If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Bill Clinton backs 100 year starship, plan to build interstellar city on rock and roll   (foxnews.com) divider line 102
    More: Spiffy, Bill Clinton, light-years, Bill Clinton backs, Miles O'Brien, interstellar travel, Geordi La Forge, Jill Tarter, economic model  
•       •       •

2943 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Sep 2012 at 11:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-06 09:25:34 AM  
Bill, you're never going to get Hillary on that thing.
 
2012-09-06 09:32:13 AM  
Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.
 
2012-09-06 10:03:26 AM  
Don't forget a supply of knee-high anti-hoopla boots.
 
2012-09-06 10:12:28 AM  
I want a lighthugger, dammit. Oh - and conjoiners. Ultras are just plain weird.
 
2012-09-06 10:58:36 AM  

Weaver95: I want a lighthugger, dammit. Oh - and conjoiners. Ultras are just plain weird.


Lousy spider.
 
2012-09-06 11:07:35 AM  

markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.


www.roger-russell.com

Approves.
 
2012-09-06 11:09:38 AM  
My greatest fear for humanity is that one day an advanced alien race's first encounter will be a recording of Starship's 1985 hit "We built this city".

Could you blame them for Earth's complete destruction?
 
2012-09-06 11:45:48 AM  

Sybarite: Weaver95: I want a lighthugger, dammit. Oh - and conjoiners. Ultras are just plain weird.

Lousy spider.


you sound like a demarchist.
 
2012-09-06 11:48:07 AM  
Just as long as we can call it the Millenium Falcon.

/suck it Trekkies.
 
2012-09-06 11:53:52 AM  
t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-09-06 11:53:54 AM  
Robert Forward did it better: The ship is all pay-load, and you leave the engines at home.
 
2012-09-06 12:02:07 PM  
This thread is already ruined for me, because I know QA is going to come along and pour cold water over everyone's hopes by loudly proclaiming that all that can be discovered has been discovered so we might as well forget everything and just settle down on this rock, because no man will ever leave Earth's atmosphere ever. It'll never happen, never has, never will, it's impossible, so obviously it will remain impossible forever. Instead we should pour all that money into paying his nurses wages and studying telomeres.

It's like expecting the Bevets bot... it just sucks the fun out of fark.
 
2012-09-06 12:02:54 PM  

markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.


Heh, the funny thing is I could totally see that happening. Or else they get to where they're going, only to find a functional colony because of a technological breakthrough 30 years after they left.

However it happens, though, if we actually DO send one of these ships we'll have to know that whatever happens that colony will basically have its culture and everything else evolve along completely different lines if we are limited to current methods of communication. Within a few generations they may as well be actual aliens- they won't be that biologically but will be culturally.
 
2012-09-06 12:03:13 PM  
I'd prefer low cost earth to orbit transport.
The starship problem is easier to solve once you're in space.

/What would have been nice, Bill, is if you properly funded the Goddamned shuttle replacement programs when you were president.
/We'd be building moon and mars colonies now instead of talking pie in the sky crap your successors will ignore.
 
2012-09-06 12:03:31 PM  
...flying Mother Nature's silver seed to a new home in the sun.


/Clinton
//seed
///that ain't right
 
2012-09-06 12:03:34 PM  

Sybarite: Weaver95: I want a lighthugger, dammit. Oh - and conjoiners. Ultras are just plain weird.

Lousy spider.


The best thing to do is be a Stoner during the Bel-Epoque and then you conjoin.

Goddamn if Chasm City isn't a great novel. The rest are too, but Chasm City just had the gusto, and is actually relevant to this thread.
 
2012-09-06 12:04:04 PM  
Personally I'm a big fan of the 'tin can' idea.
Ships the size of a tin can, full of nanobots, DNA, and brain dumps, get throw across the galaxy. When it lands on a hospitable planet it uses the local materials to slowly rebuild a base and uses the DNA and memory dumps to build humans and plant, animal life.

