<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_24_1634224</id>
	<title>Space Junk Getting Worse</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267039620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>HockeyPuck writes <i>"According to Space.com <a href="http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/space-debris-getting-messier-100223.html">the amount of space junk is getting worse</a>. 'A head-on collision was averted between a spent upper stage from a Chinese rocket and the European Space Agency's (ESA) huge Envisat Earth remote-sensing spacecraft. [...] But what if the two objects had tangled?  Such a space collision would have caused mayhem in the heavens, adding clutter to an orbit altitude where there are big problems already, said Heiner Klinkrad, head of the European Space Agency's Space Debris Office in Darmstadt, Germany."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>HockeyPuck writes " According to Space.com the amount of space junk is getting worse .
'A head-on collision was averted between a spent upper stage from a Chinese rocket and the European Space Agency 's ( ESA ) huge Envisat Earth remote-sensing spacecraft .
[ ... ] But what if the two objects had tangled ?
Such a space collision would have caused mayhem in the heavens , adding clutter to an orbit altitude where there are big problems already , said Heiner Klinkrad , head of the European Space Agency 's Space Debris Office in Darmstadt , Germany .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HockeyPuck writes "According to Space.com the amount of space junk is getting worse.
'A head-on collision was averted between a spent upper stage from a Chinese rocket and the European Space Agency's (ESA) huge Envisat Earth remote-sensing spacecraft.
[...] But what if the two objects had tangled?
Such a space collision would have caused mayhem in the heavens, adding clutter to an orbit altitude where there are big problems already, said Heiner Klinkrad, head of the European Space Agency's Space Debris Office in Darmstadt, Germany.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263536</id>
	<title>Air Force Commercial</title>
	<author>colmore</author>
	<datestamp>1265143920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just maneuver out of the way like in that ridiculous Air Force commercial?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just maneuver out of the way like in that ridiculous Air Force commercial ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just maneuver out of the way like in that ridiculous Air Force commercial?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264076</id>
	<title>been proposed already...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265103240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263476</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1265143620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A satellite such as you describe would be both tremendously expensive, and (quite justifiably) regarded as a weapon.  And dealing with the amount of junk currently in LEO, we'd need not one such satellite, but a lot of them.  There's also the problem of what counts as junk -- the US, Russia, and China certainly, and several other nations probably, have a number of satellites that have no public record of their existence, but which are very much active and functional.  If anything the garbage-sweeping satellite doesn't have in its database is classified as "junk" and destroyed, it would end up taking these satellites down, and the owners might get<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... testy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A satellite such as you describe would be both tremendously expensive , and ( quite justifiably ) regarded as a weapon .
And dealing with the amount of junk currently in LEO , we 'd need not one such satellite , but a lot of them .
There 's also the problem of what counts as junk -- the US , Russia , and China certainly , and several other nations probably , have a number of satellites that have no public record of their existence , but which are very much active and functional .
If anything the garbage-sweeping satellite does n't have in its database is classified as " junk " and destroyed , it would end up taking these satellites down , and the owners might get ... testy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A satellite such as you describe would be both tremendously expensive, and (quite justifiably) regarded as a weapon.
And dealing with the amount of junk currently in LEO, we'd need not one such satellite, but a lot of them.
There's also the problem of what counts as junk -- the US, Russia, and China certainly, and several other nations probably, have a number of satellites that have no public record of their existence, but which are very much active and functional.
If anything the garbage-sweeping satellite doesn't have in its database is classified as "junk" and destroyed, it would end up taking these satellites down, and the owners might get ... testy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267984</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>sixsixtysix</author>
	<datestamp>1265126220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or make them clean up their mess?</htmltext>
<tokenext>or make them clean up their mess ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or make them clean up their mess?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263480</id>
	<title>A head-on collision?</title>
	<author>Jay L</author>
	<datestamp>1265143620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When an unmanned satellite nearly hits an ejected rocket stage... what exactly counts as a head-on collision? Would it be safer if it was side-impact?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When an unmanned satellite nearly hits an ejected rocket stage... what exactly counts as a head-on collision ?
Would it be safer if it was side-impact ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When an unmanned satellite nearly hits an ejected rocket stage... what exactly counts as a head-on collision?
Would it be safer if it was side-impact?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265496</id>
	<title>Re:there is no space junk "problem"</title>
	<author>dadelbunts</author>
	<datestamp>1265109060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hell and i could see the moon last night. If there is so much spacejunk how come i can see the moon. Answer me that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell and i could see the moon last night .
If there is so much spacejunk how come i can see the moon .
Answer me that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell and i could see the moon last night.
If there is so much spacejunk how come i can see the moon.
Answer me that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263502</id>
	<title>Responsible</title>
	<author>johncadengo</author>
	<datestamp>1265143740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As more and more of it piles up, I wonder, would they be legally responsible for their space junk and the damage it causes? When I was young and left toys out on the floor, I got in trouble whenever anyone stepped on it. Now older, if I left some nails on the road, surely someone would come looking for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As more and more of it piles up , I wonder , would they be legally responsible for their space junk and the damage it causes ?
When I was young and left toys out on the floor , I got in trouble whenever anyone stepped on it .
Now older , if I left some nails on the road , surely someone would come looking for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As more and more of it piles up, I wonder, would they be legally responsible for their space junk and the damage it causes?
When I was young and left toys out on the floor, I got in trouble whenever anyone stepped on it.
Now older, if I left some nails on the road, surely someone would come looking for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263498</id>
	<title>We need a recyling center</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1265143680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need to have someone up in space, collecting all this crap and recycling it.  Even if it is just Sanford &amp; Son style recycling, it costs way too much money to get mass up there for us to just throw it out and leave it there.
<p>
If something weighs 3 tons and is in orbit, someone should be able to take it up to the space station, bolt it down, and start wielding the holes shut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to have someone up in space , collecting all this crap and recycling it .
Even if it is just Sanford &amp; Son style recycling , it costs way too much money to get mass up there for us to just throw it out and leave it there .
If something weighs 3 tons and is in orbit , someone should be able to take it up to the space station , bolt it down , and start wielding the holes shut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to have someone up in space, collecting all this crap and recycling it.
Even if it is just Sanford &amp; Son style recycling, it costs way too much money to get mass up there for us to just throw it out and leave it there.
If something weighs 3 tons and is in orbit, someone should be able to take it up to the space station, bolt it down, and start wielding the holes shut.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264562</id>
	<title>Quark</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1265105340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What? No United Galaxy Sanitation Cruiser fleet mentioned yet?
<br>
Am I the only one that remembers the Bettys?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
No United Galaxy Sanitation Cruiser fleet mentioned yet ?
Am I the only one that remembers the Bettys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
No United Galaxy Sanitation Cruiser fleet mentioned yet?
Am I the only one that remembers the Bettys?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263516</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>colmore</author>
	<datestamp>1265143800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Earth orbit is not zero gravity, it's freefall.  Moving into a wider orbit takes thrust to counteract Earth's gravity, which is still considerable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Earth orbit is not zero gravity , it 's freefall .
Moving into a wider orbit takes thrust to counteract Earth 's gravity , which is still considerable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Earth orbit is not zero gravity, it's freefall.
Moving into a wider orbit takes thrust to counteract Earth's gravity, which is still considerable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263284</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1265142780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not a viable solution, because perhaps, someday very soon (on an interplanetary scale at least) we'll want to send something into space...  The better alternative would be to put it into a degrading orbit, and let it burn up in the atmosphere or crash into the ocean.  Then, you could create an autonomous robot to go out an collect the "small" debris (and incapacitated objects) that are out there, and send them into a degrading orbit.  At least we'd be able to predict some cool shooting stars!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not a viable solution , because perhaps , someday very soon ( on an interplanetary scale at least ) we 'll want to send something into space... The better alternative would be to put it into a degrading orbit , and let it burn up in the atmosphere or crash into the ocean .
Then , you could create an autonomous robot to go out an collect the " small " debris ( and incapacitated objects ) that are out there , and send them into a degrading orbit .
At least we 'd be able to predict some cool shooting stars !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not a viable solution, because perhaps, someday very soon (on an interplanetary scale at least) we'll want to send something into space...  The better alternative would be to put it into a degrading orbit, and let it burn up in the atmosphere or crash into the ocean.
Then, you could create an autonomous robot to go out an collect the "small" debris (and incapacitated objects) that are out there, and send them into a degrading orbit.
At least we'd be able to predict some cool shooting stars!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31266446</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1265113680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have a another suggestion: The US should stop pushing militarization of space, and EU/UNO should make a treaty.</p></div><p>Not going to happen. And space debris will get worse even if some sort of credible demilitarization of space happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a another suggestion : The US should stop pushing militarization of space , and EU/UNO should make a treaty.Not going to happen .
And space debris will get worse even if some sort of credible demilitarization of space happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a another suggestion: The US should stop pushing militarization of space, and EU/UNO should make a treaty.Not going to happen.
And space debris will get worse even if some sort of credible demilitarization of space happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264160</id>
	<title>Oooh a real life Salvage 1?</title>
	<author>DigitalReverend</author>
	<datestamp>1265103660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that the salvage laws of the sea should also be applied to space, and this could private industry in the space arena.  Then we could have a real life <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage\_1" title="wikipedia.org">Salvage 1.</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that the salvage laws of the sea should also be applied to space , and this could private industry in the space arena .
Then we could have a real life Salvage 1 .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that the salvage laws of the sea should also be applied to space, and this could private industry in the space arena.
Then we could have a real life Salvage 1.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31285492</id>
	<title>I guess it would depend on...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1267202280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess it would depend on...the fact that we can not compare a collision as we know it on earth to be the same as in space, mass, and weight and internal gravity as well as density of the metal on the outside of the hull.<br>It would all play a small role, they might just bounce off each other and be off course, or they could totally be destroyed in a great ball of flame. I think we might have to test this out someday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it would depend on...the fact that we can not compare a collision as we know it on earth to be the same as in space , mass , and weight and internal gravity as well as density of the metal on the outside of the hull.It would all play a small role , they might just bounce off each other and be off course , or they could totally be destroyed in a great ball of flame .
I think we might have to test this out someday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it would depend on...the fact that we can not compare a collision as we know it on earth to be the same as in space, mass, and weight and internal gravity as well as density of the metal on the outside of the hull.It would all play a small role, they might just bounce off each other and be off course, or they could totally be destroyed in a great ball of flame.
I think we might have to test this out someday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263488</id>
	<title>how to fight the next world war.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought that with terrorists becoming the next mortal enemy the best way for an  to fight woudl be to shoot a few rockets filled with #4 ball bearings into space. You kill communication (comm sat), mapping(GPS), and intelligence (spy sat), and force them to fight man to man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought that with terrorists becoming the next mortal enemy the best way for an to fight woudl be to shoot a few rockets filled with # 4 ball bearings into space .
You kill communication ( comm sat ) , mapping ( GPS ) , and intelligence ( spy sat ) , and force them to fight man to man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought that with terrorists becoming the next mortal enemy the best way for an  to fight woudl be to shoot a few rockets filled with #4 ball bearings into space.
You kill communication (comm sat), mapping(GPS), and intelligence (spy sat), and force them to fight man to man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263942</id>
	<title>....Another Man's Treasure</title>
	<author>slick7</author>
	<datestamp>1265102580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever since reading Gerard K. O'Neil's "High Frontier", I have thought about this very problem. My designs and concepts have been incubating since 1977. Encompassing space based and telepresence applications for collection, retrieval, disposal of used, defunct objects. Partially funded by reprocessing, reuse and insurance recovery fees. Case in point: The Italian space initiative centering on generating electrical power by towing a satellite behind the shuttle was lost when the spectra cable broke. LLoyds of London coughed up $400 million for that loss. The recovery fee was 10\% of the insurance policy. The number of satellites in useless orbits or non-operational due to busted circuit boards are cherries "ripe for picking".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since reading Gerard K. O'Neil 's " High Frontier " , I have thought about this very problem .
My designs and concepts have been incubating since 1977 .
Encompassing space based and telepresence applications for collection , retrieval , disposal of used , defunct objects .
Partially funded by reprocessing , reuse and insurance recovery fees .
Case in point : The Italian space initiative centering on generating electrical power by towing a satellite behind the shuttle was lost when the spectra cable broke .
LLoyds of London coughed up $ 400 million for that loss .
The recovery fee was 10 \ % of the insurance policy .
The number of satellites in useless orbits or non-operational due to busted circuit boards are cherries " ripe for picking " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since reading Gerard K. O'Neil's "High Frontier", I have thought about this very problem.
My designs and concepts have been incubating since 1977.
Encompassing space based and telepresence applications for collection, retrieval, disposal of used, defunct objects.
Partially funded by reprocessing, reuse and insurance recovery fees.
Case in point: The Italian space initiative centering on generating electrical power by towing a satellite behind the shuttle was lost when the spectra cable broke.
LLoyds of London coughed up $400 million for that loss.
The recovery fee was 10\% of the insurance policy.
The number of satellites in useless orbits or non-operational due to busted circuit boards are cherries "ripe for picking".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31286040</id>
	<title>What did I step in?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267204740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first of all, someone needs to gather all of the junk first. Maybe in several nets or a remote electomagnetic robotic pooper scooper. that way you dont have to pay someone extra for working in a hazardous environment. You know if you threw something to the sun (hypothetically) there would be some sort of monstruous solar flare that would wipe out power on earth.(hypothetically) When you mess with the balance of the universe, there is always a negative consequence. Its always like that. Maybe it wouldnt be noticed right away, but scientist will blame it on someone. Then there would be another study disclaiming the previous one! Can't we all just get along! ROD-NEY KING!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first of all , someone needs to gather all of the junk first .
