Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web.

While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous.

Join our community today!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
[Rant] Why I dislike Space Enthusiasts; Even though I arguably am one?
Topic Started: Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM (3,274 Views)
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Well... here's the story. I was once was a "Space Enthusiast". Perhaps I am mixing the term up with "Space Advocate"; i.e. someone who advocates for space colonisation and the use of space. Either way, the only ones I've actually had contact with (and been myself) never actually advocated anything to anyone but their own online community(s), and/or unfortunate family or forum members.

The thing is, and this is the part that really irks me, is that these people seem to be so loyal to the idea, that they support it just for the sake of it rather than any actual validity it might or might not have. It becomes like a sort of religion or cult, and if you ever question the idea in front of these people, they start to imitate a swarm of bees...

My loss of faith is a very long, gradual story, so I'll try to explain it a simply and legibly as possible; space 'use' (in the industrial or residential sense) is difficult, and there is no compelling reason to do it (to the greater humanity, not just a bunch of people enthralled with the idea).

The many arguments used by space enthusiasts (often in sequence, when others are refuted) are as follows;

1. Space colonisation is essential for our survival! The Sun will burn out in 5 billion years!

A: The Sun burning out should be none of our concern, five billion years is a practical eternity, even 500 million years is 2000 times the time in which humans have existed on Earth, and over 50 000 times the time civilisation has existed. The problem is so distant as to be totally irrelevant to the present.

2. But what about Killer Asteroids/Comets/etc? What happens when one of them is on a collision course with the Earth? If we don't colonise space, one of these will make us go extinct just like the dinosaurs!

A: Methods have been proposed to deflect such objects, that while they may require substantial technological ability in space, do not require human colonisation or even on-site human interaction. Even in the event of a K/T scale impact, the survival of humans is not improbable especially given proper preparedness.

3. But what about other things, like gamma ray bursts/plagues/wars/climatic catastrophes/nanotechnology disasters, etc?

A: Why haven't you ever bothered to talk about how to prevent/cope with these sorts of threats, and actually save the lives of billions of people on Earth (as well as considerable historical/cultural heritage) instead?

4. But spaceflight is profitable!

A: Unmanned spaceflight may be (see commercial communications satellites), but manned spaceflight is not. Exploration is not profitable and is thus the responsibility of governments. Setting up a colony would require at least billions of dollars, even at greatly reduced hardware and launch costs, and would have no way to turn a profit.

5. But what about asteroid mining? A single asteroid could contain trillions of dollars of precious metals!

A: Reaching asteroids and returning asteroidal materials to Earth is far more difficult and energy intensive (and thus costly) than any mining operation on Earth. Furthermore, while an entire asteroid (a kilometer or so across, and something like 10e14-10e16 kilograms) may contain trillions of dollars of precious metals, this is at a relatively low concentration throughout the asteroid, complicating collection and refinement.

B: If mining materials on Earth is cheaper, then it will be done rather than extraterrestrial mining even if the concentration of material to be mined is lower. Terrestrial activities possess an inherent advantage in infrastructure.

6. But there's Helium 3 on the Moon! That could power a fusion economy, ridding the world of greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels and hard-radioactive producing nuclear power!

A: The economic difficulties of reaching the Moon and returning mined materials to Earth are still in place. In addition, He3 is present at less than 20 parts per billion in sunlit regions (though concentrations may be up to 50 ppb in shadowed areas, i.e. around the poles), again requiring considerable effort in collection.

B: We haven't even achieved break-even (let alone municipally viable a energy production level) with a Deuterium-Tritium (D-T) fusion reaction, which is far easier to perform than the often mentioned He3-D reaction. In addition, if D-D fusion is cheaper than D-He3 fusion (the Deuterium is more or less commonly available on Earth, in seawater), there is no reason to mine large amounts of He3 for a fusion economy.

7. We are running out of space on Earth, and need to colonise other planets to make more space (cosmic 'lebensraum').

A: At current growth rates, over 200 000 people a day, exporting enough people offworld to neutralise population growth would be impossible even with theoretical technology. We're talking something like nearly 9000 people an hour.

8. We need to force population growth rates up in order to stimulate space colonisation.

A: Why is it so important to colonise space in the first place?

B: See the answer to issue 7. This is worsened for higher growth rates or larger populations.

C: What happens if technology (i.e. carrying capacity) cannot keep up with population size?

D: The population on Earth would undoubtedly rise as well, potentially to very high levels (tens, hundreds of billions at least). What happens to the rest of the planet? What about biodiversity? Does everything get destroyed and paved over?

E: Since population growth is exponential, not linear, it can become pretty terrifying pretty quickly. What happens when you run into basic availability/practicality/physical problems, that limit colonisation or growth, or availability of resources? What happens when you colonise the entire solar system? If you have a population of a quadrillion, just 1% population growth is 10 trillion a year, or more than the population of Mexico every second. What do you do with all these people? Interstellar colonisation (especially on such an enormous scale) is far, far harder than interplanetary colonisation. And even if you somehow manage to colonise other stars en masse, what do you do once you've colonised the entire galaxy? Intergalactic travel is extremely harder than even interstellar travel. The whole thing has to reach a practical breaking point eventually- and when it does break, it will break so hard as to make every single atrocity and disaster of human history look pleasant.

If you've guessed I am a particular un-fan of this one, you'd be right.

9. The technology will magically appear someday to make space colonisation/space utilisation/The Space Future happen.

A: Why must the Space Future happen?

B: Technology development has limits (see physics, etc).

10. The Singularity will magically make this stuff happen.

A: Why must the Singularity make it happen?

B: Why must there be a Singularity? It is a quasi-religious concept that not everyone need adhere to.

11. There is always the possibility of space tourism!

A: If you have a large enough market, yes. The market probably exists at the right price, however getting the price low enough for the market to be large enough (and thus for space tourism to be a viable enterprise) is the crux of the issue and a pretty difficult one to solve.

