Shuttle ETs never got up to a stable orbit. It would have been possible to use the OMS to take them up there, but then the Shuttle would have had basically no payload capacity on that mission.
On that issue, the shuttle actually used the OMS engines to steer the ET into a quick re-entry, then dropped it and used the OMS engines to get into the orbit they wanted. They used extra fuel to do this. (This doesn't address the other issues with the concept, of course.)
It's a damn shame they didn't do it with the shuttle external fuel tanks. Those things were huge. How many would we have in use now if that was part of the design?
A lot of people lobbied hard for that. My understanding is that the biggest barrier standing in the way was that the spray-on foam insulation on the external tanks would likely "popcorn" in vacuum, filling LEO with more little bits of debris. (I'm not sure where I read that; it was ages ago.) Junk in LEO is already a big enough problem.
Hillary has not been convicted of a crime, true. And Donald has not been examined and declared insane by a psychiatrist. Also true. Neither of these are exactly ringing endorsements of their regard for the law or their sanity.
Just reprocessing fuel from ordinary reactors and putting the unburnt plutonium and U235 back into new fuel rods greatly increases the years of proven reserves we have of uranium. Breeders ups it another order of magnitude. Beyond that, ion exchange processes have demonstrated extraction of uranium from sea water. This was demonstrated by the Japanese back in 1970something, at a cost of a few hundred dollars per pound. Not economical now, but at some point it would be.
Not to mention thorium. My CRC Handbook says that the available energy in the earth's crust from thorium is greater than uranium and all fossil fuels put together; thorium is about as common as lead.
Yeah, a lot of stuff about Hillary is fabricated. And likewise, a lot of stuff about Trump is fabricated. In both cases, though, what we have video of actually coming out of their mouths is sufficient.
Hillary, I am convinced, is an enemy of the Constitution. There are a lot of anti Second Amendment "quotes" attributed to her which are completely made up. However, her proposal to implement something like Australia's gun laws -- which were, indeed, outright bans and confiscation -- is completely contrary to the to clear and declarative words of the Constitution. If she wants to repeal the Second Amendment, fine, get the votes for it and do it. But if "The Right of the People
Think about that. "Your Guys" are not forever and always going to be the ones running Washington DC. NEVER advocate giving "your guys" powers that you would be uncomfortable seeing in the hands of the "other guys."
I don't know if Hillary has learned anything from the email server thing. Her response has been one part "I didn't do anything wrong" and one part "I didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything." Anybody who has ever held any sort of security clearance knows full well what would have happened to them if they had done what she did. Ask anyone who has ever held a clearance to access TS/SAP stuff what would happen to them. The FBI Director, in declining to recommend prosecution, added a statement that basically said "But nobody else had better try this, because they will suffer consequences, because they are not Hillary Clinton."
I absolutely abhor having anyone in public office who thinks they are above the law. And that goes exponential when the top law enforcement officials of the country agree that, yes, they are above the law.
I'm deciding on which of my "A Plague on Both Your Parties" vote I'm going to indulge in this year. Both candidates are absolutely unacceptable in a "I don't care who they're running against" sense.
Of course, since I'm in a state that's going to give all its electoral votes to Hillary no matter what, I can afford to stick to my principles without any consideration of it making any difference in the outcome. I won't judge the decisions of anyone whose situation is different.
One advantage a Trump administration would have over a Clinton administration is that it would be short. Trump does not seem to have any more capacity to understand that laws apply to him than Hillary does... maybe even less. However, Trump is hated by most of the news media, most of the Republicans in the House and Senate, and all of the Democrats. The very first thing he does that can be construed as a "high crime or misdemeanor", and impeachment in the House proceeding to removal from office by the Senate will proceed at Warp Factor 10.
Hillary, by contrast, the Democrats will not vote to remove her even if she's performing daily human sacrifices to Cthulhu on the White House lawn.
This. If I had mod points right now, I'd use one instead of replying. I am pretty thoroughly horrified by the Obama presidency (and it's not because of his skin color; there is no white person on the face of the Earth that I would even briefly consider voting for if he or she were running against Thomas Sowell) and find the prospects of either a Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump presidency even more horrifying, which I didn't think was possible.
Too much of the interaction on the Internet has been turned over to not very bright grammar-school ranting.
My pipe dream, assuming I ever get around to doing it:
Open-source PBX software running on an AWS or Azure instance, or some such.
Calls from my extensive whitelist, which automatically includes every number I call, ring straight through.
Most others go to a message like this: "Hello?" repeated a few times until voice is heard. When the voice stops, "Who may I say is calling?" Wait until voice stops, then "This is an answering service, do you wish to leave any other message?" The point of all this being to try to get an agent to the phone for the usual predictive dialing, or at least get some information about the caller, without being too grossly annoying to legitimate callers that don't happen to be on the whitelist yet.
The special list. The very special list. This one, as much AI as can be cheaply (i.e. free as in beer) brought to bear on the problem of sounding just like a real person, maybe a bit gullible, and interested in the product, but just
A person in the street brandishing a knife at a distance is nowhere near the threat that a loaded gun is in the same hands.
I believe that is the number. At 21 feet, a person with a knife who you are holding a gun on can charge and stab you before you can shoot them.
Quibbles about the exact number of feet aside (it's not off by more than a couple of feet) that is just the fact. It may seem odd, but it's true.
Exact quote: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
More plausible readings of this are that maybe the Russians already have this in the dump of Hillary's mail server they already have. Or, as Trump said later, it's a joke. Maybe a bit of both.
(Please do not willfully misconstrue my quoting of the factual quote as support for the Tangerine Troglodyte. Trump's bad enough; making fake crap up about him is only going to make some people doubt the real crap.)
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin