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.

(Independent)   Seven planets humans might move to once we've finished wrecking this one   (independent.co.uk) divider line 58
    More: Interesting, planets, Milky Way, kepler space telescope, planetary habitability, Gliese 581g, surface waters  
•       •       •

4172 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Dec 2012 at 11:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-11 08:22:12 AM  
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-11 08:32:30 AM  
In before the telephone sanitizers.
 
2012-12-11 09:07:44 AM  
www.midnightreview.co.uk

Just watch out for Tim Curry.
 
2012-12-11 09:08:27 AM  
Humanity's only way for long term (>150-200 years) survival is to look upwards and outwards. We're running out of resources on Earth at an alarming rate. In addition, all it would take would be a major pandemic or war to seriously FARK our chances at survival - and given the current geopolitical situation, that doesn't seem unlikely.

It's either we branch out into space, or we start seeing resource wars in the next 100 years between the major first world superpowers of the world.

www.steelfalcon.com

/it's weird how an anime can be prophetic with the Humanity Seeding Project.
 
2012-12-11 09:16:21 AM  
It has found nearly 80 confirmed exoplanets with a similar size to Earth but only a few of those have the right distance from their star to support liquid surface water - the presence of which is considered essential to sustain life.

ok, why does it have to be a similar size to earth? I understand it can't be too small to fit everyone if we all decide to up and move to it, but if a planet is twice the size of earth, is it incapable of supporting life then? I mean, besides those 48 hour-long days, what is the problem? will the gravity be too strong or something?
 
2012-12-11 09:32:20 AM  
images2.wikia.nocookie.net

Brought to you by:
 
2012-12-11 10:10:51 AM  

SlothB77: It has found nearly 80 confirmed exoplanets with a similar size to Earth but only a few of those have the right distance from their star to support liquid surface water - the presence of which is considered essential to sustain life.

ok, why does it have to be a similar size to earth? I understand it can't be too small to fit everyone if we all decide to up and move to it, but if a planet is twice the size of earth, is it incapable of supporting life then? I mean, besides those 48 hour-long days, what is the problem? will the gravity be too strong or something?


Exoplanets are irrelevant for future human habitation anyway. If you can get humans to an exoplanet, you can sustain human life in a spacecraft for a very, very long time, essentially indefinitely.

And if you can do that, it's a whole lot easier to trade some of your fuel weight for a few acres of solar panels and park yourself in solar orbit somewhere between Earth and Venus. With essentially unlimited energy, you could make yourself a rather comfortable life close to home, rather than spending a few millennia floating through the interstellar dark.
 
2012-12-11 10:11:48 AM  
www.badideatshirts.com
 
2012-12-11 10:23:39 AM  
I want to live on Melancholia. Any planet that obliterates Kirsten Dunst can't be all that bad.
 
2012-12-11 10:34:37 AM  

BronyMedic:

[www.steelfalcon.com image 480x265]

/it's weird how an anime can be prophetic with the Humanity Seeding Project.



Hey, the SDF-2 was destroyed when Khyron attacked!...


/Runs from impending Macross > Robotech beatdown.
 
2012-12-11 11:47:37 AM  
I'm a bit confused here...

FTA: "a few of those have the right distance from their star to support liquid surface water "
"Seven potentially habitable exoplanets are now listed"


But then...

"scientists have not yet found a true Earth analogue"

What does that last sentence mean, in context with the first two?
 
2012-12-11 11:50:13 AM  

BronyMedic: Humanity's only way for long term (>150-200 years) survival is to look upwards and outwards.


The logistics and resources needed to move humanity across solar systems is so mind-boggling the best hope for humanity is fixing/not-ruining the planet we got. The worst case scenerio for Earth (ie nuclear fallout), is still probably most suitable for humans than the surface of whatever planet you're looking for.
 
2012-12-11 11:51:36 AM  
Frankly, I'm surprised Quantum Apostrophe hasn't shat all over this thread yet.
 
2012-12-11 11:54:43 AM  
We can always move to Nibiru. It's becoming increasingly more convenient to do as we speak.
 
2012-12-11 12:02:07 PM  
I dream of a world known as Couch Planet. None of you are invited.
 
2012-12-11 12:05:31 PM  

SlothB77: ok, why does it have to be a similar size to earth? I understand it can't be too small to fit everyone if we all decide to up and move to it, but if a planet is twice the size of earth, is it incapable of supporting life then? I mean, besides those 48 hour-long days, what is the problem? will the gravity be too strong or something?


