Stargate525

Pretty easy: Fire it off the back of your ship.

I've found that getting landmass and kethane to intersect on Laythe is a tricky proposition, and pinpoint landing can be frustrating on Laythe as well.

I'd just be happy with a scale height that actually matches up between the listed numbers, the UI altimeter, and the timewarp indicator. They're close, but significantly off enough to truly annoy.

Somehow, I don't think the 'buy our stuff or burn in nuclear hellfire' advertising campaign would be the best course of action for a company...

I never knew that about the aluminum plates. Consider myself historied. But considering: -Iridium is stupidly strong at very high temperatures. -Osmium is the densest metal that isn't going to decay on you -Palladium is essential in the newer fuel cells and batteries -Beryllium seems God-given as an aerospace metal (light, strong, conducts heat, etc.) Bringing those prices down could very well change the world. 0.o But, the people who have investments in their portfolios of a kilo of Osmium or Platinum probably won't care about that, unless they're actually IN the industry. And that treaty will last EXACTLY as long as it is in the best interests of whomever secretly arms (or has armed) space first. Misconception. Energy is practically limited, as are a large number of intangibles. There will only ever be so many Picassos, or apartments with a view over Central Park. Only one original Mona Lisa, Sistine Chapel, and Tiger I. So unless we become a lot less appreciative of art and novelty, supply and demand would never die. It'll just become the realm of luxury, art dealerships, and museum collections.

Car in front of me had a blowout at 80mph during heavy traffic. Turned a blind bend in a highway to find halted traffic. 75mph to stopped in about 2 seconds, ending on the shoulder next to the guy I nearly hit.

The biggest ones would be the rarer metals; platinum, palladium, Osmium, Beryllium... There are estimations that there are asteroids out there with literally trillions of dollars-worth of these metals. The problem isn't making it worth it (a company that snags one of those will be made), it's engineering and economics. That much of these metals (we're talking tons, in a metal industry that produces, worldwide, only double-digit tons per year) would utterly crash that market. And since some of these metals are used for investing...

The biggest problems with this are that the hydrodynamics of a pseudo-secondary hull would be a pain in the rear, and that water is nearly uncompressable. Most torpedoes never make contact with the enemy vessel; they detonate a small distance off, and let the shockwave of the water annihilate the hull. The only way I can think of that an outrigger armor could protect from that would be deploying large balloons to absorb that shockwave, and that would DEFINITELY mess up the ship's performance.

Second stage thrust-to-weight ratios. I can never seem to make them strong enough.

...You do realize that to have a speed in kph, you don't actually have to travel a kilometer, or an hour, right? Averaging has nothing to do with it. The other guy is right; for normal driving conditions, you measure kilometers/miles and hours of travel. There could be an argument for minutes, but then you're probably going to be dealing in fractions and decimals, which is a pain. When you're planning a journey, do you really need the distance in meters, and then find out how many thousands of seconds it'll take you, then divide out the sixties to get to a useful measurement? As far as engineers... Yes, I'd rather they do the conversion than me, on the fly, at the wheel. m/s would only make sense if you're sampling manually, which is unnecessary if you're driving a legal car (I don't know of any country that doesn't mandate a working spedometer), and even then you're guessing the distance.

And that would be a clever way to add in a landing target indicator, and finally let us plan our landing sites beyond guesswork.

This. PLEASE this.

Every part imposes restrictions. For the seismometer, you're restricted to only getting its science stationary on the ground. The barometer, same thing, but it needs air. I don't see anything where he said 'if you put this part designed for stations on your vessel IT IS A STATION FOREVAH AND CAN NEVER MOVE AGAIN!' I imagine that it'll undergo the same stuff as people using the science lab for large rovers as well as station cores. I fail to see how ADDING a part and ADDING a mechanic results in LESS freedom of choice. Wtf is that supposed to mean?

You can have any color you like, so long as it's black? There are fundamental differences between landers, probes, planes, and rockets. You design those differences. I see zero reason why you couldn't have a part, like some of the currently-existing science instruments, that requires you to maintain relative altitude/speed over a planet to do its thing.