Maybe in several nets or a remote electomagnetic robotic pooper scooper .
that way you dont have to pay someone extra for working in a hazardous environment .
You know if you threw something to the sun ( hypothetically ) there would be some sort of monstruous solar flare that would wipe out power on earth .
( hypothetically ) When you mess with the balance of the universe , there is always a negative consequence .
Its always like that .
Maybe it wouldnt be noticed right away , but scientist will blame it on someone .
Then there would be another study disclaiming the previous one !
Ca n't we all just get along !
ROD-NEY KING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first of all, someone needs to gather all of the junk first.
Maybe in several nets or a remote electomagnetic robotic pooper scooper.
that way you dont have to pay someone extra for working in a hazardous environment.
You know if you threw something to the sun (hypothetically) there would be some sort of monstruous solar flare that would wipe out power on earth.
(hypothetically) When you mess with the balance of the universe, there is always a negative consequence.
Its always like that.
Maybe it wouldnt be noticed right away, but scientist will blame it on someone.
Then there would be another study disclaiming the previous one!
Can't we all just get along!
ROD-NEY KING!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264818</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1265106360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere? What good does heating up one side of it do?</p></div></blockquote><p>It was already mentioned in this thread, but a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser\_broom" title="wikipedia.org">laser broom</a> [wikipedia.org] would do the job by burning off bits of a piece of debris, generating thrust and pushing the debris into an orbit with a lower perigee.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere ?
What good does heating up one side of it do ? It was already mentioned in this thread , but a laser broom [ wikipedia.org ] would do the job by burning off bits of a piece of debris , generating thrust and pushing the debris into an orbit with a lower perigee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere?
What good does heating up one side of it do?It was already mentioned in this thread, but a laser broom [wikipedia.org] would do the job by burning off bits of a piece of debris, generating thrust and pushing the debris into an orbit with a lower perigee.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263446</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But then space will be weaponized, no matter how much space junk you promise to clean up it still will be able to kill live satellites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But then space will be weaponized , no matter how much space junk you promise to clean up it still will be able to kill live satellites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then space will be weaponized, no matter how much space junk you promise to clean up it still will be able to kill live satellites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267092</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares...</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1265118060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If companies don't hestitate to pollute rivers, seas, air and pretty much everything that could very well kill us right now, why would they think twice before polluting something we, as a civilization, have no regard for?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because in the same way they aren't allowed to pollute the water or air or anything else anymore - they aren't allowed to pollute space.  In most spacefaring nations, if you can't meet the regulations regarding junk production (short version: you aren't allowed to produce <i>any</i>), you won't be granted a launch license.  Companies that can't get launch licenses don't stay in business, so they adhere to the regulations.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Contrary to what hysterical articles and [mostly] ignorant [and hysterical] comments on Slashdot would have you believe, the vast majority of the junk in orbit is <i>old</i>.  The West has been working to reduce the amount of junk produced for decades.  Russia has come onboard with this as well within the last decade.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If companies do n't hestitate to pollute rivers , seas , air and pretty much everything that could very well kill us right now , why would they think twice before polluting something we , as a civilization , have no regard for ? Because in the same way they are n't allowed to pollute the water or air or anything else anymore - they are n't allowed to pollute space .
In most spacefaring nations , if you ca n't meet the regulations regarding junk production ( short version : you are n't allowed to produce any ) , you wo n't be granted a launch license .
Companies that ca n't get launch licenses do n't stay in business , so they adhere to the regulations .
  Contrary to what hysterical articles and [ mostly ] ignorant [ and hysterical ] comments on Slashdot would have you believe , the vast majority of the junk in orbit is old .
The West has been working to reduce the amount of junk produced for decades .
Russia has come onboard with this as well within the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If companies don't hestitate to pollute rivers, seas, air and pretty much everything that could very well kill us right now, why would they think twice before polluting something we, as a civilization, have no regard for?Because in the same way they aren't allowed to pollute the water or air or anything else anymore - they aren't allowed to pollute space.
In most spacefaring nations, if you can't meet the regulations regarding junk production (short version: you aren't allowed to produce any), you won't be granted a launch license.
Companies that can't get launch licenses don't stay in business, so they adhere to the regulations.
  Contrary to what hysterical articles and [mostly] ignorant [and hysterical] comments on Slashdot would have you believe, the vast majority of the junk in orbit is old.
The West has been working to reduce the amount of junk produced for decades.
Russia has come onboard with this as well within the last decade.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264368</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>SeanGilman</author>
	<datestamp>1265104620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Then, you could create an autonomous robot to go out an collect the "small" debris</i>
<p>
WALL-E!!!  Can I have one with my flying car please?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then , you could create an autonomous robot to go out an collect the " small " debris WALL-E ! ! !
Can I have one with my flying car please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then, you could create an autonomous robot to go out an collect the "small" debris

WALL-E!!!
Can I have one with my flying car please?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265698</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>probityrules</author>
	<datestamp>1265110020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah, there's already two guys up there cleaning it all up for us: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fy7psIuJjc" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fy7psIuJjc</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , there 's already two guys up there cleaning it all up for us : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 6Fy7psIuJjc [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, there's already two guys up there cleaning it all up for us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fy7psIuJjc [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263768</id>
	<title>We need more funding for space elevators</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265101800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Space elevators <a href="http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_elevator" title="wikipedia.org">http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_elevator</a> [wikipedia.org] would help alleviate this problem since we wouldn't need to send up a lost rocket which pretty much every single launch. The other option is to build successor craft to the shuttle that are reusable and actually cost effective (at this point, it is essentially cheaper to send up most satellites using single-launch rockets rather than reusables). Each of these would help a lot in cutting down the space debris problem. Unfortunately, given human nature, the much cheaper cost of space travel that would come with a space elevator would likely result in a lot more disposable or poorly produced satellites which create more of a problem. Ultimately, the solution will likely rest on a combination of better technology and actual regulation of space debris just as we regulate most pollutants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Space elevators http : //www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space \ _elevator [ wikipedia.org ] would help alleviate this problem since we would n't need to send up a lost rocket which pretty much every single launch .
The other option is to build successor craft to the shuttle that are reusable and actually cost effective ( at this point , it is essentially cheaper to send up most satellites using single-launch rockets rather than reusables ) .
Each of these would help a lot in cutting down the space debris problem .
Unfortunately , given human nature , the much cheaper cost of space travel that would come with a space elevator would likely result in a lot more disposable or poorly produced satellites which create more of a problem .
Ultimately , the solution will likely rest on a combination of better technology and actual regulation of space debris just as we regulate most pollutants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space elevators http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_elevator [wikipedia.org] would help alleviate this problem since we wouldn't need to send up a lost rocket which pretty much every single launch.
The other option is to build successor craft to the shuttle that are reusable and actually cost effective (at this point, it is essentially cheaper to send up most satellites using single-launch rockets rather than reusables).
Each of these would help a lot in cutting down the space debris problem.
Unfortunately, given human nature, the much cheaper cost of space travel that would come with a space elevator would likely result in a lot more disposable or poorly produced satellites which create more of a problem.
Ultimately, the solution will likely rest on a combination of better technology and actual regulation of space debris just as we regulate most pollutants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263558</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265144040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The vast majority of space debris consists of small particles, from microns up to 1 centimetre (0.39 in). Although there are an estimated 100 million such particles in orbit, they represent a tiny fraction of the total mass of human-made objects in space: perhaps 1\%. On impact, these particles cause damage similar to that from a micrometeorite and the widespread use of Whipple shields is effective against the damage they would otherwise cause. Many parts of spacecraft, however, cannot be protected with Whipple shields and are subject to constant wear and tear.</p><p>As these sorts of smaller debris represent the minority of the mass, and cause little damage, much of the focus on space debris risks centres on larger debris. The exact definition of "larger" generally means "the size that can be tracked using current technology" and thus changes as tracking technologies improve. In general, these objects are on the order of 10 centimetres (3.9 in) or larger and mass from about 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) and up. Collision with a fragment of this size at the average speed of 10 kilometres per second (6.2 mi/s) would be catastrophic. As a result, space missions have to consider a number of operational factors and risk mitigation strategies.</p></div></blockquote><p>(from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_junk" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_junk</a> [wikipedia.org])</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers.  Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.</p><p>Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects, yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.</p><p>There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue, I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.</p></div><p>How are you going to "push" objects that cross your orbit with 10 km/s?</p><p>They have some solutions on wikipedia:</p><blockquote><div><p>[edit] Self-removal</p><p>It is already an ITU requirement that geostationary satellites be able to remove themselves to a "graveyard orbit" at the end of their lives. It has been demonstrated that the selected orbital areas do not sufficiently protect GEO lanes from debris, although a response has not yet been formulated.[47]</p><p>Rocket boosters and some satellites retain enough fuel to allow them to power themselves into a decaying orbit. In cases when a direct (and controlled) de-orbit would require too much fuel, a satellite can also be brought to an orbit where atmospheric drag would cause it to de-orbit after some years. Such a maneuver was successfully performed with the French Spot-1 satellite, bringing its time to atmospheric re-entry down from a projected 200 years to about 15 years by lowering its perigee from 830 km (516 mi) to about 550 km (342 mi).[111]</p><p>Another proposed solution is to attach an electrodynamic tether to the spacecraft on launch. At the end of their lifetime it is rolled out and slows down the spacecraft.[112] Although tethers of up to 30 km have been successfully deployed in orbit the technology has not yet reached maturity.[33] It has also been proposed that booster stages include a sail-like attachment to the same end.[113]<br>[edit] External removal</p><p>The vast majority of space debris, especially smaller debris, cannot be removed under its own power. A variety of proposals have been made to directly remove such material from orbit. One of the most widely discussed solutions is the laser broom, which uses a powerful ground-based laser to ablate the front surface off known debris and thereby produce a working mass that slows the debris in orbit. With a continued application of such thrust, the debris will eventually spiral down into a low orbit and become subject to atmospheric drag.[114]</p><p>The US Air Force worked on a ground-based design under the name "Project Orion".[115] Although a testbed device was slated to launch on a 2003 Space Shuttle, numerous international agreements forbidding the testing of powerful lasers in orbit, caused the program to be limited to using the laser as a measurement device.[116] In the end, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster led to the project being set back, and as Nicholas Johnson, Chief Scientist and Program Manager for NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office, later noted, "There are lots of little gotchas in the Orion final report. There's a reason why it's been sitting on the shelf for more than a decade."[117]</p><p>Another well-studied solution is to use a remotely controlled vehicle to rendezvous with debris, capture it, and return to a central station.[118] A number of other proposals intercept the debris in a foamy ball of aerogel or even a spray of water.[119] These would impact with the debris and slow it. Some propose inflating balloons around the objects in order to increase their atmospheric drag. However, it was pointed out that a balloon could be punctured by other debris, thereby failing in its mission and actually increasing the amount of mass in orbit.</p><p>In any event, the cost of launching any of these solutions is about the same as launching any spacecraft. Johnson has stated that none of the existing solutions are currently cost effective.[33]</p></div></blockquote><p>I have a another suggestion: The US should stop pushing militarization of space, and EU/UNO should make a treaty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast majority of space debris consists of small particles , from microns up to 1 centimetre ( 0.39 in ) .
Although there are an estimated 100 million such particles in orbit , they represent a tiny fraction of the total mass of human-made objects in space : perhaps 1 \ % .
On impact , these particles cause damage similar to that from a micrometeorite and the widespread use of Whipple shields is effective against the damage they would otherwise cause .
Many parts of spacecraft , however , can not be protected with Whipple shields and are subject to constant wear and tear.As these sorts of smaller debris represent the minority of the mass , and cause little damage , much of the focus on space debris risks centres on larger debris .
The exact definition of " larger " generally means " the size that can be tracked using current technology " and thus changes as tracking technologies improve .
In general , these objects are on the order of 10 centimetres ( 3.9 in ) or larger and mass from about 1 kilogram ( 2.2 lb ) and up .
Collision with a fragment of this size at the average speed of 10 kilometres per second ( 6.2 mi/s ) would be catastrophic .
As a result , space missions have to consider a number of operational factors and risk mitigation strategies .
( from http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space \ _junk [ wikipedia.org ] ) Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers .
Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects , yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue , I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.How are you going to " push " objects that cross your orbit with 10 km/s ? They have some solutions on wikipedia : [ edit ] Self-removalIt is already an ITU requirement that geostationary satellites be able to remove themselves to a " graveyard orbit " at the end of their lives .
It has been demonstrated that the selected orbital areas do not sufficiently protect GEO lanes from debris , although a response has not yet been formulated .
[ 47 ] Rocket boosters and some satellites retain enough fuel to allow them to power themselves into a decaying orbit .
In cases when a direct ( and controlled ) de-orbit would require too much fuel , a satellite can also be brought to an orbit where atmospheric drag would cause it to de-orbit after some years .
Such a maneuver was successfully performed with the French Spot-1 satellite , bringing its time to atmospheric re-entry down from a projected 200 years to about 15 years by lowering its perigee from 830 km ( 516 mi ) to about 550 km ( 342 mi ) .
[ 111 ] Another proposed solution is to attach an electrodynamic tether to the spacecraft on launch .
At the end of their lifetime it is rolled out and slows down the spacecraft .
[ 112 ] Although tethers of up to 30 km have been successfully deployed in orbit the technology has not yet reached maturity .
[ 33 ] It has also been proposed that booster stages include a sail-like attachment to the same end .
[ 113 ] [ edit ] External removalThe vast majority of space debris , especially smaller debris , can not be removed under its own power .
A variety of proposals have been made to directly remove such material from orbit .
One of the most widely discussed solutions is the laser broom , which uses a powerful ground-based laser to ablate the front surface off known debris and thereby produce a working mass that slows the debris in orbit .
