kerbiloid

Wow-effect ("just 10 billion dollars?! wow!") Holy pathos ("keep Russia and China at bay") Severe manful figure ("an aircraft carrier") Fashionable and rebellious brands ("SpaceX's Falcon", "Bigelow's habitats") Author's book with autograph? Space souvenirs? Lunar T-shirts?

No, I mean space. The very beginning of theoretical mechanics course. From the Action definition, then central forces in coordinate system and so on, about potential fields of central forces and particle trajectories in these fields.

So far, Falcon is just one more single-use expendable rocket with additional legs and unused fuel rest.

Then both teams would be endlessly passing the ball to each other and nobody would fly to the Moon yet. No hazard - no drive.

According to the Central force defintion and Bertrand's theorem, no stable orbits, galaxies and so on in a non-3D Universe. That's obvious because the value of any central force is proportional to 1/RN-1, where N is dimensions number. In our 3D universe gravity and electrostatic forces are 1/R2. This gives two symmetrical roots of equation which allows to have symmetrical and closed trajectories. In any universe with N != 3 you will have an infinite spectre of not closed trajectories instead of orbits, which is just a chaos instead of regular structures.

We can move freely in 2 dimensions, and also jump and duck.

Then there is no need to control and certify the fuel for the Saturn/SLS/Falcon, so on. Why to bother with the fuel department when it's possible to give to a security guard a sensor (like a metal detector) and let him decide: "What's here? RP-1? Do you see that rocket? Come on, pour it there. And what's here? Petrol? No, AvGas? OK, let it be AvGas. Bring it to that hangar, those guys will pour it into the plane for astronauts." If a MAV falls back to Mars because there was 2% of CO2 in the ISRU methane, who's guilty: a sensor or a space administration who "risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss"?

3-dimensional space is the only physical space with stable and closed orbits. In case of any another dimensions number any particle/planet shall either fall on the core/star, or fly away to infinity. So, even if there are >3 dimensions in our Universe, all of them except these known 3 should manifest their existance either on Planck or on Universe distances.

And hypernuclei

Why "nope"? It's the lightest element.

Terrans will help the good elves against the bad elves, to defeat and enslave them. Then terrans will struggle for the rights of the defeated ones to control the winners.

Not a "weight of air column above you" makes the pressure, but "amount of air molecules per volume unit, at the given temperature". Gravity does not create the atmospheric pressure, it just keeps air molecules in a volume around you, preventing these molecules from just flying away into space. The greater is gravity, the more molecules are stretched together in the same volume. So, atmospheric pressure is omnidirectional and it absolutely doesn't press your boots to the floor, pushing you down from your head. It presses you from all you body surface, from all directions. You can be squished by gravity on an airless but large or dense planet, and you can happily breath in a barrel full with air flying in the deep space with zero-G.

Unless you put several human lives and a space expedition as a bet — rather than show to pupils "you see: this is mostly methane".

"Photonium" - a very common chemical element with 0 protons, 0 neutrons, 0 electrons.

Rocketship needs dozens of tonnes of methane, and absolutely pure (less than 1%) because otherwise you just kill your engine with water and CO2 ice and unpredictable pollutions. Raw material for the Mars Sabatier are CO2 mudded with other gases, water ice mudded with hydrates, perchlorates, carbonates, sulphates, etc. Sabatier reaction does not give pure methane, it gives a mix of methane, CO, CO2, H2O, H2, etc. Enough to show in laboratory, but requiring a big and massive cryogenic separator, adsorbtion plant, etc - just to filter out all this mud. So, until you build a nice and large methane fabric, with dozens of columns, reactors, adsorbers and regenerators, all this ISRU methane is just a canister of unknown petrol-looking liquid found near the road which you are trying to pour into your Ferrari tank. With the same probable result.

I thought that you mean the Nibiru as a twin luminary, a pair for Sun. So, (inspired by the metal planets from the 1st page of that theme), I meant that: if you take a planet-sized ball of uranium (238, of course, to prevent unpredictable results), you get a giant celestial RTG, several thousand kelvins hot, radiating light, neutrons, etc. In this case there is no need to make it a "binary" to the Sun (i.e. an object of the same rank as the Sun), but such Nibiru would also be a Nemesis, orbiting the Sun on a highly eccentric orbit (like both Nibiru and Nemesis in TV mythology and like similar "omen stars" in fiction novels), with upper mass limit from zero to two solar masses (as U cannot into fusion), and enough dangerous to appear close to it. Maybe I misunderstood term "binary to the Sun" here.

"ISRU-produced Methane" is a synonym for "Unknown colorless volatile cryogenic liquid found in a canister lying by the side of the road". Just imagine how many laboratory tests and acts of delivery and acceptance will be made before even a certified fuel would fill a rocketship or an airplane tank. No high-ranking official will risk with the expedition failure, crew lives, personal career just to test: whether this liquid is indeed methane, enough pure to be used in the engine.

As there are already suggested lead planets (instead of silicate ones), it would be not very fantastic to imagine that Nibiru is a large and white-hot planet made of uranium: looking like a small star, sending neutrons and photons around itself where it flies; returning to the Earth/Kerbin (or how it's called) once per NNNNN years as an ominous omen visible even on the noon sky, and those dense lead planets are either remains of the greater proto-Nibiru, or Nibiru's slinks.

