NationStates Jolt Archive

So considering that Americans are currently the only people to ever send manned missions to land on another world, ok moon, is it likely that we'll be the firs to collonize other planets leaving the problems of earth far behind us? Fuck you Al Qaeda. Have fun dealing with our pollution!

Oh, fun game. Try to find Hawkings in the picture provided with the news story. So far all I see is cleavage.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060613/D8I7ADB81.html

So considering that Americans are currently the only people to ever send manned missions to land on another world, ok moon, is it likely that we'll be the firs to collonize other planets leaving the problems of earth far behind us? FU Al Qaeda. Have fun dealing with our pollution!

Oh, fun game. Try to find Hawkings in the picture provided with the news story. So far all I see is cleavage.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060613/D8I7ADB81.html

I can't find him either. Maybe if he had one of those striped hats like Waldo...

*shrugs* Personally I think we should take some responsibility for what we have on earth before going on to fuck up another planet.

It's going to take at least 100 years and trillions of trllions of dollars to make mars inhabitable.

We can easily save the earth. But some companies are more interested in a profit than realizing there eventually wont be anything to profit off of.

Ah, I see how to implement my plan.

The US builds a base on the Moon, that eventually is self-sustaining, and growing.

Then we blow up the Earth.

Ah, I see how to implement my plan.

The US builds a base on the Moon, that eventually is self-sustaining, and growing.

Then we blow up the Earth.

This is why the US shouldn't be involved in space travel ;) You've no interest in peaceful exploration and expansion.

The way our space program's been going, the only way we'll even get back to the moon is if we find oil up here. Or Saddam's WMDs. Or both. :p

This is why the US shouldn't be involved in space travel ;) You've no interest in peaceful exploration and expansion.


We are however interested in profit! Think Asteroid Mining or Hydrogen 3 collection.

I doubt many governments are going to try to contribute money to this.

science blahblahblah science blahblahblah yawn blahblahblah science blahblahblah science blahblahblah science blahblahblah science blahblahblah yawn blahblahblah hawking blahblahblah TITS!

science blahblahblah science blahblahblah yawn blahblahblah science blahblahblah science blahblahblah science blahblahblah science blahblahblah yawn blahblahblah hawking blahblahblah TITS!

You just summed up the entire internet. GG.

I don't pretend to know a lot about international law concerning extra-terrestrial colonisation, but I'm guessing there are plenty of people who would not be happy with the USA on Mars. I think it would more likely be an international endevour overseen by the UN until independence.

It would be far easier and cheaper to sort out our own environmental problems than to move to Mars, where the climate is as bad as ours will ever be, atleast we have water and (some) breathable air!

I also don't think citizens of the wealthiest country in the world would be too happy about upping sticks and moving to a new Martian colony. Probably the bulk of early colonists would be from poorer countries.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

You just summed up the entire internet. GG

well its more
tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits titstits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits science science blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Look, first off, OF COURSE you look for profit in space. Not primarily for greed, but because profit is what funds FURTHER EXPLORATION!

In addition, the discoveries made, the mining done in space, all of that benefits the people of our current little ball of dirt...if we mine an asteroid made up of almost entirely iron, nickel, and/or copper, it means we Do Not have to then tear down a rainforest, drain a swamp, or destroy other habitats to provide Earth with metal. If we build solar stations that recieve sunlight 24-hours of the day at a much higher rate than at the bottom of the atmosphere (and have a decent way of getting that energy down to the surface), then we do not have to pipe oil in from the wildlife preserves in alaska, drill for it in the Middle East or Mexico or Canadian tar.

Anyhow, when colonies form on other planets, they won't be massive, complete terraforming projects that transform the entire planetary surfaces into something approaching our own climate...instead, they will (at least the ones Hawking speaks of capable in 40 years) will be enclosed areas with highly trained staff and well-controlled sources of energy, oxygen, etc...likely, of course, through solar power, mining, and hydroponic plants.

Oh, and I understand your seemingly cynical attitudes...I more titled this post this way to just get you in a frame of mind to pay attention, hope it works :p

Living in space would suck. unless we could make a United States of America on another planet. That would be awesome.

well its more
tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits titstits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits science science blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Hmmm. Not enough blahblahblah.

My crazy science teacher always tried to convince us that we would be living in the ocean in the future...

There are laws regaring space colonization stuff, however I'll bet in the future everyone will disregard them. Search google for international space laws, and you'll find some interesting stuff.

It'd be cool to live in space, but costly and time-consuming. Also, effects are less gravity and other different planet properties are really well researched on Earth. You'll notice that people have been paying less and less attention to space, as they realize it is not a cure to all our problems. I don't think the poor would be the first to go, since they could afford it. They'd probably just inherit the earth.

There are laws regaring space colonization stuff, however I'll bet in the future everyone will disregard them. Search google for international space laws, and you'll find some interesting stuff.

The Authorities: "Stop enslaving other planets and exploiting their resources or we'll arrest you."
Person: "Hell no. Catch me if you can." *flies away*
The Authorities: "You can run, but you can't just hide anywhere. Oh, wait. Dammit."

Why don't we bring space here instead? It would be easier.

I've got a whole damn truckload of it in my driveway.

It's going to take at least 100 years and trillions of trllions of dollars to make mars inhabitable.

Thats okay, we can just take deficit spending like always. Screw over the Deficit and live on Mars or some other junk...Sounds like something a certain party would do. Comeon...the United Stats (where im from btw) is really bad about our def. spending, its a friggin joke. A Bagillionquaddrillionmamillionthousand dollars is going to be a breeze in the wind, now only if we could BREATHE...hmm We'll have to go to Bill Gates for that one...MAYBE.

So considering that Americans are currently the only people to ever send manned missions to land on another world, ok moon, is it likely that we'll be the firs to collonize other planets leaving the problems of earth far behind us? Fuck you Al Qaeda. Have fun dealing with our pollution!

Oh, fun game. Try to find Hawkings in the picture provided with the news story. So far all I see is cleavage.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060613/D8I7ADB81.html
Good man that Hawking.

It's going to take at least 100 years and trillions of trllions of dollars to make mars inhabitable.
So? Our debt is over a trillion dollars. Companies spend more than a trillion on R&D every year.

Not like you have to terraform the entire planet anyway unless you plan to have it totally inhabitable.

Probably the bulk of early colonists would be from poorer countries.
Eh no. Probably not. The first colonists would be engineers. And pilots. Other science geeks would follow them. Illiterate 3rd world goat herders wouldn't serve any purpose while setting up an extra-testical fledgeling colony.

Why bother with planets at all?

What I mean is, if living on the Moon or Mars means staying in a self-contained settlement it makes just as much sense to have such a thing floating around in outer space. Until we get the technology to properly terraform Mars, I think it makes more sense to just have space stations or possibly hollowed-out/mined asteroids moved into nearby orbits. That way, if something went wrong, a rescue ship from Earth would not take years and years to arrive, as would be the case with a Mars colony.

well its more
tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits titstits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits tits science science blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
nned as little bit more "crazy fringe group rants" in there, and more blah

Good to hear Steven Hawking suggesting what I've been thinking for about a year now. While I think he's certainly very ambitious with his aims of a moon colony in 20 years and a mars colony in 40 years, which to me seems very optimistic, I certainly agree that much more needs to be put into space research if we are to survive much longer. I hope he continues to spread this message.

Stephen Hawking is an idiot.

I don't pretend to know a lot about international law concerning extra-terrestrial colonisation, but I'm guessing there are plenty of people who would not be happy with the USA on Mars. I think it would more likely be an international endevour overseen by the UN until independence.
Why would Mars need to be independant?

Stephen Hawking is an idiot.
He and Chomsky are the smartest idiots ever to live.

He and Chomsky are the smartest idiots ever to live.

He's still an idiot, and thats that.

Why would Mars need to be independant?

Cause when the idiots still on Earth fianlly screw up big time, Mars will need to be able to go it alone.

Hasn't Hawkings been saying that for years?

Oy, did UNA actually suggest a US on the Moon? Egad. Sides I think one of the space treaties actually bans governments colonizing the moon. Only private concerns can. Or was it the other way around? Hmmm, the Solar System is under UN jurisdiction according to Wiki. Damn thats just as bad as giving any other government dominance.

I don't pretend to know a lot about international law concerning extra-terrestrial colonisation, but I'm guessing there are plenty of people who would not be happy with the USA on Mars. I think it would more likely be an international endevour overseen by the UN until independence.