With a continued application of such thrust , the debris will eventually spiral down into a low orbit and become subject to atmospheric drag .
[ 114 ] The US Air Force worked on a ground-based design under the name " Project Orion " .
[ 115 ] Although a testbed device was slated to launch on a 2003 Space Shuttle , numerous international agreements forbidding the testing of powerful lasers in orbit , caused the program to be limited to using the laser as a measurement device .
[ 116 ] In the end , the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster led to the project being set back , and as Nicholas Johnson , Chief Scientist and Program Manager for NASA 's Orbital Debris Program Office , later noted , " There are lots of little gotchas in the Orion final report .
There 's a reason why it 's been sitting on the shelf for more than a decade .
" [ 117 ] Another well-studied solution is to use a remotely controlled vehicle to rendezvous with debris , capture it , and return to a central station .
[ 118 ] A number of other proposals intercept the debris in a foamy ball of aerogel or even a spray of water .
[ 119 ] These would impact with the debris and slow it .
Some propose inflating balloons around the objects in order to increase their atmospheric drag .
However , it was pointed out that a balloon could be punctured by other debris , thereby failing in its mission and actually increasing the amount of mass in orbit.In any event , the cost of launching any of these solutions is about the same as launching any spacecraft .
Johnson has stated that none of the existing solutions are currently cost effective .
[ 33 ] I have a another suggestion : The US should stop pushing militarization of space , and EU/UNO should make a treaty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast majority of space debris consists of small particles, from microns up to 1 centimetre (0.39 in).
Although there are an estimated 100 million such particles in orbit, they represent a tiny fraction of the total mass of human-made objects in space: perhaps 1\%.
On impact, these particles cause damage similar to that from a micrometeorite and the widespread use of Whipple shields is effective against the damage they would otherwise cause.
Many parts of spacecraft, however, cannot be protected with Whipple shields and are subject to constant wear and tear.As these sorts of smaller debris represent the minority of the mass, and cause little damage, much of the focus on space debris risks centres on larger debris.
The exact definition of "larger" generally means "the size that can be tracked using current technology" and thus changes as tracking technologies improve.
In general, these objects are on the order of 10 centimetres (3.9 in) or larger and mass from about 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) and up.
Collision with a fragment of this size at the average speed of 10 kilometres per second (6.2 mi/s) would be catastrophic.
As a result, space missions have to consider a number of operational factors and risk mitigation strategies.
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_junk [wikipedia.org])Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers.
Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects, yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue, I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.How are you going to "push" objects that cross your orbit with 10 km/s?They have some solutions on wikipedia:[edit] Self-removalIt is already an ITU requirement that geostationary satellites be able to remove themselves to a "graveyard orbit" at the end of their lives.
It has been demonstrated that the selected orbital areas do not sufficiently protect GEO lanes from debris, although a response has not yet been formulated.
[47]Rocket boosters and some satellites retain enough fuel to allow them to power themselves into a decaying orbit.
In cases when a direct (and controlled) de-orbit would require too much fuel, a satellite can also be brought to an orbit where atmospheric drag would cause it to de-orbit after some years.
Such a maneuver was successfully performed with the French Spot-1 satellite, bringing its time to atmospheric re-entry down from a projected 200 years to about 15 years by lowering its perigee from 830 km (516 mi) to about 550 km (342 mi).
[111]Another proposed solution is to attach an electrodynamic tether to the spacecraft on launch.
At the end of their lifetime it is rolled out and slows down the spacecraft.
[112] Although tethers of up to 30 km have been successfully deployed in orbit the technology has not yet reached maturity.
[33] It has also been proposed that booster stages include a sail-like attachment to the same end.
[113][edit] External removalThe vast majority of space debris, especially smaller debris, cannot be removed under its own power.
A variety of proposals have been made to directly remove such material from orbit.
One of the most widely discussed solutions is the laser broom, which uses a powerful ground-based laser to ablate the front surface off known debris and thereby produce a working mass that slows the debris in orbit.
With a continued application of such thrust, the debris will eventually spiral down into a low orbit and become subject to atmospheric drag.
[114]The US Air Force worked on a ground-based design under the name "Project Orion".
[115] Although a testbed device was slated to launch on a 2003 Space Shuttle, numerous international agreements forbidding the testing of powerful lasers in orbit, caused the program to be limited to using the laser as a measurement device.
[116] In the end, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster led to the project being set back, and as Nicholas Johnson, Chief Scientist and Program Manager for NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office, later noted, "There are lots of little gotchas in the Orion final report.
There's a reason why it's been sitting on the shelf for more than a decade.
"[117]Another well-studied solution is to use a remotely controlled vehicle to rendezvous with debris, capture it, and return to a central station.
[118] A number of other proposals intercept the debris in a foamy ball of aerogel or even a spray of water.
[119] These would impact with the debris and slow it.
Some propose inflating balloons around the objects in order to increase their atmospheric drag.
However, it was pointed out that a balloon could be punctured by other debris, thereby failing in its mission and actually increasing the amount of mass in orbit.In any event, the cost of launching any of these solutions is about the same as launching any spacecraft.
Johnson has stated that none of the existing solutions are currently cost effective.
[33]I have a another suggestion: The US should stop pushing militarization of space, and EU/UNO should make a treaty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263744</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1265101740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just keep the laser on the ground and use adaptive optics <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive\_optics" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive\_optics</a> [wikipedia.org] so that it remains coherent up to the junk you're trying to get rid of.  You don't have to change the orbit much, just enough to drop the Perigree into the upper atmosphere which can be done by pushing the junk straight upward away from the Earth.  It's called a Laser Broom, they've been talking about it to protect the ISS from debris for a while now but there's no reason it couldn't be applied to the larger problem of space debris in general.</p><p>The main problem is that the power of the beam needed to do this contravenes the Outer Space Treaty, which bans laser weapons in space.  Personally, I don't see how it applies since the laser itself would be on the ground, but that is what the wiki page says <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser\_broom" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser\_broom</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just keep the laser on the ground and use adaptive optics http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive \ _optics [ wikipedia.org ] so that it remains coherent up to the junk you 're trying to get rid of .
You do n't have to change the orbit much , just enough to drop the Perigree into the upper atmosphere which can be done by pushing the junk straight upward away from the Earth .
It 's called a Laser Broom , they 've been talking about it to protect the ISS from debris for a while now but there 's no reason it could n't be applied to the larger problem of space debris in general.The main problem is that the power of the beam needed to do this contravenes the Outer Space Treaty , which bans laser weapons in space .
Personally , I do n't see how it applies since the laser itself would be on the ground , but that is what the wiki page says http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser \ _broom [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just keep the laser on the ground and use adaptive optics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive\_optics [wikipedia.org] so that it remains coherent up to the junk you're trying to get rid of.
You don't have to change the orbit much, just enough to drop the Perigree into the upper atmosphere which can be done by pushing the junk straight upward away from the Earth.
It's called a Laser Broom, they've been talking about it to protect the ISS from debris for a while now but there's no reason it couldn't be applied to the larger problem of space debris in general.The main problem is that the power of the beam needed to do this contravenes the Outer Space Treaty, which bans laser weapons in space.
Personally, I don't see how it applies since the laser itself would be on the ground, but that is what the wiki page says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser\_broom [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31269440</id>
	<title>Easy solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267129740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>List the space junk in the free section of craigslist. It will be gone before the end of the day. Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>List the space junk in the free section of craigslist .
It will be gone before the end of the day .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>List the space junk in the free section of craigslist.
It will be gone before the end of the day.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263758</id>
	<title>Rfits</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1265101740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has to me mentioned in the Rifts RPG at some point in the war someone launched effectively frag missles that turned everything in orbit into a high speed shredder locking out anyone off Earth and locking in everything on Earth. What it to prevent some lunatic rogue (yeah no makeup here!) nation from doing the same?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has to me mentioned in the Rifts RPG at some point in the war someone launched effectively frag missles that turned everything in orbit into a high speed shredder locking out anyone off Earth and locking in everything on Earth .
What it to prevent some lunatic rogue ( yeah no makeup here !
) nation from doing the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has to me mentioned in the Rifts RPG at some point in the war someone launched effectively frag missles that turned everything in orbit into a high speed shredder locking out anyone off Earth and locking in everything on Earth.
What it to prevent some lunatic rogue (yeah no makeup here!
) nation from doing the same?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267004</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1265117520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Actually, a rocket motor and fuel is not required. A cheap, easy, and--I hate to use this word, but--"free" form of orbital propulsion exists. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether\_propulsion" title="wikipedia.org">Electrodynamic tether propulsion</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div></blockquote><p>Unless it takes up zero volume and zero mass, then it's not free.<br>
&nbsp; <br>On top of which, the claim that it 'exists' is a shaky one, as while tethers are theoretically simple they've proven very hard to implement in practice.  They're a long way from being proven technology and ready for prime time.  Tethers also have significant drawbacks, the most notable of which is that they can't be used for attitude control.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , a rocket motor and fuel is not required .
A cheap , easy , and--I hate to use this word , but-- " free " form of orbital propulsion exists .
Electrodynamic tether propulsion [ wikipedia.org ] .Unless it takes up zero volume and zero mass , then it 's not free .
  On top of which , the claim that it 'exists ' is a shaky one , as while tethers are theoretically simple they 've proven very hard to implement in practice .
They 're a long way from being proven technology and ready for prime time .
Tethers also have significant drawbacks , the most notable of which is that they ca n't be used for attitude control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, a rocket motor and fuel is not required.
A cheap, easy, and--I hate to use this word, but--"free" form of orbital propulsion exists.
Electrodynamic tether propulsion [wikipedia.org].Unless it takes up zero volume and zero mass, then it's not free.
  On top of which, the claim that it 'exists' is a shaky one, as while tethers are theoretically simple they've proven very hard to implement in practice.
They're a long way from being proven technology and ready for prime time.
Tethers also have significant drawbacks, the most notable of which is that they can't be used for attitude control.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263880</id>
	<title>ghetto dyson sphere</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1265102280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I want to know is how much junk can we orbit before we have to start calling it a dyson sphere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want to know is how much junk can we orbit before we have to start calling it a dyson sphere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want to know is how much junk can we orbit before we have to start calling it a dyson sphere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264046</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1265103060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe we could launch huge blocks of aerogel into low earth orbit. Or manufacture the aerogel in space. Carry a quantity of ethanol up along with a silicon alkoxide like tetraethyl orthosilicate. The astronauts can mix it up to create a big orbiting blob of SiO2 in a puffy aerogel form as the alcohol evaporates. Then as the orbiting paint chips or satellites whatever encounter this immense sponge of aerogel, they'll just punch a hole into it and bury themselves. The whole thing may need to be contained in a big garbage bag to avoid orbiting SiO2 particulates.
<br> <br>
We could launch a big cone with a flat top, pointing downward, and with a hard surface of some metal like titanium that won't flake or fragment. Pieces of crap can bounce downward after striking it and assume suborbital trajectories.
<br> <br>
We could set up a large ring or hollow tube with a reflective inner surface, equipped with a detector to watch for shit flying through, and with a huge laser that can blast it and vaporize it into harmless little particles.
<br> <br>
Maybe (since we know where a lot of stuff is) we can just blast the shit with a ground based laser someday. But it would be hard to do with visible light. We could send up a satellite equipped with X-ray lasers that vaporize the shit from far away in the vacuum of space.
<br> <br>
China's demolition derby in 2007 certainly didn't help, when they sent that rocket up for target practice on an old weather satellite in 2007 and blasted it into a million little pieces including 800 pieces of garbage with low orbit trajectories. But we could send up rockets made in China that deploy huge sponges or something before they hit targets, to avoid elastic collisions and end up with one piece of garbage with a suborbital trajectory.
<br> <br>
We could launch a large dumpster into space. Bring some garbage up from down here. Crap will fly into it and bury itself in the trash. Then a later flight can retrieve the dumpster so we can bring the space trash to the dump.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we could launch huge blocks of aerogel into low earth orbit .
Or manufacture the aerogel in space .
Carry a quantity of ethanol up along with a silicon alkoxide like tetraethyl orthosilicate .
The astronauts can mix it up to create a big orbiting blob of SiO2 in a puffy aerogel form as the alcohol evaporates .
Then as the orbiting paint chips or satellites whatever encounter this immense sponge of aerogel , they 'll just punch a hole into it and bury themselves .
The whole thing may need to be contained in a big garbage bag to avoid orbiting SiO2 particulates .
We could launch a big cone with a flat top , pointing downward , and with a hard surface of some metal like titanium that wo n't flake or fragment .
Pieces of crap can bounce downward after striking it and assume suborbital trajectories .
We could set up a large ring or hollow tube with a reflective inner surface , equipped with a detector to watch for shit flying through , and with a huge laser that can blast it and vaporize it into harmless little particles .
Maybe ( since we know where a lot of stuff is ) we can just blast the shit with a ground based laser someday .
But it would be hard to do with visible light .
We could send up a satellite equipped with X-ray lasers that vaporize the shit from far away in the vacuum of space .
China 's demolition derby in 2007 certainly did n't help , when they sent that rocket up for target practice on an old weather satellite in 2007 and blasted it into a million little pieces including 800 pieces of garbage with low orbit trajectories .
But we could send up rockets made in China that deploy huge sponges or something before they hit targets , to avoid elastic collisions and end up with one piece of garbage with a suborbital trajectory .
We could launch a large dumpster into space .
Bring some garbage up from down here .
Crap will fly into it and bury itself in the trash .
Then a later flight can retrieve the dumpster so we can bring the space trash to the dump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we could launch huge blocks of aerogel into low earth orbit.