B: Tourism and colonisation are two different things (also, tourism could be a pretty minor thing, such as a suborbital hop a la Virgin Galactic, or a day trip to orbit). In the 2009-2010 season, 37 000 people visited Antarctica (see here). Nobody lives in Antarctica or seriously intends to.

12. The development of a heavy-lift launch vehicle will enable space colonisation.

A: Absolutely not. While bulk transport is often cheaper, adequate demand has to exist for it to be commercially viable. The demand to justify heavy lift LVs does not exist, and will not magically appear if a heavy lift LV is developed.

B: Heavy lift launch vehicles do not promise to reduce cost to below something like $2000-3000 per kilogram to low Earth orbit, at high flight rates. At lower flight rates, they are even more expensive (due to manufacturing and launch overheads being split over fewer flights). A relatively low flight-rate vehicle with such a high cost is never going to provide routine access to space.

13. The development of a reusable launch vehicle will enable space colonisation/utilisation.

A: The economic issues still exist regardless.

B: While it is theoretically possible to reduce launch costs to the range of $100-200/kg with a reusable launch vehicle (and there is no physics preventing it), there is a huge technological hurdle to doing so, and even to reducing launch costs to something like $1000/kg. Launch vehicles are very complex, demanding pieces of technology that require a lot of special care, inspections and refurbishment to work properly. It is not impossible to make these systems more durable and capable of better refurbishment cycles, but it is still very challenging and an unsure proposition. STS actually increased, rather than decreased launch costs.

C: It has been said that RLVs require a high flight rate (40 to 50 launches per year) to merely match expendable vehicles in cost capability. Even if actual RLV economics are far better, it's probable that RLVs require a pretty high flight rate to be economic- the more flights that the cost of the launch site and the vehicle's construction (and development) can be split up (amortised) over, the better.

D: There are other hardware, facility and infrastructure costs that have to be taken into account. Reducing launch costs is only one side of the equation.

.14. The development of a single stage launch vehicle will enable space colonisation/utilisation.

A: Er, absolutely not. While the concept of operations of a Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) LV are simpler (and thus theoretically cheaper/more routine), an SSTO is more difficult to make reusable (and importantly: more difficult to make economically reusable) than multi-stage launchers, since they need more fuel for payload mass, lighter fuel tanks and higher performing engines.

B: In fact, SSTO is so challenging that the general consensus is that it is impossible to create a reusable SSTO with modern technology.

15. Chemical propulsion is inefficient. To reduce costs to orbit, we need to adopt nuclear propulsion!

A: Chemical propulsion works just fine. While nuclear propulsion is more efficient phyiscs wise, it probably isn't economics wise. To reduce costs, you want to improve ground handling operations, refurbishment, etc. That doesn't merge well with radioactivity, nuclear reactors, etc.

B: There is a big political/PR problem with a nuclear rocket, which is probably partially justified.

16. If you could get the price of emigrating to Mars down to $500 000, there would be a large enough market for it to be a viable enterprise. (I'm looking at you here, Elon Musk.)

A: Ever done a market analysis? Can we see it?

B: How from Mu Arae are you going to get a trip to Mars down to $500 000?

17. If I could, I'd live on another planet.

A: Good for you, but the issue isn't whether you would want to, but whether enough people with the ability to pay would want to.

18. But being against the idea of a Space Future is luddism! It is against progress!

A: Why is the idea of a Space Future "progress"? Because it appears in science fiction? Because you like the idea?

Why the Space Future? Why not painting pictures of unicorns on the sides of mountains? I say that is progress, darn it, and anyone who disagrees is a luddite! :rolleyes:

19. We should do it regardless of any economic benefit. We do plenty of things without an economic benefit, look at the Olympics.

A: The Olympics would not exist if it were not for economics. Look at all the money that is made by something like the Olympics. Sponsorship. Merchendise. Economic stimulus to surrounding businesses, etc. The Olympic games don't exist solely because they're cool.

20. We should adopt a different economic system (i.e. communism) to enable the Space Future.

A: Why is it so essential to enable the Space Future?

B: Economic wisdom and constraints still apply to Communism (just as it applies to amoebas, etc), even if they don't apply the same way they would in a capitalist or other economy.

21. Someday billionaires will start space colonies, just because they can/just for prestige.

A: Where will the industry to support this come from? A large reason for the high cost of spaceflight today is that there is very little demand, therefore very little supply, therefore very little demand and it becomes a vicious circle. Things like luxury yachts exist as a subset of the passenger liner industry, which is a relation to the commercial freightliner industry, which is a relation to the military ship industry, etc. If those industries did not exist, neither would luxury yachts, since the market for them is too small to be viable. The same applies to billionaires starting space colonies.

22. People will colonise space, because people have an odd urge to settle sparse or deficient environments even if it incurs great cost.

A: Which is why Antarctica, Greeland, the Atacama, Kalahari, Sahara, etc, are some of the most densely populated areas on Earth, right? :ermm:

23. We need to colonise space because of some dubious political excuse/because King James is going to mess us around and force us to pay taxes to the Crown.

A: Yeah, ok, whatever.

24. We should do it just for the sake of it/just because I like it!

A: I hate you.


Not that I necessarily totally disagree with all of these points- colonising space as a 'backup' to civilisation (and even terran life itself, potentially) is a cool idea. But actually preventing and/or treating global disasters on Earth is, in the effort of Space Enthusiasts to justify the precious Space Future, totally glossed over. Apparently a cool idea is more important than potentially saving billions of lives.

I swear, if it weren't for an old science fiction trope/the adherence of some people to said trope, the whole concept would get talked about far, far less, and wouldn't be treated as such a "destiny" as it is now. It'd be kind of like ocean or Antarctic colonisation (interesting novelty idea, not important, unlikely). It's so bad that these people regard anything that goes on in human spaceflight as greatly important or beneficial, even if it's a plus $10 billion heavy lift rocket that exists solely to benefit certain aerospace contractors and the districts of specific politicians, and promises to do little more than effectively recreate an Apollo 8-like lunar orbit mission as was done over 40 years ago.

