR on Orion vessels (we could build a fleet of ships the size of Star War's Star Destroyers!
).Space Factories.
Space Farms.
Fleets of Solar Power Satellites.
High Energy Risk Free Research Stations.
Cities on the Moon.
Cities on Mars.
Massive Scale Asteroid Belt Mining.
Construction and operation of additional vessels outside the Earth's magnetosphere.So we have to detonated some nuclear explosives in the Earth's atmosphere to get it going.
Mankind did this for years, and old for war purposes, not science/economic.
Not to mention, the launching of Solar Power Satellites would probably result in a net reduction of radiation emissions due to man's activities.Even then, the total fallout from an Orion program would be minimal: But the main unsolved problem for a launch from the surface of the Earth was thought to be nuclear fallout.
Any explosions within the magnetosphere would carry fissionables back to earth unless the spaceship were launched from a polar region such as a barge in the higher regions of the Arctic, with the initial launching explosion to be a large mass of conventional high explosive only to significantly reduce fallout; subsequent detonations would be in the air and therefore much cleaner.
Antarctica is not viable, as this would require enormous legal changes as the continent is presently an international wildlife preserve.
Freeman Dyson, group leader on the project, estimated back in the '60s that with conventional nuclear weapons, each launch would cause on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout.
[14] Danger to human life was not a reason given for shelving the project - those included lack of mission requirement (no-one in the US Government could think of any reason to put thousands of tons of payload into orbit), the decision to focus on rockets (for the Moon mis</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987248</id>
	<title>Re:What do we need NASA for now?</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1265019900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing like brainwashing kids to make sure they'll become good Americans (aka Repubs.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing like brainwashing kids to make sure they 'll become good Americans ( aka Repubs .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing like brainwashing kids to make sure they'll become good Americans (aka Repubs.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984296</id>
	<title>Re:That's disappointing, but...</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1265052360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think a family is analogous to a nation of hundreds of millions? Canceling a space program that could bring mankind to the moon, mars and beyond would produce a shitload of useful science and technology, it would inspire the whole nation, energize it and contribute to pulling it out from the doldrums. Your comparison of such a program with a set of golf clubs tells a lot about your contempt for science and space exploration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think a family is analogous to a nation of hundreds of millions ?
Canceling a space program that could bring mankind to the moon , mars and beyond would produce a shitload of useful science and technology , it would inspire the whole nation , energize it and contribute to pulling it out from the doldrums .
Your comparison of such a program with a set of golf clubs tells a lot about your contempt for science and space exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think a family is analogous to a nation of hundreds of millions?
Canceling a space program that could bring mankind to the moon, mars and beyond would produce a shitload of useful science and technology, it would inspire the whole nation, energize it and contribute to pulling it out from the doldrums.
Your comparison of such a program with a set of golf clubs tells a lot about your contempt for science and space exploration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30988578</id>
	<title>Gmd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA will increase its support for transformative research that can enable a broad range of NASA missions. <a href="http://usspost.com/nasa-budgetnasa-budget-2010-nasa-budget-2011-www-usspost-com-4791/" title="usspost.com" rel="nofollow"> NASA missions </a> [usspost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA will increase its support for transformative research that can enable a broad range of NASA missions .
NASA missions [ usspost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA will increase its support for transformative research that can enable a broad range of NASA missions.
NASA missions  [usspost.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30989438</id>
	<title>Post-Success Cancelation</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1265028960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA has *always* started up more programs than it could ever finish, so there'd be a good chance of what would eventually be needed already coming down the pipe. Add to the NASA developments all those designs put together by aero-corps most of which didn't get used. It ends up looking like a set up when something tests out well and then gets canceled. Being successful and being able to fit future requirements are not the same thing, and until a good test, they can't tell what the operating parmeters are for the vehicle. Also in this category are most of the best designs, those done around the edges of the aerospace industries. An example of these is the entire line of a multi-project program's worth of vehicles designed by Robert Truax <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/astros/truax.htm" title="astronautix.com">http://www.astronautix.com/astros/truax.htm</a> [astronautix.com] and <a href="http://neverworld.net/truax/" title="neverworld.net">http://neverworld.net/truax/</a> [neverworld.net]</p><p>But the biggest culprit is of course programs developed to fulfill the goals of one administration, which get cut by the next or subsequent administrations. If NASA developed programs based on 'stair-step' continual expansion (making each step a requirement for the next) rather than political grandstanding, progress might be slower in gross effect but with far less net cost and effort.</p><p>As to 'why cancel the Ares and then start investigating a new heavy-lifter', first, Ares is not a new anything -- it's a hack built from shuttle components, meaning most of the technology is quite old (not to say that's bad, but it could be better). Second, the same could be said every few years for the last half century. Third, NASA and all the companies it feeds through its technology transfer program require constant renewal of R&amp;D program direction in order to invent a whole new pile of golly-gee-whiz tech, and this is what NASA does best.</p><p>Take a look at the line of canceled and never-started projects derived from, and intended to expand, the Apollo lunar program. This is the best example of cancels soon after if not before development began. Follow the links below from the index page at <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/" title="astronautix.com">http://www.astronautix.com/</a> [astronautix.com]</p><p>Pre- and post-lunar Apollo (and other vehicle) variants:<br>Apollo Odds and Mods<br>Project Horizon<br>Project Lunex<br>Lunar Gemini</p><p>Saturn developement beyond initial lunar landings:<br>Saturn V</p><p>Lunar exploration and expansion :<br>Manned Lunar Bases<br>Manned Circumlunar<br>Manned Lunar Landers<br>Manned Lunar Flyers<br>Manned Lunar Rovers<br>Manned Lunar Orbiters</p><p>And a complete program already well into development, with success fairly assured. Had this not been canceled, Armstrong might still have been first one the moon, but definitely would have been the first to fly (not just ride) an orbital space plane. An extremely well documented example of cancelmania:<br>X-20/23/24 Dynasoar</p><p>One project NASA may presently be regretting not following up on was an improved suspension and steering design for the Mars rovers. I'm not fully up on the details, but it would almost certainly have allowed Spirit to dig itself out of the sand. Apparently the story of its development and rejection was covered by some science-based talk show around 10 years ago. Some of the reasons they didn't pick up on it at the time made sense; the design they used was so far along that changing it would have cost much more, and being developed by an individual rather than the design team, training to bring them up to speed just to evaluate it would have taken too long. However, since the alternative design was produced by a college sophomore and was clearly better than that which was produced by an entire team, the fact that they resented being shown up by a kid is a distinct possibility. That's supported by the fact that his performance report was glowing, yet when he went to check out his supervisor told him "Don't bother to ask for a letter of reommendation". Turned out he didn't need one for his next summer job, at the National Ignition Facility. We're waiting to see whether they're using his design on Curiosity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA has * always * started up more programs than it could ever finish , so there 'd be a good chance of what would eventually be needed already coming down the pipe .
Add to the NASA developments all those designs put together by aero-corps most of which did n't get used .
It ends up looking like a set up when something tests out well and then gets canceled .
Being successful and being able to fit future requirements are not the same thing , and until a good test , they ca n't tell what the operating parmeters are for the vehicle .
Also in this category are most of the best designs , those done around the edges of the aerospace industries .
An example of these is the entire line of a multi-project program 's worth of vehicles designed by Robert Truax http : //www.astronautix.com/astros/truax.htm [ astronautix.com ] and http : //neverworld.net/truax/ [ neverworld.net ] But the biggest culprit is of course programs developed to fulfill the goals of one administration , which get cut by the next or subsequent administrations .
If NASA developed programs based on 'stair-step ' continual expansion ( making each step a requirement for the next ) rather than political grandstanding , progress might be slower in gross effect but with far less net cost and effort.As to 'why cancel the Ares and then start investigating a new heavy-lifter ' , first , Ares is not a new anything -- it 's a hack built from shuttle components , meaning most of the technology is quite old ( not to say that 's bad , but it could be better ) .
Second , the same could be said every few years for the last half century .
Third , NASA and all the companies it feeds through its technology transfer program require constant renewal of R&amp;D program direction in order to invent a whole new pile of golly-gee-whiz tech , and this is what NASA does best.Take a look at the line of canceled and never-started projects derived from , and intended to expand , the Apollo lunar program .
This is the best example of cancels soon after if not before development began .
Follow the links below from the index page at http : //www.astronautix.com/ [ astronautix.com ] Pre- and post-lunar Apollo ( and other vehicle ) variants : Apollo Odds and ModsProject HorizonProject LunexLunar GeminiSaturn developement beyond initial lunar landings : Saturn VLunar exploration and expansion : Manned Lunar BasesManned CircumlunarManned Lunar LandersManned Lunar FlyersManned Lunar RoversManned Lunar OrbitersAnd a complete program already well into development , with success fairly assured .
Had this not been canceled , Armstrong might still have been first one the moon , but definitely would have been the first to fly ( not just ride ) an orbital space plane .
An extremely well documented example of cancelmania : X-20/23/24 DynasoarOne project NASA may presently be regretting not following up on was an improved suspension and steering design for the Mars rovers .
I 'm not fully up on the details , but it would almost certainly have allowed Spirit to dig itself out of the sand .
Apparently the story of its development and rejection was covered by some science-based talk show around 10 years ago .
Some of the reasons they did n't pick up on it at the time made sense ; the design they used was so far along that changing it would have cost much more , and being developed by an individual rather than the design team , training to bring them up to speed just to evaluate it would have taken too long .
However , since the alternative design was produced by a college sophomore and was clearly better than that which was produced by an entire team , the fact that they resented being shown up by a kid is a distinct possibility .
That 's supported by the fact that his performance report was glowing , yet when he went to check out his supervisor told him " Do n't bother to ask for a letter of reommendation " .
Turned out he did n't need one for his next summer job , at the National Ignition Facility .
We 're waiting to see whether they 're using his design on Curiosity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA has *always* started up more programs than it could ever finish, so there'd be a good chance of what would eventually be needed already coming down the pipe.
Add to the NASA developments all those designs put together by aero-corps most of which didn't get used.
It ends up looking like a set up when something tests out well and then gets canceled.
Being successful and being able to fit future requirements are not the same thing, and until a good test, they can't tell what the operating parmeters are for the vehicle.
Also in this category are most of the best designs, those done around the edges of the aerospace industries.
An example of these is the entire line of a multi-project program's worth of vehicles designed by Robert Truax http://www.astronautix.com/astros/truax.htm [astronautix.com] and http://neverworld.net/truax/ [neverworld.net]But the biggest culprit is of course programs developed to fulfill the goals of one administration, which get cut by the next or subsequent administrations.
If NASA developed programs based on 'stair-step' continual expansion (making each step a requirement for the next) rather than political grandstanding, progress might be slower in gross effect but with far less net cost and effort.As to 'why cancel the Ares and then start investigating a new heavy-lifter', first, Ares is not a new anything -- it's a hack built from shuttle components, meaning most of the technology is quite old (not to say that's bad, but it could be better).
Second, the same could be said every few years for the last half century.
Third, NASA and all the companies it feeds through its technology transfer program require constant renewal of R&amp;D program direction in order to invent a whole new pile of golly-gee-whiz tech, and this is what NASA does best.Take a look at the line of canceled and never-started projects derived from, and intended to expand, the Apollo lunar program.
This is the best example of cancels soon after if not before development began.
Follow the links below from the index page at http://www.astronautix.com/ [astronautix.com]Pre- and post-lunar Apollo (and other vehicle) variants:Apollo Odds and ModsProject HorizonProject LunexLunar GeminiSaturn developement beyond initial lunar landings:Saturn VLunar exploration and expansion :Manned Lunar BasesManned CircumlunarManned Lunar LandersManned Lunar FlyersManned Lunar RoversManned Lunar OrbitersAnd a complete program already well into development, with success fairly assured.
Had this not been canceled, Armstrong might still have been first one the moon, but definitely would have been the first to fly (not just ride) an orbital space plane.
An extremely well documented example of cancelmania:X-20/23/24 DynasoarOne project NASA may presently be regretting not following up on was an improved suspension and steering design for the Mars rovers.
I'm not fully up on the details, but it would almost certainly have allowed Spirit to dig itself out of the sand.
Apparently the story of its development and rejection was covered by some science-based talk show around 10 years ago.
Some of the reasons they didn't pick up on it at the time made sense; the design they used was so far along that changing it would have cost much more, and being developed by an individual rather than the design team, training to bring them up to speed just to evaluate it would have taken too long.
However, since the alternative design was produced by a college sophomore and was clearly better than that which was produced by an entire team, the fact that they resented being shown up by a kid is a distinct possibility.
That's supported by the fact that his performance report was glowing, yet when he went to check out his supervisor told him "Don't bother to ask for a letter of reommendation".
Turned out he didn't need one for his next summer job, at the National Ignition Facility.
We're waiting to see whether they're using his design on Curiosity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983670</id>
	<title>Capricorn One</title>
	<author>juan2074</author>
	<datestamp>1265049840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did any of those other countries ever make <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">a movie like this</a> [imdb.com]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did any of those other countries ever make a movie like this [ imdb.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did any of those other countries ever make a movie like this [imdb.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982504</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privatizing space doesn't take america out of space. It's actually a change in the right direction. Hell... I'm sure many had the same arguments when manned flight was first discovered and only used by the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privatizing space does n't take america out of space .
It 's actually a change in the right direction .
Hell... I 'm sure many had the same arguments when manned flight was first discovered and only used by the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privatizing space doesn't take america out of space.
It's actually a change in the right direction.
Hell... I'm sure many had the same arguments when manned flight was first discovered and only used by the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984304</id>
	<title>Re:What do we need NASA for now?</title>
	<author>rufty\_tufty</author>
	<datestamp>1265052420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you make 2 assumptions which I believe are false:<br>1) the technology developed by constellation would have been applicable for the average person. It wouldn't; no more anyway than Saturn V was. Constellation was a dead end.<br>2) It would take decades to develop technology of equivalent technology. Nope the problems of getting into space are mainly materials science and economic. If she wants to get into space, then campaign to get Supersonic/Hypersonic Transport back on the table. Unless of course you're willing to go nuclear, then things get much simpler and far cheaper. Either way Constellation would have taken effort away from making space affordable and would have propogated the idea that space must be very expensive and be late and suffer massive overruns. Killing constellation may very well be her only chance to get into space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you make 2 assumptions which I believe are false : 1 ) the technology developed by constellation would have been applicable for the average person .
It would n't ; no more anyway than Saturn V was .
Constellation was a dead end.2 ) It would take decades to develop technology of equivalent technology .
Nope the problems of getting into space are mainly materials science and economic .
If she wants to get into space , then campaign to get Supersonic/Hypersonic Transport back on the table .
Unless of course you 're willing to go nuclear , then things get much simpler and far cheaper .
Either way Constellation would have taken effort away from making space affordable and would have propogated the idea that space must be very expensive and be late and suffer massive overruns .
Killing constellation may very well be her only chance to get into space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you make 2 assumptions which I believe are false:1) the technology developed by constellation would have been applicable for the average person.
It wouldn't; no more anyway than Saturn V was.
Constellation was a dead end.2) It would take decades to develop technology of equivalent technology.
Nope the problems of getting into space are mainly materials science and economic.
If she wants to get into space, then campaign to get Supersonic/Hypersonic Transport back on the table.
Unless of course you're willing to go nuclear, then things get much simpler and far cheaper.
Either way Constellation would have taken effort away from making space affordable and would have propogated the idea that space must be very expensive and be late and suffer massive overruns.