Not my field of study and just guessing but I would have to vote gravity issues. As a total layman I believe the rule is more mass = more gravity. I would assume there is an upper/lower limit of feasibility as if it is too low we seem to lose bone density, but I'm not sure how little is acceptable.
 
2012-12-11 12:15:26 PM  
Heard about Pluto? that's messed up.
 
2012-12-11 12:17:29 PM  

SlothB77: ok, why does it have to be a similar size to earth? I understand it can't be too small to fit everyone if we all decide to up and move to it, but if a planet is twice the size of earth, is it incapable of supporting life then? I mean, besides those 48 hour-long days, what is the problem? will the gravity be too strong or something?


Simple answer really... We only have one example that we know of a life sustaining planet and you're living on it.

Therefore, logically by looking for similar sizes, features, distance from star, we assume it'll be very similar to what we know currently works.
 
2012-12-11 12:18:22 PM  

SlothB77: ok, why does it have to be a similar size to earth? I understand it can't be too small to fit everyone if we all decide to up and move to it, but if a planet is twice the size of earth, is it incapable of supporting life then? I mean, besides those 48 hour-long days, what is the problem? will the gravity be too strong or something?


It might. It isn't just the size (all of the exoplanets that we think are in the Goldilocks zone of their star so far are much much larger than Earth) but also the density. Anyway most of the known exoplanets, while maybe capable of harbouring life of their own, are far too big and dense for us. Predicted to have much higher gravity.

And of course we don't know anything about their atmospheric composition...

InmanRoshi: The logistics and resources needed to move humanity across solar systems is so mind-boggling the best hope for humanity is fixing/not-ruining the planet we got. The worst case scenerio for Earth (ie nuclear fallout), is still probably most suitable for humans than the surface of whatever planet you're looking for.


Barring revolutionary breakthroughs of course. We are far more likely to see habitats in our own solar system first. And even that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
 
2012-12-11 12:31:43 PM  
I don't doubt that humans colonizing other planets will eventually adapt to be able to survive in the new environments, it is very short sighted to label planets as being habitable with the tiny amount of data we have on them. This Habitable Planet Catalog, if it were able to be taken seriously, should have only one entry: Earth.
 
2012-12-11 12:40:10 PM  

midigod: I'm a bit confused here...

FTA: "a few of those have the right distance from their star to support liquid surface water "
"Seven potentially habitable exoplanets are now listed"

But then...

"scientists have not yet found a true Earth analogue"

What does that last sentence mean, in context with the first two?


A true Earth analogue would probably have to have liquid water, an atmosphere with oxygen, and something close to Earth gravity.
 
2012-12-11 12:41:45 PM  

Gunny Highway: I dream of a world known as Couch Planet. None of you are invited.


I'm afraid I have some bad news, friend: Couch Planet is inhabited by hippies and they won't move. And all your cheetos are gone.
 
2012-12-11 12:42:33 PM  

BronyMedic: Humanity's only way for long term (>150-200 years) survival is to look upwards and outwards. We're running out of resources on Earth at an alarming rate. In addition, all it would take would be a major pandemic or war to seriously FARK our chances at survival - and given the current geopolitical situation, that doesn't seem unlikely.

It's either we branch out into space, or we start seeing resource wars in the next 100 years between the major first world superpowers of the world.

[www.steelfalcon.com image 480x265]

/it's weird how an anime can be prophetic with the Humanity Seeding Project.


The only resources we're running low on are fossil fuels and we've made some pretty amazing headway replacing them. Other than that? We throw away the majority of food that we produce, we have plenty of technology for turning salt water into fresh, and there's plenty of metal everywhere. Maybe rare earth elements? I just don't see anyone going to war over them.
 
2012-12-11 12:42:41 PM  

Ishkur: Gunny Highway: I dream of a world known as Couch Planet. None of you are invited.

I'm afraid I have some bad news, friend: Couch Planet is inhabited by hippies and they won't move. And all your cheetos are gone.


Taken care of.

/It was genocide
 
2012-12-11 01:07:53 PM  

UberDave: Hey, the SDF-2 was destroyed when Khyron attacked!...


It's ok, there's a little hallway you can run through that brings you right to Admiral Gloval.
 
2012-12-11 01:10:45 PM  

Gunny Highway: Taken care of.
/It was genocide


I would have preferred eviction, but your way works too. It's also quicker.
 
