"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in
the world marketplace for labor and products.

We're already competitive.

Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you
wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out.

The US is not competitive in anything but military hardware and very
high-tech goods and services these days. And that competitive edge is
slipping daily. On the low-tech end, we lost our competitiveness decades
ago. Much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, that's the fact, Jack.

You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be
importing oil & gas.

We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable
energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and
alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have been
decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction. Only solar
energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or no
exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an
alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also have a
decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the environmental
extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually a non-issue,
being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible. And our coal
reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining the stuff.

You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting
them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc.

Yup. Not for a very long time.

You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic
organisation **** away resources & money.

Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers
the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper
alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing to
launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other, when
it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it would be run
more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best there is. Are you
aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside the US? Look it
up--it's staggering.

You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology.

Once again we've lost the edge in an area where we should be without peer,
thanks mostly to avarice and a stubbornly sluggish government approval
process. But this is nothing new--it's been this way for a long time.
What's sad is that at least half the world's development of new
pharmaceuticals occurs here, but many fail to reach production, thanks to
the reasons in the first sentence of this paragraph.


So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production
of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning
conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection?

That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other high-tech
goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4 years behind
demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built today, and the
buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still very desirable
throughout the world, although the competition from such outfits as Airbus
is brutal.

As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is doing
much better. The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me
at the moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual
soldier to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the
point of immobility.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive
in
the world marketplace for labor and products.

We're already competitive.

Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you
wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out.

The US is not competitive in anything but military hardware and very
high-tech goods and services these days. And that competitive edge is
slipping daily. On the low-tech end, we lost our competitiveness decades
ago. Much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, that's the fact, Jack.

You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be
importing oil & gas.

We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable
energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and
alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have
been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction. Only
solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or no
exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an
alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also have
a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the
environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually
a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible.
And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining
the stuff.


Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil.

More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go.



You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting
them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc.

Yup. Not for a very long time.

You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic
organisation **** away resources & money.

Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers
the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper
alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing
to launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other,
when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it would
be run more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best there is.
Are you aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside the US? Look
it up--it's staggering.

The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is
using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the US.

The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft.
The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle. It does not offer
value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch facility is built of
Russian components. India is up and coming in satellite builds. The US space
industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged. The Air Force has cancelled
several major space based systems because of the US space industry not being
able to deliver.




You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology.

Once again we've lost the edge in an area where we should be without peer,
thanks mostly to avarice and a stubbornly sluggish government approval
process. But this is nothing new--it's been this way for a long time.
What's sad is that at least half the world's development of new
pharmaceuticals occurs here, but many fail to reach production, thanks to
the reasons in the first sentence of this paragraph.


So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production
of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning
conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection?

That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other
high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4
years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built
today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still
very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from such
outfits as Airbus is brutal.

Don't forget financial services and movie making.



As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is doing
much better.


If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place?

The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the moment,
but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier to carry
huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the point of
immobility.


It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe!

Amen!


Max

According to the governor of Montana, coal would be the most efficient means
of solving the US thirst for foreign oil. Check it out.
http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive
in
the world marketplace for labor and products.

We're already competitive.

Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you
wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out.

The US is not competitive in anything but military hardware and very
high-tech goods and services these days. And that competitive edge is
slipping daily. On the low-tech end, we lost our competitiveness decades
ago. Much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, that's the fact, Jack.

You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be
importing oil & gas.

We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable
energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and
alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have
been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction.
Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or
no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an
alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also
have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the
environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually
a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible.
And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining
the stuff.


Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil.

More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go.



You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting
them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc.

Yup. Not for a very long time.

You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic
organisation **** away resources & money.

Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers
the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper
alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing
to launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other,
when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it
would be run more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best
there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside
the US? Look it up--it's staggering.

The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is
using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the US.

The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft.
The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle. It does not
offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch facility is
built of Russian components. India is up and coming in satellite builds.
The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged. The Air Force has
cancelled several major space based systems because of the US space
industry not being able to deliver.




You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology.

Once again we've lost the edge in an area where we should be without
peer, thanks mostly to avarice and a stubbornly sluggish government
approval process. But this is nothing new--it's been this way for a long
time. What's sad is that at least half the world's development of new
pharmaceuticals occurs here, but many fail to reach production, thanks to
the reasons in the first sentence of this paragraph.


So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production
of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning
conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection?

That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other
high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4
years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built
today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still
very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from such
outfits as Airbus is brutal.

Don't forget financial services and movie making.



