The Kepler folks have been calling them planets though, which is my point. As for naming the planets, it has been historically up to the discoverer to propose a name.... but they've discovered so many planets (in admittedly a team effort) that it is sort of pointless to bother trying to give them names at this point. Enough data is being obtained from the Kepler mission that it is possible for you to discover a planet yourself, and the team is even encouraging private individuals to try and do just that too.

Still, re-read the IAU rules, and note that it requires something to be called a planet as something which orbits the Sun, and only the Sun instead of any other star. That is only one part of my criticism as other things like orbit clearing and domination have much more to do with the age of the planetary system, the number of stars in the whole stellar system, and a good many other factors that come into play that think eventually the whole definition as it stands is going to break down without significant revision to acknowledge that things which are planets may or may not even be near stars at all and certainly can be found in varieties far more complex than the IAU rules currently permit without dealing in a pure physical description language of the celestial object to form the definition.

This still wouldn't change the status of Pluto or make most asteroids fit the definition, but it might make considering Europa, Callisto, and the other Gallelean moons as dwarf planets in their own right as well as Triton and a few other things in the Solar System.

What goes unappreciated is that the technology being sent into space is usually quite antiquated in comparison to what is currently being used in consumer electronics. Most people think of NASA as having bleeding edge equipment and using computers that is decades ahead of anything other folks are using in the computer industry, when in fact the opposite tends to be the case.

Mind you, there are legitimate reasons for using tried and true systems in spaceflight as opposed to cutting edge systems, especially when those computers (like this New Horizon spacecraft) needs to operate for several decades in extreme environments that are nothing like typically found anywhere on the Earth. Furthermore, simply due to the enormous distances, data bandwidth for transmitting signals is incredibly slow to the point it is closer to dial-up model speeds or even slower. The need for faster CPUs is definitely not something expected or needed.

But it is a PlayStation One system (well sort of). The main CPU used in this probe has the same CPU that the original Sony PlayStation uses... admittedly radiation hardened and with a custom operating system intended for spacecraft operations. It is amazing what these planetary scientists can do with such minimalistic computer systems.

That beats the Voyager 2 probe though, which may very well be one of the last operating (as intended) computer systems in the Solar System with core memory.

I really have problems with the "dominating its environment" rule in the IAU definition of a planet. Much more objective (and non-heliocentric criteria) should be used for defining a planet. Thank goodness the Kepler team has chosen explicitly to ignore the IAU rules when defining what is and is not a planet with their discoveries.

For myself, using a definition of a planet as something which forms a sphere due to gravitational influence and hydrostatic pressure is more than sufficient to define a planet. For that matter, I would even go so far as to suggest a "terrestrial" planet (aka something "Earth-like") as having an atmosphere above 1 millibar on its surface but less than 10% of its mass as the atmosphere would be plenty sufficient. And yes, that would include Titan as a terrestrial planet. I don't even mind that the Earth's Moon should be classified as a dwarf planet either.

And fortunately, it is more like about a thousand names of planets if you include the planets of other star systems that have been legitimately identified with specific orbital parameters and size characteristics. We are indeed living in exciting times and an era of massive discovery, where the definition of a planet should reflect that scope of potential candidates for what is a planet.

It would help if you actually read what I wrote:

That means people can be in the rest of the universe too. The edge of the atmosphere is also known as the Kármán line, which is (usually) the legal definition of space, and I am implying that people don't need to be confined to just living on the Earth. Since you got this so wrong, I need not reply any further.

What you are demonstrating is a clear belief without objective facts to back up what you are saying. "In the real world" you have robots that work side by side with human technicians performing amazing feats leveraging each other's strengths and abilities. There is a point to doing both crewed and robotic missions, which seems to be the point you are missing.

I am not at all saying robotic missions need to be cancelled, and I am certainly not a luddite. I'm also not delusional to think that mankind is going to be replaced by robots any time soon.

My point is that there is a role for crewed missions into space. There may be some better planning that goes on too with those missions and money might be better spent in some cases on robotic missions too, but it is just flying in the face of logic to say that robots alone can get the job done as well. They are an extension and an amplification of the human mind... in all cases. That means they need to have the people in the loop at some point, as they are creations of mankind.

Robots working in a coal mine do occasionally need human technicians to pull things apart and rework the equipment. Deep sea drilling even has divers that go underwater for weeks at a time for critical repairs... doing things that are enormously expensive and even approaching costs for sending astronauts into space. They use robots with those human in these very difficult situations, and I am suggesting this won't end at the edge of the atmosphere of the Earth either.

None of this even touches the need for humanity to spread beyond the Earth as a species and become multi-planetary in terms of its long-term survival. Perhaps you are one of those who thinks that humanity is something which should go extinct and hopes a mass genocidal attack or either natural or man-made origin happens to wipe us all out. But in this case I'm not even arguing that line of reasoning but merely pointing out that as the influence of humanity expands through the use of robots, there is going to be a need to send people in some capacity to work with those robots at a much closer range than something measured in astronomical units. So far other than massive insults to me personally you have failed to offer any conclusive reasons for why I am wrong.

I'm not trying to perform a doctoral defense here. If you can't stand my opinion, so be it.

Interstate Highways are much older than even the European Union although they were designed after concepts introduced in Germany with the Autobahn. I should point out that the E-roads that you are talking about were originally conceived as emulating the Interstate Highway system (at least that is what the wiki claims) and was something instituted in the 1970's.... about when construction of the Interstate Highway system was wrapping up.

It should also be pointed out that the E-90 road that you are talking about also happens to cross over a major part of the Mediterranean Sea (I presume that is by ferry) on its route.

If you want at least one source of information on the difference between the Autobahn vs. Interstate Highways, at least read this article:

http://gizmodo.com/5857416/why-american-roads-are-so-bad

I would hope that Europe didn't follow everything that happened on the Interstate Highway System, as there were definitely some corners that were cut on the 40,000 mile system as it was being built. U.S. highways definitely don't follow Autobahn standards, even though at this point I feel that any repaving/rebuilding of interstate highways likely should be following those standards when practical.

Or a cow. In spite of fences and other attempts to keep wildlife off of major roads, it still is a major problem. Avoiding wildlife while traveling at 55 mph is much easier to do than at 80 mph.

The Autobahns are also built to higher standards in terms of thicker roadbeds, better maintenance, and more gradual curves that are designed to be used at higher speeds. Admittedly you can restrict speed limits for just parts of a highway where curves are more common and raise limits on straight stretches of the road, but the smaller roadbed is a major concern and something that needs to be considered.

The reason for the lower standards on the American Interstate Highways is in part due to the huge scale of the whole project being a continent spanning system as opposed to something that simply runs through a much smaller country. Distances are huge in America and the higher standards used for the Autobahn would have been prohibitive in terms of how much it cost to build those highways... especially in rural America.

Interstate Highways are not the Autobahn, even though there are some superficial common features. If Interstate Highways had their construction standards raised and roadbeds rebuilt to those higher standards to accommodate these higher speeds, I would be more inclined to support some higher speeds.

The argument is pretty simple: When you have researchers on the Earth running a robotic probe, you have at least a half hour or longer reaction time trying to respond to anything that happens on Mars. It gets worse the further out in the Solar System you travel... simply due to the speed of light. Keep in mind that these robotic probes are moving very slow. There are some systems designed to permit the rovers in particular to respond to things sort of like what Google is using for the driverless cars, but there still needs to be some substantial decisions made about what it will be doing.

I'm merely invoking the MSL researchers because if anybody has a reason to be "robots first!", it would be them. They are obviously folks who are getting paychecks from the robotic missions being run by NASA and have the most to gain by dissing the crewed missions of NASA (like Carl Sagan did). If they instead are pointing out the need for crewed missions, it would seem like a contrary opinion that needs some extra attention.

If you think we don't need to send people to Mars or Europa, my argument is that we don't even need to bother with space exploration in general either. Stop sending the robots too because it is a waste of time.... for the very same logic that it means we shouldn't send people either. The whole enterprise is either necessary to send both or it is important to send neither. There is no reason to make a preference for one or the other and judge that only robotic exploration is necessary.

Why bother talking about private sector flights? In 1961 Alan Shepard performed the first sub-orbital crewed flight in America.... something really no more exotic than a Virgin Galactic flight. Less than a decade later he was walking on the Moon.