Yeah we can't do this yet, but when we can do it cheap enough we can launch millions of these suckers out to the stars and populate the universe.
 
2012-09-06 12:08:39 PM  

markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.


Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:

A ship that takes 100 years to travel the 4 light years to the nearest start would be approximately 1.7 light years from Earth. That would mean that ship B would have to be traveling at something like 2,500 times the speed of light.

Of course, we all know that while you can get very *CLOSE* to the speed of light, at least in theory, you can't reach it, or go faster.
 
2012-09-06 12:11:00 PM  
It's unmanned?!? WTF!! So we jsut sent that out it goes to another planet they see it coming start having a party it shows up and they get a gold record with some nudie pics on it?
 
2012-09-06 12:11:52 PM  

MindStalker: Personally I'm a big fan of the 'tin can' idea.
Ships the size of a tin can, full of nanobots, DNA, and brain dumps, get throw across the galaxy. When it lands on a hospitable planet it uses the local materials to slowly rebuild a base and uses the DNA and memory dumps to build humans and plant, animal life.

Yeah we can't do this yet, but when we can do it cheap enough we can launch millions of these suckers out to the stars and populate the universe.


images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org

What one of those tin cans might look like.
 
2012-09-06 12:14:37 PM  

dittybopper: markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.

Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:

A ship that takes 100 years to travel the 4 light years to the nearest start would be approximately 1.7 light years from Earth. That would mean that ship B would have to be traveling at something like 2,500 times the speed of light.

Of course, we all know that while you can get very *CLOSE* to the speed of light, at least in theory, you can't reach it, or go faster.


Unless it took a wormhole.

/Wormholes are real, damn you!
 
2012-09-06 12:17:48 PM  

MindStalker: Personally I'm a big fan of the 'tin can' idea.
Ships the size of a tin can, full of nanobots, DNA, and brain dumps, get throw across the galaxy. When it lands on a hospitable planet it uses the local materials to slowly rebuild a base and uses the DNA and memory dumps to build humans and plant, animal life.

Yeah we can't do this yet, but when we can do it cheap enough we can launch millions of these suckers out to the stars and populate the universe.


I don't think it's up to us to randomly attempt to populate the universe. We have not even got our very small corner of our solar system in order.

And if you're going to shoot tin cans out into the void, send this crap.

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-06 12:18:33 PM  

MindStalker: Personally I'm a big fan of the 'tin can' idea.
Ships the size of a tin can, full of nanobots, DNA, and brain dumps, get throw across the galaxy. When it lands on a hospitable planet it uses the local materials to slowly rebuild a base and uses the DNA and memory dumps to build humans and plant, animal life.

Yeah we can't do this yet, but when we can do it cheap enough we can launch millions of these suckers out to the stars and populate the universe.


What a seed project might look like:
t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-09-06 12:18:46 PM  

dittybopper: Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:


Well, he was probably exaggerating a bit, but it's entirely possible that a ship that left today would arrive on a planet that a ship that left years later got to first.
 
2012-09-06 12:23:38 PM  
Some people argue whether children under 18 have certain rights and others want to be able to dictate the entire lives of the unborn.
 
2012-09-06 12:25:29 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: Some people argue whether children under 18 have certain rights and others want to be able to dictate the entire lives of the unborn.

Wat?
 
2012-09-06 12:33:23 PM  

markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.


Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, I don't think the 100 Year Starship means its a 100 year trip, rather they want to have a starship launched within 100 years from now
 
2012-09-06 12:33:25 PM  

dittybopper: markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.

Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:

A ship that takes 100 years to travel the 4 light years to the nearest start would be approximately 1.7 light years from Earth. That would mean that ship B would have to be traveling at something like 2,500 times the speed of light.

Of course, we all know that while you can get very *CLOSE* to the speed of light, at least in theory, you can't reach it, or go faster.


