Bill Phil

Then just call Eris a planet and don't waste time at IAU conferences. Besides, the IAU are kind of sketchy, NASA discovered an error on their Lat/Lon on Vesta, and so they made one with less errors. Then the IAU was outraged, so I would hardly call them a scientific authority if something that small makes them tic.

Depends on payload mass. Here's a question: how much sample do you want? After that, I can't necessarily help you out.

Why, North-east Tycho of course! 2001 theme plays... In all seriousness, the poles are a good place to start. Although, I think some of the planned Apollo sites that never got visited should also be on the list.

But why? Time dilation doesn't effect velocity externally, just the perception of time internally. So really you wouldn't want to at all counter act the relativistic effects, it's stasis that comes with speed. Btw, a good time dilation balance to speed and normal time is .5c. The time dilation effect isn't huge, and you do get around quick. But for far distances you would want hibernation. Heck, just always use it. It'll take a decade nearly to get to the nearest star system, so it would be a good idea. Plus it takes a lot less energy to get to half light speed than 70%.

Well, Eeloo is going to be turned into a moon of GP2, so it doesn't matter. Although the new Pluto analog could use ghost gravity wells. Same for Lagrange points, you can make ghost gravity wells to orbit round.

Mars can have an equatorial region that's actually fairly small that is the only place without ice. So they're too small, really. Mars has an incredible axial tilt, and it's not stabilized by a moon like Earth's.

It's more efficient because the names make more sense, less confusion. And so it's easier to understand.

That's exactly what that does. It's a categorization system that's much more efficient than the current one.

Are you sure? NASA had the most in today money back in the 1960s. And guess what? Apollo was canceled in 1968, the year the last Saturn vehicle was rolled out of the construction building. In the 1970s they had record lows, and a bit more in the 80s. But nothing compares to the sixties, which was a democratic decade, save for Nixon.

Yes, that's true. But if you look at the trajectory, it's altered by such a small margin compared to the galactic center. Plus, they would still be planets, as the major gravitational body acting in them is their parent star.

When Sputnik was launched, it was called a Red Moon. The real debate is if moons are orbiting planets at all. They have what I like to call Flower Petal orbits. Their trajectory around the sun is altered by the planetary body, so it looks a lot different than an ellipse. So let's count the Moon as a dwarf planet, okay?

Like, say, a rod from a god? (Tungsten,low drag design)

The Russians fire stages while the one below is still firing. The gaps are so the exhaust can escape.

Maybe if you had wings that are ginormous and still applied thrust. Not to mention that you need to change your attitude constantly....

Of course, if you think about it, if history was different, we would have started manned. BIS had a moon vehicle design in the 1930s. The THIRTIES. So in actuality, starting manned kind of makes MORE sense..... Although I think manned isn't the right word.... On topic: I see the point, but I got into orbit with 1st node parts, so I don't see how changing the order would do much good.

The LM was extremely light, especially compared to the CSM. Designing the mission to be Dv cheap generally means that you want the lowest altitude when you're coming from outside the system. This way the Oberth effect helps you out, and you have to slow down a lot less. So, it's not really strange, it's just physics.

Uh... How would that be a big problem? "Major planet" would be more specific, like terrestrial planets or gas planets. You could still call it a planet.

What about Hadrian's wall? The coliseums of Rome? The Roman plumbing system that delivered more water per person than New York currently does? Concrete? The roads of Rome? All these things are major achievements, concrete being a useful construction material.

What I said was a way to end the argument, because then it's both.

It could be. I've forgotten exactly what, but if I remember correctly it's most common in China.

Well, someone saw Gravity. Debris is not as bad as you think. Sure, it's not great, but for the last 6.5 decades, no major collisions have happened. Kessler syndrome is about debris increase, but eventually the debris becomes molecule sized, and so the problem solves itself, eventually.

No. It's some sort of solenoid for computers.

A lunar base would be useful for low gravity tests on humans and animals, but so are centrifuges... Resources. There's a type of resource costing a thousand dollars per GRAM. I'm quite sure it's fairly abundant on the moon. Definite profit could be made.

I think before Mars is more interesting. If we set up a space logistics system capable of delivering 20 tons per week to the moon, then we can build some serious lunar bases. After we get some bases on the moon, we go and grab some Apollo asteroids and start mining them, as well as building deep space stations beyond Earth orbit. Then we build very massive spacecraft out of these asteroids and deliver tons of payload to Mars. Finally, we create some von Neumann machines to explore the outer systems and gather data, as well as building bases and stations for later crews.

Or, we could build a network of solar power arrays kilometers in length in width closer to the sun than mercury. Using some high power lasers we could then propel a solar sail vehicle. Problem is, we can't necessarily provide thrust at apoapsis.