Or manufacture the aerogel in space.
Carry a quantity of ethanol up along with a silicon alkoxide like tetraethyl orthosilicate.
The astronauts can mix it up to create a big orbiting blob of SiO2 in a puffy aerogel form as the alcohol evaporates.
Then as the orbiting paint chips or satellites whatever encounter this immense sponge of aerogel, they'll just punch a hole into it and bury themselves.
The whole thing may need to be contained in a big garbage bag to avoid orbiting SiO2 particulates.
We could launch a big cone with a flat top, pointing downward, and with a hard surface of some metal like titanium that won't flake or fragment.
Pieces of crap can bounce downward after striking it and assume suborbital trajectories.
We could set up a large ring or hollow tube with a reflective inner surface, equipped with a detector to watch for shit flying through, and with a huge laser that can blast it and vaporize it into harmless little particles.
Maybe (since we know where a lot of stuff is) we can just blast the shit with a ground based laser someday.
But it would be hard to do with visible light.
We could send up a satellite equipped with X-ray lasers that vaporize the shit from far away in the vacuum of space.
China's demolition derby in 2007 certainly didn't help, when they sent that rocket up for target practice on an old weather satellite in 2007 and blasted it into a million little pieces including 800 pieces of garbage with low orbit trajectories.
But we could send up rockets made in China that deploy huge sponges or something before they hit targets, to avoid elastic collisions and end up with one piece of garbage with a suborbital trajectory.
We could launch a large dumpster into space.
Bring some garbage up from down here.
Crap will fly into it and bury itself in the trash.
Then a later flight can retrieve the dumpster so we can bring the space trash to the dump.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300</id>
	<title>Options</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1265142840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder why this issue hasn't been fixed by now.</p><p>I can come up with quite a few ways that we could remove space junk, most aren't very good, but there is one I think would work the best.</p><p>Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers.  Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.</p><p>Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects, yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.</p><p>There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue, I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why this issue has n't been fixed by now.I can come up with quite a few ways that we could remove space junk , most are n't very good , but there is one I think would work the best.Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers .
Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects , yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue , I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why this issue hasn't been fixed by now.I can come up with quite a few ways that we could remove space junk, most aren't very good, but there is one I think would work the best.Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers.
Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects, yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue, I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263496</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1265143680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They tried something similar to this in Futurama. Didn't go so well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They tried something similar to this in Futurama .
Did n't go so well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They tried something similar to this in Futurama.
Didn't go so well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264378</id>
	<title>What can be done about this.</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1265104620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You really can't eliminate space junk, but you can reduce it.   The biggest issue is not whole satellites, but tiny pieces.   When an orbiting body breaks apart it goes from a single bullet to dodge into a shotgun blast.
<br> <br>
1.  Vent tanks or have an automated vent valve that opens after time.   Most rocket stages have a little bit of propellant left when they're done and this causes them to rupture.  If vented, they won't rupture and they'll deorbit faster
<br> <br>
2.  Design equipment to minimize small parts during separation.   Many rocket stages seperate and eject fasteners, bolts, tie downs and so on when they do.
<br> <br>
3.  When possible, deorbit LEO satellites when they reach the end of their useful life.   In general, this is something companies and space agencies perfer not to do, because it means using the last bit of propellant to deorbit rather than keep the satellite operational for a few more months.
<br> <br>
4.  Terminator tethers - an excellent idea for deorbiting that does not use propellant.  (http://www.tethers.com/TT.html)
<br> <br>
5.  If they can't be deorbited, at least put them in a "Grave Yard Orbit"</htmltext>
<tokenext>You really ca n't eliminate space junk , but you can reduce it .
The biggest issue is not whole satellites , but tiny pieces .
When an orbiting body breaks apart it goes from a single bullet to dodge into a shotgun blast .
1. Vent tanks or have an automated vent valve that opens after time .
Most rocket stages have a little bit of propellant left when they 're done and this causes them to rupture .
If vented , they wo n't rupture and they 'll deorbit faster 2 .
Design equipment to minimize small parts during separation .
Many rocket stages seperate and eject fasteners , bolts , tie downs and so on when they do .
3. When possible , deorbit LEO satellites when they reach the end of their useful life .
In general , this is something companies and space agencies perfer not to do , because it means using the last bit of propellant to deorbit rather than keep the satellite operational for a few more months .
4. Terminator tethers - an excellent idea for deorbiting that does not use propellant .
( http : //www.tethers.com/TT.html ) 5 .
If they ca n't be deorbited , at least put them in a " Grave Yard Orbit "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really can't eliminate space junk, but you can reduce it.
The biggest issue is not whole satellites, but tiny pieces.
When an orbiting body breaks apart it goes from a single bullet to dodge into a shotgun blast.
1.  Vent tanks or have an automated vent valve that opens after time.
Most rocket stages have a little bit of propellant left when they're done and this causes them to rupture.
If vented, they won't rupture and they'll deorbit faster
 
2.
Design equipment to minimize small parts during separation.
Many rocket stages seperate and eject fasteners, bolts, tie downs and so on when they do.
3.  When possible, deorbit LEO satellites when they reach the end of their useful life.
In general, this is something companies and space agencies perfer not to do, because it means using the last bit of propellant to deorbit rather than keep the satellite operational for a few more months.
4.  Terminator tethers - an excellent idea for deorbiting that does not use propellant.
(http://www.tethers.com/TT.html)
 
5.
If they can't be deorbited, at least put them in a "Grave Yard Orbit"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</id>
	<title>Push them further away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265142420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you abandon satellite, fuel tanks or anything else in the space, why not just push it floating further away in space? Let some aliens take care of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you abandon satellite , fuel tanks or anything else in the space , why not just push it floating further away in space ?
Let some aliens take care of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you abandon satellite, fuel tanks or anything else in the space, why not just push it floating further away in space?
Let some aliens take care of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264880</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>the\_hellspawn</author>
	<datestamp>1265106660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or we could just do what they did in Futurama in episode A Big Piece of Garbage (Season 1, Episode 8).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or we could just do what they did in Futurama in episode A Big Piece of Garbage ( Season 1 , Episode 8 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or we could just do what they did in Futurama in episode A Big Piece of Garbage (Season 1, Episode 8).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263314</id>
	<title>or pull them back</title>
	<author>Looce</author>
	<datestamp>1265142900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and reuse or recycle the parts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and reuse or recycle the parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and reuse or recycle the parts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263464</id>
	<title>We are past due...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are past due for a powerful ground laser to atomize tiny orbiting debris in space! Build it already! Don't worry about terrorists taking control of the laser and blasting ground targets. Just secure it very VERY well. It's more important to get rid of this space junk that keeps increasing in abundance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are past due for a powerful ground laser to atomize tiny orbiting debris in space !
Build it already !
Do n't worry about terrorists taking control of the laser and blasting ground targets .
Just secure it very VERY well .
It 's more important to get rid of this space junk that keeps increasing in abundance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are past due for a powerful ground laser to atomize tiny orbiting debris in space!
Build it already!
Don't worry about terrorists taking control of the laser and blasting ground targets.
Just secure it very VERY well.
It's more important to get rid of this space junk that keeps increasing in abundance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263418</id>
	<title>Mega Maid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like a job for mega maid:</p><p>"Suck, suck, suck!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like a job for mega maid : " Suck , suck , suck !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like a job for mega maid:"Suck, suck, suck!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263618</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1265144280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have been weapons in space before.  Satellites have more to fear against ground based attacks than they would for a small scale laser in orbit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been weapons in space before .
Satellites have more to fear against ground based attacks than they would for a small scale laser in orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been weapons in space before.
Satellites have more to fear against ground based attacks than they would for a small scale laser in orbit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264148</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1265103600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just abstract the problem a bit from an existing special case.</p><p>You see, we already <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123680870885500701.html" title="wsj.com">take out </a> [wsj.com] certain <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C5vkbtpdN4" title="youtube.com">things with laser</a> [youtube.com] when we want to while those things are in flight, so obviously, moving from the special case to a higher level general case, it should be possible to apply the same solution to other types of problems.</p><p>The question is: do you have to glue mosquito wings to all of the pieces of junk floating around the Earth first or not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just abstract the problem a bit from an existing special case.You see , we already take out [ wsj.com ] certain things with laser [ youtube.com ] when we want to while those things are in flight , so obviously , moving from the special case to a higher level general case , it should be possible to apply the same solution to other types of problems.The question is : do you have to glue mosquito wings to all of the pieces of junk floating around the Earth first or not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just abstract the problem a bit from an existing special case.You see, we already take out  [wsj.com] certain things with laser [youtube.com] when we want to while those things are in flight, so obviously, moving from the special case to a higher level general case, it should be possible to apply the same solution to other types of problems.The question is: do you have to glue mosquito wings to all of the pieces of junk floating around the Earth first or not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264134</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>OglinTatas</author>
	<datestamp>1265103540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real problem is junk that doesn't have working thrusters and communications so that they can tell it to de-orbit.</p></div><p>If the missile defense lasers ever become viable weapons, they might be used to ablate space junk in such a way as to change its orbit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is junk that does n't have working thrusters and communications so that they can tell it to de-orbit.If the missile defense lasers ever become viable weapons , they might be used to ablate space junk in such a way as to change its orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is junk that doesn't have working thrusters and communications so that they can tell it to de-orbit.If the missile defense lasers ever become viable weapons, they might be used to ablate space junk in such a way as to change its orbit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263786</id>
	<title>Nuclear...</title>
	<author>nebaz</author>
	<datestamp>1265101860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Several high yield nuclear warheads launched to detonate simultaneously at a uniform high altitude, spread equally around the globe an equal distance around the globe to vaporize all the space junk in the upper atmosphere.  No more space junk.  What could possibly go wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several high yield nuclear warheads launched to detonate simultaneously at a uniform high altitude , spread equally around the globe an equal distance around the globe to vaporize all the space junk in the upper atmosphere .
No more space junk .
What could possibly go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several high yield nuclear warheads launched to detonate simultaneously at a uniform high altitude, spread equally around the globe an equal distance around the globe to vaporize all the space junk in the upper atmosphere.
No more space junk.
What could possibly go wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263468</id>
	<title>The area of  space immediately around the globe</title>
	<author>Finallyjoined!!!</author>
	<datestamp>1265143560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is absolutely vast, even considering the common orbiting heights. A couple of thousand objects floating around (OK with their own intrinsic velocity) in such a ginormous area, isn't going to cause *that* many problems.<br> <br>
One would hope<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is absolutely vast , even considering the common orbiting heights .
A couple of thousand objects floating around ( OK with their own intrinsic velocity ) in such a ginormous area , is n't going to cause * that * many problems .
One would hope : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is absolutely vast, even considering the common orbiting heights.
A couple of thousand objects floating around (OK with their own intrinsic velocity) in such a ginormous area, isn't going to cause *that* many problems.
One would hope :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263864</id>
	<title>Re:A head-on collision?</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1265102220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would it be safer if it was side-impact?</p></div><p>No.  Orbital velocities result in extremely high kinetic energies.  Any collision is likely to be catastrophic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it be safer if it was side-impact ? No .
Orbital velocities result in extremely high kinetic energies .
Any collision is likely to be catastrophic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it be safer if it was side-impact?No.
Orbital velocities result in extremely high kinetic energies.
Any collision is likely to be catastrophic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263330</id>
	<title>Is it any wonder that junk in space is a problem?</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1265142960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think about it - with those crazy toilet systems and the fact that you're always trapped in those confining suits - really I think it's to be expected that space junk would be pretty awful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think about it - with those crazy toilet systems and the fact that you 're always trapped in those confining suits - really I think it 's to be expected that space junk would be pretty awful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think about it - with those crazy toilet systems and the fact that you're always trapped in those confining suits - really I think it's to be expected that space junk would be pretty awful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263608</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1265144220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the same reason we don't "just push" things into orbit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the same reason we do n't " just push " things into orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the same reason we don't "just push" things into orbit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264738</id>
	<title>Clearly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265106060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuke it from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuke it from orbit .
It 's the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuke it from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264294</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1265104200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't just "Push them further away."   When a body is in orbit, giving it a little "push" will just alter the orbit a little bit and put it in a slightly higher orbit.  It will NOT push it to float further off into deep space.   For that you need a lot of power to put it on an escape trajectory away from earth.  Changing the orbital plain or the orbital altitude of a satellite requires energy.  The more you want to change it, the more energy it takes.   Sending it into deep space would require a powerful rocket stage.   Sending it back to earth might be easier, but it still requires a rocket or thruster, which is a problem when a satellite has run out of propellant or does not have enough to be de-orbited.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't just " Push them further away .
" When a body is in orbit , giving it a little " push " will just alter the orbit a little bit and put it in a slightly higher orbit .
It will NOT push it to float further off into deep space .
For that you need a lot of power to put it on an escape trajectory away from earth .
Changing the orbital plain or the orbital altitude of a satellite requires energy .
The more you want to change it , the more energy it takes .
Sending it into deep space would require a powerful rocket stage .
Sending it back to earth might be easier , but it still requires a rocket or thruster , which is a problem when a satellite has run out of propellant or does not have enough to be de-orbited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't just "Push them further away.
"   When a body is in orbit, giving it a little "push" will just alter the orbit a little bit and put it in a slightly higher orbit.
It will NOT push it to float further off into deep space.
For that you need a lot of power to put it on an escape trajectory away from earth.
Changing the orbital plain or the orbital altitude of a satellite requires energy.
The more you want to change it, the more energy it takes.
Sending it into deep space would require a powerful rocket stage.