And it isn't like I dislike or am against the idea of space colonisation. I like the idea, I just don't see very good reasons for it happening (even though I'd very much like to). And I get extremely annoyed by the attitude of people that is basically "It must happen, because it is supposed to!", and then "It is supposed to happen, because it must!"

[/rant]
Edited by T.Neo, Jan 15 2012, 11:17 AM.
A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


Good God man, how can you not understand? We must go because otherwise someone else will.

It doesn't matter if we just build a pointless colony nobody really wants to live on, the few people born there desperately want to leave and it's a huge economic drain. If you don't focus on colouring in the map then some pygmy nation like Norway or Argentina will do it. Empire for Empire's sake, even if it is just leaving a few flags all over the place.
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
lamna
Jan 15 2012, 12:57 PM
Good God man, how can you not understand? We must go because otherwise someone else will.

It doesn't matter if we just build a pointless colony nobody really wants to live on, the few people born there desperately want to leave and it's a huge economic drain. If you don't focus on colouring in the map then some pygmy nation like Norway or Argentina will do it. Empire for Empire's sake, even if it is just leaving a few flags all over the place.
Well guess what.

Us Americans are gonna go bananas...



Seriously, we were there first. It's ours. YOU AND YOU DYING EMPIRE DON'T GET ANY MOON.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

But what about taking the fight back to the alien menace at their Cydonia base on Mars?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zerraspace
Member Avatar
UD Needs You!
 *  *  *  *  *
What then do you think of those who hope that space colonization will happen but rather doubt that it will (at least in the immediate future), T. Neo?

I would love for man to take those revolutionary steps and establish permanent presence off of planet Earth, but ultimately I realize it is highly unlikely for us to do so within any foreseeable time frame. Quite a few of the listed arguments are indeed valid (I better not need to point out which ones), and the potential benefits of space travel vastly outweigh the initial costs, but only in the extremely long term. No economy will vouch for any project that does not show immediate returns, and currently space travel is an enormous expense. The majority will see it as a waste of their hard-parted taxes, and it doesn't help that most of the organizations capable of such endeavors are governmental (particularly in today's dismal economic climate - note how quickly NASA's budget gets slashed). Unless there is enormous incentive to expand, these steps will never be taken, and certainly never for the sake of exploration. Christopher Columbus did not find America because he was searching for new lands - he was trying to find a more direct trade route to India. The space race did not occur because it was the final frontier (however it was sold to the American public), but as the grounds for the military, technological and political competition between the US and USSR.

That being said, this does not lower the boon on eventual space colonization for all time. Breakthroughs in propulsion, energy and materials technology may lower the costs of travel to the point of feasibility, and when this happens I see said expansion as inevitable. The resources in space (just counting our solar system) are enormous, far greater than the Earth can ever provide, and once we can tap them profitably we will do so. All it takes is one enterprising man to amass riches on new ground for a thousand others to leap upon the bandwagon and start a new industry, and the infrastructure that's bound to follow will open up the void. However, I do not see said breakthrough happening within my lifetime; even in my generally idealistic stories I do not feature mankind setting a foundation off of the Earth and Moon until at least the fourth millennium...

To this point I hold that the first nation to establish a permanent foothold in space will have gained an overwhelming advantage over all others, or at the very least assured the survival of its cultural legacy. My cases in point are Britain and Spain colonizing the new world - by spreading their language and culture to the Americas they have effectively immortalized themselves and forever increased their sway over the nations of the globe beyond the confines of their own power. Britain may no longer be the world superpower it was during the late 19th and early twentieth century, but to the extent that its former colony the US is English remains one of the most widely spoken of the world (arguably becoming a "global" language) with Spanish not far behind, and American and English interests generally align (or perhaps the other way around, depending on which side of the fence you might be on :angel: ). Certainly, I would much rather a democratic nation (such as the US or Britain) take those critical steps first, rather than doom us to eventual subordination to the successor of one of our less libertarian states.
Have you got what it takes to beat back hostile alien forces and vicious Space Mafia agents to defend liberty and justice for citizens across the galaxy? Join Universal Defense NOW (for more information, please enlist)!

Quote:
 
That is how we first set foot on the planet we have come to know as Zainter, the world that would change our lives forever.
- Remake of Zainter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Zerraspace
Jan 15 2012, 03:11 PM
Christopher Columbus did not find America because he was searching for new lands - he was trying to find a more direct trade route to India.
You will not mention that filthy, dirty, cheating moron in this topic.

North America was found by Asians. Then Vikings. Then THAT FILTHY BASTARD WHO HAS NO PAST.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zerraspace
Member Avatar
UD Needs You!
 *  *  *  *  *
Lebanese seem to think they found America first (back when the world knew them as the Phoenicians), but since none of those early explorers led to global recognition or the foundation of a standing nation their exploits can be considered inconsequential compared to Columbus'. What is it that you hold against the man, anyway? He was certainly less a tyrant than Cortez, and if it weren't for his discovery your nation would not exist (certainly not in the form it is today). Like him or not, you owe him.
Have you got what it takes to beat back hostile alien forces and vicious Space Mafia agents to defend liberty and justice for citizens across the galaxy? Join Universal Defense NOW (for more information, please enlist)!

Quote:
 
That is how we first set foot on the planet we have come to know as Zainter, the world that would change our lives forever.
- Remake of Zainter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


It's going to be a government that takes the first step, maybe one day we'll have the tech that an eccentric rich man could pave the way to the stars, but by the time we get there a government would have been able to do it before them.

And business has no interest in that kind of huge investment for no guaranteed return.
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flisch
Member Avatar
Superhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
The thing is, and this is the part that really irks me, is that these people seem to be so loyal to the idea, that they support it just for the sake of it rather than any actual validity it might or might not have. It becomes like a sort of religion or cult, and if you ever question the idea in front of these people, they start to imitate a swarm of bees...

