Perhaps OT - but there are also combined cycle gas plants. They have both a "giant gas powered jet engine" and a steam plant. The exhaust from the gas turbine is used to boil the water in the steam plant. They extract a lot more useful work out of the fuel. In cold climes, the waste heat from said combined cycle plants can be used too to heat buildings, etc.

Anyways, my $0.02.

That was then. Today's government seems to revel in Orwellian doublespeak (e.g., the PATRIOT act). So often they propose new laws to do one thing, but when enacted do another. They're now proposing new laws to enforce "net neutrality". I wager they will be anything but neutral.

Given prior experience (e.g. mandatory purchase of medical insurance from corporations), how many here believe it'll end up as suggested in the above quote?

All that you mention involves passive viewing. For example, instead of critiquing CSI's poor make-believe science, engage in real science activities. How about looking at the mountains of the Moon through a telescope? Perhaps make said telescope first. Surely such interactive pastimes are more enriching and persistent. How about building and/or learning to fly a model airplane? Build a radio? A musical instrument? Engage in real activities instead of watching fiction.

I question the value of the shared experience involved in watching TV. Compare the collective experience of watching American Idol with your children to taking them out kayaking or caving, observing or building, playing musical instruments. To me, there's no comparison in relative value.

This is just me, of course, but I can think of very few activities exceeded in any value by the viewing of Jerry Springer.

I suspect that I'm going to be modded into oblivion with this comment. So be it.

TV* is an addiction that's sapping so many of time and energy. How important is Dancing with the Stars, Saturday Night Live and CSI:Whocareswhere? One of the better things that could happen to Western society, IMO, is that there'd be no more "interesting" TV. People would spend more time exercising, engaging in hobbies and talking with others.

I know, I know, everyone watches only three "quality" shows per week - all on the Discovery Channel, natch. That must be why the highest viewership numbers are for the most intellectually barren shows.

Over ten years ago, my wife and I ditched our TV. For the first couple of weeks, in the evenings we were at a loss. There was this "hole" in our lives. But once we got past the withdrawal symptoms, we realized how much we'd been hypnotized by the damned thing. We have so much more time now - and we're a lot fitter (back then I was quite the couch potato with the physique to match). When we visit friends who have TVs, watching proves to be quite boring (and at the same time amazing for how utterly moronic the commercials are - we're no longer desensitized I'm guessing).

Perhaps some will think that I'm a holier-than-thou elitist snob, lying about my lack of TV viewing in an attempt to elevate myself. Whatever. Just try ditching the thing for a few weeks. See what it's like. If you find that your life is really poorer, you can always go back to watching your shows.

Fire away.

*: I use the acronym "TV" now as the generic act of watching entertainment shows - regardless of medium.

The general population has lost much privacy and many freedoms. And the encroachment continues - accelerates even.

But the fault is ours. We gave it all away for the promise of cheap baubles, entertainment and security. So many click still on the "get rich quick" eMail scams. So many happily use credit/debit cards to buy every little thing. So many willingly surrender their privacy & dignity - all for the vacuous promise of security. And deity forbid one gets in the way of TV entertainment. Use that cable box/HD/DVR. Let Time Warner/Comcast or (hey!) AT&T monitor every button press.

I suspect many here would agree. But then, many here clamor also for regulation and control over other areas, giving the beast more power and money for the "unwanted" bugaboos. Yet this results the loss of more privacy and freedom - for everyone.

Perhaps my vantage point is clouded, but it looks like the experiment failed.

I've often seen sky trails that look like that - initially. Then, while continuing to watch, it becomes clear that they're just normal airliner contrails - with the planes often becoming visible as they pass by or overhead.

To me, it's clear that this trail is from over the horizon - spreading as it lingers. Without the advantage of stereo vision (no 3D at that distance), perspective can play interesting tricks.

As you identify, SCRAM jets work only in the atmosphere where it isn't practical to accelerate much beyond Mach 6. This is only a small fraction of the delta-V needed to get into orbit (not to mention a small fraction of the altitude necessary). The extra weight of the wings/lifting body shape and SCRAM components are a burden for most of the acceleration.

Regarding Skylon: as happened with the HOTOL design when it advanced, I suspect it will prove impractical if its design progresses. IMO the design is too big a leap - too many unknowns and assumptions.

Meanwhile, Atlas was 50 years ago nearly SSTO with the VT part of VTVL. And the DC-X demonstrated robustness and near-ground maneuverability in the early 90s (eventually succumbing to an undercarriage malfunction).

These considerations lead me to believe that a true SSTO vehicle will be in a non-airbreathing VTVL configuration. However, be it VTVL or HTHL, any practical SSTO will be a major advance I would welcome!

"Hybrid rocket engines cannot give you the mass fraction to get into orbit."

Staged hybrids are certainly capable of reaching orbit. If you mean SSTO, then I'm aware of no single stage rocket with the mass fraction to get into orbit - regardless of rocket motor used. The Atlas booster/rocket came close. Still, it dropped it's two outboard motors - leaving the central sustainer running to achieve orbital velocity.

There is no money in the trust fund. To quote from this government document: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf - "If in any year revenues are greater than costs, the Secretary of the Treasury, as Managing Trustee of the trust funds, is required to invest this positive annual balance (or cash flow surplus) in securities backed by the U.S. government(3). The purchasing of the securities allows the surplus to be used for other government purposes(4)". Reference (4) goes on to say, "This is often referred to as 'borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.'". So the trust fund contains in essence only IOUs.

Since there is effectively no differentiation between the SS monies and the general pool, interest is not being earned, but being paid on the net negative balance. If you isolate just the SS trust fund, then you're missing the whole picture (large total federal debt and its ongoing growth).

Further, SS ran a deficit this year: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html. Deficits are expected to grow rapidly after 2014 - read the document. But even had this recent downturn not happened, the situation is still dire. Here is a chart showing the problem - made before the recent increases in federal outflows: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png.

Not an issue of spending? This government spreadsheet of the most recent and prior federal budgets contradicts your claim: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist01z1.xls. Note how the growth in outlays out-paces the growth in revenue. Note the much bigger jump in outlays between 2008 and 2009 (nearly twice the magnitude of the drop in revenues over the same period).

"Worst case scenario - foreign treasury holders start dumping large amounts of US debt into the open market, and possibly severely devalue the dollar."

Putting politics aside, I don't see how this is avoidable. Federal debt is around $13x10^12. Depending upon what you include in your arithmetic, unfunded liabilities (such as SS) are between $50x10^12 and $10^13. Meanwhile, the US GDP is around $14x10^12. Yet deficit spending is not contracting, but accelerating.

On the subject of SS, the earliest baby boomers are drawing now on SS. There is no "lock box" holding SS funds - they were rolled into the general pool and spent a long time ago. The inflows were supposed to have exceeded outflows up to around 2017. They didn't - break-even was hit this year.

Short of a miracle invention tripling or quadrupling productivity (not impossible, but definitely in the class of "hail Mary"), there is no way I see around the problem short of dollar devaluation. How fast and how deep I don't think anyone can say. But it will be painful, both to those who have saved for their retirement and to those who live on the SS payments indexed to the obviously unrealistic CPI.