Killing constellation may very well be her only chance to get into space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982860</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Dr. Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1265046600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People often forget that there are other history books being written in other languages and in other countries, and they emphasize slightly different achievements.

</p><p>In North America, you've got to be a history or space buff to know this stuff.  Or a commie!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People often forget that there are other history books being written in other languages and in other countries , and they emphasize slightly different achievements .
In North America , you 've got to be a history or space buff to know this stuff .
Or a commie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People often forget that there are other history books being written in other languages and in other countries, and they emphasize slightly different achievements.
In North America, you've got to be a history or space buff to know this stuff.
Or a commie!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982708</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1265045940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Soviets also put the first satellite in space.</p></div><p>But they didn't put "the first object in space". The first "Man made object in space" by all official records is the German V2 Rocket test number V-4 made on 3 October 1942.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_V-2\_test\_launches" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_V-2\_test\_launches</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>As for the rest of your facts, I would suggest you check them. They may or may not be correct but I'm short on time to fact check them all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Soviets also put the first satellite in space.But they did n't put " the first object in space " .
The first " Man made object in space " by all official records is the German V2 Rocket test number V-4 made on 3 October 1942.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _V-2 \ _test \ _launches [ wikipedia.org ] As for the rest of your facts , I would suggest you check them .
They may or may not be correct but I 'm short on time to fact check them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Soviets also put the first satellite in space.But they didn't put "the first object in space".
The first "Man made object in space" by all official records is the German V2 Rocket test number V-4 made on 3 October 1942.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_V-2\_test\_launches [wikipedia.org]As for the rest of your facts, I would suggest you check them.
They may or may not be correct but I'm short on time to fact check them all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30994878</id>
	<title>Just plain dumb</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1265124660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, a couple of rejoinders:</p><blockquote><div><p>And I'd hazard a guess that it would improve both the economy and health care (through technological advances) if we spent the $900 billion Obama is allocating for HCR on Orion vessels (we could build a fleet of ships the size of Star War's Star Destroyers!).</p></div></blockquote><p>First of all, the "$900B Obama is allocating for HCR" is not, for the most part, taxpayer dollars. Yes, that's the total cost of the program... but much of it actually comes in the form of premiums, excise taxes on insurance products (which would be hard to divert to space exploration), etc. But more importantly:</p><blockquote><div><p>Space Factories. Space Farms. Fleets of Solar Power Satellites. High Energy Risk Free Research Stations. Cities on the Moon. Cities on Mars. Massive Scale Asteroid Belt Mining. Construction and operation of additional vessels outside the Earth's magnetosphere.</p></div></blockquote><p>And to what end? There's simply no reason to build factories, farms, or solar power stations in space, when we can do all of that on earth WITHOUT having to build giant, $130 billion, nuclear-bomb powered rockets. I'm not really sure what you mean by "high energy risk free research stations", but I'm here to tell you... there ain't nothing in life that's risk free. Cities on the moon and Mars? Why? What would people do there? Also, there's nothing in the asteroid belt that we can't get much, much more cheaply on earth, and again, without having to build the aforementioned $130B rockets (not to mention the expense of building freaking FACTORIES in space). If you don't agree, specify what you might mine that would justify the expense. Bear in mind that the asteroids are made of iron, nickel, and silicates. So is earth.</p><blockquote><div><p>Freeman Dyson, group leader on the project, estimated back in the '60s that with conventional nuclear weapons, each launch would cause on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout.</p></div></blockquote><p>A number he pulled out of his ass. Freeman Dyson is not a health professional. </p><blockquote><div><p>Danger to human life was not a reason given for shelving the project - those included lack of mission requirement (no-one in the US Government could think of any reason to put thousands of tons of payload into orbit), the decision to focus on rockets (for the Moon mission) and, ultimately, the signature of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Yeah, and we still don't have the mission requirement. Sure, sending multi-million ton ships into space would be cool. But we can't spend $130B just to do cool things. Finally, bear in mind that Project Orion really never got off the drawing board - there were numerous unsolved engineering problems (ablation of the pusher plate caused by turbulence in the plasma impinging on it, spalling of the pusher plate, etc, etc). Insoluble problems? Probably not (with the exception of that nuclear fallout thing). But you need a reason to do something like this, and frankly, we don't have one. Not at what it would cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , a couple of rejoinders : And I 'd hazard a guess that it would improve both the economy and health care ( through technological advances ) if we spent the $ 900 billion Obama is allocating for HCR on Orion vessels ( we could build a fleet of ships the size of Star War 's Star Destroyers !
) .First of all , the " $ 900B Obama is allocating for HCR " is not , for the most part , taxpayer dollars .
Yes , that 's the total cost of the program... but much of it actually comes in the form of premiums , excise taxes on insurance products ( which would be hard to divert to space exploration ) , etc .
But more importantly : Space Factories .
Space Farms .
Fleets of Solar Power Satellites .
High Energy Risk Free Research Stations .
Cities on the Moon .
Cities on Mars .
Massive Scale Asteroid Belt Mining .
Construction and operation of additional vessels outside the Earth 's magnetosphere.And to what end ?
There 's simply no reason to build factories , farms , or solar power stations in space , when we can do all of that on earth WITHOUT having to build giant , $ 130 billion , nuclear-bomb powered rockets .
I 'm not really sure what you mean by " high energy risk free research stations " , but I 'm here to tell you... there ai n't nothing in life that 's risk free .
Cities on the moon and Mars ?
Why ? What would people do there ?
Also , there 's nothing in the asteroid belt that we ca n't get much , much more cheaply on earth , and again , without having to build the aforementioned $ 130B rockets ( not to mention the expense of building freaking FACTORIES in space ) .
If you do n't agree , specify what you might mine that would justify the expense .
Bear in mind that the asteroids are made of iron , nickel , and silicates .
So is earth.Freeman Dyson , group leader on the project , estimated back in the '60s that with conventional nuclear weapons , each launch would cause on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout.A number he pulled out of his ass .
Freeman Dyson is not a health professional .
Danger to human life was not a reason given for shelving the project - those included lack of mission requirement ( no-one in the US Government could think of any reason to put thousands of tons of payload into orbit ) , the decision to focus on rockets ( for the Moon mission ) and , ultimately , the signature of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963 .
Yeah , and we still do n't have the mission requirement .
Sure , sending multi-million ton ships into space would be cool .
But we ca n't spend $ 130B just to do cool things .
Finally , bear in mind that Project Orion really never got off the drawing board - there were numerous unsolved engineering problems ( ablation of the pusher plate caused by turbulence in the plasma impinging on it , spalling of the pusher plate , etc , etc ) .
Insoluble problems ?
Probably not ( with the exception of that nuclear fallout thing ) .
But you need a reason to do something like this , and frankly , we do n't have one .
Not at what it would cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, a couple of rejoinders:And I'd hazard a guess that it would improve both the economy and health care (through technological advances) if we spent the $900 billion Obama is allocating for HCR on Orion vessels (we could build a fleet of ships the size of Star War's Star Destroyers!
).First of all, the "$900B Obama is allocating for HCR" is not, for the most part, taxpayer dollars.
Yes, that's the total cost of the program... but much of it actually comes in the form of premiums, excise taxes on insurance products (which would be hard to divert to space exploration), etc.
But more importantly:Space Factories.
Space Farms.
Fleets of Solar Power Satellites.
High Energy Risk Free Research Stations.
Cities on the Moon.
Cities on Mars.
Massive Scale Asteroid Belt Mining.
Construction and operation of additional vessels outside the Earth's magnetosphere.And to what end?
There's simply no reason to build factories, farms, or solar power stations in space, when we can do all of that on earth WITHOUT having to build giant, $130 billion, nuclear-bomb powered rockets.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "high energy risk free research stations", but I'm here to tell you... there ain't nothing in life that's risk free.
Cities on the moon and Mars?
Why? What would people do there?
Also, there's nothing in the asteroid belt that we can't get much, much more cheaply on earth, and again, without having to build the aforementioned $130B rockets (not to mention the expense of building freaking FACTORIES in space).
If you don't agree, specify what you might mine that would justify the expense.
Bear in mind that the asteroids are made of iron, nickel, and silicates.
So is earth.Freeman Dyson, group leader on the project, estimated back in the '60s that with conventional nuclear weapons, each launch would cause on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout.A number he pulled out of his ass.
Freeman Dyson is not a health professional.
Danger to human life was not a reason given for shelving the project - those included lack of mission requirement (no-one in the US Government could think of any reason to put thousands of tons of payload into orbit), the decision to focus on rockets (for the Moon mission) and, ultimately, the signature of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963.
Yeah, and we still don't have the mission requirement.
Sure, sending multi-million ton ships into space would be cool.
But we can't spend $130B just to do cool things.
Finally, bear in mind that Project Orion really never got off the drawing board - there were numerous unsolved engineering problems (ablation of the pusher plate caused by turbulence in the plasma impinging on it, spalling of the pusher plate, etc, etc).
Insoluble problems?
Probably not (with the exception of that nuclear fallout thing).
But you need a reason to do something like this, and frankly, we don't have one.
Not at what it would cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983586</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the original Exploration plan *did* close within the current budget.  Cost growth and schedule delays made it grow beyond the budget.  Also, Obama isn't cancelling the program to save money... he is cancelling the program so that those funds can be used for *other* things closer to his core agenda (namely earth observation and climate science missions).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the original Exploration plan * did * close within the current budget .
Cost growth and schedule delays made it grow beyond the budget .
Also , Obama is n't cancelling the program to save money... he is cancelling the program so that those funds can be used for * other * things closer to his core agenda ( namely earth observation and climate science missions ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the original Exploration plan *did* close within the current budget.
Cost growth and schedule delays made it grow beyond the budget.
Also, Obama isn't cancelling the program to save money... he is cancelling the program so that those funds can be used for *other* things closer to his core agenda (namely earth observation and climate science missions).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982452</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1265044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Put the moon rover up on Craigslist for $20M, with a 1 month limit on pickup time before the buyer loses their money and NASA re-lists the rover. It will be a win-win: either they raise the needed money to keep all of their programs, or someone will develop a vehicle to get to the moon and back so NASA doesn't have to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Put the moon rover up on Craigslist for $ 20M , with a 1 month limit on pickup time before the buyer loses their money and NASA re-lists the rover .
It will be a win-win : either they raise the needed money to keep all of their programs , or someone will develop a vehicle to get to the moon and back so NASA does n't have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put the moon rover up on Craigslist for $20M, with a 1 month limit on pickup time before the buyer loses their money and NASA re-lists the rover.
It will be a win-win: either they raise the needed money to keep all of their programs, or someone will develop a vehicle to get to the moon and back so NASA doesn't have to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984590</id>
	<title>Space libertarians....</title>
	<author>benjfowler</author>
	<datestamp>1265053740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... this is your chance to shine.</p><p>Quite a few people out there have loudly, and at every opportunity, claimed that if only the government were to get off everybody's backs, and stopped holding the John Galts of the world back, then Americans would be walking on Mars by now.</p><p>Well, here's your big chance.  Obama's just given you an unprecedented chance to show the world how free markets can solve the problems that the evil dead hand of Big Government can't.</p><p>We'll all be rooting for you to succeed, of course.  But if, of course, reality fails to live up to the rhetoric -- and the libertarians are made to eat crow -- we all look forward to some peace and quiet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... this is your chance to shine.Quite a few people out there have loudly , and at every opportunity , claimed that if only the government were to get off everybody 's backs , and stopped holding the John Galts of the world back , then Americans would be walking on Mars by now.Well , here 's your big chance .
Obama 's just given you an unprecedented chance to show the world how free markets can solve the problems that the evil dead hand of Big Government ca n't.We 'll all be rooting for you to succeed , of course .
But if , of course , reality fails to live up to the rhetoric -- and the libertarians are made to eat crow -- we all look forward to some peace and quiet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... this is your chance to shine.Quite a few people out there have loudly, and at every opportunity, claimed that if only the government were to get off everybody's backs, and stopped holding the John Galts of the world back, then Americans would be walking on Mars by now.Well, here's your big chance.
Obama's just given you an unprecedented chance to show the world how free markets can solve the problems that the evil dead hand of Big Government can't.We'll all be rooting for you to succeed, of course.
But if, of course, reality fails to live up to the rhetoric -- and the libertarians are made to eat crow -- we all look forward to some peace and quiet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982736</id>
	<title>other fishes</title>
	<author>karlzt</author>
	<datestamp>1265046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"there are other fishes in the sea"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" there are other fishes in the sea "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"there are other fishes in the sea"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985702</id>
	<title>cool NASA techs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer the hot NASA techs anyway... you know... exploring deep spaces... presenting big rockets, full of high explosive material.............. shooting big rockets into deep spaces</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer the hot NASA techs anyway... you know... exploring deep spaces... presenting big rockets , full of high explosive material.............. shooting big rockets into deep spaces</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer the hot NASA techs anyway... you know... exploring deep spaces... presenting big rockets, full of high explosive material.............. shooting big rockets into deep spaces</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985080</id>
	<title>no money</title>
	<author>linu77</author>
	<datestamp>1265055780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don`t have money to explore space but they do have money to blow up poor people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They don ` t have money to explore space but they do have money to blow up poor people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don`t have money to explore space but they do have money to blow up poor people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983758</id>
	<title>The myth of private industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like, I've pretty much had it up to here with this myth of "private industry" as the salvation of everything.  Banks were private industry, and they screwed the pooch not once, but three times in the last 30 years, to the tune of multiple national, no, worldwide economic meltdowns, hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts, and for what?  So we can have the pleasure of driving ourselves into the ground with more debt?</p><p>By contrast, NASA put a man on the moon.</p><p>I'm going NASA over private industry, any day of the week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like , I 've pretty much had it up to here with this myth of " private industry " as the salvation of everything .
Banks were private industry , and they screwed the pooch not once , but three times in the last 30 years , to the tune of multiple national , no , worldwide economic meltdowns , hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts , and for what ?
So we can have the pleasure of driving ourselves into the ground with more debt ? By contrast , NASA put a man on the moon.I 'm going NASA over private industry , any day of the week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like, I've pretty much had it up to here with this myth of "private industry" as the salvation of everything.
Banks were private industry, and they screwed the pooch not once, but three times in the last 30 years, to the tune of multiple national, no, worldwide economic meltdowns, hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts, and for what?
So we can have the pleasure of driving ourselves into the ground with more debt?By contrast, NASA put a man on the moon.I'm going NASA over private industry, any day of the week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983406</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Morty</author>
	<datestamp>1265048760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technology transfer of NASA tech to private industry already happens.  Google "NASA commercialization" and "NASA technology transfer" for more info.  For example, here is the <a href="http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/" title="nasa.gov"> NASA spinoff homepage</a> [nasa.gov].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technology transfer of NASA tech to private industry already happens .
Google " NASA commercialization " and " NASA technology transfer " for more info .
For example , here is the NASA spinoff homepage [ nasa.gov ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technology transfer of NASA tech to private industry already happens.
Google "NASA commercialization" and "NASA technology transfer" for more info.
For example, here is the  NASA spinoff homepage [nasa.gov].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>truthsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1265042940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe NASA could sell or license some of this "cool tech" to private industry.  The private sector would have more to work with and the space agency would get more money for the projects they are left to focus on.  And maybe some of the specialists at NASA could fork their own companies with the technology, keeping more people employed.</p><p>Maybe they already do this.  But the tone of the post makes it sound like they don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe NASA could sell or license some of this " cool tech " to private industry .
The private sector would have more to work with and the space agency would get more money for the projects they are left to focus on .
And maybe some of the specialists at NASA could fork their own companies with the technology , keeping more people employed.Maybe they already do this .