It would be far easier and cheaper to sort out our own environmental problems than to move to Mars, where the climate is as bad as ours will ever be, atleast we have water and (some) breathable air!

I also don't think citizens of the wealthiest country in the world would be too happy about upping sticks and moving to a new Martian colony. Probably the bulk of early colonists would be from poorer countries.

Invasion of people from poorer countries. Sounds familiar....
As for UN crap, USA can always go unilateral, it's not like they care. And good for them. If they spend money and time on stuff like space travel or colonisation, other people shouldnt get a free ticket on American effort...

He's still an idiot, and thats that.
Aye.

He probably has gotten tired of being all alone out there in the vacuum of space. He just wants some company.

*shrugs* Personally I think we should take some responsibility for what we have on earth before going on to fuck up another planet.
Why, what's the point? :|

I mean what part of all life on earth coming to an end, at any time, in any one of about 30 ways (natural or human cause), don't you understand?

"Oops. Sorry for polluting the environment. Now what?"

It's going to take at least 100 years and trillions of trllions of dollars to make mars inhabitable.
The rule of modern technology is that you can never predict what we'll be capable of more than 30 years into the future...We may get a tech-spurt and get there by the end of the half-century. Nobody knows.

Anyway, I agree with Hawking, and the U.S should definitely start funding NASA a whole lot more, cut inefficiency, train more astronauts, etc...If humanity moves out into the surrounding habitable planets, we won't be so vulnerable to sudden extinction as we are now.

Why bother with planets at all?

What I mean is, if living on the Moon or Mars means staying in a self-contained settlement it makes just as much sense to have such a thing floating around in outer space. Until we get the technology to properly terraform Mars, I think it makes more sense to just have space stations or possibly hollowed-out/mined asteroids moved into nearby orbits. That way, if something went wrong, a rescue ship from Earth would not take years and years to arrive, as would be the case with a Mars colony.
*coughgundamcough*


Cause when the idiots still on Earth fianlly screw up big time, Mars will need to be able to go it alone.

Hasn't Hawkings been saying that for years?

Oy, did UNA actually suggest a US on the Moon? Egad. Sides I think one of the space treaties actually bans governments colonizing the moon. Only private concerns can. Or was it the other way around? Hmmm, the Solar System is under UN jurisdiction according to Wiki. Damn thats just as bad as giving any other government dominance.
No, that's much MUCH worse!


"Oops. Sorry for polluting the environment. Now what?"
Who cares?

*shrugs* Personally I think we should take some responsibility for what we have on earth before going on to fuck up another planet.
Aye... leave the poor planets alone.

I read:

Steven Hawkings should be shot into space.

science blahblahblah science blahblahblah yawn blahblahblah science blahblahblah science blahblahblah science blahblahblah science blahblahblah yawn blahblahblah hawking blahblahblah TITS!

you summed up teenagers

Why would Mars need to be independant?

well It probably will want independance just like the US did from england, and how all the colonies on the "new world" eventually did from their "motherlands." hey, you know it will be kick ass when we have the first interstellar war....with ourselves....believe that shit?

you summed up teenagers
Teenagers don't talk about stephen hawking. And there is no where near enough *fap fap fap fap fap* in there either.

besides the fact that mars is, "the red planet" the Communist will want it then, and the US and Commies will fight over it.:gundge:

besides the fact that mars is, "the red planet" the Communist will want it then, and the US and Commies will fight over it.:gundge:

Hmm... We are the blue planet, and conservative governments seem to be in charge in quite a few countries... It just might work!

But what about Venus? There is very little green about it politically. It is more environmentally messed up than Earth is...

Ah, I see how to implement my plan.

The US builds a base on the Moon, that eventually is self-sustaining, and growing.

Then we blow up the Earth.
Everything that you type from now on will be voiced by Marvin the Martian in my head.

So considering that Americans are currently the only people to ever send manned missions to land on another world, ok moon, is it likely that we'll be the firs to collonize other planets leaving the problems of earth far behind us? Fuck you Al Qaeda. Have fun dealing with our pollution!

Oh, fun game. Try to find Hawkings in the picture provided with the news story. So far all I see is cleavage.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060613/D8I7ADB81.html
Dominionists should be the first to go. They can contribute to the necessary experimentation of drive-type success.