"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