Kerbin Dallas Multipass

I regard this argument as invalid. You could say that about any form of braking improvement or even improved tyres with better grip. "The guy behind me" is never an excuse for plowing into the car/pedestrian/obstacle in front of you. Secondly: All automatic brake assist system are designed to trigger in quite exactly the moment when a collision is unavoidable. So, without the system you would come to a sudden standstill as well, the potential pileup problem is exactly the same.

I would ask: What can a high atmosphere drone achieve an orbiting probe can not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy-maximizing_behaviors#Pulse_and_Glide Most modern petrol vehicles cut off the fuel supply completely when coasting (over-running) in gear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_braking#Legal_implications most modern engines don't use any fuel while engine braking which helps reduce fuel consumption.[citation needed] This is known as DFCO or Deceleration Fuel Cut-Off This is being done since the 1980s in gasoline injection engines and even earlier in diesel engines.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-048&rn=news.xml&rst=4046 You think this could be interesting?

Seems you're right. And thanks for providing us with links "China's lunar rover "awakes" despite abnormality:spokesman" http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2014-02/13/c_133111283.htm ‘It came back to life’: China’s Jade Rabbit snaps out of mechanical failure, state report says http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1426956/it-came-back-life-chinas-jade-rabbit-snaps-out-mechanical-failure-state

All western news sources report that it's "officially pronounced dead", quoting chinese state media. Maybe It's just terminally damaged, but I guess we can assume with some certainty that it ain't gonna rove no more.

It's dead, Jeb. Sleep well little rabbit

Ah thanks, now the post makes sense

You sure that link is correct? I read 53t to LEO, SLS can carry up to 130

Aerodynamic drag at higher speeds is always significantly higher. However, fuel efficiency for most combustion engines you find in a car is best when operated at full throttle in the lowish rpm spectrum (1500 or something). From a pure engine point of view you would get the best efficiency when going up a really steep hill in a high gear, pedal to the floor.

You want to get your rocket into orbit as fast as possible because (unlike in your car example) you are constantly fighting gravity. Imagine a 1000 lbs rocket that is hovering above the launchpad. It has to constantly generate 1000 lbs of thrust to stay where it is and not fall down. This energy is completely wasted since your rocket is not doing any useful physical work - its not gaining any altitude (potential energy) nor speed (kinetic energy) for the fuel you are spending. Even if the rocket is gaining altitude: this useless thrust has to be applied as long as the rocket is on its way to orbit (simplified), so it makes sense to reduce the amount of time spent in flight. A car on a hill works differently since it is mechanically "locked" to the ground. Lets take the hovering example from above: If you just stopped and parked the car sideways it would not roll down the hill. You do not spend any energy to avoid it from rolling down the hill. So, since the car is not wasting any thrust on gravity it doesnt matter how much time it spends in the process of going uphill.

Good question. They're held apart by the air pressure that is giving each chute stability. Seems they very carefully "inflated" them.

Hmm. I find that cheap. Thats the equivalent of 2 NASCAR teams.

What I'm reading here is 1.9 bn for SLS 1.2 bn for Orion 0.08 bn for Europa

There is an interesting phenomenon called merger recoil. It's related to gravitational waves and only affects objects with extreme masses. It can give supermassive(?) black holes an intesnse kick and eject them out of their galaxies. 4000 km/s is quite a bit of speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#Energy.2C_momentum.2C_and_angular_momentum_carried_by_gravitational_waves The fascinating thing is that this happens because the objects are so extremely heavy.

I would sell two of my nine Ferraris for that

Target: Mars Ground Activities (if any): Drill downwards Propulsion: Photovoltaic Goals: Analyze sediments Other: Find life EDIT> I understand that photovoltaic is not a propulsion. Use chemical rockets... I like the refurbished ICBMs peace.

The tiger striped one in the center?

In case you want to play-test your question http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63536-0-23-Alternis-Kerbol-Release-thread-v0-0-Dec-25-Mind-the-bugs

Hm. After Challenger the shuttles had pyrotechnics that would open a hatch for the astronauts to bail out, but this is located on the middle deck.

If you want to divert an asteroid you have to do it far out in space. We're talking several months travel time one way. If you do it manned that's like a Mars mission sans the lander. Huge ship, huge complexity, would probably take decades to plan, design, build. If the asteroid is relatively close your only options are impactors and nukes. Astronauts would just be in the way.

It's all quite obvious: It's the aliens' wish that their presence is kept a strict secret. Their civilization has huge problems with illegal time travel and altering realities. They require planet earth to be kept uncontaminated from their presence because they are using our radio signals as a paradoxon-free entropy generator which helps them re-adjust their reality and hunt down time travel criminals.

I agree. Deviating even a small asteroid as a proof of concept is cool, makes sense. Doesn't need astronauts and the SLS to then fly up to the thing and take selfies.

Mission to Mars Box office revenue $110,983,407 Armageddon Box office revenue $553,709,788 A decision based on real world facts.