Your math is so wrong its absurd. WTF are you smoking?
 
2012-09-06 12:42:13 PM  
www.dreamstime.com
media1.break.com
us.123rf.com
us.123rf.com
us.123rf.com
image.shutterstock.com
www.clipartreview.com
image.yaymicro.com
image.shutterstock.com
 
2012-09-06 12:48:57 PM  

Alonjar: dittybopper: markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.

Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:

A ship that takes 100 years to travel the 4 light years to the nearest start would be approximately 1.7 light years from Earth. That would mean that ship B would have to be traveling at something like 2,500 times the speed of light.

Of course, we all know that while you can get very *CLOSE* to the speed of light, at least in theory, you can't reach it, or go faster.

Your math is so wrong its absurd. WTF are you smoking?


A ship that takes 100 years to go 4 light years would be going 4/100 = 0.04 the speed of light. At a constant velocity of 0.04c, you will have traveled 43 * 0.04 = 1.72 light years in 43 years. I rounded it to 1.7.

OK, so how much faster than light is a ship going that can reach 1.7 light years distance in 6 hours?

At the speed of light it would take 1.7 years, or (1.7 * 365 * 24) = 14,892 hours to go 1.7 light years.

If you can travel that same distance in 6 hours, you are going 14,892/6 = 2,482 times the speed of light. I rounded up in that case.

Either way, my math was correct.
 
2012-09-06 12:50:49 PM  

Grither: dittybopper: Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:

Well, he was probably exaggerating a bit, but it's entirely possible that a ship that left today would arrive on a planet that a ship that left years later got to first.



Yeah, assuming they don't have a radio. Which is a piss-poor assumption.
 
2012-09-06 12:54:49 PM  
WHAR ATOMIC DOGS WHAR
 
2012-09-06 12:58:52 PM  
 
2012-09-06 01:04:02 PM  

dittybopper: Alonjar: dittybopper: markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.

Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:

A ship that takes 100 years to travel the 4 light years to the nearest start would be approximately 1.7 light years from Earth. That would mean that ship B would have to be traveling at something like 2,500 times the speed of light.

Of course, we all know that while you can get very *CLOSE* to the speed of light, at least in theory, you can't reach it, or go faster.

Your math is so wrong its absurd. WTF are you smoking?

A ship that takes 100 years to go 4 light years would be going 4/100 = 0.04 the speed of light. At a constant velocity of 0.04c, you will have traveled 43 * 0.04 = 1.72 light years in 43 years. I rounded it to 1.7.

OK, so how much faster than light is a ship going that can reach 1.7 light years distance in 6 hours?

At the speed of light it would take 1.7 years, or (1.7 * 365 * 24) = 14,892 hours to go 1.7 light years.

If you can travel that same distance in 6 hours, you are going 14,892/6 = 2,482 times the speed of light. I rounded up in that case.

Either way, my math was correct.


You forgot time dialation.

/not intended to be a factual criticism
 
2012-09-06 01:08:58 PM  

Slaxl: Quantum Apostrophe:

[i832.photobucket.com image 447x665]


I couldn't help myself.
 
2012-09-06 01:24:25 PM  
 
2012-09-06 01:25:10 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Slaxl: Quantum Apostrophe:

[i832.photobucket.com image 447x665]

I couldn't help myself.


Retards usually can't.
 
2012-09-06 01:27:08 PM  

Nuclear Monk: dittybopper: Alonjar: dittybopper: markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.

Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:

A ship that takes 100 years to travel the 4 light years to the nearest start would be approximately 1.7 light years from Earth. That would mean that ship B would have to be traveling at something like 2,500 times the speed of light.

Of course, we all know that while you can get very *CLOSE* to the speed of light, at least in theory, you can't reach it, or go faster.

Your math is so wrong its absurd. WTF are you smoking?