But the tone of the post makes it sound like they do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe NASA could sell or license some of this "cool tech" to private industry.
The private sector would have more to work with and the space agency would get more money for the projects they are left to focus on.
And maybe some of the specialists at NASA could fork their own companies with the technology, keeping more people employed.Maybe they already do this.
But the tone of the post makes it sound like they don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984742</id>
	<title>It is all a cause and affect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265054520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama gets hammered for not putting health care debate on CNN.  So, he takes it out on the people that started the whole satellite idea. Just that simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama gets hammered for not putting health care debate on CNN .
So , he takes it out on the people that started the whole satellite idea .
Just that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama gets hammered for not putting health care debate on CNN.
So, he takes it out on the people that started the whole satellite idea.
Just that simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987036</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, obviously the answer is we need the Soviet Union back. As well as Nazi Germany.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , obviously the answer is we need the Soviet Union back .
As well as Nazi Germany .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, obviously the answer is we need the Soviet Union back.
As well as Nazi Germany.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983636</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1265049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China will have manned capability equivalent to Russia's in a decade or less. It will take that much time at least before India or Japan has capability comparable to what China has <i>now</i> (which is roughly equivalent to the end of the Mercury Program/beginning of the Gemini Program). The important thing is that the Russians have never done anything with manned flight outside of LEO, whereas the Chinese have stated goals. Whether or not they follow through is the question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China will have manned capability equivalent to Russia 's in a decade or less .
It will take that much time at least before India or Japan has capability comparable to what China has now ( which is roughly equivalent to the end of the Mercury Program/beginning of the Gemini Program ) .
The important thing is that the Russians have never done anything with manned flight outside of LEO , whereas the Chinese have stated goals .
Whether or not they follow through is the question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China will have manned capability equivalent to Russia's in a decade or less.
It will take that much time at least before India or Japan has capability comparable to what China has now (which is roughly equivalent to the end of the Mercury Program/beginning of the Gemini Program).
The important thing is that the Russians have never done anything with manned flight outside of LEO, whereas the Chinese have stated goals.
Whether or not they follow through is the question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982702</id>
	<title>Re:That's disappointing, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe we should let useless people and morons die</p><p>just take safety labels off stuff and stop paying people for nothing and we could probably set up a base in Mars in ten years</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe we should let useless people and morons diejust take safety labels off stuff and stop paying people for nothing and we could probably set up a base in Mars in ten years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe we should let useless people and morons diejust take safety labels off stuff and stop paying people for nothing and we could probably set up a base in Mars in ten years</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987040</id>
	<title>Re:What do we need NASA for now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't you as a parent have the foresight to also think about who will be paying off our national debt?</p><p>And if she does end up flipping burgers it sure as hell won't be due to cancelled NASA programs since if her motivation was so fragile that it rested on a single dream like that, any of the plethora of unavoidable disappointments in life will kill it no matter what programs NASA has. You're very nearsighted if you haven't taken that into account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't you as a parent have the foresight to also think about who will be paying off our national debt ? And if she does end up flipping burgers it sure as hell wo n't be due to cancelled NASA programs since if her motivation was so fragile that it rested on a single dream like that , any of the plethora of unavoidable disappointments in life will kill it no matter what programs NASA has .
You 're very nearsighted if you have n't taken that into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't you as a parent have the foresight to also think about who will be paying off our national debt?And if she does end up flipping burgers it sure as hell won't be due to cancelled NASA programs since if her motivation was so fragile that it rested on a single dream like that, any of the plethora of unavoidable disappointments in life will kill it no matter what programs NASA has.
You're very nearsighted if you haven't taken that into account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30990468</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>KORfan</author>
	<datestamp>1265035620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to recall that NASA is required to make technological developments available to industry already, unless they're restricted for national security reasons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to recall that NASA is required to make technological developments available to industry already , unless they 're restricted for national security reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to recall that NASA is required to make technological developments available to industry already, unless they're restricted for national security reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982628</id>
	<title>Check your info...</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1265045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look up the altitude of some A-4 flights, a very German rocket. "Space" doesn't mean orbit, it simply means, well, space.</p><p>Also, look up Luna 9, the first moon landing. And Lunokhods (yeah, I somehow subssribe to "rover = unmanned", as you said yourself US ones were moon buggies)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look up the altitude of some A-4 flights , a very German rocket .
" Space " does n't mean orbit , it simply means , well , space.Also , look up Luna 9 , the first moon landing .
And Lunokhods ( yeah , I somehow subssribe to " rover = unmanned " , as you said yourself US ones were moon buggies )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look up the altitude of some A-4 flights, a very German rocket.
"Space" doesn't mean orbit, it simply means, well, space.Also, look up Luna 9, the first moon landing.
And Lunokhods (yeah, I somehow subssribe to "rover = unmanned", as you said yourself US ones were moon buggies)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985254</id>
	<title>Re:That's disappointing, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You had me until balanced budget.</p><p>Surely you aren't hanging on to the fantasy that this administration is going to even attempt to balance the budget?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You had me until balanced budget.Surely you are n't hanging on to the fantasy that this administration is going to even attempt to balance the budget ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had me until balanced budget.Surely you aren't hanging on to the fantasy that this administration is going to even attempt to balance the budget?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982550</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm...<br>1st object in space - Germany<br>1st Earth satellite - Soviet Union<br>1st human in orbit - Soviet Union<br>1st photograph of far side of the Moon - Soviet Union<br>1st landing on the Moon - Soviet Union<br>1st rover on another body - Soviet Union<br>1st large biological specimens outside LEO (around the Moon, in a Zond version of Soyuz...turtles<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;p ) and brought back safely - Soviet Union<br>1st landing on Venus - Soviet Union<br>1st landing on Mars - Soviet Union<br>1st space station - Soviet Union</p><p>Its so WEIRD man, I could have sworn he was talking about what we learned about earth! not the moon, or Venus.. or Mars... so weird man</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm...1st object in space - Germany1st Earth satellite - Soviet Union1st human in orbit - Soviet Union1st photograph of far side of the Moon - Soviet Union1st landing on the Moon - Soviet Union1st rover on another body - Soviet Union1st large biological specimens outside LEO ( around the Moon , in a Zond version of Soyuz...turtles ; p ) and brought back safely - Soviet Union1st landing on Venus - Soviet Union1st landing on Mars - Soviet Union1st space station - Soviet UnionIts so WEIRD man , I could have sworn he was talking about what we learned about earth !
not the moon , or Venus.. or Mars... so weird man</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm...1st object in space - Germany1st Earth satellite - Soviet Union1st human in orbit - Soviet Union1st photograph of far side of the Moon - Soviet Union1st landing on the Moon - Soviet Union1st rover on another body - Soviet Union1st large biological specimens outside LEO (around the Moon, in a Zond version of Soyuz...turtles ;p ) and brought back safely - Soviet Union1st landing on Venus - Soviet Union1st landing on Mars - Soviet Union1st space station - Soviet UnionIts so WEIRD man, I could have sworn he was talking about what we learned about earth!
not the moon, or Venus.. or Mars... so weird man</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth....</p></div><p>Hmmm...<br>1st object in space - Germany<br>1st Earth satellite - Soviet Union<br>1st human in orbit - Soviet Union<br>1st photograph of far side of the Moon - Soviet Union<br>1st landing on the Moon - Soviet Union<br>1st rover on another body - Soviet Union<br>1st large biological specimens outside LEO (around the Moon, in a Zond version of Soyuz...turtles<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;p ) and brought back safely - Soviet Union<br>1st landing on Venus - Soviet Union<br>1st landing on Mars - Soviet Union<br>1st space station - Soviet Union (BTW, the Russian part of ISS was supposed to be called "Mir 2")</p><p>And so on. In the meantime Europe could afford to play the game and they ended up being the biggest, I think, commercial launch operator(?). Or of the biggest anyway. With their ATV they are a small step from having manned spaceflight capability. China has one already, India is working on it, Japan has some plans too, and all are quite active in Solar System exploration. Plus you have private companies.</p><p>I think we'll be fine</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...If it was n't for NASA we would n't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth....Hmmm...1st object in space - Germany1st Earth satellite - Soviet Union1st human in orbit - Soviet Union1st photograph of far side of the Moon - Soviet Union1st landing on the Moon - Soviet Union1st rover on another body - Soviet Union1st large biological specimens outside LEO ( around the Moon , in a Zond version of Soyuz...turtles ; p ) and brought back safely - Soviet Union1st landing on Venus - Soviet Union1st landing on Mars - Soviet Union1st space station - Soviet Union ( BTW , the Russian part of ISS was supposed to be called " Mir 2 " ) And so on .
In the meantime Europe could afford to play the game and they ended up being the biggest , I think , commercial launch operator ( ? ) .
Or of the biggest anyway .
With their ATV they are a small step from having manned spaceflight capability .
China has one already , India is working on it , Japan has some plans too , and all are quite active in Solar System exploration .
Plus you have private companies.I think we 'll be fine</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth....Hmmm...1st object in space - Germany1st Earth satellite - Soviet Union1st human in orbit - Soviet Union1st photograph of far side of the Moon - Soviet Union1st landing on the Moon - Soviet Union1st rover on another body - Soviet Union1st large biological specimens outside LEO (around the Moon, in a Zond version of Soyuz...turtles ;p ) and brought back safely - Soviet Union1st landing on Venus - Soviet Union1st landing on Mars - Soviet Union1st space station - Soviet Union (BTW, the Russian part of ISS was supposed to be called "Mir 2")And so on.
In the meantime Europe could afford to play the game and they ended up being the biggest, I think, commercial launch operator(?).
Or of the biggest anyway.
With their ATV they are a small step from having manned spaceflight capability.
China has one already, India is working on it, Japan has some plans too, and all are quite active in Solar System exploration.
Plus you have private companies.I think we'll be fine
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30989780</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>cyberfringe</author>
	<datestamp>1265031000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I beg to differ.  I was an inside observer of Exploration and the Constellation program from the beginning and later a technical manager participant (I am no longer with NASA).  It was obvious from the very beginning that the Constellation program would NOT fit within the NASA multi-year budget.  The program was sold on "best case" rosy predictions and a bet that more money would be coming down the line between FY09 and FY11.  A "bathtub" was forecast and it worried every manager for years. Still, the attitude at NASA's manned spaceflight centers was "if you need more FTEs [full time equivalents, i.e., people], they bring them right out." A true quote I wrote down at the time.  The debate among senior management was whether the shortfall would be a $3 billion or $6 billion or $9 billion shortfall (over several years). The cost growth and schedule delays were foreseen but could not be acknowledged or the program would have become politically unacceptable.  The plans were broken from the beginning and believe me it was very frustrating to be part of it.  The Augustine commission just said what everybody knew but no NASA-insider could say without losing their job:  "The emperor has no clothes".</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I beg to differ .
I was an inside observer of Exploration and the Constellation program from the beginning and later a technical manager participant ( I am no longer with NASA ) .
It was obvious from the very beginning that the Constellation program would NOT fit within the NASA multi-year budget .
The program was sold on " best case " rosy predictions and a bet that more money would be coming down the line between FY09 and FY11 .
A " bathtub " was forecast and it worried every manager for years .
Still , the attitude at NASA 's manned spaceflight centers was " if you need more FTEs [ full time equivalents , i.e. , people ] , they bring them right out .
" A true quote I wrote down at the time .
The debate among senior management was whether the shortfall would be a $ 3 billion or $ 6 billion or $ 9 billion shortfall ( over several years ) .
The cost growth and schedule delays were foreseen but could not be acknowledged or the program would have become politically unacceptable .
The plans were broken from the beginning and believe me it was very frustrating to be part of it .
The Augustine commission just said what everybody knew but no NASA-insider could say without losing their job : " The emperor has no clothes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I beg to differ.
I was an inside observer of Exploration and the Constellation program from the beginning and later a technical manager participant (I am no longer with NASA).
It was obvious from the very beginning that the Constellation program would NOT fit within the NASA multi-year budget.
The program was sold on "best case" rosy predictions and a bet that more money would be coming down the line between FY09 and FY11.
A "bathtub" was forecast and it worried every manager for years.
Still, the attitude at NASA's manned spaceflight centers was "if you need more FTEs [full time equivalents, i.e., people], they bring them right out.
" A true quote I wrote down at the time.
The debate among senior management was whether the shortfall would be a $3 billion or $6 billion or $9 billion shortfall (over several years).
The cost growth and schedule delays were foreseen but could not be acknowledged or the program would have become politically unacceptable.
The plans were broken from the beginning and believe me it was very frustrating to be part of it.
The Augustine commission just said what everybody knew but no NASA-insider could say without losing their job:  "The emperor has no clothes".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982474</id>
	<title>Spendorama...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is really gutting useful projects.</p><p>Maybe the Air Force and/or Navy will pick up the Ares V as they'll be needing heavy lift capacity outside of commercial corporations(and Deltas), along with some of those other projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is really gutting useful projects.Maybe the Air Force and/or Navy will pick up the Ares V as they 'll be needing heavy lift capacity outside of commercial corporations ( and Deltas ) , along with some of those other projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is really gutting useful projects.Maybe the Air Force and/or Navy will pick up the Ares V as they'll be needing heavy lift capacity outside of commercial corporations(and Deltas), along with some of those other projects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982404</id>
	<title>wrong</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1265044800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's all speculation until someone reads the budget and the new policy is announced.   Now that that's out of the way...</p><p>Heavy Lift:  There's an understanding that we <i>need</i> heavy lift.  It looks like a 200mT launcher is out of the question for now; but, we have plenty of experience, thanks to the ISS, in assembline large structures in space.  So, the question becomes what form does an HLV take:  A Shuttle Derived (Jupiter) derivative or an amped up Atlas / Delta derivative?  Either could ultimately reach the 100-150mT range.  The Shuttle Derived gets there faster using existing tooling.</p><p>Composite launch vehicle:  Let's assume, for argument sake, that ULA is one of the suppliers of the "taxi" service.  Lockheed, who is one of the two ULA parent companies, and who supplies the Atlas 5 launch vehicle, is building the Orion CEV for NASA.  If ULA <i>does</i> supply the launch vehicle, what crew vehicle do you suppose they'll use?  Perhaps the one they already have the tooling for?  The one that's already a NASA approved design?  I think so.</p><p>Inflatable structures:  That technology was sold by NASA to Bigelow Aerospace, who then developed it further and did some limited testing in space LEO.  NASA was going to incorporate Bigelow's work into their habitats.  If NASA drops it, for now, Bigelow appears to have plans to continue the work.  They've booked a Falcon 9 flight for 2014.  </p><p>Lunar descent engine:  What made that engine interesting was the use of LNG/LOX as a fuel.  It worked.  Well.  That's likely to find further use down the line; but, I can't speculate where.</p><p>The lunar specific stuff is toast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's all speculation until someone reads the budget and the new policy is announced .
Now that that 's out of the way...Heavy Lift : There 's an understanding that we need heavy lift .
It looks like a 200mT launcher is out of the question for now ; but , we have plenty of experience , thanks to the ISS , in assembline large structures in space .
So , the question becomes what form does an HLV take : A Shuttle Derived ( Jupiter ) derivative or an amped up Atlas / Delta derivative ?
Either could ultimately reach the 100-150mT range .
The Shuttle Derived gets there faster using existing tooling.Composite launch vehicle : Let 's assume , for argument sake , that ULA is one of the suppliers of the " taxi " service .
Lockheed , who is one of the two ULA parent companies , and who supplies the Atlas 5 launch vehicle , is building the Orion CEV for NASA .
