I can think of 2 historical examples of laissez faire unfettered capitalism. of course they were not PURE. the gilded age (pre ww1 and 19th century USA) and china at the beginning of the free market there, maybe 1990's and beyond why china? because extreme laissez faire is by definition no government intervention in business. During that time in china, even though it was a socialist state, by some metrics, in practice a business had less laws regulating it than in say the USA. Both due to lack of laws (the chinese were new at capitalism and hadn't thought of everything yet) and because of corruption they could get around whatever laws there were. Only after a few decades of complaints from activists and governments in the west were laws such as anti pollution and minimum wage laws and worker safety laws enacted by china. So, ironincally, at that time socialist china has a business climate with lesser regulations than in the west

stealth is extremely difficult in space. space shuttle maneuvering thrusters are detectable from the asteroid belt. http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewardetect.php#nostealth

that's called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield

not sure if this was posted before but this website tries to show how a scientifically accurate spaceship would work, with calculations. It also includes space warfare http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/crossindex.php

So what's the solution? I think its to research more so you can come up with a reliable, cheap way to differentiate between all the 4 below. preferably with minimal side effects "1. You find a cancer that will eventually kill you AND that particular cancer has a treatment that works better when started earlier. (True Positive result) 2. You don't find a cancer that you don't have. (True Negative result) 3. You find a cancer or something that looks like a cancer however it will grow so slowly or regress so it won't cause any harm, but then you don't really know which is which so you elect to be treated for same with some morbidity or mortality. (False Positive result) 4. You don't find the cancer that existed and goes off to knock you off just before you design the next iPad killer. (False negative result)." properly Identifying which tumors are slow growing and which patients are too late would solve a lot of problems. of course this is easier said than done

for producing large amounts of hydrogen from water, is it cheaper per ton of hydrogen compared to the sulfir-iodine cycle with a nuclear reactor supplying the heat? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur-iodine_cycle

A more practical justification for spaceflight is orbital solar power plants. due to the deep gravity well of the earth, its much easier and cheaper to send a rocket filled with construction materials from an asteroid or from the moon to an orbital solar construction site. And there's the possibility of using mass drivers to send material from moon to LEO with no expense except the cost of making the mass driver and solar panel. a lunar mining operation implies a lunar colony unless you can go full AI or telepresence its not easy and there are many details, but in principle it works

the most environmentally friendly way to treat any appliance is to reuse it. Many many carbon dioxide molecules were created and many many toxic chemicals were released into the environment to produce it. So just wipe it and sell it or donate it to some poor third world charity

i used to work with ICD-10 and from my experience I believe that it was indeed made by and for insurance companies. A system made for and by doctors and patients would make things EASIER instead of more time consuming and complicated

some creationist is gonna say "big bang theory discredited"

on a large scale is this more efficient than the sulfur iodine cycle with heat provided by a nuclear reactor? Even if it isn't, it would still be of some use as in decentralized hydrogen production centers

pandas have a carnivore's short digestive system so they spend the majority of the day eating. The gut bacteria make this just efficient enough for them to survive but its less efficient than a real herbivore's guts. But hey, it might be efficient enough for fuel production "However, the giant panda still has the digestive system of a carnivore, as well as carnivore-specific genes,[30] and thus derives little energy and little protein from consumption of bamboo. Its ability to digest cellulose is ascribed to the microbes in its gut.[31] The giant panda is a "highly specialized" animal with "unique adaptations", and has lived in bamboo forests for millions of years.[25] The average giant panda eats as much as 9 to 14 kg (20 to 30 pounds) of bamboo shoots a day. Because the giant panda consumes a diet low in nutrition, it is important for it to keep its digestive tract full.[22] The limited energy input imposed on it by its diet has affected the panda's behavior." - wikiepdia panda page

do the embryos live? any toxicity? do newborn mice still retain the transparency? how about if you wait till they become adults?

I bet like most advanced tech, militaries will be the first users, assuming it isnt a scam. US navy ships first then maybe tanks and army trucks. maybe remote bases

I'm no expert but AFAIK there are reactor designs that can ramp power output up and down fast, like the designs used in US nuclear submarines.