Brian L

So many of the next generation Orbiter plans are radical leaps from the current design. Why not keep the advantages of this lift system and build a new orbiter updated with new technology and materials? It could be fitted to the same external liquid tank and solid fuel configuration. We build new cars and planes, with minor upgrades implemented regularly. I encourage the idea of looking at future models, but this one works great in the mean time. Of the 2 losses, 1 has been addressed in the O ring design, and the other is the consequence of using an inferior foam mixture on the external tank and is solvable.

To loose our taxi to ISS Alpha we surrender a beacon of National Pride and a platform for the Science that will lead us through the 21st century.

We should also consider leaving one of the older Orbiters at ISS as an emergency return vehicle. It would allow for the recovery of some experiments should time allow.

The president-elect stated that the Constitution was imperfect and needed to be updated. The key points supported by the Constitution are limited government, secured rights, balance of powers, deferral to the States, and a process to amend. What does he mean when he says imperfect and the need to change it?

'quid pro quo'

Democrats have lied and distorted facts to support their 'derangement syndrome', but seem poised to call foul when they get it back. How do Democrats expect this Country to unify when they pulled it apart over the past 8 years? I don't feel all patriotic at the moment with Our Constitution at risk and Despots around the World cheering. John McCain was the furthest Republican from Bush as was possible, so much so that he had almost switched parties just a few years ago. Yet his lost is called a referendum on Bush? I think the Leftists have spoiled the milk and I'll have none of it. Are the Democrats ready for our anger?

http://www.glennbeck.com/steakoutourfuture/

If you really see this as the biggest problem facing Mankind, aren't you obliged to do everything you can? This is a bit more of a point on focusing on real solutions to the CO2 problem.

- Protect Rainforests.

- Protect Coral Reefs.

- Reduce CO2 Emissions starting largest source to smallest.

Carbon Dioxide is a natural part of the organic chemistry of the environment. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. What is the absorption capacity for the World? Can we improve the health of coral reefs and rainforests to increase this capacity?

All of the focus has been on the guilt of the United States, even though third world countries are clearing rainforests and using destructive agricultural practices, causing nitrogen rich runoff to suffocate the coral reefs. Rainforests and reefs are the biggest carbon sinks on Earth and perhaps we should spend more attention on restoring them. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, the concern is just a buildup in the atmosphere. Right? So we need to focus on sequestration. Counting the net loss of Brazil's Carbon sequestration against the gain of not using petroleum, did the World gain? It seems to me that we could address CO2 levels by improving the quality of life for people in the underdeveloped world through education of better forestry and farming practices. (and moving past fossil fuels too).

- Changes to the Clean Air Act now allow for the dirtiest power plants to install scrubbers to reduce their pollution.

- By providing for simplified and reduced regulation and taxing on Industry, The top 10 polluting Companies in the U.S. have stepped forward with voluntary initiatives to reduce greenhouse gasses. Under this plan the U.S. will surpass Europe (again) in actual greenhouse gas reductions, and may exceed expectations of the Kyoto Protocol. The previous Administration did not sign Kyoto for 6 years, Yet Bush gets the grief?

-W enacted rules to take polluting Sulfur out of Diesel Fuel and to unify Gasoline grades from 19 types to down to 5. This will increase our refinery capacity without building new refineries. To keep people happy about cheap gas, the previous administration canceled this implementation.

- After proper review, G.W. Bush signed a rule reducing the levels of Arsenic permitted in drinking water.

Democrats needn't bother answering this one, I know what you think about Gingrich. This is a Question for all the other people out there.

Speaker Gingrich has shown himself time & time again to be a great thinker, but he is so polerizing, It would bring Libs out in droves to defeat him.

Senator Clinton enlists the same respone, as I will work harder than ever to defeat her.

Does this mean another 50.1% : 49.9% vote with no middle ground? Moderates like McCain and Liebermann would never make it through the Primaries.

Modern Democrats and Republicans can't even sit in the same rooms together anymore. I personally blame the Dems, who will never forgive Republicans for the 1994 victory, ending 30 years of Democrat control. But I know the Dems will believe it is all my fault just for being born (i.e. - not aborted). I wish no ill will to the Democrats, I just hope they "Wither on the Vine", and you can quote me on that!

With the Democrat's star players all supporting the President, and with key Democrat leaders having had access to the same intelligence reports as the President, how do the Democrats justify their current Anti-War position? Based on where the Democrats started and where they stand now, it would seem more accurate for them to say they believe we have lost and must leave defeated. The distorted view held by the Left asserts that the President lied, even when the most recent investigation shows that the Pentagon simply provided a different assesment than the CIA with the same facts. The history is, most of the World supported action. Only a few supported military action. This included Democrats and Republicans alike - unified. It would seem more appropriate for the Democrats the support the Troops in completeing the dangerous mission they sent them on, not revise the history of their vote, speaking so arrogantly as though they "knew better" and "know best". Support a Vote for Victory!

This is for extracting various alcohols and water from a solution without having to maintain the solution at a very high temperature. I think it might be less energy intensive this way, but I have no data on energy needed to maintain a vaccum. What is the wattage on some of the pumps able to do this? Could it be cost prohibitive compared to just boiling at full temp?