Isn't that the thing with almost anything? Say "9/11 was an inside job" or "global warming is a lie" and you're lucky if you have the people just shouting at you. People usually defend their opinions fiercely, and ironically you're doing just the same with this thread. :3


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
1. Space colonisation is essential for our survival! The Sun will burn out in 5 billion years!

A: The Sun burning out should be none of our concern, five billion years is a practical eternity, even 500 million years is 2000 times the time in which humans have existed on Earth, and over 50 000 times the time civilisation has existed. The problem is so distant as to be totally irrelevant to the present.

Wow, first argument and you already must create a strawman? This is bad, man. This reminds me of a creationist arguing. They too have no real arguments of their own so they must make something up to prove their hypothetical opponent wrong. I have never seen anyone ever use this argument with a straight face. (Movies don't count, because they also say that triangular DNA is higher evolved than double-stranded one. Or that timetravel can retroactively change reality by turning all humans into ampihibians while they're aware of it.)


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
2. But what about Killer Asteroids/Comets/etc? What happens when one of them is on a collision course with the Earth? If we don't colonise space, one of these will make us go extinct just like the dinosaurs!

A: Methods have been proposed to deflect such objects, that while they may require substantial technological ability in space, do not require human colonisation or even on-site human interaction. Even in the event of a K/T scale impact, the survival of humans is not improbable especially given proper preparedness.

I agree with you there. At this point, humans are pretty much indestructible. However, saying we can survive any natural or unnatural disaster is not an argument against space colonisation either. So it's really a null point.


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
4. But spaceflight is profitable!

A: Unmanned spaceflight may be (see commercial communications satellites), but manned spaceflight is not. Exploration is not profitable and is thus the responsibility of governments. Setting up a colony would require at least billions of dollars, even at greatly reduced hardware and launch costs, and would have no way to turn a profit.

Uhh, I'd like to know where you pulled that from. Before mass production was invented ANY goods were expensive as shit compared to modern standards. It's just a matter of time until we find a way to mass produce space-related products easily.


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
5. But what about asteroid mining? A single asteroid could contain trillions of dollars of precious metals!

A: Reaching asteroids and returning asteroidal materials to Earth is far more difficult and energy intensive (and thus costly) than any mining operation on Earth. Furthermore, while an entire asteroid (a kilometer or so across, and something like 10e14-10e16 kilograms) may contain trillions of dollars of precious metals, this is at a relatively low concentration throughout the asteroid, complicating collection and refinement.

B: If mining materials on Earth is cheaper, then it will be done rather than extraterrestrial mining even if the concentration of material to be mined is lower. Terrestrial activities possess an inherent advantage in infrastructure.

I was gonna bring up the pyramids as an example of something so immensely costly during the times it was built, which is rather cheap and doable in modern times, but then I remembered how the egyptians did it anyway. So there's that. Plus, cost is relative to the technological age. Computers used to cost shitloadsofmoney. Today you get thumb drives for free. Thumb drives that have more storage power than the earliest computers.

Also, as soon as you're in space mining is incredibly easy, because of the reduced gravity and other things that simply make mining on earth more difficult. Sure, it'd be harder to return the minerals back to earth due to atmospheric re-entry and shit, but as long as you stay in space it's very profitable.

T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
6. But there's Helium 3 on the Moon! That could power a fusion economy, ridding the world of greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels and hard-radioactive producing nuclear power!

A: The economic difficulties of reaching the Moon and returning mined materials to Earth are still in place. In addition, He3 is present at less than 20 parts per billion in sunlit regions (though concentrations may be up to 50 ppb in shadowed areas, i.e. around the poles), again requiring considerable effort in collection.

B: We haven't even achieved break-even (let alone municipally viable a energy production level) with a Deuterium-Tritium (D-T) fusion reaction, which is far easier to perform than the often mentioned He3-D reaction. In addition, if D-D fusion is cheaper than D-He3 fusion (the Deuterium is more or less commonly available on Earth, in seawater), there is no reason to mine large amounts of He3 for a fusion economy.

"We don't need to go to the moon, so we won't go ANYWHERE in space!"

Uhhhh... People don't colonize Antarctica, so they also won't colonize the americas? >___>


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
7. We are running out of space on Earth, and need to colonise other planets to make more space (cosmic 'lebensraum').

A: At current growth rates, over 200 000 people a day, exporting enough people offworld to neutralise population growth would be impossible even with theoretical technology. We're talking something like nearly 9000 people an hour.

With "theoretical" technology we could theoretically evacuate the entire earth and two more in a matter of hours. I'd like to know where you acquired so much knowledge about future technology. I mean, I don't want to handwave away every single problem with "ITS TEH FUTSHAH!" but come one, saying we won't have any significant technology advancement in the future is like slapping historic evidence in the face with a metal bar.


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
8. We need to force population growth rates up in order to stimulate space colonisation.

[walloftext]

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Isn't the initial argument an anti-space point? <.<


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
9. The technology will magically appear someday to make space colonisation/space utilisation/The Space Future happen.

A: Why must the Space Future happen?

B: Technology development has limits (see physics, etc).

A: Nobody says it must happen. But you say it can't happen. Provide proof why that is so and you'll have a point.

B: Technology exists to elliminate limits. I can't lift enough? Invent a pulley. I can't fly? Invent a plane. I can't go faster than blablabla mph? Invent a car. We can nowadays create elements that don't show up in nature. We can build planes that can go faster than sound.

Oh and by the way: Technology doesn't magically poof into existence. It is invented over a very long process of sciencing.


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
10. The Singularity will magically make this stuff happen.

A: Why must the Singularity make it happen?

B: Why must there be a Singularity? It is a quasi-religious concept that not everyone need adhere to.

