"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