I was one of many to write papers on it and why it really didn't fix anything. It was never even a band-aid.

But the refineries were built anyway- solely because of government money. It absolutely never would have happened naturally if there wasn't government money to be made.

I see no reason why you couldn't have airlocks with a somewhat fancier HVAC system. Yes, similar to an airplane you would be compressing external air adiabatically, but you probably wouldn't need to cool it off, in fact it may need some additional heating after compression to be livable.

The pressure differential would not be outrageous, so the structure would not need too much special engineering. If the RCA dome in Indianapolis could pull it off, I don't see why a small observatory couldn't. The atmosphere would be very normal, and not airplane like.

Are wheelchairs in fact carbon neutral? Even disregarding carbon during manufacturing/delivery to the point where it is at your door, can you say positively that a user does not burn more calories using a wheelchair versus other alternatives of getting around? Can you say that calories not burned by someone wearing an efficient exoskeleton will never outweigh the energy savings of a wheelchair or alternatives? Engineers have to work around many many parameters when designing solutions, and despite how much everyone nowadays wants to be green and talk about carbon, energy usage is not always a top priority especially in the medical industry.

Yes. This is how modern planes work, including all of the ones you are likely to ever commute on. A finite amount of air is brought in by the diffuser. A finite amount of that air is ran through a compressor, and subsequently needs to be cooled off due to the adiabatic compression. This type of OBOGS system is not state of the art. It is a staple of jet aircraft.

They did in fact build two of them simultaneously, however the 2nd rover was built for testing and is not sterile enough to send to Mars without a serious teardown. There may be further reasons why the 2nd rover is unsuitable to go.

Nah, the Pandarens were sort of a joke starting back in 2002 (Warcraft 3), and the joke actually kinda became part of the blizzard universe.

None of this involves finding new planets, only verifying, thus nullifying the title of the post. The implication that the planets were "FOUND" in the hubble data is misleading because they had already been found elsewhere.

I don't need to re-read the summary. If you RTFA it shows hubble data this did not originally confirm planets. Run your algorithms on the old hubble data and tell me how you get a full confirmation of an undiscovered planet without verifying it with our new techniques. If you can't, then it only serves as verification- not really finding new planets at all.

How does that help?

According to the link, for GPS, the relativistic difference is about 38,000 ns per day, or approximately .44 ns per second.