2012-12-11 01:12:14 PM  

Ishkur: Gunny Highway: Taken care of.
/It was genocide

I would have preferred eviction, but your way works too. It's also quicker.


The orange stains on everything push me over the edge. My dream world is full of regret.
 
2012-12-11 01:19:17 PM  

BronyMedic: We're running out of resources on Earth at an alarming rate.


No we aren't. We haven't destroyed any resources.* We've changed the state of a lot of our resources, of course, and that makes them a lot more difficult to use, but they're still there. All the aluminum is still out there, all the tin, all the copper, all the iron, etc. We've burned (literally and figuratively) through our planetary savings account of hydrocarbons, but they aren't gone, either. Our ecosystem will continue to make hydrocarbons from the water, carbon, and sunlight to the extent that we allow it to. There are several ways we can help that. Our fresh water may be spoiled, but it's a simple distillation away from pure again. Our soil may be polluted, but it's a not-so-simple unobtanium-powered cleansing away from being clean, too.

We really only have an alarming scarcity of two things: energy and space. Space isn't a huge concern. We haven't filled the space we have currently efficiently, technology could easily make ocean habitats to make more space, and agricultural technology could (if wrested away from the hands of Monsanto, ConAgra, and the like) significantly reduce the amount of space required to feed us. I don't personally believe we'll ever fill the planet, as we're somewhat self-regulating as a species. We'll swing too far for a few centuries, and come to rest at a sustainable level--as long as we can keep from destroying civilization with war.

So, that leaves us with one huge problem: energy. Free or nearly-free energy would solve all our problems. With enough energy, we can desalinate all the water we like. We can filter landfills through huge factories to recover waste raw materials. We can produce fertilizers from hydrocarbons if we choose. Hell, if we really get cramped, we can launch orbital farm satellites. Whatever the hell we want, we can do with enough energy. That's what we can do as a species to ensure our survival. Personally, I like the genetically engineered algae that crap jet fuel as a solution, but there are all kinds of possibilities. Let's get the hell to work.

*I suppose you could consider that we've destroyed radioactive resources, but they are self-destroying, anyway. Nothing a particle accelerator wouldn't fix.

**Don't get me wrong. I am a firm believer that we should be colonizing the galaxy, just not for that reason. It is impossible for us to leave the earth. New births would outnumber any amount of colonists we could launch effectively forever.
 
2012-12-11 01:19:33 PM  
Yeah, how about we worry about taking care of our own planet first, hm? Shiat like this just gives fuel to the QAs of the world who like nothing more than to shiat on any technologies that don't give them an immediate tangible benefit.
 
2012-12-11 01:31:38 PM  

Jubeebee:
Exoplanets are irrelevant for future human habitation anyway. If you can get humans to an exoplanet, you can sustain human life in a spacecraft for a very, very long time, essentially indefinitely.

...With essentially unlimited energy, you could make yourself a rather comfortable life close to home, rather than spending a few millennia floating through the interstellar dark.


I thought I would try to put some actual numbers to it...

The distance to the closest star is 39,900,000,000,000 km away. (link)

The fastest man-made object moves at 252,800km/hr (link)

At that distance/speed, it would take 157.8 million hours (or about 18,000 years) to get there. The ancient pyramids were build roughly 4,500 years ago.
 
2012-12-11 01:50:53 PM  

TopoGigo: BronyMedic: We're running out of resources on Earth at an alarming rate.

No we aren't. We haven't destroyed any resources.* We've changed the state of a lot of our resources, of course, and that makes them a lot more difficult to use, but they're still there. All the aluminum is still out there, all the tin, all the copper, all the iron, etc. We've burned (literally and figuratively) through our planetary savings account of hydrocarbons, but they aren't gone, either. Our ecosystem will continue to make hydrocarbons from the water, carbon, and sunlight to the extent that we allow it to. There are several ways we can help that. Our fresh water may be spoiled, but it's a simple distillation away from pure again. Our soil may be polluted, but it's a not-so-simple unobtanium-powered cleansing away from being clean, too.

We really only have an alarming scarcity of two things: energy and space. Space isn't a huge concern. We haven't filled the space we have currently efficiently, technology could easily make ocean habitats to make more space, and agricultural technology could (if wrested away from the hands of Monsanto, ConAgra, and the like) significantly reduce the amount of space required to feed us. I don't personally believe we'll ever fill the planet, as we're somewhat self-regulating as a species. We'll swing too far for a few centuries, and come to rest at a sustainable level--as long as we can keep from destroying civilization with war.