A ship that takes 100 years to go 4 light years would be going 4/100 = 0.04 the speed of light. At a constant velocity of 0.04c, you will have traveled 43 * 0.04 = 1.72 light years in 43 years. I rounded it to 1.7.

OK, so how much faster than light is a ship going that can reach 1.7 light years distance in 6 hours?

At the speed of light it would take 1.7 years, or (1.7 * 365 * 24) = 14,892 hours to go 1.7 light years.

If you can travel that same distance in 6 hours, you are going 14,892/6 = 2,482 times the speed of light. I rounded up in that case.

Either way, my math was correct.

You forgot time dialation.

/not intended to be a factual criticism


Can we try using an inverse tachyon beam?
 
2012-09-06 01:33:36 PM  

KellyX: Nuclear Monk: dittybopper: Alonjar: dittybopper: markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.

Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:

A ship that takes 100 years to travel the 4 light years to the nearest start would be approximately 1.7 light years from Earth. That would mean that ship B would have to be traveling at something like 2,500 times the speed of light.

Of course, we all know that while you can get very *CLOSE* to the speed of light, at least in theory, you can't reach it, or go faster.

Your math is so wrong its absurd. WTF are you smoking?

A ship that takes 100 years to go 4 light years would be going 4/100 = 0.04 the speed of light. At a constant velocity of 0.04c, you will have traveled 43 * 0.04 = 1.72 light years in 43 years. I rounded it to 1.7.

OK, so how much faster than light is a ship going that can reach 1.7 light years distance in 6 hours?

At the speed of light it would take 1.7 years, or (1.7 * 365 * 24) = 14,892 hours to go 1.7 light years.

If you can travel that same distance in 6 hours, you are going 14,892/6 = 2,482 times the speed of light. I rounded up in that case.

Either way, my math was correct.

You forgot time dialation.

/not intended to be a factual criticism

Can we try using an inverse tachyon beam?


Only if you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
 
2012-09-06 01:36:56 PM  

Carousel Beast: Quantum Apostrophe: Slaxl: Quantum Apostrophe:

[i832.photobucket.com image 447x665]

I couldn't help myself.

Retards usually can't.


Ah, but retards can believe all sorts of delusional nonsense about space and that's fine, right?

Got your Mars condo all picked out? Gonna go for the granite counter and Shaker-style cabinets?

Are the condo fees gonna include a magnetosphere, a breathable atmosphere, correct temperature and pressure, and weird things like arable soil and water? 

Or are you saving up for a seat on the Clinton Clipper?

Oooooh I'm on tenterhooks here! Tell me tell me tell me!!! 

/Ohhh and what a zinger.. "retards"... Wow, did the nurse loosen your straps enough to let you type that or did she type it for you?
 
2012-09-06 01:52:14 PM  

stevetherobot: KellyX: Nuclear Monk: dittybopper: Alonjar: dittybopper: markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.

Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:

A ship that takes 100 years to travel the 4 light years to the nearest start would be approximately 1.7 light years from Earth. That would mean that ship B would have to be traveling at something like 2,500 times the speed of light.

Of course, we all know that while you can get very *CLOSE* to the speed of light, at least in theory, you can't reach it, or go faster.

Your math is so wrong its absurd. WTF are you smoking?

A ship that takes 100 years to go 4 light years would be going 4/100 = 0.04 the speed of light. At a constant velocity of 0.04c, you will have traveled 43 * 0.04 = 1.72 light years in 43 years. I rounded it to 1.7.

OK, so how much faster than light is a ship going that can reach 1.7 light years distance in 6 hours?

At the speed of light it would take 1.7 years, or (1.7 * 365 * 24) = 14,892 hours to go 1.7 light years.

If you can travel that same distance in 6 hours, you are going 14,892/6 = 2,482 times the speed of light. I rounded up in that case.

Either way, my math was correct.

You forgot time dialation.

/not intended to be a factual criticism

Can we try using an inverse tachyon beam?