Again the word magically. Stop poisoning the well already. For the actual argument, well, I don't really see the point. (Haha, get it? Singularity, point?... No one?)

At any rate the singularity is more of a speculative phenomenon than a speculative technology. Plus, I fail to see what the singularity has to do with space colonisation. It can also happen when we are huddled together on earth.

Plus the singularity is more of an ironic "lolmath" joke than anything else. Do you know the story with the greek sprinter and the turtle? It's a mathematical conundrum. Both are supposed to sprint to their goal but the turtle is given a headstart of just a few feet. One would assume that the spinter will outrun the turtle, but math teaches us that he can't, because whenever the sprinter reaches the point where the turtle was at the point he started, the turtle will already be a little inch forward. Then when the sprinter reaches that point, the turtle will be a wee tiny inch further again. Rinse and repeat, the sprinter can never outrun the turtle. We know it doesn't happen in reality, and it's simply more of a riddle. The same with singularity. Yes, I can see how our technological advancement speed is rising continually, but I doubt the slope will ever hit 100%.


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
11. There is always the possibility of space tourism!

A: If you have a large enough market, yes. The market probably exists at the right price, however getting the price low enough for the market to be large enough (and thus for space tourism to be a viable enterprise) is the crux of the issue and a pretty difficult one to solve.

B: Tourism and colonisation are two different things (also, tourism could be a pretty minor thing, such as a suborbital hop a la Virgin Galactic, or a day trip to orbit). In the 2009-2010 season, 37 000 people visited Antarctica (see here). Nobody lives in Antarctica or seriously intends to.

To be fair, we don't really have the technological means to permanently settle on antarctica yet. Or harvest its resources for that matter.

That is a very good point though. Would people even want to live on Antarctica? I don't know. I could easily see Antarctica being a "test" area for space colonisation. Maybe in the future they'll even build indoor farms to feed the scientists that live there. Following that would be permanent residences for the families and scientists, even during the dark months. Then it could gradually grow into its own little colony over time. Why do people live where they live? Only a handful actually goes where there's a "nice view". Most look for work. As long as a colony can provide that, I'd say there will always be at least SOME people who will move there.

A similar process could happen with space colonisation, as there will also be science outposts on other planets. Of course, it'd be a slow process compared to the more "romantic" ones in science fiction, but it's a colonisation process nonetheless.


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
17. If I could, I'd live on another planet.

A: Good for you, but the issue isn't whether you would want to, but whether enough people with the ability to pay would want to.

Peole were willing to abandon their homes and past life when they settled on the americas or Australia. I don't see why people wouldn't do the same in space.


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
18. But being against the idea of a Space Future is luddism! It is against progress!

A: Why is the idea of a Space Future "progress"? Because it appears in science fiction? Because you like the idea?

Why the Space Future? Why not painting pictures of unicorns on the sides of mountains? I say that is progress, darn it, and anyone who disagrees is a luddite! :rolleyes:

Well. That is kind of silly. I say you're a rock and don't need food. That doesn't mean you're a rock and I can let you starve to death. Painting unicorns to a side of a mountain is not progress. You're well aware of that, otherwise you wouldn't have said it. Space colonisation is not progress in itself, but progress will enable it. If it were possible (and feasible) already, we would do it right now.


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
19. We should do it regardless of any economic benefit. We do plenty of things without an economic benefit, look at the Olympics.

A: The Olympics would not exist if it were not for economics. Look at all the money that is made by something like the Olympics. Sponsorship. Merchendise. Economic stimulus to surrounding businesses, etc. The Olympic games don't exist solely because they're cool.

To be fair, the olympics were invented before there was merchandising etc., but I see your point.

Also, humans have started migrating into every single corner of our planet before there was such a thing as over-population. People risked their lives when doing island-hopping on wooden boats. People went to settle in arid zones or in tundras. Wherever people can go, they will go.


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
21. Someday billionaires will start space colonies, just because they can/just for prestige.

A: Where will the industry to support this come from? A large reason for the high cost of spaceflight today is that there is very little demand, therefore very little supply, therefore very little demand and it becomes a vicious circle. Things like luxury yachts exist as a subset of the passenger liner industry, which is a relation to the commercial freightliner industry, which is a relation to the military ship industry, etc. If those industries did not exist, neither would luxury yachts, since the market for them is too small to be viable. The same applies to billionaires starting space colonies.

Luxury objects are per definition expensive. If someone made a luxury object cheaper than usual, people wouldn't buy it, because it loses its luxury status. Spacecraft etc. however is a product to be used and thus there will always be someone who will try to make it as cheap as possible. This has happened with amost anything that used to be extremely expensive in older times. Who would've thought 1000 years back that the common human can own their own boat, car and computer? (Provided they know what these things are.)


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
22. People will colonise space, because people have an odd urge to settle sparse or deficient environments even if it incurs great cost.

A: Which is why Antarctica, Greeland, the Atacama, Kalahari, Sahara, etc, are some of the most densely populated areas on Earth, right? :ermm:

Not most densely populated, but at least Greenland and the Kalahari were/is inhabited. I am not sure about the others, but I'd guess there are also a few tribes living in the Sahara and the Atacama. Antarctica is a special case, because it has nothing really to offer. Or maybe it's simply because it's hard to get there or get off, when things become ugly. When there's a harsh winter in Alaska, people can move south. Try to do that on Antarctica.

Since colonies on other planets would be hermetically sealed anyway, there shouldn't be a problem with seasons.


T.Neo
Jan 15 2012, 11:14 AM
Not that I necessarily totally disagree with all of these points- colonising space as a 'backup' to civilisation (and even terran life itself, potentially) is a cool idea. But actually preventing and/or treating global disasters on Earth is, in the effort of Space Enthusiasts to justify the precious Space Future, totally glossed over. Apparently a cool idea is more important than potentially saving billions of lives.