So, that leaves us with one huge problem: energy. Free or nearly-free energy would solve all our problems. With enough energy, we can desalinate all the water we like. We can filter landfills through huge factories to recover waste raw materials. We can produce fertilizers from hydrocarbons if we choose. Hell, if we really get cramped, we can launch orbital farm satellites. Whatever the hell we want, we can do with enough energy. That's what we can do as a species to ensure our survival. Personally, I like the genetically engine ...


There you go, destroying a perfectly good FARK posting war with a reasonable discussion.

;^)
 
2012-12-11 01:54:02 PM  
I'm finishing up Blue Mars so I'm getting a kick out of this thread.
 
2012-12-11 01:58:01 PM  
I call dibbs on the planets that have breathable atmospheres, warm weather, edible vegetation and hot/farkable alien women.

/The planet of volcanoes and poisonous spiders is reserved for he who shall not be mentioned...
 
2012-12-11 02:06:03 PM  

Sybarite: Just watch out for Tim Curry.


I loved that show! I wish it could have been renewed.
 
2012-12-11 02:08:40 PM  

ThaGravy: Jubeebee:
Exoplanets are irrelevant for future human habitation anyway. If you can get humans to an exoplanet, you can sustain human life in a spacecraft for a very, very long time, essentially indefinitely.

...With essentially unlimited energy, you could make yourself a rather comfortable life close to home, rather than spending a few millennia floating through the interstellar dark.

I thought I would try to put some actual numbers to it...

The distance to the closest star is 39,900,000,000,000 km away. (link)

The fastest man-made object moves at 252,800km/hr (link)

At that distance/speed, it would take 157.8 million hours (or about 18,000 years) to get there. The ancient pyramids were build roughly 4,500 years ago.


Before we found a planet in the Centauri system this year, the closest exoplanet was something like 10 light years away. The metaphor I used a couple of years ago was that if you shrank the entire solar system from Sol to Neptune down to the size of a quarter, and placed that quarter in Chicago, the nearest exoplanet would be in Manhatten. The Centauri quarter would probably be around Cleveland-ish.

Voyager I is a couple of nanometers beyond the edge of our quarter in Chicago.

Space is big, mostly empty, and generally sucks. The sun is close, valuable, and a lot easier to access. We already know how to build medium-term (10+ year) human-habitable spacecraft, albeit with regular resupply trips.

Like TopoGigo said, our primary problem is energy. If we have access to enough energy and enough information, we can do whatever we want. The sun can give us more energy than we can ever use, and the longer higher civilization lasts, the more information we can accumulate. If humanity is going to have any future in space, it's going to be around our own familiar star.
 
2012-12-11 02:21:47 PM  

Jubeebee: If humanity is going to have any future in space, it's going to be around our own familiar star.


Depends on the stability of our stellar neighborhood and the stability of our civilization.

This star wont last forever, and there are also things that other stars can do which would make this system... unpleasant.
Then there are the ideological differences that can arise in society which would be better served by distancing its factions. Not to mention the biological benefits that come from living apart.

Ultimately I doubt we'll all be happy if we all stay bunched up in one spot.
That just invites some cosmic accident to ruin our day.
 
2012-12-11 02:37:04 PM  

Jubeebee: If humanity is going to have any future in space, it's going to be around our own familiar star.


No, I don't think so. Humanity has never been content remaining in one place when it has the means and ability to explore. We were not content with staying around our own familiar cave; we were not content with staying around our own familiar village; we were not content with staying around our own familiar country; we were not content with staying around our own familiar continent. We will not be content staying around our own familiar star.
 
2012-12-11 02:37:58 PM  

ThaGravy: Jubeebee:
Exoplanets are irrelevant for future human habitation anyway. If you can get humans to an exoplanet, you can sustain human life in a spacecraft for a very, very long time, essentially indefinitely.

...With essentially unlimited energy, you could make yourself a rather comfortable life close to home, rather than spending a few millennia floating through the interstellar dark.

I thought I would try to put some actual numbers to it...

The distance to the closest star is 39,900,000,000,000 km away. (link)

The fastest man-made object moves at 252,800km/hr (link)

At that distance/speed, it would take 157.8 million hours (or about 18,000 years) to get there. The ancient pyramids were build roughly 4,500 years ago.