If ULA does supply the launch vehicle , what crew vehicle do you suppose they 'll use ?
Perhaps the one they already have the tooling for ?
The one that 's already a NASA approved design ?
I think so.Inflatable structures : That technology was sold by NASA to Bigelow Aerospace , who then developed it further and did some limited testing in space LEO .
NASA was going to incorporate Bigelow 's work into their habitats .
If NASA drops it , for now , Bigelow appears to have plans to continue the work .
They 've booked a Falcon 9 flight for 2014 .
Lunar descent engine : What made that engine interesting was the use of LNG/LOX as a fuel .
It worked .
Well. That 's likely to find further use down the line ; but , I ca n't speculate where.The lunar specific stuff is toast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's all speculation until someone reads the budget and the new policy is announced.
Now that that's out of the way...Heavy Lift:  There's an understanding that we need heavy lift.
It looks like a 200mT launcher is out of the question for now; but, we have plenty of experience, thanks to the ISS, in assembline large structures in space.
So, the question becomes what form does an HLV take:  A Shuttle Derived (Jupiter) derivative or an amped up Atlas / Delta derivative?
Either could ultimately reach the 100-150mT range.
The Shuttle Derived gets there faster using existing tooling.Composite launch vehicle:  Let's assume, for argument sake, that ULA is one of the suppliers of the "taxi" service.
Lockheed, who is one of the two ULA parent companies, and who supplies the Atlas 5 launch vehicle, is building the Orion CEV for NASA.
If ULA does supply the launch vehicle, what crew vehicle do you suppose they'll use?
Perhaps the one they already have the tooling for?
The one that's already a NASA approved design?
I think so.Inflatable structures:  That technology was sold by NASA to Bigelow Aerospace, who then developed it further and did some limited testing in space LEO.
NASA was going to incorporate Bigelow's work into their habitats.
If NASA drops it, for now, Bigelow appears to have plans to continue the work.
They've booked a Falcon 9 flight for 2014.
Lunar descent engine:  What made that engine interesting was the use of LNG/LOX as a fuel.
It worked.
Well.  That's likely to find further use down the line; but, I can't speculate where.The lunar specific stuff is toast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30990234</id>
	<title>Spectacularly bad decision</title>
	<author>amightywind</author>
	<datestamp>1265033820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another spectacularly bad policy decision by Obama. But like his policy to coddle war criminals, this one won't stand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another spectacularly bad policy decision by Obama .
But like his policy to coddle war criminals , this one wo n't stand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another spectacularly bad policy decision by Obama.
But like his policy to coddle war criminals, this one won't stand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982740</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>oh2</author>
	<datestamp>1265046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are wrong, Sir.

German A-4 rockets, better known as v-2, reached outer space as early as the forties, making them first man made objects in space. The Soviet Lunokhod 1 landed on the moon in november 1970, the first use of a lunar rover. Apollo 15 was the first American use of a rover on the moon, nine months later. In fact, the soviet space program landed a probe on the moon in 1959, the Luna 2.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong , Sir .
German A-4 rockets , better known as v-2 , reached outer space as early as the forties , making them first man made objects in space .
The Soviet Lunokhod 1 landed on the moon in november 1970 , the first use of a lunar rover .
Apollo 15 was the first American use of a rover on the moon , nine months later .
In fact , the soviet space program landed a probe on the moon in 1959 , the Luna 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong, Sir.
German A-4 rockets, better known as v-2, reached outer space as early as the forties, making them first man made objects in space.
The Soviet Lunokhod 1 landed on the moon in november 1970, the first use of a lunar rover.
Apollo 15 was the first American use of a rover on the moon, nine months later.
In fact, the soviet space program landed a probe on the moon in 1959, the Luna 2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983462</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1265049000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>The inflatable structures are able to handle projectiles better than the stiff walled structures since they have some give to them and can disperse the energy across a larger area.  The fact that they pack well is just bonus.</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>The inflatable structures are able to handle projectiles better than the stiff walled structures since they have some give to them and can disperse the energy across a larger area .
The fact that they pack well is just bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The inflatable structures are able to handle projectiles better than the stiff walled structures since they have some give to them and can disperse the energy across a larger area.
The fact that they pack well is just bonus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30996390</id>
	<title>Re:Solve the problem, not run from it</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1265130120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your post proves the opposite point. Its true, our problems go with us. They're part and parcel of being human.
<p>
There will be poor always. Some folks are lazy, some not ambitious, and some just unlucky.
</p><p>
There will always be hungry. Feed the hungry, and they will survive to reproduce. Then there will be more hungry to feed. That's how nature works. Eat, poop, reproduce.  So eventually we end up struggling just to feed a staggering population who are poor and producing more poor starving people. Hey, that sounds like a lot of fun!
</p><p>
Problems? yeah we gots. But if we wait for them to be solved before setting off on adventures - and at root space exploration is a freakin' awesome cozmik adventure - we'll just sit around and become the hungry that need food given to us. Oops, I got a little excited there. Doesn't mean I'm wrong tho'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post proves the opposite point .
Its true , our problems go with us .
They 're part and parcel of being human .
There will be poor always .
Some folks are lazy , some not ambitious , and some just unlucky .
There will always be hungry .
Feed the hungry , and they will survive to reproduce .
Then there will be more hungry to feed .
That 's how nature works .
Eat , poop , reproduce .
So eventually we end up struggling just to feed a staggering population who are poor and producing more poor starving people .
Hey , that sounds like a lot of fun !
Problems ? yeah we gots .
But if we wait for them to be solved before setting off on adventures - and at root space exploration is a freakin ' awesome cozmik adventure - we 'll just sit around and become the hungry that need food given to us .
Oops , I got a little excited there .
Does n't mean I 'm wrong tho'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post proves the opposite point.
Its true, our problems go with us.
They're part and parcel of being human.
There will be poor always.
Some folks are lazy, some not ambitious, and some just unlucky.
There will always be hungry.
Feed the hungry, and they will survive to reproduce.
Then there will be more hungry to feed.
That's how nature works.
Eat, poop, reproduce.
So eventually we end up struggling just to feed a staggering population who are poor and producing more poor starving people.
Hey, that sounds like a lot of fun!
Problems? yeah we gots.
But if we wait for them to be solved before setting off on adventures - and at root space exploration is a freakin' awesome cozmik adventure - we'll just sit around and become the hungry that need food given to us.
Oops, I got a little excited there.
Doesn't mean I'm wrong tho'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983826</id>
	<title>Re:That's disappointing, but...</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1265050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you think Cash for Clunkers and writing blank checks to badly-managed financial companies with no oversight or strings attached were better uses of taxpayer dollars than space exploration, which yields new technologies and jobs for Americans?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you think Cash for Clunkers and writing blank checks to badly-managed financial companies with no oversight or strings attached were better uses of taxpayer dollars than space exploration , which yields new technologies and jobs for Americans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you think Cash for Clunkers and writing blank checks to badly-managed financial companies with no oversight or strings attached were better uses of taxpayer dollars than space exploration, which yields new technologies and jobs for Americans?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983230</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1265048040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new plan seems to be to strengthen America's commercial launch vehicle systems. As things stand, America sucks at expendable launch vehicles. The Europeans and the Russians have bigger and more reliable ELVs than we do. If you construe this as a way to get NASA to off-load the design of rockets to private industry and to concentrate on space exploration, this is a good though very ballsy move. Private industry can lobby effectively while NASA cannot. If NASA had to design a rocket, it would have to please all sorts of political bosses. Look at what happened to ARES. Private companies are not only free of these measures, they can go out and harass Congress in their favor.</p><p>I don't know if this is the right move. I understand the justification for it, and again, it is a fucking ballsy move. But this is not a surrender of manned spaceflight by the United States, just a delay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new plan seems to be to strengthen America 's commercial launch vehicle systems .
As things stand , America sucks at expendable launch vehicles .
The Europeans and the Russians have bigger and more reliable ELVs than we do .
If you construe this as a way to get NASA to off-load the design of rockets to private industry and to concentrate on space exploration , this is a good though very ballsy move .
Private industry can lobby effectively while NASA can not .
If NASA had to design a rocket , it would have to please all sorts of political bosses .
Look at what happened to ARES .
Private companies are not only free of these measures , they can go out and harass Congress in their favor.I do n't know if this is the right move .
I understand the justification for it , and again , it is a fucking ballsy move .
But this is not a surrender of manned spaceflight by the United States , just a delay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new plan seems to be to strengthen America's commercial launch vehicle systems.
As things stand, America sucks at expendable launch vehicles.
The Europeans and the Russians have bigger and more reliable ELVs than we do.
If you construe this as a way to get NASA to off-load the design of rockets to private industry and to concentrate on space exploration, this is a good though very ballsy move.
Private industry can lobby effectively while NASA cannot.
If NASA had to design a rocket, it would have to please all sorts of political bosses.
Look at what happened to ARES.
Private companies are not only free of these measures, they can go out and harass Congress in their favor.I don't know if this is the right move.
I understand the justification for it, and again, it is a fucking ballsy move.
But this is not a surrender of manned spaceflight by the United States, just a delay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983802</id>
	<title>Yeah but lets put this into perspective.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265050440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1st rendevous in space, USA<br>1st multiple rendevous in space, USA<br>1st practical spacewalk, USA<br>Most landings on the moon, USA<br>1st man to orbit the moon, USA<br>1st man on the moon, USA<br>1st probe to Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and soon Pluto, USA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1st rendevous in space , USA1st multiple rendevous in space , USA1st practical spacewalk , USAMost landings on the moon , USA1st man to orbit the moon , USA1st man on the moon , USA1st probe to Mars , Mercury , Jupiter , Saturn , Uranus , Neptune and soon Pluto , USA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1st rendevous in space, USA1st multiple rendevous in space, USA1st practical spacewalk, USAMost landings on the moon, USA1st man to orbit the moon, USA1st man on the moon, USA1st probe to Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and soon Pluto, USA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982352</id>
	<title>Don't blame me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't blame me - I voted for the American!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't blame me - I voted for the American !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't blame me - I voted for the American!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288</id>
	<title>That's disappointing, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I made more money, I'd probably have a set of new golf clubs on my wish list for this spring. As it is, I don't have an unlimited budget, and there are other priorities which are higher, such as food, healthcare, and DirecTV.  I mention that last one intentionally, by the way.</p><p>You see I could do without DirecTV and save myself enough to get a new set of golf clubs every year. Thing is my wife an daughter really like the programming. They don't begrudge me my greens fees or my high power rocket purchases. Each of us gets something from the family budget, though perhaps not all we want. We simply don't have the unlimited funds for that.</p><p>It's interesting what happens when you must have a balanced budget - certain choices have to be made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I made more money , I 'd probably have a set of new golf clubs on my wish list for this spring .
As it is , I do n't have an unlimited budget , and there are other priorities which are higher , such as food , healthcare , and DirecTV .
I mention that last one intentionally , by the way.You see I could do without DirecTV and save myself enough to get a new set of golf clubs every year .
Thing is my wife an daughter really like the programming .
They do n't begrudge me my greens fees or my high power rocket purchases .
Each of us gets something from the family budget , though perhaps not all we want .
We simply do n't have the unlimited funds for that.It 's interesting what happens when you must have a balanced budget - certain choices have to be made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I made more money, I'd probably have a set of new golf clubs on my wish list for this spring.
As it is, I don't have an unlimited budget, and there are other priorities which are higher, such as food, healthcare, and DirecTV.
I mention that last one intentionally, by the way.You see I could do without DirecTV and save myself enough to get a new set of golf clubs every year.
Thing is my wife an daughter really like the programming.
They don't begrudge me my greens fees or my high power rocket purchases.
Each of us gets something from the family budget, though perhaps not all we want.
We simply don't have the unlimited funds for that.It's interesting what happens when you must have a balanced budget - certain choices have to be made.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987868</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1265022300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every shuttle successor program we've ever looked at has ended in cancellation. Obviously, we have the technology to get into space but it looks like we don't have the organizational ability to make that sort of thing happen.</p></div><p>At some point, one has to idly speculate and wonder: is it conspiracy theory to ask 'is there a reason for this beyond mere organisational incompetence'?</p><p>Yes, it's tinfoil-hat territory, but I'm finding it weirder and weirder how a Shuttle successor always seems to be just inches away and yet never quite appears. Can the US's premier flagship science/propaganda agency REALLY be so impotent? I mean it's a pretty bad look, on the international stage. Failure after failure. It's like losing the Crown Jewels. Apollo, and then this: ignominous retreat.</p><p>Yes, I'm aware that manned spaceflight isn't really useful now that we have robots, and that there's nothing there to send people for... but still, it's a huge propaganda loss for US prestige.</p><p>Or is it that the USAF has some kind of secondary secret space capability that they're quite pleased with, that they've been developing since the 1980s, maybe all those 'Orient Express' and 'Delta Clipper' prototypes that supposedly went nowhere were doing just what the Air Force ordered, and that the reason the Shuttle isn't being replaced is that it really just doesn't matter anymore because the black boys can already do it better?</p><p>Crazy,  I know. Maybe it is just incompetence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every shuttle successor program we 've ever looked at has ended in cancellation .
Obviously , we have the technology to get into space but it looks like we do n't have the organizational ability to make that sort of thing happen.At some point , one has to idly speculate and wonder : is it conspiracy theory to ask 'is there a reason for this beyond mere organisational incompetence ' ? Yes , it 's tinfoil-hat territory , but I 'm finding it weirder and weirder how a Shuttle successor always seems to be just inches away and yet never quite appears .
Can the US 's premier flagship science/propaganda agency REALLY be so impotent ?
I mean it 's a pretty bad look , on the international stage .
Failure after failure .
It 's like losing the Crown Jewels .
Apollo , and then this : ignominous retreat.Yes , I 'm aware that manned spaceflight is n't really useful now that we have robots , and that there 's nothing there to send people for... but still , it 's a huge propaganda loss for US prestige.Or is it that the USAF has some kind of secondary secret space capability that they 're quite pleased with , that they 've been developing since the 1980s , maybe all those 'Orient Express ' and 'Delta Clipper ' prototypes that supposedly went nowhere were doing just what the Air Force ordered , and that the reason the Shuttle is n't being replaced is that it really just does n't matter anymore because the black boys can already do it better ? Crazy , I know .
Maybe it is just incompetence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every shuttle successor program we've ever looked at has ended in cancellation.
Obviously, we have the technology to get into space but it looks like we don't have the organizational ability to make that sort of thing happen.At some point, one has to idly speculate and wonder: is it conspiracy theory to ask 'is there a reason for this beyond mere organisational incompetence'?Yes, it's tinfoil-hat territory, but I'm finding it weirder and weirder how a Shuttle successor always seems to be just inches away and yet never quite appears.
Can the US's premier flagship science/propaganda agency REALLY be so impotent?
I mean it's a pretty bad look, on the international stage.
Failure after failure.
It's like losing the Crown Jewels.
Apollo, and then this: ignominous retreat.Yes, I'm aware that manned spaceflight isn't really useful now that we have robots, and that there's nothing there to send people for... but still, it's a huge propaganda loss for US prestige.Or is it that the USAF has some kind of secondary secret space capability that they're quite pleased with, that they've been developing since the 1980s, maybe all those 'Orient Express' and 'Delta Clipper' prototypes that supposedly went nowhere were doing just what the Air Force ordered, and that the reason the Shuttle isn't being replaced is that it really just doesn't matter anymore because the black boys can already do it better?Crazy,  I know.
