Yes…brilliant in fact…and moral to the extreme, and ethical beyond reproach, and a genuinely nice, thoughtful person too. None of those traits are positives to you though.
And let’s not forget, besides sea testing new nuclear submarines he was also “assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels.”…but only reached LT, not Captain.

Explain, specifically how was he poor as president?
Because he didn’t go to war in Iran (nor would he break the law and collude with them and sell them weapons like Reagan)?
Because he advocated for renewable energy that would have made us energy independent in the 80’s and oil free before 2000?
Exactly what?

Oh Bob. Always a laugh with you. The unintended self deprecation always brightens my day.

Not a paintball.

Whatever it was, it used explosive propulsion, not gas, you can clearly see the flash just after 21 seconds. Paintball guns give a little puff of gas sometimes, but it wouldn't light up like that. Paintball guns also don't sound like that.

I hope it was some form of "non lethal" ammunition, but remember a reporter lost an eye just the other day to something similar.

The #1 job of the police is, and always has been, to enforce the divide between rich and poor. Most pretend or believe they are there to "protect" law-abiding citizens, but times like these their true colors shine through. If there weren't such a stark divide between rich and poor, 90% of the work police do would vanish. Maybe if they actually enforced the law when it came to rich people, laws on tax evasion and wage theft, I might believe otherwise.

Of all financially-motivated crimes in the US (theft, robbery, fraud, all that rolled together) the biggest sector, outweighing ALL OTHERS COMBINED by a 2:1 factor, is wage theft. Employers not giving vacation days, or breaks they're obliged to, forcing employees to work extra hours without pay, docking pay for illegal reasons, or simply not paying what they owe. This is a criminal enterprise that steals 15 BILLION dollars a year from working-class Americans for the benefit of people who already have more money than they can use.

If you steal money from the rich and get caught, you go to jail Period.

The penalty for wage theft, literally stealing from those who cannot afford to lose more? First offense, if you're convicted (which is rare) a $10,000 fine.

Congratulations! Your video, How can gliders fly without propulsion?, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 356 Badge!

Your video, How can gliders fly without propulsion?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

BOSE? Bose-Einstein condensate

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2016/7/27/they-really-do-exist-nasas-ghostbusters/

In a team of professional ghost busters, Anita Sengupta would most certainly be the enthusiastic and multi-talented leader. She’s already taken on roles developing launch vehicles, the parachute that famously helped land the Mars rover Curiosity, and deep-space propulsion systems for missions to comets and asteroids.


Sengupta and other members of the entry, descent and landing team for NASA's Mars rover Curiosity discuss the nail-biting details of the August 2012 landing.

Most recently, she’s carved out a niche as the project manager for an atomic physics mission, called the Cold Atom Laboratory, or CAL.

Since the mission was proposed in 2012, Sengupta has been leading a team of engineers and atomic physicists in developing an instrument that can see the unseen. Their mission is to create an ultra-cold quantum gas called a Bose-Einstein condensate, which is a state of matter that forms only at just above absolute zero. At such low temperatures, matter takes on unique properties that seemingly defy the laws of thermodynamics.

Your video, HOW IT WORKS: Nuclear Propulsion, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Haven't viewed the video yet, but just common sense tells me no propulsion system is 100% efficient, so the losses over time will be larger, and less efficient in overall fuel use.

It's like the most efficient way to drive a hybrid is to floor the accelerator to get to speed, then try to go as fast as possible, using as little accelerator pedal as possible.

Conversely, the rocket would just be wasting fuel trying to slow down before it had to full burn to stop in time.

I'm just impressed they keep the terminal velocity down enough they don't need to use drogue chute(s).

Keeping a sealed pneumatic tube along the entire track? Sounds like a maintenance nightmare, to be honest. How do you switch rails? How do you get a stranded propulsion module off the track (can't just get a diesel locomotive to drag the thing, can you now)? What are the backup breaking systems for failures on those 10% grades?

I suppose this might at the very best be a niche thing, more so than the current Transrapid/Maglev system. Airport shuttles, maybe.