As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is
doing much better.


If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place?

The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the
moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier
to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the point
of immobility.


It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe!

Amen!


Max

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable
energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and
alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have
been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction.
Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or
no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an
alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also
have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the
environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually
a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible.
And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining
the stuff.

Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil.

But both would help supplant the increased need for oil. We'll never be
independent of our thirst for crude oil, but it can be reduced
significantly. And that really is a good idea, considering that China is
about to replace us as the world's number one consumer of crude. If you
think oil prices are high now . . .

More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go.

It's a good source of energy, and relatively efficient. But the problem of
spent fuel disposal is still just that--a problem.


Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers
the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper
alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing
to launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other,
when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it
would be run more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best
there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside
the US? Look it up--it's staggering.

The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is
using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the US.

Does that automatically make us non-competitive?

The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft.
The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle.

Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death toll
for the Russian space program over the years?

It does not offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch
facility is built of Russian components. India is up and coming in
satellite builds. The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged.
The Air Force has cancelled several major space based systems because of
the US space industry not being able to deliver.

That's generally true, but the problems with the US space program can be
directly traced to the fact that it's largely government-funded, and the
gummint is calling the shots. And you know how poorly and sluggishly that
system works. Let the private sector run the space program and watch it
flourish. Unless it's now too late for that, too.

That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other
high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4
years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built
today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still
very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from such
outfits as Airbus is brutal.

Don't forget financial services

How about the Swiss and the Cayman Islanders?

and movie making.

Yeah, that's really important.


As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is
doing much better.


If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place?

I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money in
it, if it's so fashionable.

The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the
moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier
to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the point
of immobility.


It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe!

Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are still
able.)

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable
energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and
alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have
been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction.
Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or
no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an
alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also
have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the
environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is
virtually a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever
possible. And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention the
hazards of mining the stuff.

Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil.

But both would help supplant the increased need for oil. We'll never be
independent of our thirst for crude oil, but it can be reduced
significantly. And that really is a good idea, considering that China is
about to replace us as the world's number one consumer of crude. If you
think oil prices are high now . . .


Oil prices will create the drive to go to new energy sources.


More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go.

It's a good source of energy, and relatively efficient. But the problem
of spent fuel disposal is still just that--a problem.

It's not a problem. Put it back into the ground, that's where it came from.




Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one
offers the same level of reliability or dependability as the US.
Cheaper alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most
companies wishing to launch satellites would utilize the US space
program over any other, when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect
program, and I wish it would be run more efficiently and effectively,
but it's still the best there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of
launch failures outside the US? Look it up--it's staggering.

The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is
using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the
US.

Does that automatically make us non-competitive?

In big rocket engines yes. In heavy launch airframes yes.


The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated spacecraft.
The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle.

Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death
toll for the Russian space program over the years?

Space Shuttle: 1 in 62 accident rate , 14 fatalities

Soyuz: 4 fatalities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters

Latest Soyuz model just as safe as Shuttle. Considering the Russians are
running it, the Soyuz must be inherently much safer. How are the astronauts
getting to the space station today?




It does not offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch
facility is built of Russian components. India is up and coming in
satellite builds. The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged.
The Air Force has cancelled several major space based systems because of
the US space industry not being able to deliver.

That's generally true, but the problems with the US space program can be
directly traced to the fact that it's largely government-funded, and the
gummint is calling the shots. And you know how poorly and sluggishly that
system works. Let the private sector run the space program and watch it
flourish. Unless it's now too late for that, too.

It's not too late. In fact, high tech greedy millionaires are funding:

http://www.spacex.com/





That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other
high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4
years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built
today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are
still very desirable throughout the world, although the competition from
such outfits as Airbus is brutal.

Don't forget financial services

How about the Swiss and the Cayman Islanders?

and movie making.

Yeah, that's really important.

Tremendously so.



As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is
doing much better.


If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place?

I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money in
it, if it's so fashionable.

It's practice for the popular uprising to happen here in the US.



The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the
moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual soldier
to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the
point of immobility.


It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe!

Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are still
able.)

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/col...idge/105751876


Seriously, they're looking at pulsed microwave and laser beams.


Max

No... really? Wow, now that's inciteful.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable
energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and
alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have
been decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction.
Only solar energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little
or no exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as
an alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We
also have a decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the
environmental extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is
virtually a non-issue, being replaced by cleaner energy sources
whenever possible. And our coal reserves are dwindling, not to mention
the hazards of mining the stuff.

Solar not that great, biomass is less efficient than oil.

But both would help supplant the increased need for oil. We'll never be
independent of our thirst for crude oil, but it can be reduced
significantly. And that really is a good idea, considering that China is
about to replace us as the world's number one consumer of crude. If you
think oil prices are high now . . .


Oil prices will create the drive to go to new energy sources.


More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the way to go.

It's a good source of energy, and relatively efficient. But the problem
of spent fuel disposal is still just that--a problem.

It's not a problem. Put it back into the ground, that's where it came
from.




Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one
offers the same level of reliability or dependability as the US.
Cheaper alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most
companies wishing to launch satellites would utilize the US space
program over any other, when it's up and running. It isn't a perfect
program, and I wish it would be run more efficiently and effectively,
but it's still the best there is. Are you aware of the sheer number of
launch failures outside the US? Look it up--it's staggering.

The Soviets make better and cheaper rocket engines. That's why the US is
using them. A good number of satellites are now being made outside the
US.

Does that automatically make us non-competitive?

In big rocket engines yes. In heavy launch airframes yes.


The US at times does offer 2nd best reliability for man rated
spacecraft. The Soyuz is safer and more robust than the space shuttle.

Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death
toll for the Russian space program over the years?

Space Shuttle: 1 in 62 accident rate , 14 fatalities

Soyuz: 4 fatalities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters

Latest Soyuz model just as safe as Shuttle. Considering the Russians are
running it, the Soyuz must be inherently much safer. How are the
astronauts getting to the space station today?




It does not offer value for non man rated launches. Boeing sea launch
facility is built of Russian components. India is up and coming in
satellite builds. The US space industry is bloated, slow and mismanaged.
The Air Force has cancelled several major space based systems because of
the US space industry not being able to deliver.

That's generally true, but the problems with the US space program can be
directly traced to the fact that it's largely government-funded, and the
gummint is calling the shots. And you know how poorly and sluggishly
that system works. Let the private sector run the space program and
watch it flourish. Unless it's now too late for that, too.

It's not too late. In fact, high tech greedy millionaires are funding:

http://www.spacex.com/





That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other
high-tech goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about
4 years behind demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being
built today, and the buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft
are still very desirable throughout the world, although the competition
from such outfits as Airbus is brutal.

Don't forget financial services

How about the Swiss and the Cayman Islanders?

and movie making.

Yeah, that's really important.

Tremendously so.



As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is
doing much better.


If the insurrection is popular, why supress it in the first place?

I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money in
it, if it's so fashionable.

It's practice for the popular uprising to happen here in the US.



The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me at the
moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual
soldier to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to
the point of immobility.


It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe!

Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are
still able.)

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/col...idge/105751876


Seriously, they're looking at pulsed microwave and laser beams.


Max

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

Oil prices will create the drive to go to new energy sources.

Right. That is probably the only thing that will create that drive.
Example: The British Smart Car was slated to be sold here as of last year,
but the company has since reconsidered and delayed bringing it to the US.
Reason? Oil prices are still too low. They won't sell well until the price
of a gallon of gas eclipses $4 or so.

It's not a problem. Put it back into the ground, that's where it came
from.

The problem with that is that when it was in the ground originally, it was
disseminated and relatively harmless. After enrichment and condensation, it
becomes a hazard to health, and an enticement for terrorists to dig up for
producing dirty bombs.

Does that automatically make us non-competitive?

In big rocket engines yes. In heavy launch airframes yes.

Aerojet General is still producing rocket engines and making money, last I
checked.


Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death
toll for the Russian space program over the years?

Space Shuttle: 1 in 62 accident rate , 14 fatalities

Soyuz: 4 fatalities

Compare the Russian space program history with that of the US space program
history. Different story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters

Latest Soyuz model just as safe as Shuttle. Considering the Russians are
running it, the Soyuz must be inherently much safer. How are the
astronauts getting to the space station today?

Soyuz, obviously, but it's no safer than the shuttle. Soyuz is far less
complex, and as a side benefit it's less costly to implement. The Shuttle
program is far more complex, but it can carry a greater number of people and
far, far more material and equipment. The shuttle's downtime is hurting the
ISS program badly, despite the Soyuz program keeping the food, supplies, and
people coming and going. If the ISS program were dependent upon only Soyuz
for its existence, it wouldn't exist. Without the shuttle the ISS would
never have been proposed or begun. Apples and oranges.


It's not too late. In fact, high tech greedy millionaires are funding:

http://www.spacex.com/

Nothing wrong with that.

and movie making.

Yeah, that's really important.

Tremendously so.

In the overall scheme of things, it isn't even on the radar screen. But it
does comprise a single digit segment of the GDP.

