Until we have mini cold fusion reactors in our homes and cars, there isn't going to be a silver bullet solution to everything. You need to pursue an all of the above strategy. That means using and improving public transportation where it makes sense (Manhattan is a good place for it, Houston is not). Give people the ability to use their bicycles to get around (add bikes lines and green-ways where it makes sense and where it can improve neighborhoods).

This fallacy of "If it doesn't fix the whole, entire problem, for everyone, all at once, for all time, then we won't do it" needs to stop.

Just think of this a transportable batteries. They are going to take energy (you want renewable resources obviously, burning petrol to make less petrol isn't the plan) and turn it in into transportable petrol that vehicles can use.

You wouldn't make petrol with this and turn around an burn it for electricity for the grid. This process is to turn solar energy into gasoline for cars. Its a very good idea. If you want electricity, this isn't the process for that. You would just use your renewables to make electricity.

Making batteries isn't environmentally friendly at this point. Turning existing atmospheric CO2 in to fuel that gets burned and makes CO2, using renewable energy to power that process seems way more friendly than all the energy intensive strip mining and processing needed to make batteries that fit in your car.

So what about ectopic pregnancies? Should women be forced to bring those to term? After all, the baby may survive process. The woman won't, but since when have anti-abortion forces cared about them?

I am sure you will say, that's different. It obviously endangers the woman's life. But you know what? So does EVERY pregnancy. Every pregnancy is a danger to a woman's life. And they alone get the choice whether or not roll the dice.

The only difference between an ectopic pregnancy and a normal pregnancy is the chance of survival. So where is the line? 1% chance of death? 5% chance of death? 95% chance of death? Where is the dividing line? At what chance of survival do women get to say no, i don't like those odds.

If you are for abortion in the case of rape, well then you are just a hypocrite.

Regardless of how a woman comes to be pregnant, she should not be forced to accept YOUR willingness to roll the dice.

There is no filibuster in the House, so you only need a majority. But depending on the makeup of the committee a bill gets assigned to, it may never come up for a vote. I don't have any good info on that.

But in today's hyper partisan climate? Yes, you need the presidency, house majority and filibuster proof senate majority of 60 votes to pass anything of substance. Does that sound crazy? It should because it is. You can't reason with and make compromises with crazy people with irrational views and a party that is willing to accept their crazy ass views for the sake of party. Michelle Bachman for example.

During Obama's first two years, they had "control" of both the House and Senate. But without 60 members of the senate in your party, you don't control it. Democrats never had 60.

The republicans in the senate have filibustered more than any other time in US history. They were on record as saying their primary objective was making Obama a one term president. And how do you do that? You tank the economy. Oh you want stimulus? Here is 1/3 of the amount of money needed. So it won't work as well as it should have and then we can say "See? the stimulus didn't work!"

Stockpiling fuel at the Earth-Moon L2 makes sense if you never make propellant in orbit. Although I believe making a propellant depot at an altitude slightly higher than Earth GEO is a better investment.

I know NASA isn't in the commercial satellite repair business, but at GEO you could have your depot at a reachable location and gain valuable experience trying to revive dead satellites in your spare time. Reopening comm links could provide a small source of revenue, but the experience of doing those types of activities in orbit seems invaluable to me.

If you discover a make to make fuel or oxidizer on the moon, even if its terribly inefficient, then you have some trade studies to analyze. At several thousand dollars per lbm launching cost from the earth (due to the large gravity well and atmosphere), there is some break even point for launching inefficiently manufactured lunar propellant to either L2 or GEO from the moon (due to smaller gravity well and no atmosphere).

The ideal situation would be to have autonomous propellant manufacturing on the moon. Then have automated deliveries to the in orbit propellant depots. That would be a pretty complicated setup that would either require permanent workers (and the supporting moon base) or at least temporary ones (that would require lander, temporary habitats, etc).

I am pretty happy with my HTC One X on AT&T for $100. The SG3 and One X are pretty close, but $200 vs. $100 make it a no brainer.

You can't have a rational argument with someone with irrational views. I don't know how to solve that problem.

All satellites need station keeping thrusters to maintain a stable orbit. Because the Earth is shaped like an oblate spheroid, orbits are not stable. There is a particular amount of thrust needed per pound of satellite to maintain the orbit. Their calculations probably assumed some typical orbit and the station keeping thrust needed.

From the summary (and the article):

Its doesn't say "weigh" two pounds, its says a two-pound satellite. In that context, it pretty easy to see that the implication is its a 2 lbm satellite. Its slightly ambiguous, but not wrong. I don't know why its hyphenated. Any by some magical coincidence, it would happen to weigh 2 lbf pretty much anywhere on the surface of the Earth.

Also, this isn't from the text of peer reviewed, journal quality technical paper. It's an article trying to related cutting edge research to anyone who cares to read about it. Properly relaying the concepts is the important part.

I have an airave . I had a very weak signal in my house. After calling tech support, updating PRLs, etc., i was approved for an airave. It came quickly and setting it up is pretty straightforward. It's kind of annoying though.

1. Every time you make an outgoing call, you get 3 short tones on your handset (its to tell you your call is going thru the airave).
2. You need to locate the airave where it can get a GPS signal, otherwise you need to hook up a hockey puck type antenna to it. Its on a very long wire, but its something else you have to account for.
3. They want it installed in front of your router. I don't trust them, so I won't do that. It gets plugged into the router.
4. I have to reboot the thing at least once a week.
5. Depending on where I am in the house, sometimes the phone connects to the airave, sometimes it doesn't.
6. Sometimes, if you network it a little slow, the voice quality drops to shit. And then you have to unplug the thing to make and receive calls, because the phone will keep using it as long as it sees it.

Its a very good concept, it just doesn't work as well as it should.

Vote for "corporate pension raider make the US government cover the bankruptcy fallout" Romney? The guy who would privatize every government agency under the sun so a corporation could outsource it India and keep the collected tax money and distribute it as dividends so its taxed at lower tax rate than poor people pay? That guy? Just so we are clear.

You know whats crazy? That paragraph could almost apply to our banking industry.

Its the details of the contract that are different. SpaceX is operating under a firm, fixed price contract. They eat the risk and that is why its commercial.

So, let me know if i get this right...

Any airline that operates charter plane services to the government isn't a commercial entity?

Any freight company that ships equipment for the government isn't a commercial entity?

Any paper company that sells supplies to the government isn't a commercial entity?

You are missing the main difference between the contract SpaceX is operating under compared to Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

SLS is a fully funded government rocket whose design, construction and operation is at all points along the way approved by NASA oversight.

Orion is a fully funded government capsule whose design, construction and operation is at all points along the way approved by NASA oversight.

Falcon 9 was developed by SpaceX, on its own dime with no NASA oversight or approval needed. They have contracts already in place to launch commercial satellites and payloads.

Dragon has been MOSTLY developed and funded by SpaceX. They got awarded a contract for 1.6 billion to make 12 deliveries to the ISS. As part of that contract, they were given 300 million to both finish development of the capsule and pay for the Demo launches. Mainly due to the fact no independent company has ever sent anything to the ISS. It cost upwards of 100 billion to put in orbit, so they don't want any random company smashing into it.

This method of contracting SERVICES to the government, as opposed to the R&D, PRODUCTION and MAINTENANCE that current contractors do it is new.

SpaceX is operating under fixed price contracts to provide a service to the government. The same way FedEx does. The same way Overnight Shipping does. They assume the risk. That is why its commercial.