Maybe it is just incompetence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982132</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Peter H.S.</author>
	<datestamp>1265043720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget. It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again. We are draining Earth resources and should try to expand to space. If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth. This way we never get intergalactic flights nor can live on other planets.</i></p><p>The basis for a good space programme with adequate long term funding is a good economy. The US have been borrowing like there is no tomorrow and is heading directly into the economic abyss of despair if the US government doesn't change direction from the economic policies of the past. It makes sense to cut NASA's budget now to afford a decent space programme in the future. Not cutting NASA's budget now will make its budget much worse in the future.</p><p>--<br>Regards</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget .
It 's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again .
We are draining Earth resources and should try to expand to space .
If it was n't for NASA we would n't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth .
This way we never get intergalactic flights nor can live on other planets.The basis for a good space programme with adequate long term funding is a good economy .
The US have been borrowing like there is no tomorrow and is heading directly into the economic abyss of despair if the US government does n't change direction from the economic policies of the past .
It makes sense to cut NASA 's budget now to afford a decent space programme in the future .
Not cutting NASA 's budget now will make its budget much worse in the future.--Regards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget.
It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again.
We are draining Earth resources and should try to expand to space.
If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth.
This way we never get intergalactic flights nor can live on other planets.The basis for a good space programme with adequate long term funding is a good economy.
The US have been borrowing like there is no tomorrow and is heading directly into the economic abyss of despair if the US government doesn't change direction from the economic policies of the past.
It makes sense to cut NASA's budget now to afford a decent space programme in the future.
Not cutting NASA's budget now will make its budget much worse in the future.--Regards</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will. And we will have ceded the high frontier.</p><p>They'll go broke putting meatbags in space and learning the same lessons we have, while we're focused on robotic missions and investment into private enterprise, instead of a purely government approach.</p><p>On top of that, the Mars mission is still on.  While China or India attempts to put a meatbag on the moon, the US will most likely be on its way to Mars.  The US isnt ceding anything, its just spending its money more wisely along with the "trophy" of Mars.  Turns out Bush's incompetence wasnt limited to just economies and wars, but to also signing checks his ass couldnt cash.</p><p>Funny how the "fiscally responsible" Republicans want my tax dollars to keep subsidizing useless jobs in Florida and Texas and keep a runaway project like Constellation going to the tune of an extra 3 billion a year in cost overruns!  Dont confuse the politics of pork with space exploration.  Meatbags are too expensive to ship around all the time and moon base fantasies turn out to be too expensive in real life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If we 're not going to move forward up there , other nations will .
And we will have ceded the high frontier.They 'll go broke putting meatbags in space and learning the same lessons we have , while we 're focused on robotic missions and investment into private enterprise , instead of a purely government approach.On top of that , the Mars mission is still on .
While China or India attempts to put a meatbag on the moon , the US will most likely be on its way to Mars .
The US isnt ceding anything , its just spending its money more wisely along with the " trophy " of Mars .
Turns out Bush 's incompetence wasnt limited to just economies and wars , but to also signing checks his ass couldnt cash.Funny how the " fiscally responsible " Republicans want my tax dollars to keep subsidizing useless jobs in Florida and Texas and keep a runaway project like Constellation going to the tune of an extra 3 billion a year in cost overruns !
Dont confuse the politics of pork with space exploration .
Meatbags are too expensive to ship around all the time and moon base fantasies turn out to be too expensive in real life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will.
And we will have ceded the high frontier.They'll go broke putting meatbags in space and learning the same lessons we have, while we're focused on robotic missions and investment into private enterprise, instead of a purely government approach.On top of that, the Mars mission is still on.
While China or India attempts to put a meatbag on the moon, the US will most likely be on its way to Mars.
The US isnt ceding anything, its just spending its money more wisely along with the "trophy" of Mars.
Turns out Bush's incompetence wasnt limited to just economies and wars, but to also signing checks his ass couldnt cash.Funny how the "fiscally responsible" Republicans want my tax dollars to keep subsidizing useless jobs in Florida and Texas and keep a runaway project like Constellation going to the tune of an extra 3 billion a year in cost overruns!
Dont confuse the politics of pork with space exploration.
Meatbags are too expensive to ship around all the time and moon base fantasies turn out to be too expensive in real life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982710</id>
	<title>Smell the coffee</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1265045940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who owns the coffeepots at NASA?  Dimes to tiddlywinks, the job is contracted out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who owns the coffeepots at NASA ?
Dimes to tiddlywinks , the job is contracted out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who owns the coffeepots at NASA?
Dimes to tiddlywinks, the job is contracted out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985122</id>
	<title>Mars Mission</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1265055960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Mars Mission is only "on" in the sense that it has always been "on" since Reagan.  It's not "on".  It' never been "on".  Canceling the first R&amp;D program in thirty years that actually had the goal of building a heavy lift launcher suitable for Mars scale trips, and replacing it with a nebulous plan to purchase launch services from a private launch market which doesn't have an incentive to put the kind of R&amp;D required to develop a Mars trip scale launch system is not "on" in any sense other than "on crack".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mars Mission is only " on " in the sense that it has always been " on " since Reagan .
It 's not " on " .
It ' never been " on " .
Canceling the first R&amp;D program in thirty years that actually had the goal of building a heavy lift launcher suitable for Mars scale trips , and replacing it with a nebulous plan to purchase launch services from a private launch market which does n't have an incentive to put the kind of R&amp;D required to develop a Mars trip scale launch system is not " on " in any sense other than " on crack " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mars Mission is only "on" in the sense that it has always been "on" since Reagan.
It's not "on".
It' never been "on".
Canceling the first R&amp;D program in thirty years that actually had the goal of building a heavy lift launcher suitable for Mars scale trips, and replacing it with a nebulous plan to purchase launch services from a private launch market which doesn't have an incentive to put the kind of R&amp;D required to develop a Mars trip scale launch system is not "on" in any sense other than "on crack".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30990544</id>
	<title>Coondoggie</title>
	<author>Baloo Uriza</author>
	<datestamp>1265036160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, my furry sense went off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , my furry sense went off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, my furry sense went off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985668</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>wistlo</author>
	<datestamp>1265057820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reaching space and staying there without falling back requires more than just height, but also a velocity of about 18,000 mph tangential to the Earth's surface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reaching space and staying there without falling back requires more than just height , but also a velocity of about 18,000 mph tangential to the Earth 's surface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reaching space and staying there without falling back requires more than just height, but also a velocity of about 18,000 mph tangential to the Earth's surface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30989068</id>
	<title>Two words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265027280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck Obama</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Obama</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Obama</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983634</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1265049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly is private industry going to do with technology to build electric moon buggies or inflatable lunar habitats?  This suggestion makes no sense at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is private industry going to do with technology to build electric moon buggies or inflatable lunar habitats ?
This suggestion makes no sense at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is private industry going to do with technology to build electric moon buggies or inflatable lunar habitats?
This suggestion makes no sense at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983486</id>
	<title>Just another closed door policy</title>
	<author>LordSkout</author>
	<datestamp>1265049060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The promise I fell for with Obama was that he'd work to open up government, and there wouldn't be any more, or at least less of, these closed-door decision-making policies. ACTA rambles on, human spaceflight gets the axe, and federal agents lying and breaking the law can't be prosecuted because they did it "with good intent".</p><p>We're losing a battle here, but I can't see the battlefield anymore.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The promise I fell for with Obama was that he 'd work to open up government , and there would n't be any more , or at least less of , these closed-door decision-making policies .
ACTA rambles on , human spaceflight gets the axe , and federal agents lying and breaking the law ca n't be prosecuted because they did it " with good intent " .We 're losing a battle here , but I ca n't see the battlefield anymore .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The promise I fell for with Obama was that he'd work to open up government, and there wouldn't be any more, or at least less of, these closed-door decision-making policies.
ACTA rambles on, human spaceflight gets the axe, and federal agents lying and breaking the law can't be prosecuted because they did it "with good intent".We're losing a battle here, but I can't see the battlefield anymore.
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982968</id>
	<title>Whither the plans?</title>
	<author>ondigo</author>
	<datestamp>1265047020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what will NASA do with the results so far for all these plans and ideas?  My hope, as a taxpayer, is that they will make it available to all and sundry (or at least American all and sundry, if they want to be parochial about it).  It would be a disservice to the scientists and engineers who have labored on these projects for their work to be put away on some shelf or to have it all dribbled into the bit bucket.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what will NASA do with the results so far for all these plans and ideas ?
My hope , as a taxpayer , is that they will make it available to all and sundry ( or at least American all and sundry , if they want to be parochial about it ) .
It would be a disservice to the scientists and engineers who have labored on these projects for their work to be put away on some shelf or to have it all dribbled into the bit bucket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what will NASA do with the results so far for all these plans and ideas?
My hope, as a taxpayer, is that they will make it available to all and sundry (or at least American all and sundry, if they want to be parochial about it).
It would be a disservice to the scientists and engineers who have labored on these projects for their work to be put away on some shelf or to have it all dribbled into the bit bucket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982572</id>
	<title>Modern Libs have always hated NASA</title>
	<author>pease1</author>
	<datestamp>1265045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't surprising at all and was completely predictable.  Even during Apollo, post modern liberalism has always been lukewarm-cold towards space exploration, a fact I always found interesting since many NASA supporters at the grass root level are Democrats.  The whole global warming thing has pushed not only the liberals against NASA, but brought along the environmental movement as well.  "How can we afford to rape another world when we can't take care of..." and "How can we afford to provide jobs to highly paid engineers when there are poor..."
<p>
That NASA screwed up the engineering of some of new hardware didn't help.  That NASA could only look at and award to the normal fat-cat defense contractors didn't help either.
</p><p>
The combination of the two and NASA's own problems are all quite deadly when it comes to this administration.
</p><p>
Amazingly hope for American humans in space will now rely on Republicans and the US private sector, assuming we just don't try to contract it out to other countries (and lose yet another technology base).
</p><p>
Just as amazing is a lack of understanding by the liberals and environmentalists that the destruction of human space flight dooms the long term prospects for robotic exploration; which is a key tool to understanding the environment and natural resources on Earth.  When the over all size of NASA is reduced, it's ability to innovate across programs is gone and the technology stales over time.
</p><p>
Finally, you could assume that even the environmentalists could start to see the only viable long term solution to maintaining Earth's ecosystem is expansion to other worlds, but clearly they don't have that kind of vision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't surprising at all and was completely predictable .
Even during Apollo , post modern liberalism has always been lukewarm-cold towards space exploration , a fact I always found interesting since many NASA supporters at the grass root level are Democrats .
The whole global warming thing has pushed not only the liberals against NASA , but brought along the environmental movement as well .
" How can we afford to rape another world when we ca n't take care of... " and " How can we afford to provide jobs to highly paid engineers when there are poor... " That NASA screwed up the engineering of some of new hardware did n't help .
That NASA could only look at and award to the normal fat-cat defense contractors did n't help either .
The combination of the two and NASA 's own problems are all quite deadly when it comes to this administration .
Amazingly hope for American humans in space will now rely on Republicans and the US private sector , assuming we just do n't try to contract it out to other countries ( and lose yet another technology base ) .
Just as amazing is a lack of understanding by the liberals and environmentalists that the destruction of human space flight dooms the long term prospects for robotic exploration ; which is a key tool to understanding the environment and natural resources on Earth .
When the over all size of NASA is reduced , it 's ability to innovate across programs is gone and the technology stales over time .
Finally , you could assume that even the environmentalists could start to see the only viable long term solution to maintaining Earth 's ecosystem is expansion to other worlds , but clearly they do n't have that kind of vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't surprising at all and was completely predictable.
Even during Apollo, post modern liberalism has always been lukewarm-cold towards space exploration, a fact I always found interesting since many NASA supporters at the grass root level are Democrats.
The whole global warming thing has pushed not only the liberals against NASA, but brought along the environmental movement as well.
"How can we afford to rape another world when we can't take care of..." and "How can we afford to provide jobs to highly paid engineers when there are poor..."

That NASA screwed up the engineering of some of new hardware didn't help.
That NASA could only look at and award to the normal fat-cat defense contractors didn't help either.
The combination of the two and NASA's own problems are all quite deadly when it comes to this administration.
Amazingly hope for American humans in space will now rely on Republicans and the US private sector, assuming we just don't try to contract it out to other countries (and lose yet another technology base).
Just as amazing is a lack of understanding by the liberals and environmentalists that the destruction of human space flight dooms the long term prospects for robotic exploration; which is a key tool to understanding the environment and natural resources on Earth.
When the over all size of NASA is reduced, it's ability to innovate across programs is gone and the technology stales over time.
Finally, you could assume that even the environmentalists could start to see the only viable long term solution to maintaining Earth's ecosystem is expansion to other worlds, but clearly they don't have that kind of vision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958</id>
	<title>What do we need NASA for now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What gets me is not so much the fact that we'll be using commercial rockets to get to the ISS, but that we now have no strategy for getting back to the Moon and/or going to Mars.</p><p>When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars, she literally started crying. How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her?</p><p>Yes, I know her actual chance of going was pretty slim, but at least there was a chance. And that was enough to encourage her to work hard in school. Now what? Now she doesn't know what she wants to do and that means a higher chance of her ending up flipping burgers instead of pursuing her dreams.</p><p>Fuck you, Obama, and your nearsightedness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What gets me is not so much the fact that we 'll be using commercial rockets to get to the ISS , but that we now have no strategy for getting back to the Moon and/or going to Mars.When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars , she literally started crying .
How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she 's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her ? Yes , I know her actual chance of going was pretty slim , but at least there was a chance .
And that was enough to encourage her to work hard in school .
Now what ?
Now she does n't know what she wants to do and that means a higher chance of her ending up flipping burgers instead of pursuing her dreams.Fuck you , Obama , and your nearsightedness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What gets me is not so much the fact that we'll be using commercial rockets to get to the ISS, but that we now have no strategy for getting back to the Moon and/or going to Mars.When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars, she literally started crying.
How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her?Yes, I know her actual chance of going was pretty slim, but at least there was a chance.
And that was enough to encourage her to work hard in school.
Now what?
Now she doesn't know what she wants to do and that means a higher chance of her ending up flipping burgers instead of pursuing her dreams.Fuck you, Obama, and your nearsightedness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983844</id>
	<title>Re:Modern Libs have always hated NASA</title>
	<author>blueturffan</author>
	<datestamp>1265050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In 1967, Walter Mondale tried his best to kill Apollo in the wake of the Apollo 11 fire.   <p>
17 years later, he experienced a colossal flame-out of his own when he was only able to muster 3 electoral votes against Ronald Reagan in the 1984 elections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1967 , Walter Mondale tried his best to kill Apollo in the wake of the Apollo 11 fire .
17 years later , he experienced a colossal flame-out of his own when he was only able to muster 3 electoral votes against Ronald Reagan in the 1984 elections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1967, Walter Mondale tried his best to kill Apollo in the wake of the Apollo 11 fire.
17 years later, he experienced a colossal flame-out of his own when he was only able to muster 3 electoral votes against Ronald Reagan in the 1984 elections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983112</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265047620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe NASA could sell or license some of this "cool tech" to private industry.  The private sector would have more to work with and the space agency would get more money for the projects they are left to focus on.  And maybe some of the specialists at NASA could fork their own companies with the technology, keeping more people employed.</p><p>Maybe they already do this.  But the tone of the post makes it sound like they don't.</p></div><p>The problem is that there's little immediate return on investment.</p><p>Sure, give it a few years and we get nifty things like GPS and freeze-dried ice cream...  But in the short term it's just pure science.  And nobody likes pure science anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe NASA could sell or license some of this " cool tech " to private industry .