You're not limited to the speed of a spaceprobe launched in the 1970s using a couple of chemical rocket burns and gravity assists.

Totally ignoring the effects of relativity (which means a speed limit of 0.25c for the journey), you could get to the nearest star in 678 years, with a midpoint turnaround and a constant acceleration of just 0.007g. Obviously that's way more than a human lifetime, but it's totally within the realm of possibility for a multi-generational ship (particularly if some means of long-term hibernation for the crew is discovered).

That's with something like magnetic plasma propulsion, which generates extremely low thrust. When you start delving into really advanced propulsion systems, like, say Project Daedalus, You can get the journey down to within a human lifespan, maybe 50 years to a nearby star.

And then there's crazy-exotic stuff like the Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster: some guy at NASA is claiming a perpetual 0.02g for a 10-ton spacecraft with a 2MW powerplant. Scale things by a factor of 1000 and you could have a 1000-ton vehicle at 0.2g on 2GW, which is within the range of nuclear power plants today. At 0.2g you'd hit 93% of the speed of light at the midway point of the journey, which would shorten the crew's perception of the travel time by about a third due to relativity. To an outside observer, the journey would take 10 years, but for the crew only about 6.

That's not even getting into "new physics" stuff like warp drives.
 
2012-12-11 02:42:31 PM  
I'd rather be dead than live in an artificial world. And I will be, no problem. The rest of you have fun with your "it's just as good as the one we threw away!" while listening to recorded sounds of tranquil streams and singing birds.
 
2012-12-11 02:48:20 PM  

BronyMedic: Humanity's only way for long term (>150-200 years) survival is to look upwards and outwards. We're running out of resources on Earth at an alarming rate. In addition, all it would take would be a major pandemic or war to seriously FARK our chances at survival - and given the current geopolitical situation, that doesn't seem unlikely.

It's either we branch out into space, or we start seeing resource wars in the next 100 years between the major first world superpowers of the world.

[www.steelfalcon.com image 480x265]

/it's weird how an anime can be prophetic with the Humanity Seeding Project.


Meh.

I prefer Macross Frontier.

i26.photobucket.com


Jettisoning an "Island" (small biodome):

ghostlightning.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-11 03:14:51 PM  

Diogenes: I want to live on Melancholia. Any planet that obliterates Kirsten Dunst can't be all that bad.


You must be talking about that movie that wore out my fast-forward button.
 
2012-12-11 03:18:19 PM  

ThaGravy: Jubeebee:
Exoplanets are irrelevant for future human habitation anyway. If you can get humans to an exoplanet, you can sustain human life in a spacecraft for a very, very long time, essentially indefinitely.

...With essentially unlimited energy, you could make yourself a rather comfortable life close to home, rather than spending a few millennia floating through the interstellar dark.

I thought I would try to put some actual numbers to it...

The distance to the closest star is 39,900,000,000,000 km away. (link)

The fastest man-made object moves at 252,800km/hr (link)

At that distance/speed, it would take 157.8 million hours (or about 18,000 years) to get there. The ancient pyramids were build roughly 4,500 years ago.


Sounds like a great concept for a reality show. One team has to get to Proxima Centauri, and the other has to build four consecutive sets of pyramids by hand.
 
2012-12-11 03:53:23 PM  

Raoul Eaton: Sounds like a great concept for a reality show. One team has to get to Proxima Centauri, and the other has to build four consecutive sets of pyramids by hand.


I'd take the pyramid guys in a landslide.

/Get it?

qorkfiend: No, I don't think so. Humanity has never been content remaining in one place when it has the means and ability to explore. We were not content with staying around our own familiar cave; we were not content with staying around our own familiar village; we were not content with staying around our own familiar country; we were not content with staying around our own familiar continent. We will not be content staying around our own familiar star.


There's a big difference between reaching solar orbit and reaching another star. Huge difference. Like, difference between a sandcastle and the Burj Khalifa sort of difference.
 
2012-12-11 03:57:36 PM  

Raoul Eaton: ThaGravy: Jubeebee:
Exoplanets are irrelevant for future human habitation anyway. If you can get humans to an exoplanet, you can sustain human life in a spacecraft for a very, very long time, essentially indefinitely.

...With essentially unlimited energy, you could make yourself a rather comfortable life close to home, rather than spending a few millennia floating through the interstellar dark.

I thought I would try to put some actual numbers to it...