Sending it back to earth might be easier, but it still requires a rocket or thruster, which is a problem when a satellite has run out of propellant or does not have enough to be de-orbited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263930</id>
	<title>Apropos Anime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265102520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PlanetES. It won the Seiun Award (Japanese science fiction award), centering around a space debris removal team. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakRYsUIiIE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PlanetES .
It won the Seiun Award ( Japanese science fiction award ) , centering around a space debris removal team .
Trailer : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = DakRYsUIiIE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PlanetES.
It won the Seiun Award (Japanese science fiction award), centering around a space debris removal team.
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakRYsUIiIE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267332</id>
	<title>Watch Planetes</title>
	<author>Daevad</author>
	<datestamp>1265120220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watch the Anime series "Planetes" to see a well thought out look at the future of the problems with space junk.  The DVD extras include discussions with NASA folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch the Anime series " Planetes " to see a well thought out look at the future of the problems with space junk .
The DVD extras include discussions with NASA folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch the Anime series "Planetes" to see a well thought out look at the future of the problems with space junk.
The DVD extras include discussions with NASA folks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263354</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I'm supposed to put up my cheetos and stop playing world of warcraft to come clean up YOUR garbage?  You earthlings are lazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm supposed to put up my cheetos and stop playing world of warcraft to come clean up YOUR garbage ?
You earthlings are lazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm supposed to put up my cheetos and stop playing world of warcraft to come clean up YOUR garbage?
You earthlings are lazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263572</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265144100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>These days, for the most part, we do that. Launch trajectories are planned with CCAM (collision and contamination avoidance maneuvers) deorbit profiles or extended orbital profiles. That is to say, spent rocket stages and such tend to be rocketed into escape orbits or back into the atmosphere to breakup. Satellites are a bit harder to do this with, as, sometimes they end up using a bit more fuel than planned and, as such, may not be able to thrust into a proper disposal method. Of course, this is also regulated now so most (if not all) modern missions are required to take this excess fuel margin into account when being designed.
<br> <br>
Really, the big problem with the current space junk comes from orbital bodies that are decades old. Before things were regulated heavily in orbital operations, many satellite were just left to decay and breakup in orbit. As a result, we have a lot of detached thermal blankets and other clutter drifting around up there. There is also a large contribution that comes from nations which do not follow modern disposal regulations. The article mentions that China is one of these nations. There are others (such as Iran) but they are not contributing a whole lot because many space programs are still small.
<br> <br>
When it comes down to it, spacecraft disposal is a responsibility just like terrestrial recycling. The responsible thing to do is pay more and dispose of things correctly. Unfortunately, we didn't plan ahead from the get go and some people just prefer cutting corners.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days , for the most part , we do that .
Launch trajectories are planned with CCAM ( collision and contamination avoidance maneuvers ) deorbit profiles or extended orbital profiles .
That is to say , spent rocket stages and such tend to be rocketed into escape orbits or back into the atmosphere to breakup .
Satellites are a bit harder to do this with , as , sometimes they end up using a bit more fuel than planned and , as such , may not be able to thrust into a proper disposal method .
Of course , this is also regulated now so most ( if not all ) modern missions are required to take this excess fuel margin into account when being designed .
Really , the big problem with the current space junk comes from orbital bodies that are decades old .
Before things were regulated heavily in orbital operations , many satellite were just left to decay and breakup in orbit .
As a result , we have a lot of detached thermal blankets and other clutter drifting around up there .
There is also a large contribution that comes from nations which do not follow modern disposal regulations .
The article mentions that China is one of these nations .
There are others ( such as Iran ) but they are not contributing a whole lot because many space programs are still small .
When it comes down to it , spacecraft disposal is a responsibility just like terrestrial recycling .
The responsible thing to do is pay more and dispose of things correctly .
Unfortunately , we did n't plan ahead from the get go and some people just prefer cutting corners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days, for the most part, we do that.
Launch trajectories are planned with CCAM (collision and contamination avoidance maneuvers) deorbit profiles or extended orbital profiles.
That is to say, spent rocket stages and such tend to be rocketed into escape orbits or back into the atmosphere to breakup.
Satellites are a bit harder to do this with, as, sometimes they end up using a bit more fuel than planned and, as such, may not be able to thrust into a proper disposal method.
Of course, this is also regulated now so most (if not all) modern missions are required to take this excess fuel margin into account when being designed.
Really, the big problem with the current space junk comes from orbital bodies that are decades old.
Before things were regulated heavily in orbital operations, many satellite were just left to decay and breakup in orbit.
As a result, we have a lot of detached thermal blankets and other clutter drifting around up there.
There is also a large contribution that comes from nations which do not follow modern disposal regulations.
The article mentions that China is one of these nations.
There are others (such as Iran) but they are not contributing a whole lot because many space programs are still small.
When it comes down to it, spacecraft disposal is a responsibility just like terrestrial recycling.
The responsible thing to do is pay more and dispose of things correctly.
Unfortunately, we didn't plan ahead from the get go and some people just prefer cutting corners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264376</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say Wall-E</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265104620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you say wooly?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..wool...wu...wool-y?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you say wooly ?
..wool...wu...wool-y ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you say wooly?
..wool...wu...wool-y?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264848</id>
	<title>Logic - where is it?</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1265106480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok am I missing something - isn't space garbage small in comparison to the "orbit" - whose area is greater than the the surface of earth (seas combined) of course?<br>Perhaps everyone is firing up everything at the same spot... Chinese and Americans alike... I don't get it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</p><p>P.S. Speaking of trash, what stops us from sending ours towards the Sun or other stars or hot planets? They'd only burn/melt eventually as far as I can tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok am I missing something - is n't space garbage small in comparison to the " orbit " - whose area is greater than the the surface of earth ( seas combined ) of course ? Perhaps everyone is firing up everything at the same spot... Chinese and Americans alike... I do n't get it : -/P.S .
Speaking of trash , what stops us from sending ours towards the Sun or other stars or hot planets ?
They 'd only burn/melt eventually as far as I can tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok am I missing something - isn't space garbage small in comparison to the "orbit" - whose area is greater than the the surface of earth (seas combined) of course?Perhaps everyone is firing up everything at the same spot... Chinese and Americans alike... I don't get it :-/P.S.
Speaking of trash, what stops us from sending ours towards the Sun or other stars or hot planets?
They'd only burn/melt eventually as far as I can tell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263416</id>
	<title>Who cares...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If companies don't hestitate to pollute rivers, seas, air and pretty much everything that could very well kill us right now, why would they think twice before polluting something we, as a civilization, have no regard for?

Personally, I'd rather see them stop polluting Earth than low-orbit space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If companies do n't hestitate to pollute rivers , seas , air and pretty much everything that could very well kill us right now , why would they think twice before polluting something we , as a civilization , have no regard for ?
Personally , I 'd rather see them stop polluting Earth than low-orbit space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If companies don't hestitate to pollute rivers, seas, air and pretty much everything that could very well kill us right now, why would they think twice before polluting something we, as a civilization, have no regard for?
Personally, I'd rather see them stop polluting Earth than low-orbit space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263902</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>Cobble</author>
	<datestamp>1265102340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need the Matlock guy to get up there with Salvage 1 (remember that awful tv show?) and clean this mess up. But seriously, we should probably send up some unmanned garbage collection ship(s) to boost the stuff back into the atmosphere where it will *mostly* burn up on re-entry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need the Matlock guy to get up there with Salvage 1 ( remember that awful tv show ?
) and clean this mess up .
But seriously , we should probably send up some unmanned garbage collection ship ( s ) to boost the stuff back into the atmosphere where it will * mostly * burn up on re-entry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need the Matlock guy to get up there with Salvage 1 (remember that awful tv show?
) and clean this mess up.
But seriously, we should probably send up some unmanned garbage collection ship(s) to boost the stuff back into the atmosphere where it will *mostly* burn up on re-entry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263704</id>
	<title>there is no space junk "problem"</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1265101500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A group of "industry scientists" has, they claim, shown conclusively that there is no "space junk problem". Moreover, they have shown that even if there is a problem, it is not man-made but is instead, due to natural changes that are cyclical in nature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A group of " industry scientists " has , they claim , shown conclusively that there is no " space junk problem " .
Moreover , they have shown that even if there is a problem , it is not man-made but is instead , due to natural changes that are cyclical in nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A group of "industry scientists" has, they claim, shown conclusively that there is no "space junk problem".
Moreover, they have shown that even if there is a problem, it is not man-made but is instead, due to natural changes that are cyclical in nature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263764</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1265101800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere? What good does heating up one side of it do?</i></p><p>Photons carry momentum.  Not much, but they do.  So, the laser itself can push the object.  Heating one side so it emits more photons would push it as well. If it's spinning that's not much use, but the laser would still impart momentum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere ?
What good does heating up one side of it do ? Photons carry momentum .
Not much , but they do .
So , the laser itself can push the object .
Heating one side so it emits more photons would push it as well .
If it 's spinning that 's not much use , but the laser would still impart momentum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere?
What good does heating up one side of it do?Photons carry momentum.
Not much, but they do.
So, the laser itself can push the object.
Heating one side so it emits more photons would push it as well.
If it's spinning that's not much use, but the laser would still impart momentum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267498</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>Dthief</author>
	<datestamp>1265121840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Space elevator + guys picking up trash on the highway = clean space</htmltext>
<tokenext>Space elevator + guys picking up trash on the highway = clean space</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space elevator + guys picking up trash on the highway = clean space</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265172</id>
	<title>The Final Frontier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265107860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To boldly pollute where no one has polluted before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To boldly pollute where no one has polluted before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To boldly pollute where no one has polluted before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263308</id>
	<title>Time to send up Quark!</title>
	<author>techie42</author>
	<datestamp>1265142900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Sounds like it is time an outerspace garbage man.

Where can I apply for that job?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like it is time an outerspace garbage man .
Where can I apply for that job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Sounds like it is time an outerspace garbage man.
Where can I apply for that job?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264694</id>
	<title>worse?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265105820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Telling us that an amount is good or bad doesn't tell us if it's increasing or decreasing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Telling us that an amount is good or bad does n't tell us if it 's increasing or decreasing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telling us that an amount is good or bad doesn't tell us if it's increasing or decreasing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31266124</id>
	<title>electromagnetic drag device</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265112060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It takes energy to send a satellite up into a higher orbit, and even more to push it out of Earth orbit entirely...</p><p>For that matter it also takes energy to shift a satellite to a lower orbit, too. About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag, and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.</p><p>To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.</p></div><p>Nope. You only need a decent amount of coil and a compressed spring to create an electromagnetic drag device.</p><p>It does add <em>some</em> weight, but probably a lot less than fuel and rockets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes energy to send a satellite up into a higher orbit , and even more to push it out of Earth orbit entirely...For that matter it also takes energy to shift a satellite to a lower orbit , too .
About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag , and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things , it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite 's launch-weight , which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.Nope .
You only need a decent amount of coil and a compressed spring to create an electromagnetic drag device.It does add some weight , but probably a lot less than fuel and rockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It takes energy to send a satellite up into a higher orbit, and even more to push it out of Earth orbit entirely...For that matter it also takes energy to shift a satellite to a lower orbit, too.
About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag, and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.Nope.
You only need a decent amount of coil and a compressed spring to create an electromagnetic drag device.It does add some weight, but probably a lot less than fuel and rockets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263740</id>
	<title>But what if the two objects had tangled?</title>
	<author>laughing\_badger</author>
	<datestamp>1265101680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can answer that question: blood would have been spilt outside my office door.

There's folks involved in both these missions with offices on my corridor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can answer that question : blood would have been spilt outside my office door .
There 's folks involved in both these missions with offices on my corridor : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can answer that question: blood would have been spilt outside my office door.
There's folks involved in both these missions with offices on my corridor :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263376</id>
	<title>Sounds like a job for...</title>
	<author>VTSV</author>
	<datestamp>1265143140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a job for <a href="http://www.ronplanet.com/" title="ronplanet.com" rel="nofollow">Ron Planet</a> [ronplanet.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a job for Ron Planet [ ronplanet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a job for Ron Planet [ronplanet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264230</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265103960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When you abandon satellite, fuel tanks or anything else in the space, why not just push it floating further away in space? Let some <a href="http://slashdot.org/~mcgrew/journal/223965" title="slashdot.org">aliens</a> [slashdot.org] take care of them.</i></p><p>Why should the foreigners have all the fun? And rather than pushing them into space, do what has been done for years -- push it towards earth and let it burn up in the atmosphere. Ten or so years ago I saw a remarkable a spectacular bright green shooting star, which I found out a few days later was a piece of space junk with a lot of copper the Russians had discarded from MIR. I'm all for space junk buring in the atmosphere, it's really a sight from earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you abandon satellite , fuel tanks or anything else in the space , why not just push it floating further away in space ?
Let some aliens [ slashdot.org ] take care of them.Why should the foreigners have all the fun ?
And rather than pushing them into space , do what has been done for years -- push it towards earth and let it burn up in the atmosphere .
Ten or so years ago I saw a remarkable a spectacular bright green shooting star , which I found out a few days later was a piece of space junk with a lot of copper the Russians had discarded from MIR .
I 'm all for space junk buring in the atmosphere , it 's really a sight from earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you abandon satellite, fuel tanks or anything else in the space, why not just push it floating further away in space?
Let some aliens [slashdot.org] take care of them.Why should the foreigners have all the fun?
And rather than pushing them into space, do what has been done for years -- push it towards earth and let it burn up in the atmosphere.
Ten or so years ago I saw a remarkable a spectacular bright green shooting star, which I found out a few days later was a piece of space junk with a lot of copper the Russians had discarded from MIR.
I'm all for space junk buring in the atmosphere, it's really a sight from earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263754</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1265101740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers. Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.</p></div></blockquote><p>Umm, if you turn a laser onto the side of the space junk facing Earth, the laser will push it away from Earth, not toward Earth.