In that same period of time NASA is going to boldly leap from a test flight of this capsule to sending a crew to an asteroid.... and still won't have the capability of sending somebody to the Moon even if they had to do so. That is the point I'm making, and how NASA has totally screwed up in a big way. Something is seriously screwed up and is hardly inspiring anybody any more.

If some billionaires can get to the Moon before NASA can return, my hat is off to them. It should be embarrassing that the last person to walk on the Moon is still Gene Cernan. He didn't even expect to be the last one in the 20th Century.

It was Carl Sagan who introduced the meme of robotic exploration being so much superior to crewed exploration. The unfortunate problem is that it is important to actually send researchers eventually to these locations or at least somewhat close to them for more timely and relevant scientific investigations. Some people are suggesting that artificial intelligence may be the key, but like nuclear fusion, warp drive, teleportation, and several science fiction concepts, artificial intelligence is always 30+ years away from actually being developed. It is much harder than it appears where computer scientists who predict silly notions of human like intelligence any time in my or your lifetime is just not facing reality.

No less than the lead investigator for the Mars Science Lab (aka the Curiosity rover) has openly stated he would gladly pay even a premium over the costs spent on that rover simply to have a few scientists there on Mars to perform the scientific studies there. I'll also point out the involvement of Harrison Schmitt who arguably performed more actual scientific studies and investigations outside of the Earth than all of the robotic missions combined. There is a very real need for human researchers in these places for actual space exploration to happen.

There is of course some very low hanging fruit, to use an analogy, that is easy to perform at the moment with robotic missions. In some ways you can legitimately point out that to send out these robotic missions in the short term is more valuable than sending crews, but that is a temporary situation that will eventually change. When doing budgets, it is reasonable to be perhaps even placing for right now emphasis on robotic missions. It should be with a purpose that eventually leads to crewed missions though... something that is definitely missing from those who advocate robotic missions alone.

Crews are going to be needed for actual exploration of space, not to mention that sending people to these places also captures the imagination of those pursuing scientific and engineering disciplines. It has been said "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers". I argue the opposite though, as a soulless spacecraft running around on Mars is not nearly as inspiring as somebody like Buzz Aldrin who can stare you straight in the face and tell you honestly that he has walked on another world. People like him were able to accomplish things that robotic missions could never do, not to mention it also pushed so many technologies to accomplish that huge goal of going into space and traveling to another world that it revolutionized society with consequences that still have yet to completely happen.

That is why we need to send people to Mars, to Europa, and to other places in the Solar System. They both inspire and create opportunities to make things happen. Huge goals like that will ultimately bless the lives of ordinary people here on the Earth in ways so profound that you can't possibly comprehend the end results from such activity. New ways of thinking, even new political systems as of yet undreamed will result from stuff like this happening. It is that basic to human existence, and why people must be included.... and it is downright silly to divorce crewed exploration of the solar system from robotic exploration. Both need to happen and they must co-exists for either kind of space exploration to be successful.

NASA isn't even planning on the first crewed flight until the year 2024. Yeah, I have faith in the U.S. government getting things right.

More like 30 years ago this should have been happening. Certainly a test flight like this should have happened some time within a couple of years after the loss of the Challenger. The singular failure of NASA to develop a system that will put people back into space has been an embarrassment for decades with dozens of systems that have been developed and even had "bent metal" like the Orion is right now. Yet except for the Shuttle, nothing has actually made the trip into space since Apollo. Even the Shuttle program had numerous set backs and budget cuts that nearly kept that from going into space.

Keep in mind, the Orion still hasn't gone into space, and the current configuration on a Delta Heavy isn't practical for anything other than possibly a mission to Low-Earth Orbit. I'm not even sure it can make the trip to the ISS with a crew with this configuration. When it is on the SLS, the ISS will never be a destination as there are no missions planned on that platform going there and certainly nothing funded by Congress.

For that, you need to ask if space exploration in general is something worth doing? Presuming that there is something worth doing in space at all, you need eventually to put a crew there.

A far more important question to ask about Orion though is if this particular is a practical method of travel into space in the first place? At a price of $1-$2 billion per flight, it seems there ought to be a much cheaper way to get people into space.