The private sector would have more to work with and the space agency would get more money for the projects they are left to focus on .
And maybe some of the specialists at NASA could fork their own companies with the technology , keeping more people employed.Maybe they already do this .
But the tone of the post makes it sound like they do n't.The problem is that there 's little immediate return on investment.Sure , give it a few years and we get nifty things like GPS and freeze-dried ice cream... But in the short term it 's just pure science .
And nobody likes pure science anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe NASA could sell or license some of this "cool tech" to private industry.
The private sector would have more to work with and the space agency would get more money for the projects they are left to focus on.
And maybe some of the specialists at NASA could fork their own companies with the technology, keeping more people employed.Maybe they already do this.
But the tone of the post makes it sound like they don't.The problem is that there's little immediate return on investment.Sure, give it a few years and we get nifty things like GPS and freeze-dried ice cream...  But in the short term it's just pure science.
And nobody likes pure science anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30992182</id>
	<title>Re:wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265053200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the inflatables research that is being canceled is their contract with ILC Dover. <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/analogs/inflatable\_habitat\_blog.html" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">See here.</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>Why NASA did not go with Bigelow to begin with? They already had hardware in orbit. But maybe that was the problem. There was nothing for NASA to do but buy the modules when they were ready to go back to the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the inflatables research that is being canceled is their contract with ILC Dover .
See here .
[ nasa.gov ] Why NASA did not go with Bigelow to begin with ?
They already had hardware in orbit .
But maybe that was the problem .
There was nothing for NASA to do but buy the modules when they were ready to go back to the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the inflatables research that is being canceled is their contract with ILC Dover.
See here.
[nasa.gov]Why NASA did not go with Bigelow to begin with?
They already had hardware in orbit.
But maybe that was the problem.
There was nothing for NASA to do but buy the modules when they were ready to go back to the moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983298</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265048340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't have to be much of a science fiction fan to appreciate the opportunities created by a serious presence in space. Even if we teleoperated everything from the ground, orbital power is a winner. Asteroid mining to prevent the destruction of our own environment down here is a winner. And human history has proven time and time again that opportunities can be opened up by endeavors and scientific discovery that we couldn't even begin to imagine at the outset.</p></div><p>The problem is that, at least right now, the profit just isn't there.</p><p>If you could point at some asteroid and say <i>it'll cost us $10 billion to get there and set up shop...  And then you could ship home $100 billion worth of profit every month</i> they'd be launching rockets in a heartbeat.</p><p>The cost of getting something out there just to analyze the asteroids and find a useful one...  Then to set up shop...  Then to haul the materials back here...  And the time delays involved at every step...  Even if it was all teleoperated, the profits just aren't there right now.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There's so much more we should be doing up there. The shuttle was just farting around in LEO. We should end it to do something better, not end it to abandon a manned presence in space. If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will. And we will have ceded the high frontier.</p></div><p>There's certainly a lot of neat stuff humans can do in space...  Lots of good science...  But I'm not certain that a manned presence is really necessary at this stage.  It seems to me that a lot of the most productive stuff has been un-manned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to be much of a science fiction fan to appreciate the opportunities created by a serious presence in space .
Even if we teleoperated everything from the ground , orbital power is a winner .
Asteroid mining to prevent the destruction of our own environment down here is a winner .
And human history has proven time and time again that opportunities can be opened up by endeavors and scientific discovery that we could n't even begin to imagine at the outset.The problem is that , at least right now , the profit just is n't there.If you could point at some asteroid and say it 'll cost us $ 10 billion to get there and set up shop... And then you could ship home $ 100 billion worth of profit every month they 'd be launching rockets in a heartbeat.The cost of getting something out there just to analyze the asteroids and find a useful one... Then to set up shop... Then to haul the materials back here... And the time delays involved at every step... Even if it was all teleoperated , the profits just are n't there right now.There 's so much more we should be doing up there .
The shuttle was just farting around in LEO .
We should end it to do something better , not end it to abandon a manned presence in space .
If we 're not going to move forward up there , other nations will .
And we will have ceded the high frontier.There 's certainly a lot of neat stuff humans can do in space... Lots of good science... But I 'm not certain that a manned presence is really necessary at this stage .
It seems to me that a lot of the most productive stuff has been un-manned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to be much of a science fiction fan to appreciate the opportunities created by a serious presence in space.
Even if we teleoperated everything from the ground, orbital power is a winner.
Asteroid mining to prevent the destruction of our own environment down here is a winner.
And human history has proven time and time again that opportunities can be opened up by endeavors and scientific discovery that we couldn't even begin to imagine at the outset.The problem is that, at least right now, the profit just isn't there.If you could point at some asteroid and say it'll cost us $10 billion to get there and set up shop...  And then you could ship home $100 billion worth of profit every month they'd be launching rockets in a heartbeat.The cost of getting something out there just to analyze the asteroids and find a useful one...  Then to set up shop...  Then to haul the materials back here...  And the time delays involved at every step...  Even if it was all teleoperated, the profits just aren't there right now.There's so much more we should be doing up there.
The shuttle was just farting around in LEO.
We should end it to do something better, not end it to abandon a manned presence in space.
If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will.
And we will have ceded the high frontier.There's certainly a lot of neat stuff humans can do in space...  Lots of good science...  But I'm not certain that a manned presence is really necessary at this stage.
It seems to me that a lot of the most productive stuff has been un-manned.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982948</id>
	<title>Print the money...no problem</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1265046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't really see what the problem is. The U.S. is not going to pay off the debt. It's like worrying about the fact that you don't have a parachute AFTER you have jumped out of the plane; it just ruins the enjoyment of the ride down.</p><p>The amount of money NASA is asking about is trivial compared to the whole Federal Budget. Heck, the the U.S. government prints (via the proxy Federal Reserve) and borrows to pay the interest on what they have already borrowed. Worrying about the debt/deficit at this point is tilting at windmills.</p><p>If the U.S. is going to default (and the U.S. will, I guarantee) then its things of REAL physical value that should be bought. The Chinese are not going to repo a concrete road or a fleet of spaceships. So I say spend, spend, spend. Buy all the stuff that will improve infrastructure and long term growth so that when the U.S. does default at the very least there will be decent roads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't really see what the problem is .
The U.S. is not going to pay off the debt .
It 's like worrying about the fact that you do n't have a parachute AFTER you have jumped out of the plane ; it just ruins the enjoyment of the ride down.The amount of money NASA is asking about is trivial compared to the whole Federal Budget .
Heck , the the U.S. government prints ( via the proxy Federal Reserve ) and borrows to pay the interest on what they have already borrowed .
Worrying about the debt/deficit at this point is tilting at windmills.If the U.S. is going to default ( and the U.S. will , I guarantee ) then its things of REAL physical value that should be bought .
The Chinese are not going to repo a concrete road or a fleet of spaceships .
So I say spend , spend , spend .
Buy all the stuff that will improve infrastructure and long term growth so that when the U.S. does default at the very least there will be decent roads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't really see what the problem is.
The U.S. is not going to pay off the debt.
It's like worrying about the fact that you don't have a parachute AFTER you have jumped out of the plane; it just ruins the enjoyment of the ride down.The amount of money NASA is asking about is trivial compared to the whole Federal Budget.
Heck, the the U.S. government prints (via the proxy Federal Reserve) and borrows to pay the interest on what they have already borrowed.
Worrying about the debt/deficit at this point is tilting at windmills.If the U.S. is going to default (and the U.S. will, I guarantee) then its things of REAL physical value that should be bought.
The Chinese are not going to repo a concrete road or a fleet of spaceships.
So I say spend, spend, spend.
Buy all the stuff that will improve infrastructure and long term growth so that when the U.S. does default at the very least there will be decent roads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30994316</id>
	<title>I Hope a extinction level event</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265121840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>doesn't rain down on us and Change our ability to live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't rain down on us and Change our ability to live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't rain down on us and Change our ability to live.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991850</id>
	<title>inspiration</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1265048700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Killing Constellation might actually be the best thing for increasing the chances that a kid gets to fly in space.  Constellation was going to lock us into a flight architecture that was not suitable for anything other than occasional grandstanding flights to the Moon or Mars.  It was not suitable for the basis of a space economy or a scalable transportation system that could support a lunar mining base and orbital facilities to build <a href="http://ssi.org/reading/the-high-frontier/" title="ssi.org">solar power satellites</a> [ssi.org], for example.  NASA clearly doesn't have a direction to get people into space, but now that it's out of the way, maybe other efforts can get a toe hold.  (NASA hasn't yet arrived at a formula for stimulating this, the COTS model was fundamentally flawed, but I suspect that perhaps as few as five more years of floundering, and buying rides from Russia, along with watching China and India get into space, will focus America on this problem.)  Here are a few potential contenders:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon\_overview.html" title="reactionengines.co.uk">Skylon</a> [reactionengines.co.uk] <br>
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33329828/ns/technology\_and\_science-science/" title="msn.com"> Mystery Lockheed Martin Test Program </a> [msn.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&amp;plckScript=blogscript&amp;plckElementId=blogDest&amp;plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&amp;plckPostId=Blog\%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post\%3A6adbffb4-6533-460f-b531-62f7dd64ea61" title="aviationweek.com"> Vulcan (DARPA) </a> [aviationweek.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.spacex.com/" title="spacex.com"> SpaceX Falcon </a> [spacex.com] <br>
<br> <br>
Right now, there are too many disposable rockets, chasing too small a launch market.  Most of the private efforts are not able to get sufficient funding for the sort of technology advancement which will be required to get the cost per pound in orbit down by much, which in turn is required if anything useful is gonna happen up there.  A seldom-recanted but critical part of the <a href="http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/xplanes/x33.html" title="fas.org">X-33</a> [fas.org] story was that the business model for VentureStar fell apart.  There were at least one, if not two satellite phone companies planning to orbit hundreds of telecom sats.  They were looking for large buys, on the order of a flight per week, for years on end, of Shuttle-class payloads (50,000 lbs), and wanted lower cost per pound.  When those companies looked like they were going to fail, the primary contractor concluded that the remaining launch market (NASA plus industry at roughly the level we see today) wasn't big enough to justify private funding for the VentureStar, even after they X-33 notorious technical issues were studied and believed to be resolvable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Killing Constellation might actually be the best thing for increasing the chances that a kid gets to fly in space .
Constellation was going to lock us into a flight architecture that was not suitable for anything other than occasional grandstanding flights to the Moon or Mars .
It was not suitable for the basis of a space economy or a scalable transportation system that could support a lunar mining base and orbital facilities to build solar power satellites [ ssi.org ] , for example .
NASA clearly does n't have a direction to get people into space , but now that it 's out of the way , maybe other efforts can get a toe hold .
( NASA has n't yet arrived at a formula for stimulating this , the COTS model was fundamentally flawed , but I suspect that perhaps as few as five more years of floundering , and buying rides from Russia , along with watching China and India get into space , will focus America on this problem .
) Here are a few potential contenders : Skylon [ reactionengines.co.uk ] Mystery Lockheed Martin Test Program [ msn.com ] Vulcan ( DARPA ) [ aviationweek.com ] SpaceX Falcon [ spacex.com ] Right now , there are too many disposable rockets , chasing too small a launch market .
Most of the private efforts are not able to get sufficient funding for the sort of technology advancement which will be required to get the cost per pound in orbit down by much , which in turn is required if anything useful is gon na happen up there .
A seldom-recanted but critical part of the X-33 [ fas.org ] story was that the business model for VentureStar fell apart .
There were at least one , if not two satellite phone companies planning to orbit hundreds of telecom sats .
They were looking for large buys , on the order of a flight per week , for years on end , of Shuttle-class payloads ( 50,000 lbs ) , and wanted lower cost per pound .
When those companies looked like they were going to fail , the primary contractor concluded that the remaining launch market ( NASA plus industry at roughly the level we see today ) was n't big enough to justify private funding for the VentureStar , even after they X-33 notorious technical issues were studied and believed to be resolvable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Killing Constellation might actually be the best thing for increasing the chances that a kid gets to fly in space.
Constellation was going to lock us into a flight architecture that was not suitable for anything other than occasional grandstanding flights to the Moon or Mars.
It was not suitable for the basis of a space economy or a scalable transportation system that could support a lunar mining base and orbital facilities to build solar power satellites [ssi.org], for example.
NASA clearly doesn't have a direction to get people into space, but now that it's out of the way, maybe other efforts can get a toe hold.
(NASA hasn't yet arrived at a formula for stimulating this, the COTS model was fundamentally flawed, but I suspect that perhaps as few as five more years of floundering, and buying rides from Russia, along with watching China and India get into space, will focus America on this problem.
)  Here are a few potential contenders:
 
Skylon [reactionengines.co.uk] 
 Mystery Lockheed Martin Test Program  [msn.com] 
 Vulcan (DARPA)  [aviationweek.com] 
 SpaceX Falcon  [spacex.com] 
 
Right now, there are too many disposable rockets, chasing too small a launch market.
Most of the private efforts are not able to get sufficient funding for the sort of technology advancement which will be required to get the cost per pound in orbit down by much, which in turn is required if anything useful is gonna happen up there.
A seldom-recanted but critical part of the X-33 [fas.org] story was that the business model for VentureStar fell apart.
There were at least one, if not two satellite phone companies planning to orbit hundreds of telecom sats.
They were looking for large buys, on the order of a flight per week, for years on end, of Shuttle-class payloads (50,000 lbs), and wanted lower cost per pound.
When those companies looked like they were going to fail, the primary contractor concluded that the remaining launch market (NASA plus industry at roughly the level we see today) wasn't big enough to justify private funding for the VentureStar, even after they X-33 notorious technical issues were studied and believed to be resolvable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984302</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1265052360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I follow your logic that a good economy makes a good budget however I don't agree that this means NASA's budget now relates to it's future budget in that way.  NASA's budget is too small of a percentage of government spending to have that kind of effect on the future economy.  It could be raised quite a bit and this would still be true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I follow your logic that a good economy makes a good budget however I do n't agree that this means NASA 's budget now relates to it 's future budget in that way .
NASA 's budget is too small of a percentage of government spending to have that kind of effect on the future economy .
It could be raised quite a bit and this would still be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I follow your logic that a good economy makes a good budget however I don't agree that this means NASA's budget now relates to it's future budget in that way.
NASA's budget is too small of a percentage of government spending to have that kind of effect on the future economy.
It could be raised quite a bit and this would still be true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983850</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;What does this mean for manned exploration?</p><p>"FUUUCK THAT", to put it nicely.</p><p>Manned exploration offers nothing over robot exploration, other than "man in space" status. (which is overrated, you can get there with an air balloon and loads of helium!)</p><p>All we need is better robots and less time wasted on sending people to space and things will be nice.<br>Hell, you could even have robots assemble space stations for <b>future</b> manned missions.<br>But apparently this doesn't go through the heads of people at NASA, or any other space agency actually.<br>Too much time focused on short-term is the worst thing when it comes to something like space.</p><p>Countless billions spent on disposable rocket parts instead of figuring out a way, together, to get to space with cheaper methods. (many other methods have been planned the past few years, if we never done all the manned mission nonsense, these ideas would actually be implemented NOW, except the elevator though)<br>Then along came the even bigger mess that is The Shuttle, YEARS of stagnation just to perform some experiments on a space station that could easily have been done remotely. (with a little delay)</p><p>Perhaps if their budget does get increased in the future, they will actually FORGET manned missions entirely and spend more time making a decent robot that won't die in a few months... or get stuck in "sand".</p><p>Sorry for the negative tone, but i just hate inefficiency, and manned missions are the most wasteful things ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What does this mean for manned exploration ?