</p><p>If you want to make it hit atmosphere, you want to push the leading edge of the junk, which will drive it into a lower orbit, and eventually into atmosphere.
</p><p>Note, by the way, that we have a Treaty forbidding the weaponization of space (hence FOBS), so this isn't really practical right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers .
Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.Umm , if you turn a laser onto the side of the space junk facing Earth , the laser will push it away from Earth , not toward Earth .
If you want to make it hit atmosphere , you want to push the leading edge of the junk , which will drive it into a lower orbit , and eventually into atmosphere .
Note , by the way , that we have a Treaty forbidding the weaponization of space ( hence FOBS ) , so this is n't really practical right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers.
Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.Umm, if you turn a laser onto the side of the space junk facing Earth, the laser will push it away from Earth, not toward Earth.
If you want to make it hit atmosphere, you want to push the leading edge of the junk, which will drive it into a lower orbit, and eventually into atmosphere.
Note, by the way, that we have a Treaty forbidding the weaponization of space (hence FOBS), so this isn't really practical right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264166</id>
	<title>Yet another human-produced pile of trash</title>
	<author>seniorcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1265103660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a mass of debris floating in the pacific ocean which I read was roughly the size of Texas.
Newly discovered is a huge amount of trash floating in the Atlantic.
<br>
Can anyone be surprised that there is a mountain of trash building up in orbit?
<p>
We seem to befoul everything we touch.
<br>
We need more Burning man philosophy:  leave no trace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a mass of debris floating in the pacific ocean which I read was roughly the size of Texas .
Newly discovered is a huge amount of trash floating in the Atlantic .
Can anyone be surprised that there is a mountain of trash building up in orbit ?
We seem to befoul everything we touch .
We need more Burning man philosophy : leave no trace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a mass of debris floating in the pacific ocean which I read was roughly the size of Texas.
Newly discovered is a huge amount of trash floating in the Atlantic.
Can anyone be surprised that there is a mountain of trash building up in orbit?
We seem to befoul everything we touch.
We need more Burning man philosophy:  leave no trace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264398</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>abbynormal brain</author>
	<datestamp>1265104740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it depends on the size of the garbage, but what about sending up a seek-and-destroy satellite that uses lasers to "push" garbage back into re-entry?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it depends on the size of the garbage , but what about sending up a seek-and-destroy satellite that uses lasers to " push " garbage back into re-entry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it depends on the size of the garbage, but what about sending up a seek-and-destroy satellite that uses lasers to "push" garbage back into re-entry?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31271068</id>
	<title>Magnets and Vaccums</title>
	<author>KidShaft</author>
	<datestamp>1267107060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about a giant space magnet or a really big vaccum?
That's how I pick up crap from hard to reach places, like behind the freezer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a giant space magnet or a really big vaccum ?
That 's how I pick up crap from hard to reach places , like behind the freezer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a giant space magnet or a really big vaccum?
That's how I pick up crap from hard to reach places, like behind the freezer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31292810</id>
	<title>Why would it be getting better?</title>
	<author>XCondE</author>
	<datestamp>1267190820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no incentive to remove the equipment you put in orbit.  Sending it up is costly enough - why bother removing?  Perhaps we're now reaching the threshold where funding the clean-up makes sense.</p><p>This is not news.  It's stating the obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no incentive to remove the equipment you put in orbit .
Sending it up is costly enough - why bother removing ?
Perhaps we 're now reaching the threshold where funding the clean-up makes sense.This is not news .
It 's stating the obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no incentive to remove the equipment you put in orbit.
Sending it up is costly enough - why bother removing?
Perhaps we're now reaching the threshold where funding the clean-up makes sense.This is not news.
It's stating the obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264424</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear...</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1265104860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds fun.  Just give me a few minutes notice so that I can pause my torrents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds fun .
Just give me a few minutes notice so that I can pause my torrents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds fun.
Just give me a few minutes notice so that I can pause my torrents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264238</id>
	<title>i predict</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1265103960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this problem will do one of two things:<br> <br>
1.  become suddenly very relevant once we start losing shuttles and payloads to garbage related collision<br> <br>
2.  aid in the inevitable tourist trap campy feel earth is to assume in the distant future, circa Cowboy Bebop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this problem will do one of two things : 1. become suddenly very relevant once we start losing shuttles and payloads to garbage related collision 2. aid in the inevitable tourist trap campy feel earth is to assume in the distant future , circa Cowboy Bebop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this problem will do one of two things: 
1.  become suddenly very relevant once we start losing shuttles and payloads to garbage related collision 
2.  aid in the inevitable tourist trap campy feel earth is to assume in the distant future, circa Cowboy Bebop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263692</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1265101380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers. Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.</p></div><p>
So far as I understand, lasers require a large amount of energy to produce an appreciable amount of heat. That energy has to come from somewhere, like large solar panels. Large solar panels (or other large power sources) add mass and moment arms to your spacecraft. This requires a complex control system (reaction control wheels and computers) to damp out possible perturbations and maintain an accurate pointing of the spacecraft (crucial if you are going to be shooting high powered lasers at anything). A complex control system requires a powerful computer which eats more power and adds more mass. More mass increases the launch cost. Congratulations, you just designed a multi-billion dollar spacecraft/mission.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Plus if you have a few dozen up there</p></div><p>
While buying in bulk does reduce the cost per spacecraft of the mission you are talking about, you can still do a rough multiplier and figure you have spent about $9 billion dollars on spacecraft design and parts alone (and to be honest, that is an incredibly low estimate). Add to that cost another few fudge factors for developing production facilities, testing facilities, paying for workers holidays and hours spent on slashdot. Now you have a terribly expensive mission (at least $10B). That's a lot of coin to come up with.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.</p></div><p>
Yup. =)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers .
Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere .
So far as I understand , lasers require a large amount of energy to produce an appreciable amount of heat .
That energy has to come from somewhere , like large solar panels .
Large solar panels ( or other large power sources ) add mass and moment arms to your spacecraft .
This requires a complex control system ( reaction control wheels and computers ) to damp out possible perturbations and maintain an accurate pointing of the spacecraft ( crucial if you are going to be shooting high powered lasers at anything ) .
A complex control system requires a powerful computer which eats more power and adds more mass .
More mass increases the launch cost .
Congratulations , you just designed a multi-billion dollar spacecraft/mission.Plus if you have a few dozen up there While buying in bulk does reduce the cost per spacecraft of the mission you are talking about , you can still do a rough multiplier and figure you have spent about $ 9 billion dollars on spacecraft design and parts alone ( and to be honest , that is an incredibly low estimate ) .
Add to that cost another few fudge factors for developing production facilities , testing facilities , paying for workers holidays and hours spent on slashdot .
Now you have a terribly expensive mission ( at least $ 10B ) .
That 's a lot of coin to come up with.I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by .
Yup. = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers.
Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.
So far as I understand, lasers require a large amount of energy to produce an appreciable amount of heat.
That energy has to come from somewhere, like large solar panels.
Large solar panels (or other large power sources) add mass and moment arms to your spacecraft.
This requires a complex control system (reaction control wheels and computers) to damp out possible perturbations and maintain an accurate pointing of the spacecraft (crucial if you are going to be shooting high powered lasers at anything).
A complex control system requires a powerful computer which eats more power and adds more mass.
More mass increases the launch cost.
Congratulations, you just designed a multi-billion dollar spacecraft/mission.Plus if you have a few dozen up there
While buying in bulk does reduce the cost per spacecraft of the mission you are talking about, you can still do a rough multiplier and figure you have spent about $9 billion dollars on spacecraft design and parts alone (and to be honest, that is an incredibly low estimate).
Add to that cost another few fudge factors for developing production facilities, testing facilities, paying for workers holidays and hours spent on slashdot.
Now you have a terribly expensive mission (at least $10B).
That's a lot of coin to come up with.I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.
Yup. =)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265390</id>
	<title>what? really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265108700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can we hold off on this regularly televised program until the plot is altered to say, "space junk getting better"? I mean, really, what has improved since the last time?</p><p>-l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can we hold off on this regularly televised program until the plot is altered to say , " space junk getting better " ?
I mean , really , what has improved since the last time ? -l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can we hold off on this regularly televised program until the plot is altered to say, "space junk getting better"?
I mean, really, what has improved since the last time?-l</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263802</id>
	<title>Re:A head-on collision?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1265101920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really doubt that Chinese rocket was in a polar orbit, so this would be side-impact collision. But no it would make no difference at all to the total destruction of the satellite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really doubt that Chinese rocket was in a polar orbit , so this would be side-impact collision .
But no it would make no difference at all to the total destruction of the satellite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really doubt that Chinese rocket was in a polar orbit, so this would be side-impact collision.
But no it would make no difference at all to the total destruction of the satellite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263414</id>
	<title>Can you say Wall-E</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you say Wall-E</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you say Wall-E</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you say Wall-E</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264360</id>
	<title>Re:A head-on collision?</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1265104560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A head on collision would be a spectacular impact at 14km/s, that would destroy both objects and spread a huge cloud of debris in all directions.  A glancing collision would be a spectacular impact at under 1km/s, that would destroy both objects and spread a huge cloud of debris in one general direction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A head on collision would be a spectacular impact at 14km/s , that would destroy both objects and spread a huge cloud of debris in all directions .
A glancing collision would be a spectacular impact at under 1km/s , that would destroy both objects and spread a huge cloud of debris in one general direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A head on collision would be a spectacular impact at 14km/s, that would destroy both objects and spread a huge cloud of debris in all directions.
A glancing collision would be a spectacular impact at under 1km/s, that would destroy both objects and spread a huge cloud of debris in one general direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263472</id>
	<title>I thought space was a vacuum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why don't they just use it and clean up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why do n't they just use it and clean up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why don't they just use it and clean up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264214</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1265103840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sad part is, if you wanted to clean up space, selling your method as a new weapons platform sounds like the only viable way to get funding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad part is , if you wanted to clean up space , selling your method as a new weapons platform sounds like the only viable way to get funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad part is, if you wanted to clean up space, selling your method as a new weapons platform sounds like the only viable way to get funding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263526</id>
	<title>Tangled?</title>
	<author>BigBadBus</author>
	<datestamp>1265143860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats a crap euphemism for collision!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats a crap euphemism for collision !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats a crap euphemism for collision!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263494</id>
	<title>Electrodynamic de-orbit tether...</title>
	<author>BubbaDave</author>
	<datestamp>1265143680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electrodynamic de-orbit tether, dammit.</p><p>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electrodynamic de-orbit tether , dammit.Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electrodynamic de-orbit tether, dammit.Dave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1265143560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder why this issue hasn't been fixed by now.</p><p>I can come up with quite a few ways that we could remove space junk, most aren't very good, but there is one I think would work the best.</p><p>Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers.  Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.</p><p>Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects, yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.</p><p>There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue, I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.</p></div><p>There will be no concerted effort to remove space junk until the risk of collision with space junk rises to the point that it costs less to remove the junk than to risk being hit by it.</p><p>It could be that this is some important idea in physics I simply don't understand...  But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere?  What good does heating up one side of it do?  How powerful of a laser do you need to significantly alter the trajectory of a piece of space debris?  And how do you heat up one side of it if the object is spinning?  (Which it almost surely is...)  What happens if the laser misses?  And if the object you're shooting at doesn't give off a diffuse reflection, how do you know if you hit or missed?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why this issue has n't been fixed by now.I can come up with quite a few ways that we could remove space junk , most are n't very good , but there is one I think would work the best.Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers .
Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects , yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue , I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.There will be no concerted effort to remove space junk until the risk of collision with space junk rises to the point that it costs less to remove the junk than to risk being hit by it.It could be that this is some important idea in physics I simply do n't understand... But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere ?
What good does heating up one side of it do ?
How powerful of a laser do you need to significantly alter the trajectory of a piece of space debris ?
And how do you heat up one side of it if the object is spinning ?
( Which it almost surely is... ) What happens if the laser misses ?
And if the object you 're shooting at does n't give off a diffuse reflection , how do you know if you hit or missed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why this issue hasn't been fixed by now.I can come up with quite a few ways that we could remove space junk, most aren't very good, but there is one I think would work the best.Launch a couple satellites with solid state lasers.
Heat up the side of the space junk facing earth and let the laser push it into the atmosphere.Plus if you have a few dozen up there you could perhaps deflect larger objects, yet they would be useless if you wanted to shoot a target on the surface of the Earth.There has to be a reason that there has been next to no attempt to control the space junk issue, I guess getting funding to clean up orbits is hard to come by.There will be no concerted effort to remove space junk until the risk of collision with space junk rises to the point that it costs less to remove the junk than to risk being hit by it.It could be that this is some important idea in physics I simply don't understand...  But how does a laser push an object into the atmosphere?
What good does heating up one side of it do?
How powerful of a laser do you need to significantly alter the trajectory of a piece of space debris?
And how do you heat up one side of it if the object is spinning?
(Which it almost surely is...)  What happens if the laser misses?
And if the object you're shooting at doesn't give off a diffuse reflection, how do you know if you hit or missed?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264748</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>Temujin\_12</author>
	<datestamp>1265106060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag, and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.</p><p>To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.</p></div><p>Someone correct me if I'm wrong (no, seriously, I'd like to know), but couldn't solar-powered gyroscopic thrust be cheaply incorporated into every launched satellite and be activated once the satellite's mission has expired and the satellite is no longer needed?</p><p>Either way, we don't need rockets and fuel to deorbit satellites. We need cheap, reliable, low-mass, devices incorporated into payloads which can create a constant low-thrust for long periods of time. We don't need deorbits to be quick, we just need them to be predictable and fast enough to make way for new launches.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag , and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things , it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite 's launch-weight , which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.Someone correct me if I 'm wrong ( no , seriously , I 'd like to know ) , but could n't solar-powered gyroscopic thrust be cheaply incorporated into every launched satellite and be activated once the satellite 's mission has expired and the satellite is no longer needed ? Either way , we do n't need rockets and fuel to deorbit satellites .