I swear, if it weren't for an old science fiction trope/the adherence of some people to said trope, the whole concept would get talked about far, far less, and wouldn't be treated as such a "destiny" as it is now. It'd be kind of like ocean or Antarctic colonisation (interesting novelty idea, not important, unlikely). It's so bad that these people regard anything that goes on in human spaceflight as greatly important or beneficial, even if it's a plus $10 billion heavy lift rocket that exists solely to benefit certain aerospace contractors and the districts of specific politicians, and promises to do little more than effectively recreate an Apollo 8-like lunar orbit mission as was done over 40 years ago.

And it isn't like I dislike or am against the idea of space colonisation. I like the idea, I just don't see very good reasons for it happening (even though I'd very much like to). And I get extremely annoyed by the attitude of people that is basically "It must happen, because it is supposed to!", and then "It is supposed to happen, because it must!"

[/rant]

But I also think colonisation of Antarctica and the oceans is going to happen. D:

And just because something is a trope, doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Guess where touchscreens first appeared... That's right, Star Trek.
We have a discord. If you want to join, simply message me, Icthyander or Sphenodon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Quote:
 
We must go because otherwise someone else will.


Why? There is just as little reason for them to go.

Also, that logic worked once (during the Space Race), but it hasn't really appeared ever again. There hasn't been any Mars Race, or Asteroid Race, or Jupiter Race. There hasn't even been a Space Station Race.

Quote:
 
The majority will see it as a waste of their hard-parted taxes, and it doesn't help that most of the organizations capable of such endeavors are governmental (particularly in today's dismal economic climate - note how quickly NASA's budget gets slashed). Unless there is enormous incentive to expand, these steps will never be taken, and certainly never for the sake of exploration. Christopher Columbus did not find America because he was searching for new lands - he was trying to find a more direct trade route to India. The space race did not occur because it was the final frontier (however it was sold to the American public), but as the grounds for the military, technological and political competition between the US and USSR.


+1.

Also, in today's day and age, the only reason NASA has any manned spaceflight budget is because of political 'pork' to specific districts and specific aerospace companies. If it weren't for that, manned spaceflight probably wouldn't exist at all (mind you, there is commercial cargo and crew to the ISS, that is also a contribution to an international collaboration- sadly CCDev has been defunded in favour of the Senate Launch System).

Notice how other nations with space agencies- Japan, Europe, don't have their own capability and ride with the US/Russia.

Quote:
 
That being said, this does not lower the boon on eventual space colonization for all time. Breakthroughs in propulsion, energy and materials technology may lower the costs of travel to the point of feasibility, and when this happens I see said expansion as inevitable. The resources in space (just counting our solar system) are enormous, far greater than the Earth can ever provide, and once we can tap them profitably we will do so. All it takes is one enterprising man to amass riches on new ground for a thousand others to leap upon the bandwagon and start a new industry, and the infrastructure that's bound to follow will open up the void. However, I do not see said breakthrough happening within my lifetime; even in my generally idealistic stories I do not feature mankind setting a foundation off of the Earth and Moon until at least the fourth millennium...


But you're just really saying the same old Space Advocate stuff. "Breakthroughs" in propulsion/energy/materials technology (whatever they would be) don't affect the core economics of the situation- they make it a bit better. In the sense of, trying to mine an asteroid would return a revenue that is a tenth of the whole project cost, rather than a ten-thousandth. Economic deux ex machinas don't work either (unless you have a really good explanation of the one you suggest, in which case I'm interested).

The thing is, the resources available in space are large in number, but they're often sparse and difficult to exploit. Earth has more resources than you think, and if you use them efficiently and effectively, you really can do a lot with them.

Quote:
 
To this point I hold that the first nation to establish a permanent foothold in space will have gained an overwhelming advantage over all others, or at the very least assured the survival of its cultural legacy. My cases in point are Britain and Spain colonizing the new world - by spreading their language and culture to the Americas they have effectively immortalized themselves and forever increased their sway over the nations of the globe beyond the confines of their own power. Britain may no longer be the world superpower it was during the late 19th and early twentieth century, but to the extent that its former colony the US is English remains one of the most widely spoken of the world (arguably becoming a "global" language) with Spanish not far behind, and American and English interests generally align (or perhaps the other way around, depending on which side of the fence you might be on ). Certainly, I would much rather a democratic nation (such as the US or Britain) take those critical steps first, rather than doom us to eventual subordination to the successor of one of our less libertarian states.


The difference is that Britain and Spain colonised:

A: Areas that were actually worth something.

B: Large areas that had potential.

In time, because the colonies had so much potential, they grew into entities that were more economically powerful (and more populous) than their parent states.

Space colonies are at such a physical and environmental disadvantage that they would not only remain miniscule in scale to the parent nation(s), but actually reliant on them as well, not only economically but logistically speaking as well.

Quote:
 
And business has no interest in that kind of huge investment for no guaranteed return.


And that is the major problem. Without a return it goes nowhere. Not even for a government.

Quote:
 
They too have no real arguments of their own so they must make something up to prove their hypothetical opponent wrong. I have never seen anyone ever use this argument with a straight face.


Just because you haven't seen anyone use this argument doesn't mean I haven't- I have seen people using that argument, and using it pretty seriously (this person was also pretty... well, let's say intense, so maybe not to be taken pretty seriously).

Quote:
 
However, saying we can survive any natural or unnatural disaster is not an argument against space colonisation either. So it's really a null point.


It's an argument against an argument for it, not an argument against it itself- I agree.

Quote:
 
Uhh, I'd like to know where you pulled that from. Before mass production was invented ANY goods were expensive as shit compared to modern standards. It's just a matter of time until we find a way to mass produce space-related products easily.


But it was still profitable to sell such items.

Also: space-related products are already pretty mass-produced, or mass-producible, though perhaps not in the way they could be. Launch vehicles for example are pretty mass produced, but western ones are underutilised so launch costs have risen. The Russian Soyuz rocket once flew 60 times a year.

