YOLO! (you oughtta look out....)

Developing this means of fuel production (even using coal, which the US has a lot of btw...) could have strategic importance for the US or any other net importer of oil. Since pretty much all military vehicles use petrochemical fuel, an embargo of the US by the oil-rich nations could cripple the US military forces. (Nuke subs probably being the exception) A ready infrastructure able to synthesize hydro-carbon fuel rather than refinement from crude oil provides a means of escape from dependence on oil imports. In the least, it augments fuel producing capability in case of shortage.

It's not as convenient as an actual SD slot, and you have to root, but it will give more storage... Google Play Store

My best chance to see a perfectly dark sky came about 8 years ago. (I'm in Cleveland) The sky was pretty clear and ALL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003/ the lights were out, but around 9:46pm an almost full moon rose and ruined the whole thing... http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KBKL/2003/8/13/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Cleveland&req_state=OH&req_statename=Ohio/

In the first paragraph the writer praises JFK because it was not the actual trip to the moon part that would be good for the country, but the technology development to get there.(and everything that entails) Then in short order he calls the $9billion spent on constellation development "a waste". Well? Which is it? Technology was developed(if not finished) just like for the Apollo program. Why is the development process the real success of one program and "a waste" in the other program? If the process of trying to accomplish a goal is good for Murrica, reaching that goal should be immaterial.(per the authors reasoning, I'm not saying reaching a goal is unimportant)

Could this be just a bored film transfer tech inserting a bit of an anachronism into this extra footage?

That's just a sea-level test. If you want an altitude test..... http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/psl/gallery.html/

http://xkcd.com/282/

Oh please! I've seen Rugby Football matches before and it's not really THAT much different from American football in terms of starts and stops.

Let's see... Catch the ball after it's been kicked to you, run furiously up the field, pass the ball then he runs and finally a tackle... Now half of each team piles up and the ball gets moved around under the pile while the rest of the team stands around watching.... seconds pass... (rest) sometimes the ball does come out and they run again, other times... whistle! Now everyone stands up, walks over to organize the scrum, and once the ball comes out they run. Now say this results in a try... everyone walks to their position waiting for the kick (rest) and afterwards they gather to kick the ball back and repeat... Unless there's a penalty... Then one guy again sets up for the kick while everyone stands around looking... (rest) and another kick....

Plenty of time for rest in Rugby, it's not a constant sprint back and forth. One nice thing about Rugby is the whole "no adverts" thing, but that's more to do with Madison Avenue and Networks here overpaying for broadcasting rights than the game itself.

While there may be more breaks in American Football the difference doesn't seem as stark as I understand you are trying to state. This is true of Assoc. Football too, there are plenty of breaks in the action in most games, with a few exceptions. (99 FA Cup Semifinal at Villa Park, wow! what a game!)

ah, ah, ah, ah,
stayin alive, stayin alive,
ah, ah, ah ah,
cake is a lie, cake is a lie,
cake is a laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaye,
whaaa aaaaaaaa aaaa aaaa....