Okay, I have a couple issues with the blog post now that I have went over it in my free time. First off, I have direct statements from Defan that Yen Press translation takes precedence due to the obvious fact that Stephen Paul has much more experience in translating than he has, working for over 15 years officially, let alone his non-professional work before becoming an official translator, thus Defan himself considers his translation deprecated. The sentiment of prioritizing official translations over fan translations is also shared by AKM when I talked with him. You will also see the fan translation got entire meanings wrong at times, for example, Abyssal Beast does not did not decide to allow anything. It is a Named Monster, the moment something grabs its aggro, it will give chase it. So, I kindly request that you switch your quote into the official translation. Here are the equivalents of your excerpts from the official translation:
The rules of the Underworld Space Force were absolute, but even their drill instructor couldn’t see them out beyond the atmosphere. And it was a whole three-hour journey to reach the companion star of Admina. That meant there was room for a little error.
[...]
Through careful observation, they learned that the spacebeast orbited between the two planets on a fixed speed and trajectory. The best they could do to minimize its threat was to restrict interstellar flight so that they could safely avoid its path.
[...]
The dragoncraft were improved again and again, until they were capable of leaving the atmosphere altogether. He [Kirito] found the companion planet that orbited Solus with Cardina, and he named it Admina.
I have taken the liberty to break things into paragraphs and add [...] to highlight sentences/paragraphs were skipped in between these provided excerpts, as well as added [Kirito] next to he for clarifying purposes, as such a citation needs it due to lack of context.
Secondly, I feel like this is because I am out of the loop, so I'd be glad if you fill me in, but based on your blog post, I have no idea why you used the Mercury calculation at all. I can see why you used Venus as you explained it in the post, but you never explain why you used Mercury at all, and I should not be mistaken in my thinking that the use of Mercury calculation also warrants a single line that you are using it as a high-balled calculation and why you picked Mercury for your high balled calculation.
And then again, I do have a massive issue with the use of Mercury in this case. As you correctly identified that if Mercury and Earth are on the opposite sides of the sun, the distance between them is indeed Earth to Sun to Mercury. However, if you are looking for a high ball, Venus is very much still the high ball here, which you have completely overlooked. Venus is both the low-ball and high-ball due to being so far away from the Suncompared to Mercury that when on the same side, it is closer to Earth than Mercury is, and when it is on the opposite side, it is further away from the Earth than Mercury is. As you can imagine, Venus being closer to Earth means Venus is also farther away from the Sun as a result, and thus when it is on the opposite side of the Sun, it is farther away from Earth than Mercury is. Venus simply has a larger distance range to Earth on both sides compared to Mercury.
Earth to Mercury when they are closest together: roughly 83 million km
Earth to Mercury when they are the farthest away: 210 million km
Earth to Venus when they are closest together: roughly 43 million km (low ball)
Earth to Venus when they are the farthest away: 257 million km (highball)
Although I have taken the statistical real life values directly from earth to the respective planet, you will get the exact same result if you do a (Earth to Sun + Sun to [Planet]) and the only difference will be the lack of a third dimensional difference, making the total distance slightly different, but it won't make enough difference to make Mercury a high ball in any scenario. And if you really want to reduce your calculation to two dimensions like that, you should do it for the distance when the planets are closest too and that would be (Earth to Sun - Sun to [Planet]), rather than (Earth to Planet). As things stand, aside from your highball choice of planet being wrong, you are also taking a 3 dimensional distance for one measurement, while taking a 2 dimensional distance for the other. So unless I am missing something here, I do not see that calculation holding up at all.
I am also not exactly sure about the distances of planets you used in the first place too. Some of them are exact closest values, whereas sometimes, they are average values, so I am a bit confused on that too. But the bigger problem is still what I mentioned in the above paragraph, that your highball calculation picked the wrong planet to highball with, as well as using a 2D plotted distance for one and a 3D plotted distance for the other, resulting in an inconsistency.
The size of the Underworld currently is unknown
This is completely incorrect, unless you specifically mean as an exact volume/radius of existing space. The size of Underworld currently is the size of the planets' orbits, as Underworld only consists of Solus and the two planets, Cardina and Admina rotating around him as is explicitly stated by Reki himself:
And coming to your end note, I already covered that Machine Translation should never be relied on, but again, aside from the issues pointed above, I do not think something should ever be approved based on a "I know that the
Abyssal Horror is faster when chasing Kirito, but I can't manage to find the Japanese RAW for that as of right now". You cannot try to have an exact calculation, but then have the pivotal argument to be "I know, just trust me guys".
Unless you can specifically confirm Kirito is faster than the Abyssal Horror (in which case, it would not be able to run away from Kirito in all their earlier encounters), this calculation has nothing to do with Kirito. And in that case, the FTL mention on Kirito should just simply be revoked entirely, as there is no basis for it to be there, since the 10 minute mention was a massive error in the first place.
Again, I have not participated in any of these calculations before, but all of these look like significant issues and inconsistencies to me in methodology, so I'd be glad if you could give my feedback a check to see if I am missing information in my observations
@DMUA