Only if you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.


But will that compensate for the chroniton flux?
 
2012-09-06 01:59:28 PM  
It's not nice to insult Monica by calling her a 100 year old starship.

\I almost typed transposed the u and l in "insult". :)
 
2012-09-06 02:00:03 PM  
And my typing skills are crap today.
 
2012-09-06 02:07:05 PM  

MindStalker: Personally I'm a big fan of the 'tin can' idea.
Ships the size of a tin can, full of nanobots, DNA, and brain dumps, get throw across the galaxy. When it lands on a hospitable planet it uses the local materials to slowly rebuild a base and uses the DNA and memory dumps to build humans and plant, animal life.

Yeah we can't do this yet, but when we can do it cheap enough we can launch millions of these suckers out to the stars and populate the universe.


Agreed. I've always enjoyed the thought of manned, FTL travel, but this is how I figured we (or other intelligences) would populate the stars, lightspeed and organic chemistry being what it is.

The question is: this should have already happened by now... where are they? Does it matter? We do need to get off this rock in some form at some point before we, or the cosmos, decide to windex the planet clean...

Slaxl: This thread is already ruined for me, because I know QA is going to come along and pour cold water over everyone's hopes by loudly proclaiming that all that can be discovered has been discovered so we might as well forget everything and just settle down on this rock, because no man will ever leave Earth's atmosphere ever. It'll never happen, never has, never will, it's impossible, so obviously it will remain impossible forever. Instead we should pour all that money into paying his nurses wages and studying telomeres.

It's like expecting the Bevets bot... it just sucks the fun out of fark.


Like the Bevets bot, he's best ignored if you don't appreciate his commentary. Just don't reply, or better yet, just put the poster on ignore and focus on real discussion. When you bite back, whether he's a troll looking for bites, a script, or just a very unpleasant person at heart, it will just spur more useless commentary.
 
2012-09-06 02:11:40 PM  

ProfessorOhki: stevetherobot: KellyX: Nuclear Monk: dittybopper: Alonjar: dittybopper: markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.

Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:

A ship that takes 100 years to travel the 4 light years to the nearest start would be approximately 1.7 light years from Earth. That would mean that ship B would have to be traveling at something like 2,500 times the speed of light.

Of course, we all know that while you can get very *CLOSE* to the speed of light, at least in theory, you can't reach it, or go faster.

Your math is so wrong its absurd. WTF are you smoking?

A ship that takes 100 years to go 4 light years would be going 4/100 = 0.04 the speed of light. At a constant velocity of 0.04c, you will have traveled 43 * 0.04 = 1.72 light years in 43 years. I rounded it to 1.7.

OK, so how much faster than light is a ship going that can reach 1.7 light years distance in 6 hours?

At the speed of light it would take 1.7 years, or (1.7 * 365 * 24) = 14,892 hours to go 1.7 light years.

If you can travel that same distance in 6 hours, you are going 14,892/6 = 2,482 times the speed of light. I rounded up in that case.

Either way, my math was correct.

You forgot time dialation.

/not intended to be a factual criticism

Can we try using an inverse tachyon beam?

Only if you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

But will that compensate for the chroniton flux?


If we can arrange the iso-linear chips in the anti-matter containment module, maybe we can create a reverse tachyon field using a phased-photon particle emitter to focus it. That just might give us enough of a boost to escape the solar system!
 
2012-09-06 02:12:38 PM  

ProfessorOhki: stevetherobot: KellyX: Nuclear Monk: dittybopper: Alonjar: dittybopper: markie_farkie: Imagine the look on the 100 year starship occupants' faces as, 43 years into the trip, they're passed by a craft that left Earth 6 hours earlier.

Actually, that can't happen. Here comes the science:

A ship that takes 100 years to travel the 4 light years to the nearest start would be approximately 1.7 light years from Earth. That would mean that ship B would have to be traveling at something like 2,500 times the speed of light.