" FUUUCK THAT " , to put it nicely.Manned exploration offers nothing over robot exploration , other than " man in space " status .
( which is overrated , you can get there with an air balloon and loads of helium !
) All we need is better robots and less time wasted on sending people to space and things will be nice.Hell , you could even have robots assemble space stations for future manned missions.But apparently this does n't go through the heads of people at NASA , or any other space agency actually.Too much time focused on short-term is the worst thing when it comes to something like space.Countless billions spent on disposable rocket parts instead of figuring out a way , together , to get to space with cheaper methods .
( many other methods have been planned the past few years , if we never done all the manned mission nonsense , these ideas would actually be implemented NOW , except the elevator though ) Then along came the even bigger mess that is The Shuttle , YEARS of stagnation just to perform some experiments on a space station that could easily have been done remotely .
( with a little delay ) Perhaps if their budget does get increased in the future , they will actually FORGET manned missions entirely and spend more time making a decent robot that wo n't die in a few months... or get stuck in " sand " .Sorry for the negative tone , but i just hate inefficiency , and manned missions are the most wasteful things ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;What does this mean for manned exploration?
"FUUUCK THAT", to put it nicely.Manned exploration offers nothing over robot exploration, other than "man in space" status.
(which is overrated, you can get there with an air balloon and loads of helium!
)All we need is better robots and less time wasted on sending people to space and things will be nice.Hell, you could even have robots assemble space stations for future manned missions.But apparently this doesn't go through the heads of people at NASA, or any other space agency actually.Too much time focused on short-term is the worst thing when it comes to something like space.Countless billions spent on disposable rocket parts instead of figuring out a way, together, to get to space with cheaper methods.
(many other methods have been planned the past few years, if we never done all the manned mission nonsense, these ideas would actually be implemented NOW, except the elevator though)Then along came the even bigger mess that is The Shuttle, YEARS of stagnation just to perform some experiments on a space station that could easily have been done remotely.
(with a little delay)Perhaps if their budget does get increased in the future, they will actually FORGET manned missions entirely and spend more time making a decent robot that won't die in a few months... or get stuck in "sand".Sorry for the negative tone, but i just hate inefficiency, and manned missions are the most wasteful things ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</id>
	<title>What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1265043840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The shuttle is retiring. There's no stopping that. No more external fuel tanks are being manufactured, the rest of the parts chain is shutting down. When the shuttle is gone, America loses manned access to space. And it appears we can't even manage to cobble together a bloody capsule to put atop a normal rocket. This leaves only Russia with manned space capabilities. (I don't know if the Chinese really have anything they'd consider flight-worthy right now.) The Indians and Japanese have their own programs but I don't see much happening in the near future.</p><p>The Constellation program sounded like a real soup sandwich. Canceling it would be a good thing if it paved the way for something done right. But that's not happening. Every shuttle successor program we've ever looked at has ended in cancellation. Obviously, we have the technology to get into space but it looks like we don't have the organizational ability to make that sort of thing happen.</p><p>You don't have to be much of a science fiction fan to appreciate the opportunities created by a serious presence in space. Even if we teleoperated everything from the ground, orbital power is a winner. Asteroid mining to prevent the destruction of our own environment down here is a winner. And human history has proven time and time again that opportunities can be opened up by endeavors and scientific discovery that we couldn't even begin to imagine at the outset.</p><p>There's so much more we should be doing up there. The shuttle was just farting around in LEO. We should end it to do something better, not end it to abandon a manned presence in space. If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will. And we will have ceded the high frontier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The shuttle is retiring .
There 's no stopping that .
No more external fuel tanks are being manufactured , the rest of the parts chain is shutting down .
When the shuttle is gone , America loses manned access to space .
And it appears we ca n't even manage to cobble together a bloody capsule to put atop a normal rocket .
This leaves only Russia with manned space capabilities .
( I do n't know if the Chinese really have anything they 'd consider flight-worthy right now .
) The Indians and Japanese have their own programs but I do n't see much happening in the near future.The Constellation program sounded like a real soup sandwich .
Canceling it would be a good thing if it paved the way for something done right .
But that 's not happening .
Every shuttle successor program we 've ever looked at has ended in cancellation .
Obviously , we have the technology to get into space but it looks like we do n't have the organizational ability to make that sort of thing happen.You do n't have to be much of a science fiction fan to appreciate the opportunities created by a serious presence in space .
Even if we teleoperated everything from the ground , orbital power is a winner .
Asteroid mining to prevent the destruction of our own environment down here is a winner .
And human history has proven time and time again that opportunities can be opened up by endeavors and scientific discovery that we could n't even begin to imagine at the outset.There 's so much more we should be doing up there .
The shuttle was just farting around in LEO .
We should end it to do something better , not end it to abandon a manned presence in space .
If we 're not going to move forward up there , other nations will .
And we will have ceded the high frontier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The shuttle is retiring.
There's no stopping that.
No more external fuel tanks are being manufactured, the rest of the parts chain is shutting down.
When the shuttle is gone, America loses manned access to space.
And it appears we can't even manage to cobble together a bloody capsule to put atop a normal rocket.
This leaves only Russia with manned space capabilities.
(I don't know if the Chinese really have anything they'd consider flight-worthy right now.
) The Indians and Japanese have their own programs but I don't see much happening in the near future.The Constellation program sounded like a real soup sandwich.
Canceling it would be a good thing if it paved the way for something done right.
But that's not happening.
Every shuttle successor program we've ever looked at has ended in cancellation.
Obviously, we have the technology to get into space but it looks like we don't have the organizational ability to make that sort of thing happen.You don't have to be much of a science fiction fan to appreciate the opportunities created by a serious presence in space.
Even if we teleoperated everything from the ground, orbital power is a winner.
Asteroid mining to prevent the destruction of our own environment down here is a winner.
And human history has proven time and time again that opportunities can be opened up by endeavors and scientific discovery that we couldn't even begin to imagine at the outset.There's so much more we should be doing up there.
The shuttle was just farting around in LEO.
We should end it to do something better, not end it to abandon a manned presence in space.
If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will.
And we will have ceded the high frontier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983426</id>
	<title>Should have brought back the Saturn family</title>
	<author>TheHawke</author>
	<datestamp>1265048880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Through all the brouhaha, the doubletalk about missing blueprints and the expense of reviving older tech, it would have been far inexpensive to bring back a tried and trusted heavy lifter: The Saturn V. The Block 90 series was all set to loft the heaviest payloads to date, even the Ariane V would be hard pressed to match it.<br>I would have loved to see the V fly with upgraded hardware and avionics. The instrument ring would have been deleted in place for a more compact INS module. The inner structure rebuilt with improved metals and engineering. The engines... Well, hell, how can you improve on a already perfect set of man-made earthquake makers? I can see a V lofting not one, but TWO full sized ISS modules with them stuffed to the gills with parts and supplies.</p><p>Now we're stuck with a kiwi, not even classed a hangar queen.</p><p>Talk about an embarrassment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Through all the brouhaha , the doubletalk about missing blueprints and the expense of reviving older tech , it would have been far inexpensive to bring back a tried and trusted heavy lifter : The Saturn V. The Block 90 series was all set to loft the heaviest payloads to date , even the Ariane V would be hard pressed to match it.I would have loved to see the V fly with upgraded hardware and avionics .
The instrument ring would have been deleted in place for a more compact INS module .
The inner structure rebuilt with improved metals and engineering .
The engines... Well , hell , how can you improve on a already perfect set of man-made earthquake makers ?
I can see a V lofting not one , but TWO full sized ISS modules with them stuffed to the gills with parts and supplies.Now we 're stuck with a kiwi , not even classed a hangar queen.Talk about an embarrassment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Through all the brouhaha, the doubletalk about missing blueprints and the expense of reviving older tech, it would have been far inexpensive to bring back a tried and trusted heavy lifter: The Saturn V. The Block 90 series was all set to loft the heaviest payloads to date, even the Ariane V would be hard pressed to match it.I would have loved to see the V fly with upgraded hardware and avionics.
The instrument ring would have been deleted in place for a more compact INS module.
The inner structure rebuilt with improved metals and engineering.
The engines... Well, hell, how can you improve on a already perfect set of man-made earthquake makers?
I can see a V lofting not one, but TWO full sized ISS modules with them stuffed to the gills with parts and supplies.Now we're stuck with a kiwi, not even classed a hangar queen.Talk about an embarrassment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984650</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>RogerWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1265054100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The V2 was the first to reach "sbu orbital spaceflight" according to:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital\_spaceflight" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital\_spaceflight</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>(with reference see #4)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The V2 was the first to reach " sbu orbital spaceflight " according to : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital \ _spaceflight [ wikipedia.org ] ( with reference see # 4 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The V2 was the first to reach "sbu orbital spaceflight" according to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital\_spaceflight [wikipedia.org](with reference see #4)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983852</id>
	<title>Meaningless talking point.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How come Bush's promises of massive explorations with no funding backing isnt stupid, but when Obama has to clean up Bush's mistakes and bring Bush's BS promises to a real budget, then suddenly he's the bad guy?</i></p><p>Blah blah blah... Obama isn't cleaning up anything.  The guy is a stiff.</p><p>Seriously... all this talk about Obama "cleaning up", and what has he really done?  It's just a talking point, utterly meaningless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How come Bush 's promises of massive explorations with no funding backing isnt stupid , but when Obama has to clean up Bush 's mistakes and bring Bush 's BS promises to a real budget , then suddenly he 's the bad guy ? Blah blah blah... Obama is n't cleaning up anything .
The guy is a stiff.Seriously... all this talk about Obama " cleaning up " , and what has he really done ?
It 's just a talking point , utterly meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come Bush's promises of massive explorations with no funding backing isnt stupid, but when Obama has to clean up Bush's mistakes and bring Bush's BS promises to a real budget, then suddenly he's the bad guy?Blah blah blah... Obama isn't cleaning up anything.
The guy is a stiff.Seriously... all this talk about Obama "cleaning up", and what has he really done?
It's just a talking point, utterly meaningless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983930</id>
	<title>Re:What do we need NASA for now?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1265050800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars, she literally started crying. How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her?</i></p><p><i>Yes, I know her actual chance of going was pretty slim, but at least there was a chance. And that was enough to encourage her to work hard in school. Now what? Now she doesn't know what she wants to do and that means a higher chance of her ending up flipping burgers instead of pursuing her dreams.</i></p><p><i>Fuck you, Obama, and your nearsightedness.</i></p><p>Simple: Tell her to start learning Mandarin, so she can emigrate to a country that actually has some long-term vision and plans for serious space exploration, rather than staying in a country whose economy is going to go down the toilet in the next couple of decades.  That way, if she excels in math and science and speaks fluent Mandarin, she can go to work for China's space program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars , she literally started crying .
How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she 's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her ? Yes , I know her actual chance of going was pretty slim , but at least there was a chance .
And that was enough to encourage her to work hard in school .
Now what ?
Now she does n't know what she wants to do and that means a higher chance of her ending up flipping burgers instead of pursuing her dreams.Fuck you , Obama , and your nearsightedness.Simple : Tell her to start learning Mandarin , so she can emigrate to a country that actually has some long-term vision and plans for serious space exploration , rather than staying in a country whose economy is going to go down the toilet in the next couple of decades .
That way , if she excels in math and science and speaks fluent Mandarin , she can go to work for China 's space program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars, she literally started crying.
How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her?Yes, I know her actual chance of going was pretty slim, but at least there was a chance.
And that was enough to encourage her to work hard in school.
Now what?
Now she doesn't know what she wants to do and that means a higher chance of her ending up flipping burgers instead of pursuing her dreams.Fuck you, Obama, and your nearsightedness.Simple: Tell her to start learning Mandarin, so she can emigrate to a country that actually has some long-term vision and plans for serious space exploration, rather than staying in a country whose economy is going to go down the toilet in the next couple of decades.
That way, if she excels in math and science and speaks fluent Mandarin, she can go to work for China's space program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982358</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>sl0ppy</author>
	<datestamp>1265044680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will. And we will have ceded the high frontier.</p></div></blockquote><p>we will have ceded the high frontier to other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... humans?  why must there still be a space race?  we've already run that sprint.  why not a more of a space marathon where we work together as a team, not direct competition?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're not going to move forward up there , other nations will .
And we will have ceded the high frontier.we will have ceded the high frontier to other ... humans ? why must there still be a space race ?
we 've already run that sprint .
why not a more of a space marathon where we work together as a team , not direct competition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will.
And we will have ceded the high frontier.we will have ceded the high frontier to other ... humans?  why must there still be a space race?
we've already run that sprint.
why not a more of a space marathon where we work together as a team, not direct competition?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991038</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>wickedskaman</author>
	<datestamp>1265039880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read an interesting take on the news in a comment on Robert X. Cringely's latest update about this:<blockquote><div><p>I&rsquo;ve read some postings by engineers with the Ares project that suggest it&rsquo;s something of a boondoggle. They claim important engineering decisions were made according to some political agenda.

What congressional districts benefit the most from NASA projects? The cynic in me thinks that certain congressmen, senators or bureaucrats have fallen out of favor with the White House.

My point is: money is power in Washington. There is more to this decision than lack of vision. Money has stopped flowing, the result: some politico is less likely to be reelected/reappointed/promoted. I wonder who?

There&rsquo;s an interesting story in there somewhere.</p></div></blockquote><p>

<a href="http://www.cringely.com/2010/01/moonset/" title="cringely.com" rel="nofollow">Linky linky</a> [cringely.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read an interesting take on the news in a comment on Robert X. Cringely 's latest update about this : I    ve read some postings by engineers with the Ares project that suggest it    s something of a boondoggle .
They claim important engineering decisions were made according to some political agenda .
What congressional districts benefit the most from NASA projects ?
The cynic in me thinks that certain congressmen , senators or bureaucrats have fallen out of favor with the White House .
My point is : money is power in Washington .
There is more to this decision than lack of vision .
Money has stopped flowing , the result : some politico is less likely to be reelected/reappointed/promoted .
I wonder who ?
There    s an interesting story in there somewhere .
Linky linky [ cringely.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read an interesting take on the news in a comment on Robert X. Cringely's latest update about this:I’ve read some postings by engineers with the Ares project that suggest it’s something of a boondoggle.
They claim important engineering decisions were made according to some political agenda.
What congressional districts benefit the most from NASA projects?
The cynic in me thinks that certain congressmen, senators or bureaucrats have fallen out of favor with the White House.
My point is: money is power in Washington.
There is more to this decision than lack of vision.
Money has stopped flowing, the result: some politico is less likely to be reelected/reappointed/promoted.
I wonder who?
There’s an interesting story in there somewhere.
Linky linky [cringely.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984616</id>
	<title>I arleady complained about it but. . .</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1265053920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are they canceling the Aries V and then investigating new heavy lift rockets?!  It makes no sense at all to cancel one program and then start another one to do exactly the same thing.  Who made this decision?  Are they retarded, or do they just hate the US Taxpayer / love throwing away $$$?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are they canceling the Aries V and then investigating new heavy lift rockets ? !
It makes no sense at all to cancel one program and then start another one to do exactly the same thing .
Who made this decision ?
Are they retarded , or do they just hate the US Taxpayer / love throwing away $ $ $ ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are they canceling the Aries V and then investigating new heavy lift rockets?!
It makes no sense at all to cancel one program and then start another one to do exactly the same thing.
Who made this decision?