The distance to the closest star is 39,900,000,000,000 km away. (link)

The fastest man-made object moves at 252,800km/hr (link)

At that distance/speed, it would take 157.8 million hours (or about 18,000 years) to get there. The ancient pyramids were build roughly 4,500 years ago.

Sounds like a great concept for a reality show. One team has to get to Proxima Centauri, and the other has to build four consecutive sets of pyramids by hand.


Not to be all technical and stuff, but I think the other team would need to build 4 pyramids plus relive the past 4,500 years of human experience... it didn't take 4,500 years to build the pyramids.
 
2012-12-11 04:00:02 PM  

way south: This star wont last forever, and there are also things that other stars can do which would make this system... unpleasant.


That is such a distant future that if at that point we are still putzing around with fossil fuels and combustion based propellents we really deserve whatever fate comes to us.
 
2012-12-11 04:00:52 PM  

Jubeebee: Exoplanets are irrelevant for future human habitation anyway. If you can get humans to an exoplanet, you can sustain human life in a spacecraft for a very, very long time, essentially indefinitely.

And if you can do that, it's a whole lot easier to trade some of your fuel weight for a few acres of solar panels and park yourself in solar orbit somewhere between Earth and Venus. With essentially unlimited energy, you could make yourself a rather comfortable life close to home, rather than spending a few millennia floating through the interstellar dark.


Indeed. Why live in a gravity well if you don't have to? Getting to and from other locations is made far easier, and there are greater possibilities for variant methods of living and existing (I think it was Dan Simmons who really went into this in great detail with the Ousters).
 
2012-12-11 05:35:26 PM  

feanorn: Jubeebee: Exoplanets are irrelevant for future human habitation anyway. If you can get humans to an exoplanet, you can sustain human life in a spacecraft for a very, very long time, essentially indefinitely.

And if you can do that, it's a whole lot easier to trade some of your fuel weight for a few acres of solar panels and park yourself in solar orbit somewhere between Earth and Venus. With essentially unlimited energy, you could make yourself a rather comfortable life close to home, rather than spending a few millennia floating through the interstellar dark.

Indeed. Why live in a gravity well if you don't have to? Getting to and from other locations is made far easier, and there are greater possibilities for variant methods of living and existing (I think it was Dan Simmons who really went into this in great detail with the Ousters).


There are advantages to gravity. Humans need it to grow properly and not have heart problems, for example. Also, sometimes it's nice to just be able to put a tool down on the floor and not worry about it floating into some other, fragile tool.

The main appeal of a habitat in solar orbit is the enormous amount of free energy. You can spin a large habitat to mitigate some of the negative effects of living in 0g (although I think I remember something about people responding poorly in some ways to that as well). You could use some of that energy to travel to new places, albiet very slowly, or you could just have a stupidly high standard of living.
 
2012-12-11 06:38:26 PM  

Jubeebee: qorkfiend: No, I don't think so. Humanity has never been content remaining in one place when it has the means and ability to explore. We were not content with staying around our own familiar cave; we were not content with staying around our own familiar village; we were not content with staying around our own familiar country; we were not content with staying around our own familiar continent. We will not be content staying around our own familiar star.

There's a big difference between reaching solar orbit and reaching another star. Huge difference. Like, difference between a sandcastle and the Burj Khalifa sort of difference.


Not really. The same physics governs the trip; the only difference is time and distance, and that's never been a problem before. If we're capable of technological dominance of the solar system, we're capable of reaching other stars.
 
2012-12-11 06:39:14 PM  

BronyMedic: Humanity's only way for long term (>150-200 years) survival is to look upwards and outwards


No it isn't. That's a pseudo-religious view popularized by sci-fi and cheesy movies. A deadly vacuum with nothing in it is no place for "survival". Modifying our lifestyle and social model right here is our only long-term hope. We should choose to do these things because they are hard, not because they are easy.

BronyMedic:
We're running out of resources on Earth at an alarming rate.

Are we tossing them into a black hole?

Anyways, you loons will all still be right here in a decade, and so will everyone else. Get used to it. No amount of weeping over cheesy sci-fi artwork will change that, or hand-wringing over the "species". You people don't care about the "species", you care about your religious sci-fi stories.

No matter how entertaining they were in high-school. 

itdoesnthavetoberight.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-11 06:41:16 PM  
Have they considered moons? Particularly Pandora? FYI: Going to stars may no longer seem so farfetched.

Link
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report