Please, compare what you can see on the picture with CST and Apollo comparison — how small are windows and how close one to each other are the crew seats, with artistic blue pictures "from inside" — with large square side window instead of the small round one, with 5 large forward windows on dark blue, with several more square windows to the right hand side from the crew and looks like the blue images are just an artist's representation of his vision or so. All other images and photos picture the CST in less romantic colors: enough cramped to be the truth, While Dragon V2 mockup from the presentation looks... er... different. To compare: an old PPTS movie from youtube. You can see: there is a toilet, there are cases with snacks. Leaving the PPTS future aside, where is all this husbandry in the Dragon (if it was Dragon)?

Buran was equipped with Syntin / LOx engines and its liquid oxygen was stored overcooled, in special tanks with stirring mechanism to keep it for 15-20 days without active cooling. Mars mission needs at least 4 months just to get there, and 1.5 years - to return back. And many tons of fuel. No problem to start with LH2/LO2 from the NEO, but looks very unclear how much cryofuel will be left near Mars. (Looks like Methane is of no purpose here, as fuel cost doesn't matter.)

Please, let's finish the political discussion to prevent moderators from closing the theme. Apologies to the OP.

This planet will transform into an ellipsoid cloud of dust and stones orbiting an iron ball of its core. Several centuries later the friction forces will dissipate energy in form of infrared radiation, then all this cloud will condensate again into a planet (not too fast, though). Of course, all lite substances (air, water) will be lost because of several thousand kelvins of temperature.

Maybe RenTV is not an overall picture, but just a "what extrasensory perceptors do think about UFO from Nibiru" channel?

Something strange to hear, as probably I live in the same Russia as you do. (About the Moon two points of view prevail: "Americans on Apollo were there" and "Nobody was there, Apollos are a fake". But yet never I've heard about "the first Soviet spacemen on a Moon")

Seems to me, CST-100 is the only one of those three (CST, Dragon, Orion), having any future. Dragon is some strange, extravagant and doubtful thing. Strange engines. Too heavy for orbit maneuvers and landing, too weak as LES. (T/W=6, while orbiting needs 0.5, landing 2, LES 12..18 - just to unstuck from the rocket possessed with demons and to run away) Strange windows. Look: every spaceship designed for docking has docking viewports in the docking direction. Even while they weaken the hull structure. Gemini: 2 docking viewports, Apollo: 2 docking viewports, Shuttle: at least 2 in the cabin ceiling, Soyuz: a docking periscope and an additional docking viewport added later in its orbital module, TKS: 2 viewports above its docking node, CST: 1 docking viewport (and 1 aside), Orion: 2 again. And only Dragon doesn't have any.docking viewport at all. Instead it has several giant and useless windows around the cabin What for? To gaze at stars? Btw every of these windows is a giant hole in the cabin hull, OK, maybe computers/webcams/giant and stylish monitors replace them? Maybe, but: - CST and Orion are of the same generation with Dragon, so they can use similar computers, web-cameras, and their developers obviously hold to an opinion: at least one simple viewport is needed for the docking control, and a small eyehole in a side wall (better in the hatch door) — to ensure that you are deorbiting rather than accelerating from the Earth. - If monitors/webcams is enough for docking (why not? this is XXI cent!), then why those huge windows aside rather than three giant screens? Strange inner design. The capsule shown during the presentation looks like a playroom for nerds with stylish blue monitors, stylish space chairs, stylish shining walls, stylish giant windows. Monitors with a fake-looking command interface with a random "space-style" commands like "Orbit now", "Orbit next", "Cabin depress" and without dull real instruments uncommon to an average game player. Something like Bethesda's toy-pipboy for those who had pre-ordered their Fallouts. Looks like "Buy our stylish playroom and feel like a spaceman with your friends. (Steering wheel and pedals are included).", not like a real command module: "flying toilet with parachutes and instrument panel". Does its real cabin design already exist at all? Btw if V2 is supposed to be used in the near future, probably it would be already ready in whole. But is this what they call "a spaceship command module design"?. Orion looks like a serious and realistic one. But: It was designed in 2004-2009, first launched in 2014, but the first manned flight is scheduled to 2021-2023. If a more-or-less ready-for-use spaceship was tested in 2014, why this 8 years delay before the first crewed test flight? If not-too-ready: then what have they launched in 2014 if it needs 8 years more to prepare it for a manned flight? The whole Space Shuttle was created from scratch and launched taking for this 10 years (1971-1981). Probably not the Orion itself is in a stagnation, but its purposes look blurry and unclear: - Flight to the Moon. Or maybe onto the Moon. Just a flight is just a one more Apollo expedition. Building a lunar base takes much more efforts than just to launch a spaceship. It's too expensive just for now? Well, let's return to this ten years later. Or twenty. Maybe. - To the asteroid - to grab it from the solar orbit and pull to the Earth orbit. No, wait: let the robot grab and pull and then Orion with a crew will study it on the Earth orbit. No, wait: let the robot not pull the asteroid but just to take a small stone from it and to put on the near-Earth orbit. And Orion will study this small stone. Probably the next step will be: why at all send that Orion, let's just take several stones and return them in a capsule. - Flight to the Mars. No Mars will be before a totally equipped Mars spaceship will fly around the Moon for 1.5 years with Moon landing(s). It's too expensive just for now? See above, about the Moon. So, among this three, only CST-100 looks as something viable and having clear purposes.