Are they retarded, or do they just hate the US Taxpayer / love throwing away $$$?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30989006</id>
	<title>Re:Meaningless talking point.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265027100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Psst...</p><p>Politifact would like a word with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Psst...Politifact would like a word with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psst...Politifact would like a word with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984010</id>
	<title>Re:That's disappointing, but...</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1265051100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's interesting what happens when you must have a balanced budget - certain choices have to be made.</p></div></blockquote><p>If the budget was being balanced, you'd have a point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting what happens when you must have a balanced budget - certain choices have to be made.If the budget was being balanced , you 'd have a point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting what happens when you must have a balanced budget - certain choices have to be made.If the budget was being balanced, you'd have a point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983842</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1265050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So? You still can't argue that NASA is not an enormous contributor to planetary science and remote sensing.</p><p>Consider the Soviet Mars program.  They sent three landers there over three years, and Russia is just getting around to following up on those. NASA has sent seven missions there over thirty years, very elaborate and sophisticated ones. The Viking lander was a scientific tour de force, and the US Mars Rover mission alone is a record breaker for sheer number of days in operation.</p><p>On the other hand, the Soviet space program practically <em>owned</em> Venus, spent decades in a serious, extended effort to gather data there.  That's a huge contribution to science, because Venus is hard, but very, very interesting due to its similarities and differences with/to Earth.</p><p>As far as the Earth is concerned, I don't think there is any contest, science-wise.  Not to denigrate Soviet contributions in engineering, but I don't think we can even begin to calculate the value of something like Landsat, or the other Earth Science oriented missions undertaken by NASA or with NASA playing a key part.</p><p>A "punch list of firsts" approach is not a very good way to gauge the importance of a nation's space exploration program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So ?
You still ca n't argue that NASA is not an enormous contributor to planetary science and remote sensing.Consider the Soviet Mars program .
They sent three landers there over three years , and Russia is just getting around to following up on those .
NASA has sent seven missions there over thirty years , very elaborate and sophisticated ones .
The Viking lander was a scientific tour de force , and the US Mars Rover mission alone is a record breaker for sheer number of days in operation.On the other hand , the Soviet space program practically owned Venus , spent decades in a serious , extended effort to gather data there .
That 's a huge contribution to science , because Venus is hard , but very , very interesting due to its similarities and differences with/to Earth.As far as the Earth is concerned , I do n't think there is any contest , science-wise .
Not to denigrate Soviet contributions in engineering , but I do n't think we can even begin to calculate the value of something like Landsat , or the other Earth Science oriented missions undertaken by NASA or with NASA playing a key part.A " punch list of firsts " approach is not a very good way to gauge the importance of a nation 's space exploration program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So?
You still can't argue that NASA is not an enormous contributor to planetary science and remote sensing.Consider the Soviet Mars program.
They sent three landers there over three years, and Russia is just getting around to following up on those.
NASA has sent seven missions there over thirty years, very elaborate and sophisticated ones.
The Viking lander was a scientific tour de force, and the US Mars Rover mission alone is a record breaker for sheer number of days in operation.On the other hand, the Soviet space program practically owned Venus, spent decades in a serious, extended effort to gather data there.
That's a huge contribution to science, because Venus is hard, but very, very interesting due to its similarities and differences with/to Earth.As far as the Earth is concerned, I don't think there is any contest, science-wise.
Not to denigrate Soviet contributions in engineering, but I don't think we can even begin to calculate the value of something like Landsat, or the other Earth Science oriented missions undertaken by NASA or with NASA playing a key part.A "punch list of firsts" approach is not a very good way to gauge the importance of a nation's space exploration program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982424</id>
	<title>funny</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1265044860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the "electric moon buggie" as an "electric boondoggle".  It might as well be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the " electric moon buggie " as an " electric boondoggle " .
It might as well be : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the "electric moon buggie" as an "electric boondoggle".
It might as well be :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983654</id>
	<title>Re:What does this mean for manned exploration?</title>
	<author>Keebler71</author>
	<datestamp>1265049780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>On top of that, the Mars mission is still on. </i></p> </div><p>If by "on" you mean was never funded and still isn't funded then you are right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On top of that , the Mars mission is still on .
If by " on " you mean was never funded and still is n't funded then you are right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> On top of that, the Mars mission is still on.
If by "on" you mean was never funded and still isn't funded then you are right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984698</id>
	<title>Re:What do we need NASA for now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265054220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's a bad parent because he got his daughter interested in something that most girls aren't going to be interested in?  I'd say he's a great parent, besides, she's only 10 years old, give it 20 years and I'm sure another man will land on the moon, even if it's another country or a private sector.  At this rate, the United States is never going to be a leader in space, instead we will give the glory to other countries (Namely China, I see their program going places, and I don't like to admit it, but, good job China, ya commie bastards!).  The daughter of that comment's poster doesn't have to work for Nasa, in fact, if I were going into some form of space development, I DEFINITELY wouldn't go for Nasa.  It's a government operation, and they are always going to be at the mercy of the diplomat in office.</p><p>We just need to get more private sectors interested in space development, because the only thing holding us back in simply the lack of technology.  When we develop a better way to get into space, and a faster method of traveling it, I can almost guarantee you we will see a "golden age" of technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a bad parent because he got his daughter interested in something that most girls are n't going to be interested in ?
I 'd say he 's a great parent , besides , she 's only 10 years old , give it 20 years and I 'm sure another man will land on the moon , even if it 's another country or a private sector .
At this rate , the United States is never going to be a leader in space , instead we will give the glory to other countries ( Namely China , I see their program going places , and I do n't like to admit it , but , good job China , ya commie bastards ! ) .
The daughter of that comment 's poster does n't have to work for Nasa , in fact , if I were going into some form of space development , I DEFINITELY would n't go for Nasa .
It 's a government operation , and they are always going to be at the mercy of the diplomat in office.We just need to get more private sectors interested in space development , because the only thing holding us back in simply the lack of technology .
When we develop a better way to get into space , and a faster method of traveling it , I can almost guarantee you we will see a " golden age " of technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a bad parent because he got his daughter interested in something that most girls aren't going to be interested in?
I'd say he's a great parent, besides, she's only 10 years old, give it 20 years and I'm sure another man will land on the moon, even if it's another country or a private sector.
At this rate, the United States is never going to be a leader in space, instead we will give the glory to other countries (Namely China, I see their program going places, and I don't like to admit it, but, good job China, ya commie bastards!).
The daughter of that comment's poster doesn't have to work for Nasa, in fact, if I were going into some form of space development, I DEFINITELY wouldn't go for Nasa.
It's a government operation, and they are always going to be at the mercy of the diplomat in office.We just need to get more private sectors interested in space development, because the only thing holding us back in simply the lack of technology.
When we develop a better way to get into space, and a faster method of traveling it, I can almost guarantee you we will see a "golden age" of technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982438</id>
	<title>time for markets to show the way</title>
	<author>m0llusk</author>
	<datestamp>1265044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government development of space is holding back commercial development.  The time for initial investment has ended now that we know the basics.  This article is full of good examples of this.  The robot mower highlighted here is already being provided by the marketplace.  Private ventures are preparing more forward thinking launch vehicles than the big rocket talked about in the article.  There is always going to be some role or collective action, but government is no longer needed as the primary driver.</p><p>It is critically important to keep markets on Earth functioning in order to extend ourselves into space.  The idea that we can have our economic activities melt down in chaos while reaching for our future in the stars is questionable.  Some of the same people here who want more space development also pushed an ideologically driven view of economic activity which played a big part in this global financial implosion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government development of space is holding back commercial development .
The time for initial investment has ended now that we know the basics .
This article is full of good examples of this .
The robot mower highlighted here is already being provided by the marketplace .
Private ventures are preparing more forward thinking launch vehicles than the big rocket talked about in the article .
There is always going to be some role or collective action , but government is no longer needed as the primary driver.It is critically important to keep markets on Earth functioning in order to extend ourselves into space .
The idea that we can have our economic activities melt down in chaos while reaching for our future in the stars is questionable .
Some of the same people here who want more space development also pushed an ideologically driven view of economic activity which played a big part in this global financial implosion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government development of space is holding back commercial development.
The time for initial investment has ended now that we know the basics.
This article is full of good examples of this.
The robot mower highlighted here is already being provided by the marketplace.
Private ventures are preparing more forward thinking launch vehicles than the big rocket talked about in the article.
There is always going to be some role or collective action, but government is no longer needed as the primary driver.It is critically important to keep markets on Earth functioning in order to extend ourselves into space.
The idea that we can have our economic activities melt down in chaos while reaching for our future in the stars is questionable.
Some of the same people here who want more space development also pushed an ideologically driven view of economic activity which played a big part in this global financial implosion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984324</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are more sensible places to start. Like pulling out of any conflict that isn't on American soil and slashing our $300B+ peacetime defense budget to $50-$100B.</p><p>NASA projects take decades to complete and many depend on windows that won't return for hundreds of years. It is incredibly stupid to pull their budget. That kind of thinking results in no results from NASA whatsoever because inevitably during the 20yrs a project runs there is some sort of economic turmoil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are more sensible places to start .
Like pulling out of any conflict that is n't on American soil and slashing our $ 300B + peacetime defense budget to $ 50- $ 100B.NASA projects take decades to complete and many depend on windows that wo n't return for hundreds of years .
It is incredibly stupid to pull their budget .
That kind of thinking results in no results from NASA whatsoever because inevitably during the 20yrs a project runs there is some sort of economic turmoil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are more sensible places to start.
Like pulling out of any conflict that isn't on American soil and slashing our $300B+ peacetime defense budget to $50-$100B.NASA projects take decades to complete and many depend on windows that won't return for hundreds of years.
It is incredibly stupid to pull their budget.
That kind of thinking results in no results from NASA whatsoever because inevitably during the 20yrs a project runs there is some sort of economic turmoil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982600</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The German V-2 was capable of reaching space in a vertical launch with a light payload.  Whether any ever did or not is not clear.  The many thousands that were launched were generally not vertically launched.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The German V-2 was capable of reaching space in a vertical launch with a light payload .
Whether any ever did or not is not clear .
The many thousands that were launched were generally not vertically launched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The German V-2 was capable of reaching space in a vertical launch with a light payload.
Whether any ever did or not is not clear.
The many thousands that were launched were generally not vertically launched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983580</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1265049480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ensign Chekov, is that you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ensign Chekov , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ensign Chekov, is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987952</id>
	<title>Re:Only point I'd like to make...</title>
	<author>RCL</author>
	<datestamp>1265022660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot about the Chineese who invented rocket propulsion<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot about the Chineese who invented rocket propulsion : &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot about the Chineese who invented rocket propulsion :&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982226</id>
	<title>It needed saying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insensitive clods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insensitive clods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insensitive clods.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981856</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1265042640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget. It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again. </i>
<br>
<br>
Quick-profit?  The budget cuts were done to make us slightly less in the red, not to make "profits."</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget .
It 's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again .
Quick-profit ? The budget cuts were done to make us slightly less in the red , not to make " profits .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget.
It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again.
Quick-profit?  The budget cuts were done to make us slightly less in the red, not to make "profits.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983594</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1265049540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In vertical flight all the way up they were capable of aroound 200 km. While it is indeed not clear if any were launched that way, in operational flights they attained 90-110 km. Lower number satisfies US definition of "space", which is enough in this case, I gues<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;p. Higher one fulfills also international definition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In vertical flight all the way up they were capable of aroound 200 km .
While it is indeed not clear if any were launched that way , in operational flights they attained 90-110 km .
Lower number satisfies US definition of " space " , which is enough in this case , I gues ; p. Higher one fulfills also international definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In vertical flight all the way up they were capable of aroound 200 km.
While it is indeed not clear if any were launched that way, in operational flights they attained 90-110 km.
Lower number satisfies US definition of "space", which is enough in this case, I gues ;p. Higher one fulfills also international definition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987618</id>
	<title>start-stop-start-stop.</title>
	<author>scotts13</author>
	<datestamp>1265021280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need a way to fund a program - reliably - past one administration. What about the billions already spent on Constellation? Or the VentureStar, or heaven knows how many programs cancelled before they were even tried? No program is perfect, and some of them might even have failed. But if we kill them in progress, we guarantee they're expensive failures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a way to fund a program - reliably - past one administration .
What about the billions already spent on Constellation ?
Or the VentureStar , or heaven knows how many programs cancelled before they were even tried ?
No program is perfect , and some of them might even have failed .
But if we kill them in progress , we guarantee they 're expensive failures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a way to fund a program - reliably - past one administration.
What about the billions already spent on Constellation?
Or the VentureStar, or heaven knows how many programs cancelled before they were even tried?
No program is perfect, and some of them might even have failed.
But if we kill them in progress, we guarantee they're expensive failures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984512</id>
	<title>We'll do it like we did last time</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1265053440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the Chinese get to the moon, we'll want to get to the moon again.  The only reason we got to the moon in the first place is because sputnik scared the crap out of Americans and Kennedy started the lunar program in the spirit of national brinkmanship to one-up the U.S.S.R.</p><p>So nothing changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Chinese get to the moon , we 'll want to get to the moon again .
The only reason we got to the moon in the first place is because sputnik scared the crap out of Americans and Kennedy started the lunar program in the spirit of national brinkmanship to one-up the U.S.S.R.So nothing changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Chinese get to the moon, we'll want to get to the moon again.
The only reason we got to the moon in the first place is because sputnik scared the crap out of Americans and Kennedy started the lunar program in the spirit of national brinkmanship to one-up the U.S.S.R.So nothing changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982798</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as we learn to speak another language and follow the communist doctrine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as we learn to speak another language and follow the communist doctrine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as we learn to speak another language and follow the communist doctrine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982730</id>
	<title>Re:NASA needs more budget.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason why the US didn't put a satellite in orbit first was because of a bureaucratic nightmare. The Navy and not the Army was the agency that was awarded the contract to build "vanguard". Jupiter could have put an object into orbit quite a bit sooner but the DoD had a pissing contest. Plus to Eisenhower it wasn't deemed that important. Also, Korolev saw what he thought were failed Jupiter launches and pushed up his schedule for Sputnik.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason why the US did n't put a satellite in orbit first was because of a bureaucratic nightmare .
The Navy and not the Army was the agency that was awarded the contract to build " vanguard " .
Jupiter could have put an object into orbit quite a bit sooner but the DoD had a pissing contest .
Plus to Eisenhower it was n't deemed that important .
Also , Korolev saw what he thought were failed Jupiter launches and pushed up his schedule for Sputnik .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason why the US didn't put a satellite in orbit first was because of a bureaucratic nightmare.
The Navy and not the Army was the agency that was awarded the contract to build "vanguard".
Jupiter could have put an object into orbit quite a bit sooner but the DoD had a pissing contest.
Plus to Eisenhower it wasn't deemed that important.
Also, Korolev saw what he thought were failed Jupiter launches and pushed up his schedule for Sputnik.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982666</id>
	<title>Ares is no loss.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having read that engineers inside NASA have criticised Ares and would prefer other alternatives, I'm not crying about this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read that engineers inside NASA have criticised Ares and would prefer other alternatives , I 'm not crying about this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read that engineers inside NASA have criticised Ares and would prefer other alternatives, I'm not crying about this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30992182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30989780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30994878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30996390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30990468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30988252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30989006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30988374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30995886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1435211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983586
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30989780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983852
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30988252
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30989006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984302
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30988374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983758
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30990468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983406
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30981958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982856
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982444
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982654
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982740
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983164
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982730
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983904
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982628
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982600
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984650
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985668
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30995886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30987868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30994878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30992182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30991822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30996390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30984010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30982702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30985254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1435211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1435211.30983426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
