@gmorgan: Are you aware that we detected a small asteroid coming between the orbit of the moon and Earth only a WEEK before the actual flyby? If we can't detect these things in time for a potential collision here on Earth with equipment the size of aircraft carriers, how in the hell do you expect us to do the same in a glorified life raft moving faster than any human being has moved before?

It ain't gonna happen.

The ability to maneuver is paramount when you have no idea what's out there. Predicting a path based on pre-calculating the orbits of rocks you know nothing about is far more dangerous and chaotic than you realize.

A better solution might be to include chemical rockets JUST IN CASE, and only to be used for that specific case. Some kind of deflection technology might be worthwhile too, such as high-powered lasers focused on the projectile, intended to let the gases from boiling off a small spot of it act as rocket thrust to deflect the object just far enough to miss the vehicle. Of course, this needs to be proven in a lab first, but at least it's something to consider.

@cocoviper: Momentum is momentum is momentum. The last I checked, very nearly all of our deep-space probes have weighed quite a bit, and are PACKED with gear. The only reason you think an ion engine isn't suitable is because the crew wouldn't notice any perceivable movement for 15 of the 39 days it takes to get there. Given time, however, the acceleration will be noticeable.

If you are not happy with waiting that long, you are certainly free to adopt a hybrid solution: an expensive chemical rocket to get the ship going to some velocity, then switch to ion propulsion to continue the trip. It'll be like changing gears in a stick-shift car. However, at what point does this become more time efficient versus more fuel efficient, versus (again) more cash-flow efficient?

See, this is the major beef I have with people who use the term "efficient". "Capitalism encourages efficiency!" No it doesn't -- at least, not on the global scale. It encourages FISCAL efficiency, but that's it. "Using chemical rockets is more efficient for big payloads!" No it isn't -- at least in terms of fuel economy. But it is in terms of time efficiency. And so on.

Please, when you use the word "efficient", remember that it implies you're comparing at least two things against each other. Be specific in what you're comparing; it'll help you avoid the trap of making blanket statements that prove to be false.

As many as are necessary to out-live Apple's patents.

Who do you think are responsible for these butt-ugly phones?

You can't have it, because Apple patented everything that makes the iPhone the iPhone. Unless the competitor licensed these features from Apple, it would be illegal to even try. And, if they DID license it, the cost of licensing would out-price the competitor, thus making the iPhone cheaper.

So, once again, you're screwed. Patents strike again.

You mean, chupacabra?

You do realize that all Segways can turn on a dime, right?

That iWheel reminds me of the Daleks. ;)

Most of your expenses come when the horse isn't sick. You ain't feedin' no horse for 35 cents a pop.

Only if it's pure electric.