Bill Phil

We all know that Spacewar has the best graphics of all time.

They've done worse. STS-1, anybody? At least here they will have a decent abort capability...

Kerbin's escape velocity is a lot smaller. The debris would thus have a higher likelihood of escaping and not falling back, so I'd say that it would be less devastating. Slightly...

It actually returned satellites at least twice. Palapa B2 and Westar VI ( on the same flight, I think...?) and later retrieved the LDEF from orbit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-A https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Duration_Exposure_Facility

They're decent. Sure, they're flawed. But pretending that the original trilogy was perfect is inaccurate. The only real issue I would say they have is a severe lack of time per character. The story they want to tell would be better suited in a longer format. Maybe a mini-series?

Each ICBM likely has preset targets and trajectories, and for those that don't, there is probably a list of targets and their associated trajectories loaded up into a computer somewhere that can be input into a missile. Although I could be very wrong...

It does have a rocket engine... define rocket in this context. Launch vehicles only? The Saturn V was pretty cool. But it didn't perform perfectly. It worked, but it was far from perfect. Also, they did have computers, but they were pretty awful compared to modern hardware. "Spacewar!" predates the Saturn V, one of the earliest video games. Anyway, my favorite rocket would probably be the Atlas family of rockets, although I'm more a fan of the balloon tank variants.

Gee... I don't know. Probably faceplanting into asphalt and getting in trouble in elementary school.

"Columbia, you're looking a little hot. All your calls will be a little early." -STS-1 CAPCOM to Columbia (I think during launch)

Rest in Peace, John Young. As you slip the surly bonds of Earth, your memory will be in all of our hearts.

Dyna Soar was only 4.5 tonnes and had just barely enough room for one crewman. It was designed for a different purpose than Dream Chaser. Maybe a scaled up vehicle could be used, but the X-20 was too small.

Nuclear Pulse Propulsion. Earlier, @tater accidently wrote 9000 tons and not kg. "THAT ONE" is Project Orion. I don't know if it would carry Dyna-Soar. Orion vehicles would have large crews if launched from the ground, X-20s aren't very useful for that. Unless there's yet another Orion.

Hmm... This won't really be something you calculate. Chamber pressure and throat area may help, but really, these are numbers you'd have to just make up given these circumstances. Looks like it may an atmosphere optimized LANTR (in which case, you'd want the exit pressure to be below 1 atmosphere, as you quickly lose atmospheric pressure when launching). It appears that the stock NERVA has a mass flow rate (mdot) of about 7.66 kg. How big is this engine?

Star Wars: Empire at War

Happy Birthday! New Year!

For one thing, the dark ages are a myth. Yes, quality of life began to fall for most of Europe, but that mainly applied to the wealthy. The real issue was that the fall of the Roman Empire prevented large engineering projects (aqueducts, large mines, 7 story apartment buildings, and so on) from being constructed. This was only really a "dark age" for Europe. And, actually, life expectancy slightly increased, since people started to live in large, disease-riden cities less. If we detect one far enough away, we could pursue an Orion Drive powered vehicle to divert it, worst comes to worse. Desperate times call for desperate measures... assuming we do detect it. The only issue we have today is that most of our detection telescopes are on Earth, which may not be the best vantage point. If we could put a well sized telescope and many copies into various orbits, we could probably find every threatening asteroid. Well, at least most of them, some would slip through the cracks... We don't really have a moral obligation to future generations. If anything, the trend is to make their lives slightly worse off over time (don't worry, that may not be the case). I would say that if we want to survive as a species we need to develop effective countermeasures. Maybe a city killer will have to hit something before governments are willing to create asteroid countermeasures... I would hope not.

I wouldn't call a sci fi work realistic until the spaceships have radiators. 2001: ASO gets a pass since they were explicitly removed so as to not confuse the audience (though that movie has alien monoliths...). At least they were conscious of radiators.

It was alright. I just think there wasn't really enough time to explore the ideas they wanted to.

Caelus is Roman. Ouranos is Greek. Uranus is... Latinized Greek, I guess. I do agree, though, Caelus would work pretty well instead of Uranus.

I got a lego Saturn V. Booyah.

Have a Bill Murray Christmas.

I feel like it was inevitable. The technical knowledge necessary was in existence at least 10 years before Sputnik. The militaries of the world were developing missile technology, as well. The two superpowers had even announced launching a satellite for the international geophysical year. The race itself served as a way to demonstrate rocketry technology being developed in a "non threatening" way, ICBMs, IRBMs, and so on. It certainly benefited the world in many ways, weather satellites, GPS, early warning systems, and other earth science. It certainly belongs in the history book and has had a significant impact on history. Just look at major events since the dawn of the space age. The effect on wars, natural disasters, and our perception of ourselves is tremendous. Not to mention the economic benefits. The "gross space product" is in excess of 300 billion USD. Space has made an enormous impact on the world. Without it, the town I live in may not even exist, either that or it would have a very small population with little economic activity.

This article has... many flaws. The largest one is arguably the age. It's nearly six and a half years old, hardly usable to counter current VASIMR developments, which are meeting NASA requirements. Another issue is that he assumes that the only purpose is for Mars missions, and then attacks that particular use. None of the claims he makes are cited. Nothing is here to back up any of the claims made, at any point in the article (and this extends to other claims Zubrin makes). While it is certainly true that current ion engines have achieved high efficiency and long test times, he does not cite his data for the performance of the VASIMR. And then he goes further to not provide any reason, let alone a citation, for why VASIMR would require "high temperature superconducting magnets." This article is not an effective argument against VASIMR. For one thing, Zubrin is very likely to be biased against it due to his belief that we have the technology to go to Mars now. The only issue with that is, well, the fact that going to Mars is not NASA's job. It would be great, but nothing regarding Mars missions is being planned beyond the occasional Design Reference Mission. Even SLS can not support a proper Mars campaign. Further, the article is outdated, and, as such, does not have the benefit of the newest data. As of this year, Ad Astra is on track to meet NASA's requirements for development. Near the end of the article Zubrin states that the true problem is, essentially, the opportunity cost of not embarking on a Mars mission as soon as possible, and then claims that this is not occurring because the country is waiting for VASIMR to be developed. That is not the case. Mars missions are not occurring because they are high cost and high risk. VASIMR will not change that. It only serves as the transfer vehicle propulsion system. However, this will cost large sums of money, along with whatever hardware required to land on the red planet and later return to the transfer vehicle. On a less grounded note, it is often remarked that new technologies are often less efficient than their old counterparts when initially developed and introduced. Beyond that, so many examples of technology that are now common have ancestors that were terribly inefficient (see: mechanical television, electric lighting, air conditioning, and many more). While it is certainly possible that VASIMR may prove to be a dead end, it is also possible that it will be useful for some in-space applications. NASA is paying pennies for VASIMR, and if it pays off, then NASA will benefit. If it doesn't, well, NASA has made worse trades in the past. I'd complain much more vocally about how Boeing is throttling SLS (straight from the mouths of MSFC engineers). You (and many others) are free to dislike, be skeptical of, and disregard VASIMR. However, do not use this article as justification. It is outdated, it does not cite its claims, and makes assumptions that are not grounded, among other issues.

Technically. But then you need funding for DSG and landers.