I'm a 3rd year English student, with a potential double-major of Creative Writing or Spanish (have to see some councillors about it). The goal is to become a teacher (highschool, til I want to kill them and then go for a masters to teach university) At the moment I am a soccer referee (I'm new this year, up 2 levels in about a month and a half... most first years are lucky to get level 1. I may even be bumped up again on Tuesday, assuming the reports get in properly...). Anyway, during the winter, while I'm in school, I am a scorekeeper for a military hockey league... pretty much its good pay and I do my homework. Yup... I'm awesome... or something.
Going to school to get my p.hd in Applied Physics with a minor in Engineering Physics and an emphasis on particle physics. If I told you what I did for a living... I'd have to kill you.
The rockets we have been using depend on chemical reactions to produce thrust. They are basically 1940's technology, are fine to send puny satellites in earth orbit or send a pair of men to the surface of the moon, but insufficient for humanity to boldly go where no man has gone before. We should evolve to nuclear based rockets. They are 1970's technology, and would allow us to lift cargo to orbit in the thousand of tons in one go, and then come back in a thrust-controlled manner. However, it would take a politician with big balls to launch such a program, as the rockets would spill a modest amount of radioactive material when they crash. Much less than what the nearest coal-based power plant produces and releases in the air, but the media-induced paranoia is so strong that no ones wants to deal with it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you the one who was against TWRs because they produce plutonium? This isn't necessarily hypocritical because the reasons are slightly different, but it's definitely unexpected...