We need cheap , reliable , low-mass , devices incorporated into payloads which can create a constant low-thrust for long periods of time .
We do n't need deorbits to be quick , we just need them to be predictable and fast enough to make way for new launches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag, and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.Someone correct me if I'm wrong (no, seriously, I'd like to know), but couldn't solar-powered gyroscopic thrust be cheaply incorporated into every launched satellite and be activated once the satellite's mission has expired and the satellite is no longer needed?Either way, we don't need rockets and fuel to deorbit satellites.
We need cheap, reliable, low-mass, devices incorporated into payloads which can create a constant low-thrust for long periods of time.
We don't need deorbits to be quick, we just need them to be predictable and fast enough to make way for new launches.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263726</id>
	<title>Did anyone else imagine...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265101620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a giant penis in space, lacking a giant vagina?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>&ldquo;Tangling&rdquo; of those two objects might be <em>exactly</em> what we need.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a giant penis in space , lacking a giant vagina ?
; )    Tangling    of those two objects might be exactly what we need .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a giant penis in space, lacking a giant vagina?
;)“Tangling” of those two objects might be exactly what we need.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263762</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is just still easier to avoid it, or pretend it is not there. Clearly it doesn't happen that often, in spite of all the horror stories no ones has ever been hurt.</p><p>Once it is a big deal, that will launch that big lazer. There are some prototype plans already, remember reading about this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is just still easier to avoid it , or pretend it is not there .
Clearly it does n't happen that often , in spite of all the horror stories no ones has ever been hurt.Once it is a big deal , that will launch that big lazer .
There are some prototype plans already , remember reading about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is just still easier to avoid it, or pretend it is not there.
Clearly it doesn't happen that often, in spite of all the horror stories no ones has ever been hurt.Once it is a big deal, that will launch that big lazer.
There are some prototype plans already, remember reading about this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263398</id>
	<title>Perhaps..</title>
	<author>Bearded Frog</author>
	<datestamp>1265143260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could we just continue this trend and call it a shield against alien invasions? I for one welcome the trash shield.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could we just continue this trend and call it a shield against alien invasions ?
I for one welcome the trash shield .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could we just continue this trend and call it a shield against alien invasions?
I for one welcome the trash shield.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263306</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1265142840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you abandon satellite, fuel tanks or anything else in the space, why not just push it floating further away in space? Let some aliens take care of them.</p></div><p>It takes energy to send a satellite up into a higher orbit, and even more to push it out of Earth orbit entirely...</p><p>For that matter it also takes energy to shift a satellite to a lower orbit, too. About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag, and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.</p><p>To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you abandon satellite , fuel tanks or anything else in the space , why not just push it floating further away in space ?
Let some aliens take care of them.It takes energy to send a satellite up into a higher orbit , and even more to push it out of Earth orbit entirely...For that matter it also takes energy to shift a satellite to a lower orbit , too .
About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag , and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things , it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite 's launch-weight , which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you abandon satellite, fuel tanks or anything else in the space, why not just push it floating further away in space?
Let some aliens take care of them.It takes energy to send a satellite up into a higher orbit, and even more to push it out of Earth orbit entirely...For that matter it also takes energy to shift a satellite to a lower orbit, too.
About the only thing you get for free is atmospheric drag, and then only once your satellite is already low enough to run into the upper atmosphere.To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263250</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>Rene S. Hollan</author>
	<datestamp>1265142660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because that takes fuel, whether to push them into a higher orbit or a lower one (say to disintegrate on reentry).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because that takes fuel , whether to push them into a higher orbit or a lower one ( say to disintegrate on reentry ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because that takes fuel, whether to push them into a higher orbit or a lower one (say to disintegrate on reentry).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264004</id>
	<title>Ablation Cascade</title>
	<author>PseudoThink</author>
	<datestamp>1265102880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>aka. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler\_syndrome" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler\_syndrome</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>aka .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler \ _syndrome [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler\_syndrome [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264878</id>
	<title>Re:Where is Al?</title>
	<author>dreadlord76</author>
	<datestamp>1265106600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need a high priest for this new religion!  Al can make his next $200 million on this!

We must stop sending up more space junk!  Let's spend 200 Billion so NASA can stop spending $20 billion on sending up Space Junk!

Until we know how to stop plants from generating CO2, or figure out how to prevent Volcanic eruptions that spits out CO2s...</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a high priest for this new religion !
Al can make his next $ 200 million on this !
We must stop sending up more space junk !
Let 's spend 200 Billion so NASA can stop spending $ 20 billion on sending up Space Junk !
Until we know how to stop plants from generating CO2 , or figure out how to prevent Volcanic eruptions that spits out CO2s.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a high priest for this new religion!
Al can make his next $200 million on this!
We must stop sending up more space junk!
Let's spend 200 Billion so NASA can stop spending $20 billion on sending up Space Junk!
Until we know how to stop plants from generating CO2, or figure out how to prevent Volcanic eruptions that spits out CO2s...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263832</id>
	<title>Re:A head-on collision?</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1265102100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>what exactly counts as a head-on collision?</i>"</p><p>Direction of travel, one would imagine.</p><p>"<i>Would it be safer if it was side-impact?</i>"</p><p>In that less of the relative kinetic energy between the two bodies would be spent breaking them into smaller pieces, I suppose it might be marginally safer.  That's a far cry from saying that it would be "safe", though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" what exactly counts as a head-on collision ?
" Direction of travel , one would imagine .
" Would it be safer if it was side-impact ?
" In that less of the relative kinetic energy between the two bodies would be spent breaking them into smaller pieces , I suppose it might be marginally safer .
That 's a far cry from saying that it would be " safe " , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"what exactly counts as a head-on collision?
"Direction of travel, one would imagine.
"Would it be safer if it was side-impact?
"In that less of the relative kinetic energy between the two bodies would be spent breaking them into smaller pieces, I suppose it might be marginally safer.
That's a far cry from saying that it would be "safe", though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267594</id>
	<title>Aliens</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1265122740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Space junk is why aliens don't visit Earth.
They pull up next to our blue marble, see all the space junk, and say
skip it...if it looks like this out here, imagine what it looks like down there. LOL</htmltext>
<tokenext>Space junk is why aliens do n't visit Earth .
They pull up next to our blue marble , see all the space junk , and say skip it...if it looks like this out here , imagine what it looks like down there .
LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space junk is why aliens don't visit Earth.
They pull up next to our blue marble, see all the space junk, and say
skip it...if it looks like this out here, imagine what it looks like down there.
LOL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264116</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1265103420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The majority of junk is from garbage breaking off from the separations, etc. The issues are not the old sats as many have been moved. The real issues are the SMALL ONES (size of nuts, screws, etc) that can come in at 30K mph (retrograde) and take out the ISS or a craft.  Another biggie was China's recent anti-sat work. When they destroyed the weather sat, they sent LOADS of small scrape EVERYWHERE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of junk is from garbage breaking off from the separations , etc .
The issues are not the old sats as many have been moved .
The real issues are the SMALL ONES ( size of nuts , screws , etc ) that can come in at 30K mph ( retrograde ) and take out the ISS or a craft .
Another biggie was China 's recent anti-sat work .
When they destroyed the weather sat , they sent LOADS of small scrape EVERYWHERE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of junk is from garbage breaking off from the separations, etc.
The issues are not the old sats as many have been moved.
The real issues are the SMALL ONES (size of nuts, screws, etc) that can come in at 30K mph (retrograde) and take out the ISS or a craft.
Another biggie was China's recent anti-sat work.
When they destroyed the weather sat, they sent LOADS of small scrape EVERYWHERE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263470</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>beirutbob</author>
	<datestamp>1265143620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I was kinda thinking a bigger version of the mosquito laser that was posted a couple of weeks ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I was kinda thinking a bigger version of the mosquito laser that was posted a couple of weeks ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I was kinda thinking a bigger version of the mosquito laser that was posted a couple of weeks ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263426</id>
	<title>Re:Time to send up Quark!</title>
	<author>MorderVonAllem</author>
	<datestamp>1265143380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fy7psIuJjc" title="youtube.com">hiring</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are hiring [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are hiring [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263524</id>
	<title>This is a job for!</title>
	<author>RyanFenton</author>
	<datestamp>1265143860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Roger Wilco, SPAAAAACE JANITOR!</p><p>Really though - make a fund to fund the development of a janitor robot.  Something small, light and cheap that can attach to junk, then lob it at other junk to destabilize the junk orbit while maintaining its own orbit.  The folks working on "Star Wars" projects would already be there on several aspects.</p><p>Ryan Fenton</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roger Wilco , SPAAAAACE JANITOR ! Really though - make a fund to fund the development of a janitor robot .
Something small , light and cheap that can attach to junk , then lob it at other junk to destabilize the junk orbit while maintaining its own orbit .
The folks working on " Star Wars " projects would already be there on several aspects.Ryan Fenton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roger Wilco, SPAAAAACE JANITOR!Really though - make a fund to fund the development of a janitor robot.
Something small, light and cheap that can attach to junk, then lob it at other junk to destabilize the junk orbit while maintaining its own orbit.
The folks working on "Star Wars" projects would already be there on several aspects.Ryan Fenton</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264310</id>
	<title>The bright side</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1265104320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The good news is that any potentially planet-smashing asteroid will probably take glancing blow off some orbiting engine block and miss our planet completely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The good news is that any potentially planet-smashing asteroid will probably take glancing blow off some orbiting engine block and miss our planet completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good news is that any potentially planet-smashing asteroid will probably take glancing blow off some orbiting engine block and miss our planet completely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263748</id>
	<title>Re:The area of space immediately around the globe</title>
	<author>rotide</author>
	<datestamp>1265101740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, however, there aren't many orbits that are useful (which you mention).  Geosynchronous orbit, for example, is at a very specific altitude and speed.  Put to much junk in that orbit or into an orbit that ends up passing through it and you have the potential to shut down all traffic in that orbit.</p><p>That's just one example.</p><p>You also have to understand the immense speeds things travel up there.  Most of these items are traveling at faster than bullet speeds (6867+ mph for Geo Sync if my source is correct).</p><p>Point here is, very expensive things are sitting up there in a proverbial shooting gallery.  A lot of open space works great when it's two people alone adrift on the ocean.  It's entirely another when we're talking thousands of bullets zinging around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , however , there are n't many orbits that are useful ( which you mention ) .
Geosynchronous orbit , for example , is at a very specific altitude and speed .
Put to much junk in that orbit or into an orbit that ends up passing through it and you have the potential to shut down all traffic in that orbit.That 's just one example.You also have to understand the immense speeds things travel up there .
Most of these items are traveling at faster than bullet speeds ( 6867 + mph for Geo Sync if my source is correct ) .Point here is , very expensive things are sitting up there in a proverbial shooting gallery .
A lot of open space works great when it 's two people alone adrift on the ocean .
It 's entirely another when we 're talking thousands of bullets zinging around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, however, there aren't many orbits that are useful (which you mention).
Geosynchronous orbit, for example, is at a very specific altitude and speed.
Put to much junk in that orbit or into an orbit that ends up passing through it and you have the potential to shut down all traffic in that orbit.That's just one example.You also have to understand the immense speeds things travel up there.
Most of these items are traveling at faster than bullet speeds (6867+ mph for Geo Sync if my source is correct).Point here is, very expensive things are sitting up there in a proverbial shooting gallery.
A lot of open space works great when it's two people alone adrift on the ocean.
It's entirely another when we're talking thousands of bullets zinging around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263994</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>tbischel</author>
	<datestamp>1265102820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think they normally push them into an orbit that will degrade so that they'll burn up on reentry.  That takes less energy than putting them on a trajectory that leaves Earth's orbit.</p></div><p>For those lofty orbits in prime real estate (think Geosynchronous), they do push satellites out further into a graveyard orbit.  It would take about 1500 m/s deltav to deorbit from way up there, and only a fraction of that to just push it a little further out of the way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they normally push them into an orbit that will degrade so that they 'll burn up on reentry .
That takes less energy than putting them on a trajectory that leaves Earth 's orbit.For those lofty orbits in prime real estate ( think Geosynchronous ) , they do push satellites out further into a graveyard orbit .
It would take about 1500 m/s deltav to deorbit from way up there , and only a fraction of that to just push it a little further out of the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they normally push them into an orbit that will degrade so that they'll burn up on reentry.
That takes less energy than putting them on a trajectory that leaves Earth's orbit.For those lofty orbits in prime real estate (think Geosynchronous), they do push satellites out further into a graveyard orbit.
It would take about 1500 m/s deltav to deorbit from way up there, and only a fraction of that to just push it a little further out of the way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265222</id>
	<title>You know the answer to this....</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1265108040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is pretty simple, really.  Without a significant space presence, orbital junk is just going to stay there and be a hazard.  Building up a significant space presence would involve subjecting humans and expensive equipment to risk of collision with orbital junk.  Exposing people to risk is a no-no, so this problem is obviously insolvable.</p><p>Since we aren't going to eliminate orbital junk, we better plan on putting less stuff in orbit.  Less stuff would mean that eventually even the smaller fragments will deobit.  This means that we can leave low Earth orbit clean of junk in several thousand years.</p><p>Simple, risk-free solution: stop sending stuff up into orbit and wait for thousands of years.</p><p>Right now, there is probably enough junk there to make any commercial exploitation of space somewhat risky.  That means it isn't going to happen - nobody is going to give out insurance against people getting killed by junk in orbit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is pretty simple , really .