But it's more than that. You can't just magically reduce the cost of something to nothing by mass producing it- only reduce the cost. There are still a huge plethora of limitations that you can't run away from. Also, you need to have enough demand. Currently the demand isn't high enough (so therefore, neither is the supply).

Quote:
 
I was gonna bring up the pyramids as an example of something so immensely costly during the times it was built, which is rather cheap and doable in modern times, but then I remembered how the egyptians did it anyway. So there's that. Plus, cost is relative to the technological age. Computers used to cost shitloadsofmoney. Today you get thumb drives for free. Thumb drives that have more storage power than the earliest computers.


I'm sure Pyramids would be immensely costly to build even today with modern technology.

Technology development is limited by physical and technological... limitations (I know, that's an incredibly bad way of putting it, but it fits). It can't magically be reduced to nothing.

Also, back in the 1950s, airliners used to cost shitloadsofmoney. Today you get airliners for free Today airliners still cost shitloadsofmoney even though the technology has been refined over the decades.

Quote:
 
Also, as soon as you're in space mining is incredibly easy, because of the reduced gravity and other things that simply make mining on earth more difficult. Sure, it'd be harder to return the minerals back to earth due to atmospheric re-entry and shit, but as long as you stay in space it's very profitable.


It isn't only about reentry, but the dV (or 'velocity change') required to get the materials back to Earth... and also to get mining hardware, etc, to the asteroid itself. Removing gravity won't magically make costs go down (and there are other things about the space environment that drive costs up).

The market for precious metals (and those are the only things that are really worth mining from asteroids) is solely on Earth, and Earth is the sole place you have enough economic and logistic muscle to pull off and operation such as this, so you're going to have to deal with the economics of it whether you like it or not.

Of course, if you're magically already in space, the tables are turned- the asteroids are your playground, mining stuff from Earth becomes horribly uneconomic...
Quote:
 

"We don't need to go to the moon, so we won't go ANYWHERE in space!"

Uhhhh... People don't colonize Antarctica, so they also won't colonize the americas? >___>


I am just countering that particular argument there. I'm not trying to counter the entire idea of space colonisation.

Also, where are the Space Americas going to be? They are nowhere, they don't exist. Only Space Hyperantarctica.

Quote:
 
With "theoretical" technology we could theoretically evacuate the entire earth and two more in a matter of hours. I'd like to know where you acquired so much knowledge about future technology. I mean, I don't want to handwave away every single problem with "ITS TEH FUTSHAH!" but come one, saying we won't have any significant technology advancement in the future is like slapping historic evidence in the face with a metal bar.


Historic evidence is why we have jetpacks, flying cars and supersonic airliners today, right? ;)

It works both ways, technology is heavily limited by what physics enables.

Not that I'm saying that there won't be significant technology advancement in the future, just that it is extremely easy to just handwave problems with "ITS TEH FUTSHAH".

Quote:
 
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Isn't the initial argument an anti-space point? <.<


Could you reword that sentence?

I'm actually not quite sure I'm trying to counter there, it's supposed to be the idea that having a high population growth rate is beneficial.

Quote:
 
A: Nobody says it must happen. But you say it can't happen. Provide proof why that is so and you'll have a point.


Plenty of people say it must happen (if you haven't run into them, all I can say is that I'm jealous :|), and I'm not saying it can't happen, just that I can't see a good enough reason for it to happen.

Quote:
 
B: Technology exists to elliminate limits. I can't lift enough? Invent a pulley. I can't fly? Invent a plane. I can't go faster than blablabla mph? Invent a car. We can nowadays create elements that don't show up in nature. We can build planes that can go faster than sound.


Lift the antarctic icecap with a pulley. Build a car that travels at mach 3 off-road. Build a supersonic manned airplane that weighs 50 kilograms. Etc.

Technology does have practical- and absolute- limits.

That said, it enables a helluva lot too. But that is pretty bad justification for "it will magically enable whatever I want".

The "poofs into existence" bit is a bit of a strawman, it's how people just want this technology to magically appear to enable their vision of the future, without any regard to how the technology acts, how it is developed, or what the actual limits are.

Quote:
 
At any rate the singularity is more of a speculative phenomenon than a speculative technology. Plus, I fail to see what the singularity has to do with space colonisation. It can also happen when we are huddled together on earth.


The association of the singularity with space colonisation is that I've seen (several times).

Also, maybe I am looking at it wrong, but what I percieve of the singularity is the sort of techno-religion people make out of it rather than any speculative phenomenon.

Quote:
 
To be fair, we don't really have the technological means to permanently settle on antarctica yet. Or harvest its resources for that matter.


That's probably a point of contention; I could argue otherwise (or that if there were a push to colonise antarctica, the technology required would be far more developed).

Quote:
 
I could easily see Antarctica being a "test" area for space colonisation.


That's kind of self-defeating though, no? People living in a poor environment, as a test for living in a poor environment? It brings back the original question of "why space colonisation" in the first place.

Quote:
 
Following that would be permanent residences for the families and scientists, even during the dark months. Then it could gradually grow into its own little colony over time. Why do people live where they live? Only a handful actually goes where there's a "nice view". Most look for work. As long as a colony can provide that, I'd say there will always be at least SOME people who will move there.


Plenty of people work in places where they don't bring their families. Why should antarctica be an exception? Because the colonisation of Antarctica is desirable... because it is being used as an analogy to the colonisation of space... which must be desirable... therefore the colonisation of Antarctica must be desirable.

And as I understand it the only people who work currently in Antarctica are researchers and scientists. I'd hardly call that a mecca for employment...

Also, space scientific outposts would be even less populous than Antarctic ones (we're talking about crews of people of less than 10, even). And while human presence on the surface of planets is currently justifiable, technology is developing while human dynamics stay the same. Eventually it will be cheaper simply to explore the surface of a planet with robots, and then there will be no need for human outposts.