I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money in
it, if it's so fashionable.

It's practice for the popular uprising to happen here in the US.

I wonder how I can get started in popular uprisings? Probably some
advertising, some development of better molotov cocktails, etc. and a few
spots on cable news.

It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe!

Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are
still able.)

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/col...idge/105751876


Seriously, they're looking at pulsed microwave and laser beams.

Military lasers have been under development for decades, but the original
problem remains: how to get enough power to them to make them powerful
enough to be effective. A conundrum. As for pulsed microwaves, there's
nothing quite like a monstrous microwave oven aimed at the enemy to fry
their insurgency plans, eh?

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

Oil prices will create the drive to go to new energy sources.

Right. That is probably the only thing that will create that drive.
Example: The British Smart Car was slated to be sold here as of last
year, but the company has since reconsidered and delayed bringing it to
the US. Reason? Oil prices are still too low. They won't sell well until
the price of a gallon of gas eclipses $4 or so.

It's not a problem. Put it back into the ground, that's where it came
from.

The problem with that is that when it was in the ground originally, it was
disseminated and relatively harmless. After enrichment and condensation,
it becomes a hazard to health, and an enticement for terrorists to dig up
for producing dirty bombs.

Does that automatically make us non-competitive?

In big rocket engines yes. In heavy launch airframes yes.

Aerojet General is still producing rocket engines and making money, last I
checked.


Rocket engines are not their only business. What operational rocket does the
US have compared tot he Russian Proton?

Why is the US using Russian engines?



Where did you get that? Have you looked at the accident rate and death
toll for the Russian space program over the years?

Space Shuttle: 1 in 62 accident rate , 14 fatalities

Soyuz: 4 fatalities

Compare the Russian space program history with that of the US space
program history. Different story.

The black US space program is quite remarkable. Check out "Blackstar".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters

Latest Soyuz model just as safe as Shuttle. Considering the Russians are
running it, the Soyuz must be inherently much safer. How are the
astronauts getting to the space station today?

Soyuz, obviously, but it's no safer than the shuttle. Soyuz is far less
complex, and as a side benefit it's less costly to implement. The Shuttle
program is far more complex, but it can carry a greater number of people
and far, far more material and equipment. The shuttle's downtime is
hurting the ISS program badly, despite the Soyuz program keeping the food,
supplies, and people coming and going. If the ISS program were dependent
upon only Soyuz for its existence, it wouldn't exist. Without the shuttle
the ISS would never have been proposed or begun. Apples and oranges.

The shuttle does move more gear and people. The Shuttle's big flaw was
building the engines into the airframe.




It's not too late. In fact, high tech greedy millionaires are funding:

http://www.spacex.com/

Nothing wrong with that.

and movie making.

Yeah, that's really important.

Tremendously so.

In the overall scheme of things, it isn't even on the radar screen. But
it does comprise a single digit segment of the GDP.

I was just asking that same question. Certainly there has to be money
in it, if it's so fashionable.

It's practice for the popular uprising to happen here in the US.

I wonder how I can get started in popular uprisings? Probably some
advertising, some development of better molotov cocktails, etc. and a few
spots on cable news.

It's called a super chrome plated hydraulic enema syringe!

Did you buy one of those?? Wow. Tell me how it works. (If you are
still able.)

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/col...idge/105751876


Seriously, they're looking at pulsed microwave and laser beams.

Military lasers have been under development for decades, but the original
problem remains: how to get enough power to them to make them powerful
enough to be effective. A conundrum.


Advanced tactical laser to fly soon.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ystems/atl.htm


As for pulsed microwaves, there's
nothing quite like a monstrous microwave oven aimed at the enemy to fry
their insurgency plans, eh?

Max

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

Rocket engines are not their only business. What operational rocket does
the US have compared tot he Russian Proton?

Dunno. Haven't researched it that thoroughly.

Why is the US using Russian engines?

Cheap?


The shuttle does move more gear and people. The Shuttle's big flaw was
building the engines into the airframe.

I wasn't aware of that. Why is that so?

Advanced tactical laser to fly soon.

What's the power source these days? Nuke?

Max

"Bob Crantz" wrote


More efficient use of energy and atomic power is the
way to go.

It's a good source of energy, and relatively efficient.
But the problem
of spent fuel disposal is still just that--a problem.

It's not a problem. Put it back into the ground, that's
where it came from.


We do that now, Bob. I was contacted just last week to haul
some old ''rod containers'' out to Utah, where they bury
them.
My buddy took a reactor head out there last Summer. They
bury the stuff in the desert.

Scotty