Of course, we all know that while you can get very *CLOSE* to the speed of light, at least in theory, you can't reach it, or go faster.

Your math is so wrong its absurd. WTF are you smoking?

A ship that takes 100 years to go 4 light years would be going 4/100 = 0.04 the speed of light. At a constant velocity of 0.04c, you will have traveled 43 * 0.04 = 1.72 light years in 43 years. I rounded it to 1.7.

OK, so how much faster than light is a ship going that can reach 1.7 light years distance in 6 hours?

At the speed of light it would take 1.7 years, or (1.7 * 365 * 24) = 14,892 hours to go 1.7 light years.

If you can travel that same distance in 6 hours, you are going 14,892/6 = 2,482 times the speed of light. I rounded up in that case.

Either way, my math was correct.

You forgot time dialation.

/not intended to be a factual criticism

Can we try using an inverse tachyon beam?

Only if you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

But will that compensate for the chroniton flux?


it'll never work until we get deflector shield technology perfected
 
2012-09-06 02:16:26 PM  

MindStalker: Personally I'm a big fan of the 'tin can' idea.
Ships the size of a tin can, full of nanobots, DNA, and brain dumps, get throw across the galaxy. When it lands on a hospitable planet it uses the local materials to slowly rebuild a base and uses the DNA and memory dumps to build humans and plant, animal life.

Yeah we can't do this yet, but when we can do it cheap enough we can launch millions of these suckers out to the stars and populate the universe.


simotron.files.wordpress.com

Thalassa approves of this idea.
 
2012-09-06 02:21:53 PM  

ThreadSinger: Like the Bevets bot, he's best ignored if you don't appreciate his commentary. Just don't reply, or better yet, just put the poster on ignore and focus on real discussion. When you bite back, whether he's a troll looking for bites, a script, or just a very unpleasant person at heart, it will just spur more useless commentary.


Yes. Hiding your head in the sand and dreaming about impossible technologies will totally make them happen. OF COURSE the universe is going to, just in time mind you, reveal all the new materials and energy sources you need. And by some coincidence, or faith, it will be exactly what we need, when we need it!

Isn't religion fun? 

This rock! The species! Oh my! Such DRAMA! Such ROMANCE! Such incredible COURAGE! Such HEROISM! Such fantastic space artwork!

Yes, dare to dream big! The handful of test pilots that sat on modified ICBMs that took a decade to build, TOTALLY means millions of us will magically float around the space Wal Mart and like, live there and shiat!

Of course! After all, it's not like space is an utterly hostile and alien vacuum, filled with deadly radiation! Not at all! It's full of semi nude hot green chicks and aliens zipping along in magical spaceships!

Made of elements our best scientists have overlooked for centuries! THE FOOLS!

Don't they realize that if you believe hard enough, it will come true??

Walt Disney science, folks... 

www.e-pix.com

Look at that resolve in his eyes! Look at the hat! Why, galaxies tremble in fear at the approach of the ape that lives for decades!!
 
2012-09-06 02:27:26 PM  

Mad_Radhu: MindStalker: Personally I'm a big fan of the 'tin can' idea.
Ships the size of a tin can, full of nanobots, DNA, and brain dumps, get throw across the galaxy. When it lands on a hospitable planet it uses the local materials to slowly rebuild a base and uses the DNA and memory dumps to build humans and plant, animal life.

Yeah we can't do this yet, but when we can do it cheap enough we can launch millions of these suckers out to the stars and populate the universe.

[simotron.files.wordpress.com image 849x1370]

Thalassa approves of this idea.


img492.imageshack.us

No it doesn't.
 
2012-09-06 02:27:47 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Yes. Hiding your head in the sand and dreaming about impossible technologies will totally make them happen


So you mean you'll totally live to be 350 years old or even forever then right? Got it.

/bored
/can't let the trolls starve, PETA may be pissed and come after me.
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report