Quote:
 
Peole were willing to abandon their homes and past life when they settled on the americas or Australia. I don't see why people wouldn't do the same in space.


Space is a much poorer environment than home (or the Americas/Oz). But it's also pretty expensive- so it isn't just "give up home and your past life", it's "give up home and your past life for a poorer environment and you'll have to pay a considerable amount of money to do so".

Of course, I'm sure there are some people who would do this- that isn't the issue. The question is whether there are enough people, who can afford to do it, who would do it. It isn't meant to be rhetorical; it's an honest question.

Quote:
 
Well. That is kind of silly. I say you're a rock and don't need food. That doesn't mean you're a rock and I can let you starve to death. Painting unicorns to a side of a mountain is not progress. You're well aware of that, otherwise you wouldn't have said it. Space colonisation is not progress in itself, but progress will enable it. If it were possible (and feasible) already, we would do it right now.


So? Progress can enable spraypainting gigantic images of unicorns onto the sides of mountains, too. If progress enabling something means it is desirable, why the focus on space colonisation, but not spraypainted mountain unicorns?

Also, I can say the opposite: if it were desirable, it would be possible and feasible right now.

Even if I have a magic spaceship in my backyard that can take me to Mars in three months, there's still not that much motivation to go to Mars.

Quote:
 
Also, humans have started migrating into every single corner of our planet before there was such a thing as over-population. People risked their lives when doing island-hopping on wooden boats. People went to settle in arid zones or in tundras. Wherever people can go, they will go.


That's a very bad justification, it's kind of like "people should do it because they should do it". People settled different environments because they migrated there over generations. Nobody picked themselves up and said "I want to move out of this temperate floodplain and live in the tundra".

Quote:
 
Luxury objects are per definition expensive. If someone made a luxury object cheaper than usual, people wouldn't buy it, because it loses its luxury status. Spacecraft etc. however is a product to be used and thus there will always be someone who will try to make it as cheap as possible. This has happened with amost anything that used to be extremely expensive in older times. Who would've thought 1000 years back that the common human can own their own boat, car and computer? (Provided they know what these things are.)


Except spacecraft aren't boats, cars or computers. It's more akin to saying that every common human in the future will own their own pyramid (it may be much cheaper to make a pyramid in the year 2012 than in -5000 as a percentage of national GDP or whatever, but the physics of pyramids are exactly the same).

Luxury yachts are also a product to be used, so I don't really get the point. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think you did to: my original argument had nothing to do with yachts, but rather billionaires starting space colonies just for the heck of it.

Quote:
 
Not most densely populated, but at least Greenland and the Kalahari were/is inhabited. I am not sure about the others, but I'd guess there are also a few tribes living in the Sahara and the Atacama. Antarctica is a special case, because it has nothing really to offer. Or maybe it's simply because it's hard to get there or get off, when things become ugly. When there's a harsh winter in Alaska, people can move south. Try to do that on Antarctica.

Since colonies on other planets would be hermetically sealed anyway, there shouldn't be a problem with seasons.


Inhabited yes, but very sparsely. And seasons aren't the only issue, other problems- emergencies, etc, can still happen.

Do you think any polynesians might have made it to Antarctica, only to die on or some time after arrival?

Quote:
 
But I also think colonisation of Antarctica and the oceans is going to happen. D:


Well, that's nice. Frankly I don't particualrly see the point in colonising Antarctica when the oceans are there for the taking.

But people aren't as fanatic about those things as they are about space colonisation (and I think, start to defend them just because they're used as analogies). My main irk is the way the whole issue is treated by people, almost with a sort of religious reverance.

Quote:
 
And just because something is a trope, doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Guess where touchscreens first appeared... That's right, Star Trek.


Just because something is a trope, doesn't mean it is going to happen. The Space Future hasn't happened yet. There has been very little incentive for it. The thing is, you have to look at why it hasn't happened yet. Why the technology hasn't been developed.

Anyway, I don't think you're quite getting what I'm trying to say with some of my counter-arguments. I'm trying to counter the fierce attachment to the ideas (as well).

And you also seem to simply assume that the Space Future must happen. My whole issue is that people automatically assume it. If you don't automatically assume it, you are better fit to stand back and evaulate everything properly.
Edited by T.Neo, Jan 15 2012, 06:09 PM.
A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


Colonisation is going to be spotty at first, as it was in our history. In the 19th century everyone was rushing to grab every mosquito infested swamp and barren desert, and today people squabble over islands that are barely above the ocean's surface. But back in the early days of colonization, it was incredibly costly and risky. One of the main reasons Scotland united with England was they bankrupted themselves in failed colonial projects.

Worthless hunks of ice won't be claimed for a very, very long time.

The colonisation of Antarctica brings up a good point. International treaties prevent any real economic activity, so nobody wants to live there. Antarctica is a much nicer place to live than Mars or the Moon. You can go outside and breath the air, look at the sky, smell the ocean breeze and decaying penguin droppings, listen to the crashing waves and farting elephant seals. In summer on the peninsular it can be quite pleasant, and yet nobody really lives there.

Sure having people living in Antarctica would help people survive a major disaster, but that's not enough to keep people there.

Still, no excuse for putting down a flag and claiming it for the crown.
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Quote:
 
Still, no excuse for putting down a flag and claiming it for the crown.


That worked once for the Moon, hasn't worked since.

And you can't really claim a celestial body for anyone, they're common heritage of mankind (like international waters). But wait... that treaty will be repealed, to make possible the Space Future, of course. <_<
A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


No because future libertarian international anarchy free market future space republic space republic.

Edit: Future
Edited by lamna, Jan 15 2012, 06:15 PM.
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Exactly.
A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


But on a more serious note, this is the real world. Treaties can be modified, worked around and ignored without war.

If their is something worthwhile in space you can bet your ass that all those treaties will get torn up and thrown out. If you know anything about EEZ's you know that if it's worth something, or might be work something a nation will grab it and won't let go.
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply