Reviewing with River

Wow - many thanks for the badge!

For my own part, I try and be nice about it. If it's 'obvious' (such as riding a horse at full gallop all day) I ask them how long they think they could sprint carrying someone and all their luggage on their back, then point out that a horse is not that much different, and needs rest. When we see a horse race, the riders tend to be small and light, as are the saddles, and the race is over in minutes, not hours. The horses have given their all, but what makes them 'race' horses, is their endurance and fitness, as well as their speed.

Pointing out locations on the 'net where they can read up about whatever it is I'm pulling them up for not only offers proof, but hopefully shows them that turning to their bestest buddy in the whole wide world (Google) is an easy way to do a bit of research.

When it comes to orbital calculations and determining orbital characteristics, I can go one better. My Orbital Calculator software is a free download from my site, and is multi-platform and incredibly easy to use. With 20+ functions for all things orbital and to do with planetary geometry, it's a goldmine.

I sometimes also point them at an article I wrote about determining aerostationary orbits (the Martian equivalent of a geostationary orbit), which showed that even though I'd correctly calculated the orbit, a bit of research showed that such orbits are a very bad idea. Two guys from Cal-Tech with lots of letters after their names were commissioned by NASA to calculate the best aerostationary orbit for a future communications satellite, and discovered that because of the geometry of the Martian gravity field, the service-life of the satellite would be incredibly short (and therefore not viable). So even fact-checking things you know can throw up things you didn't.

What I'm trying to do isn't just point out failings in their writing - that's actually beside the point - but showing them the benefits of research.