Without a significant space presence , orbital junk is just going to stay there and be a hazard .
Building up a significant space presence would involve subjecting humans and expensive equipment to risk of collision with orbital junk .
Exposing people to risk is a no-no , so this problem is obviously insolvable.Since we are n't going to eliminate orbital junk , we better plan on putting less stuff in orbit .
Less stuff would mean that eventually even the smaller fragments will deobit .
This means that we can leave low Earth orbit clean of junk in several thousand years.Simple , risk-free solution : stop sending stuff up into orbit and wait for thousands of years.Right now , there is probably enough junk there to make any commercial exploitation of space somewhat risky .
That means it is n't going to happen - nobody is going to give out insurance against people getting killed by junk in orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is pretty simple, really.
Without a significant space presence, orbital junk is just going to stay there and be a hazard.
Building up a significant space presence would involve subjecting humans and expensive equipment to risk of collision with orbital junk.
Exposing people to risk is a no-no, so this problem is obviously insolvable.Since we aren't going to eliminate orbital junk, we better plan on putting less stuff in orbit.
Less stuff would mean that eventually even the smaller fragments will deobit.
This means that we can leave low Earth orbit clean of junk in several thousand years.Simple, risk-free solution: stop sending stuff up into orbit and wait for thousands of years.Right now, there is probably enough junk there to make any commercial exploitation of space somewhat risky.
That means it isn't going to happen - nobody is going to give out insurance against people getting killed by junk in orbit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263538</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1265143920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they don't have a space trucker with unlimited fuel to do that.</p><p>It's far easier to use the last of the fuel to decay the orbit and crash it to earth than design the satellite to be 80X larger so it has giant fuel tanks and a big engine to get it to escape velocity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they do n't have a space trucker with unlimited fuel to do that.It 's far easier to use the last of the fuel to decay the orbit and crash it to earth than design the satellite to be 80X larger so it has giant fuel tanks and a big engine to get it to escape velocity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they don't have a space trucker with unlimited fuel to do that.It's far easier to use the last of the fuel to decay the orbit and crash it to earth than design the satellite to be 80X larger so it has giant fuel tanks and a big engine to get it to escape velocity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265572</id>
	<title>Re:We need a recyling center</title>
	<author>Skelde</author>
	<datestamp>1265109420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just watched a very good Anime about this issue.<br>It's called Planetes, its about a Ragtag bunch off People that collect Space Debrie in the Year 2075.<br>But there is a lot more to the Story than just collecting debrie,and it is actually very realistic in its presentation.<br>I think it's very good SciFi, i can only recommend it.</p><p>And to all the Anime haters, it's not just some kiddy show it's actually a pretty mature Story (not in the sense of nudity or what you might think). But i have to admit it also has its silly momments but nothing ridiculus. For example Some ex Helium-3 miners in LunarCity playing Ninjas, but the are actually rather tragic people. (actualy looks fun what the do wish i could do that)<br>But anyway if you want to know more, google it. Im bad at Synopsys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just watched a very good Anime about this issue.It 's called Planetes , its about a Ragtag bunch off People that collect Space Debrie in the Year 2075.But there is a lot more to the Story than just collecting debrie,and it is actually very realistic in its presentation.I think it 's very good SciFi , i can only recommend it.And to all the Anime haters , it 's not just some kiddy show it 's actually a pretty mature Story ( not in the sense of nudity or what you might think ) .
But i have to admit it also has its silly momments but nothing ridiculus .
For example Some ex Helium-3 miners in LunarCity playing Ninjas , but the are actually rather tragic people .
( actualy looks fun what the do wish i could do that ) But anyway if you want to know more , google it .
Im bad at Synopsys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just watched a very good Anime about this issue.It's called Planetes, its about a Ragtag bunch off People that collect Space Debrie in the Year 2075.But there is a lot more to the Story than just collecting debrie,and it is actually very realistic in its presentation.I think it's very good SciFi, i can only recommend it.And to all the Anime haters, it's not just some kiddy show it's actually a pretty mature Story (not in the sense of nudity or what you might think).
But i have to admit it also has its silly momments but nothing ridiculus.
For example Some ex Helium-3 miners in LunarCity playing Ninjas, but the are actually rather tragic people.
(actualy looks fun what the do wish i could do that)But anyway if you want to know more, google it.
Im bad at Synopsys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263724</id>
	<title>There is No Space Junk</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1265101620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is only low earth orbit junk.<br>I for one welcome our low earth orbit junk overlords.</p><p>For only by succeeding them will we ever be doing actual SPACE exploration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is only low earth orbit junk.I for one welcome our low earth orbit junk overlords.For only by succeeding them will we ever be doing actual SPACE exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is only low earth orbit junk.I for one welcome our low earth orbit junk overlords.For only by succeeding them will we ever be doing actual SPACE exploration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263660</id>
	<title>I dont have to, you said it twice.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont have to, you said it twice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont have to , you said it twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont have to, you said it twice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264712</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1265105880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, similar to how those Russian robots went and pushed faulty satellites out into space. Probably not a big issue as we already could develop the technology probably if we really needed it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , similar to how those Russian robots went and pushed faulty satellites out into space .
Probably not a big issue as we already could develop the technology probably if we really needed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, similar to how those Russian robots went and pushed faulty satellites out into space.
Probably not a big issue as we already could develop the technology probably if we really needed it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264002</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>dziban303</author>
	<datestamp>1265102880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Actually, a rocket motor and fuel is not required. A cheap, easy, and--I hate to use this word, but--"free" form of orbital propulsion exists. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether\_propulsion" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Electrodynamic tether propulsion</a> [wikipedia.org]. Extend a conducting wire out from the spacecraft, and as it moves through the Earth's magnetic field, it can act as a motor or a brake like a normal electric motor. No fuel required.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things , it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite 's launch-weight , which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster .
Actually , a rocket motor and fuel is not required .
A cheap , easy , and--I hate to use this word , but-- " free " form of orbital propulsion exists .
Electrodynamic tether propulsion [ wikipedia.org ] .
Extend a conducting wire out from the spacecraft , and as it moves through the Earth 's magnetic field , it can act as a motor or a brake like a normal electric motor .
No fuel required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To give a satellite the ability to do any of these things, it must carry its own rocket motors and fuel - this increases the satellite's launch-weight, which in turn increases the fuel requirements of the booster.
Actually, a rocket motor and fuel is not required.
A cheap, easy, and--I hate to use this word, but--"free" form of orbital propulsion exists.
Electrodynamic tether propulsion [wikipedia.org].
Extend a conducting wire out from the spacecraft, and as it moves through the Earth's magnetic field, it can act as a motor or a brake like a normal electric motor.
No fuel required.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263262</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>crow</author>
	<datestamp>1265142720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they normally push them into an orbit that will degrade so that they'll burn up on reentry.  That takes less energy than putting them on a trajectory that leaves Earth's orbit.</p><p>The real problem is junk that doesn't have working thrusters and communications so that they can tell it to de-orbit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they normally push them into an orbit that will degrade so that they 'll burn up on reentry .
That takes less energy than putting them on a trajectory that leaves Earth 's orbit.The real problem is junk that does n't have working thrusters and communications so that they can tell it to de-orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they normally push them into an orbit that will degrade so that they'll burn up on reentry.
That takes less energy than putting them on a trajectory that leaves Earth's orbit.The real problem is junk that doesn't have working thrusters and communications so that they can tell it to de-orbit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263822</id>
	<title>Re:Options</title>
	<author>coolsnowmen</author>
	<datestamp>1265102040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have enough energy to 'boil' the surface of the object (low pressure makes this easier but not trivial), then the local pressure difference is a differential force on the object. In this way, the laser appears to push an object in space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have enough energy to 'boil ' the surface of the object ( low pressure makes this easier but not trivial ) , then the local pressure difference is a differential force on the object .
In this way , the laser appears to push an object in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have enough energy to 'boil' the surface of the object (low pressure makes this easier but not trivial), then the local pressure difference is a differential force on the object.
In this way, the laser appears to push an object in space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264320</id>
	<title>Re:Push them further away</title>
	<author>SBrach</author>
	<datestamp>1265104380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Abandoned satellites and fuel tanks are only two examples of space junk.  A lot of it is very small, such as the 480 million copper needles we dispersed up there to bounce radio waves off of in case the commies cut our undersea cables.  The thing that many people don't understand is how much damage a small object like this can cause to a space craft.  Here is a pic of what a flake of paint can do to the Space Shuttle, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Space\_debris\_impact\_on\_Space\_Shuttle\_window.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">Linky.</a> [wikipedia.org] The velocities involved are hundreds or thousands of times greater than you experience driving your car and think of the damage a rock flying out the back of a truck can cause on the freeway.  Especially if a crack in your windshield means you die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Abandoned satellites and fuel tanks are only two examples of space junk .
A lot of it is very small , such as the 480 million copper needles we dispersed up there to bounce radio waves off of in case the commies cut our undersea cables .
The thing that many people do n't understand is how much damage a small object like this can cause to a space craft .
Here is a pic of what a flake of paint can do to the Space Shuttle , Linky .
[ wikipedia.org ] The velocities involved are hundreds or thousands of times greater than you experience driving your car and think of the damage a rock flying out the back of a truck can cause on the freeway .
Especially if a crack in your windshield means you die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Abandoned satellites and fuel tanks are only two examples of space junk.
A lot of it is very small, such as the 480 million copper needles we dispersed up there to bounce radio waves off of in case the commies cut our undersea cables.
The thing that many people don't understand is how much damage a small object like this can cause to a space craft.
Here is a pic of what a flake of paint can do to the Space Shuttle, Linky.
[wikipedia.org] The velocities involved are hundreds or thousands of times greater than you experience driving your car and think of the damage a rock flying out the back of a truck can cause on the freeway.
Especially if a crack in your windshield means you die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263410</id>
	<title>Re:Time to send up Quark!</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1265143380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vacuum Cleaners, Inc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vacuum Cleaners , Inc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vacuum Cleaners, Inc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264128</id>
	<title>Devo predicted this in 1978</title>
	<author>Bookout</author>
	<datestamp>1265103480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think science will also soon bear out their other famous theory, answering the question "Are we not men?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think science will also soon bear out their other famous theory , answering the question " Are we not men ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think science will also soon bear out their other famous theory, answering the question "Are we not men?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264086</id>
	<title>Trailer Trash</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1265103300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya? Just wait til we put the Space Shuttle on blocks on our front lawn...</p><p>Then the Universe will know just what kind of neighborhood we have over here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya ?
Just wait til we put the Space Shuttle on blocks on our front lawn...Then the Universe will know just what kind of neighborhood we have over here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya?
Just wait til we put the Space Shuttle on blocks on our front lawn...Then the Universe will know just what kind of neighborhood we have over here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264346</id>
	<title>Re:A head-on collision?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1265104500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it could also be more dangerous. With a head on collision, you are going to have a lot of inertia canceling each other out. I would bet that more of the material would de orbit with a head on impact than one at right angles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it could also be more dangerous .
With a head on collision , you are going to have a lot of inertia canceling each other out .
I would bet that more of the material would de orbit with a head on impact than one at right angles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it could also be more dangerous.
With a head on collision, you are going to have a lot of inertia canceling each other out.
I would bet that more of the material would de orbit with a head on impact than one at right angles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263600</id>
	<title>Re:or pull them back</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1265144220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We do exactly that.  We let them burn up in the atmosphere, or crash into the ocean.  The parts then get dissolved in the rain, or in the ocean water.  The dissolved little bits get laid down on the ocean floor and riverbeds as mineral deposits.  These mineral deposits get mined.  The ore gets refined.  New parts are designed, and voila, a few million years from now you get a shiny new starboard reticle articulation trunion.  Why, the very reticle articulation trunions used on the shuttle Discovery were once part of a Jurasic era weather monitoring satellite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do exactly that .
We let them burn up in the atmosphere , or crash into the ocean .
The parts then get dissolved in the rain , or in the ocean water .
The dissolved little bits get laid down on the ocean floor and riverbeds as mineral deposits .
These mineral deposits get mined .
The ore gets refined .
New parts are designed , and voila , a few million years from now you get a shiny new starboard reticle articulation trunion .
Why , the very reticle articulation trunions used on the shuttle Discovery were once part of a Jurasic era weather monitoring satellite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do exactly that.
We let them burn up in the atmosphere, or crash into the ocean.
The parts then get dissolved in the rain, or in the ocean water.
The dissolved little bits get laid down on the ocean floor and riverbeds as mineral deposits.
These mineral deposits get mined.
The ore gets refined.
New parts are designed, and voila, a few million years from now you get a shiny new starboard reticle articulation trunion.
Why, the very reticle articulation trunions used on the shuttle Discovery were once part of a Jurasic era weather monitoring satellite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264054</id>
	<title>Wall-E showed us the future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265103120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we saw it clearly enough in Wall-E. That's the future that awaits us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we saw it clearly enough in Wall-E. That 's the future that awaits us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we saw it clearly enough in Wall-E. That's the future that awaits us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263746</id>
	<title>Re:The area of space immediately around the globe</title>
	<author>Rand Race</author>
	<datestamp>1265101740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*Any* problem like this would be disastrous due to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler\_Syndrome" title="wikipedia.org">Kessler Syndrome</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Any * problem like this would be disastrous due to the Kessler Syndrome [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Any* problem like this would be disastrous due to the Kessler Syndrome [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263468</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31266124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31266446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1634224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31266446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31266124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31267984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31265572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31263536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1634224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1634224.31264160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