Diagram of re-entry for the Soyuz:
---------------------------------------------
http://spaceflight101.com/soyuz-tma-20m/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2016/09/6618866_orig.jpg

Orbital Module:
---------------------
It houses all the equipment that will not be needed for reentry, such as experiments, cameras or cargo. The module also contains a toilet, docking avionics and communications gear. Internal volume is 6 m³, living space 5 m³. On the latest Soyuz versions (since Soyuz TM), a small window was introduced, providing the crew with a forward view.

Service Module:
---------------------
It has a pressurized container shaped like a bulging can that contains systems for temperature control, electric power supply, long-range radio communications, radio telemetry, and instruments for orientation and control. A non-pressurized part of the service module (Propulsion compartment, AO) contains the main engine and a liquid-fuelled propulsion system for maneuvering in orbit and initiating the descent back to Earth. The ship also has a system of low-thrust engines for orientation, attached to the Intermediate compartment. Outside the service module are the sensors for the orientation system and the solar array, which is oriented towards the sun by rotating the ship.


Consequences of bad jettisons:
------------------------------------------
The services modules are jettisoned before the spacecraft hits the atmosphere. A failure or partial jettison of the modules means that the capsule will not enter the atmosphere heat shield first which can lead to a number of scenarios:
- Capsule pushed off course (by hundreds of km)
- High sustained g-loads on reentry
- Plasma on reentry can burn through the craft if the heat shield is not exposed and oriented properly resulting in loss of crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10

Sounds like it was the propulsion system instead of the brakes.
More here....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/us/cruise-ship-hits-dock/index.html

Your video, Going Interstellar - Photonic Propulsion, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm confused. They imply a 3 day trip to mars is possible, but is that at the maximum speed photonic propulsion can deliver, or do they include the acceleration and deceleration times? As I understood it, photonic propulsion can deliver extreme speeds, but only at a minimal acceleration. That means that maximum speed is much faster, but accelerating to that speed takes immensely longer, and the same goes for deceleration. Maybe they've invented a new method I've not heard of with much higher acceleration, but that's not really mentioned in the video.
They actually seem to imply they plan to use the same tech as cyclotrons, which means essentially a huge rail gun (and that's not photonic propulsion BTW, it's magnetic). Again, the amount of propulsion is miniscule, but the top speed is high with that method. Yes, you can expel matter at near speed of light, but only in tiny amounts and using huge amounts of energy.
Yes, it may take 10 minutes to achieve 30% the speed of light....with single molecules or atoms.
There are MANY reasons why we can't do this at macro sizes. Just look at the size of a cyclotron needed to accelerate an atom to those relativistic speeds. Now think about sizing that up to accelerate enough matter to move a spaceship instead of a single atom and it's likely near the size of the entire planet. We won't be building a cyclotron that size ever, nor will we likely ever shrink the accelerators to a size where they can fit inside a spaceship to shoot trillions of atoms out like a light speed gun. They are just too big and use too much power. Maybe once fusion is perfected and miniaturization also perfected it could work for interstellar travel, but never for local space travel, the acceleration levels are just too small.
Also, it seems solar sails give the same or better acceleration to the same top speeds without the impossible technology....but they don't work too well for stopping except at other stars.

Aeronautical Propulsion and Stabilization Mechanism.

Oh christ... do I really have to explain this?

@shinyblurry said "...that means it was intelligently designed."

I was specifically refuting that argument.

"intelligent design" means that something was designed on purpose by a designer, i.e. I want a plane, so I sit down and design the aerodynamics, propulsion, control surfaces, etc so that at the end, I have a means to fly from A to B. If the plane doesn't fly, as a designer, I need to work on it until it does.

A genetic algorithm is not "intelligently designed". The system itself creates the end product, often with no fixed goal or purpose. The designer does not have an input.

So, it's entirely possible that the universe is a computer simulation where a fixed set of constraints were set up at compile time and then left to run.

No specific end goal or purpose, merely to see emergent behaviours, which actually gels pretty well with what we know about the formation of the universe and life.

If you'd like to learn more, I recommend reading Artifical Life by Steven Levy as a good primer on the subject.

On the other hand, if you just want to make snide remarks, I suggest you stick to a topic you actually have a fucking clue about.