Kerbin Dallas Multipass

@5thHorseman Hawking could have written "there are no event horizons" or "black holes are not the bottomless pits as they are portrayed" or whatever... Instead he chose to write "there are no black holes". Hawking loves spectacular statements like these and knows perfectly well that this sentence will be quoted. No reason to criticize Nature, they give the proper context and the full relevant quote in the article.

The title is a quote “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes  in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity,†Hawking writes.

Wonder if they will accept "that will destroy Earth"

If this turns out to be wrong he can just go "LOL SRY DAMN AUTOCORRECT"

You are basically repeating my points. The incentive is childishness (lowest thinkable), the hurdle to get access is gigantic. So the likelyhood of being targeted by hackers is extremely low but not impossible. Regarding your edit: You are totally aware that receiving signals from a space probe and sending commands to a space probe are incomparable.

Hmm. You're thinking that old hardware still floating in space could be hacked? Very interesting thought. I'm assuming here: The voyagers were launched during the cold war, so they will probably have some protection against evil soviet sabotage. This will not be NSA-proof encryption but maybe not eight zeros as a password (if you get my hint) Being hacked is also more likely if there is an incentive and if the target is accessible. Both factors are not really there. The incentive would be pure sabotage of a widely accepted scientific project. To gain access you probably need a 30m dish. There is a huge difference between this and the 100 million outlook express users you can potentially target with your 200 dollar netbook once you are online.

It's not just about hardware. The entire procedure (hardware, software, communications) has to be certified, abort modes have to be proven etc. ISS operators seem to be ultra picky about this - understandable as someone mentioned above, since human lives and multi billon dollars are at risk. I listened to a podcast with the (an) ATV project leader where he's talking about this (german only http://raumzeit-podcast.de/2011/06/17/rz017-automated-transfer-vehicle/ ) In the age of privatized spaceflight you can't just go and "take" some other organization's or company's tech and just plug it into your competing rocket.

It's possible, but the certification process is very lengthy and painful.

I'm also wondering about the hidden costs of the space tug. How much would be the cost of development, certification etc? What would be it's lifespan in terms of time and docking cycles? Any malfunction in the tug could potentially cause a crash with the ISS, and maintenance and checkups are probably impossible between docking maneuvers. So how many docking cycles are we talking here realistically? Another thing is logistics: Payloads of existing support vehicles are not only limited by mass but also by volume. So, from what I hear, they like to mix "expensive" cargo (spare parts, experiments) with "cheap" consumables in order to use the available mass and space in the best possible way. Having an extra vehicle just for the milk runs such as the Aquarius might render this game of Tetris more difficult for the other vehicles, possibly reducing their payload efficiency.

@PakledHostage Don't you get higher fuel efficiency in the FL400-500 range, possibly counterbalancing the increased cost and weight? I recall this as one of the reasons why several business jets are designed for silly altitudes up to 51k feet BTW: From what I read the typical cruise altitude for the sonic cruiser would have been around 45k feet

The Gulfstream G650 was test flown at mach 0.995. You don't really want to cruise at that speed in any subsonic design because in case you hit tubulences you could easily break mach 1 - likely resulting in bits falling off your plane

I'm not familiar with that idiom, sorry I don't know what it means. And are you now moving Venus all over the place to make things happen?

Oh comeon. You're trying to pick on the L4/L5 idea by saying "this will only last a billion years" and now you come up with L3? You're just making up your own scifi reality which is even more improbable

Whow, you're saying a planet sized trojan existed for about a billion years? Thats not a good point to disprove the hypothetical object we're discussing XD

Just wanted to mention that a mercury object in L4/L5 would have the same visibility to the naked eye as actual mercury at its best visibility. The distance and illumination would be relatively similar. OP mentioned this is scifi and a government coverup. So, yea, astronomers from 1500 B.C. would indeed notice the object, to John Doe the nightsky would just look normal.

@Ralathon It's not particularly short distance but quite exactly the distance earth/sun

added my source. all i know. Yea he says something like 2:30 mins but isnt sure

You can't launch straight to an equatorial orbit from florida obviously since florida is not on the equator. It would be interesting to see how and when they fix the inclination. NASA TV didnt quite cover that.

How cool. Someone took a long exposure pic of the launch Source: https://twitter.com/NASAKennedy/status/426551772845309953

Hey, if you want a permanent visitor.. I will just live on your couch for ever

Interesting how they are flying southeast to the equator now. They will need to change their inclination T

that was nice

They just restarted the countdown. T minus 4 minutes

I believe they vent liquid oxygen. They pump it in on one side and vent it on the other to keep pressure and temp

i have to type something here for the forum to accept this post