And changing that won't be any less arbitrary. Which is, unfortunately, not blessed with a preponderance of clean factors to divide it. Yea, though most cultures seem to have adopted a calendar with around 12 divisions... If I would hazard a guess; four seasons, with an early, middle, and late division? The number seven holds great significance to Judaic and Middle Eastern cultures, which is where we picked up the majority of our time system. See below. 4 times 6. See below. Yup, and a damned efficient one too. Base six allows you to count every integer from one to 35 on your fingers. VERY useful for keeping track of stuff if you, for instance, would otherwise have to chisel notes into a clay tablet. Babylon and Sumeria were the first cultures to really divide time, record it in a way that carried, and conquered enough other cultures that it stuck. Makes perfect sense. Enjoy your history.

Fair point, but as a doctrinally-trained Christian, I can only speak with any sort of authority on my side of the debate.

That's actually a very coherent system. I like it. As far as religions... There are only a few die-hard conservative Christian groups (and Catholics, presumably) who would insist on every seventh day without interruption of the leap days. I mean, many denominations already run services on Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday...

Not to mention the strange effects on bureaucracy in a relativistic society. For instance, a pilot flies a ten year journey to Alpha Centauri. To him, it only took five years (not right, but using arbitrary numbers as an example). Does he accrue (and therefore owe taxes on) five years of salary, or ten? If a convict serves his term at a high fraction of c, when does he get out? Term limits? Election dates?

...Okay. My position is that the burden of proof is on your side. The cost/benefit of changing the system is greatly in favor of maintaining the status quo. "Because it is right" is a hollow argument, and has no inherent value unless, as I've asked three times now, you can show me people who are meaningfully affected by this. You don't go changing things this big because some people go 'oh, I'm not happy with this.' Is this calendar oppressing people? Is it economically disadvantaging people? Is it, really, benefiting Christians unduly? If you don't like cost/benefit, then what metric shall we use for our debate? Better yet, give me your counter-proposal, along with the cost/benefit of it, please. The topic was NEVER 'Is BCE/CE a compromise or a point for the secularists,' it was 'will we adjust the calendar.'

1. The way I see it, if you're going to change the year scheme because it offends your non-religious sensibilities, you must also be in favor of removing every other religious reference from the system, regardless of origin, or be labelled a hypocrite. Unless it's just Christianity you have a beef with. 2. So... who's offended? Why should we change it because a minority just isn't happy? 3. I never mentioned Common Era.

So... You? Pissed at the Christians in general over being forced to use 'their' year scheme? Not pissed at the temples of Saturn, Thor, Mondas, Frigg? Let's also conveniently ignore that the other main option would have been to count years based on who was in power at the time. You want to talk about political! The two have about equal chance of happening. Wrong direction. Jesus is commonly believed to have been born between 7-3 BC. And until the 18th century a lot of countries DID have the new year fall on Christmas or one of the other festivals. As it stands, we're basing the new year on the ascension date of the old Roman Consuls.

An arbitrary point in time chosen based on an operating system? That's retroactive?

Well you made me chuckle, at least. In this hypothetical ballot, might I add a referendum to adopt a planetary constitution and abolishment of national distinction?

Good to know that Mr. Slippery Slope Fallacy apparently has no problems with Ad Hominems. If it came down to a sentatorial vote, requiring unanimity? -You'd have a hell of a time getting North Korea, Uganda, Iran, Venezuela, Pakistan, the DRC to even talk to you. -Somehow I doubt you'd be able to get Vatican's approval, assuming you take UN observer status and general recognition of statehood. -The US hasn't converted to Metric. Good luck on a sweeping date change. -Who decides the new standard? That will be the overriding factor of any proposal and its likelihood of passing. -You'll raise arguments on the method, as you have given equal representation to 1.5 billion Chinese and 32,000 Liechtensteiners. -Who will oversee vote fraud? Who will ensure that the individual countries hold a vote at all? And you didn't answer my question, really. I asked who is getting their knickers in a twist about the Gregorian dating system. You basically said 'Well, people in Not-America' (I'm assuming you're American. If not, then it's 'well, people in Not-[Your country]). I think there's some burden of proof on this that the dating system is actually a problem.

divisive to WHOM?! WHO is running around being offended by our CALENDAR? And running a simple cost-benefit, you'd be hard pressed to find something valuable enough to render every electronic device, our satellites, timetables, markets, textbooks, some of our watches in need of, at best, a software patch and, at worst, total replacement.