COLONIZE SPACE OR DISAPPEAR FOREVER.

I would travel through space and time in a police box which would be a spaceship in disguise...wait..ugh..

Anyway, what I mean is that such dreams like "space cowboys" are just that-dreams and talking about them on a military forum in the thread about the issue of space colonization is..... somewhat out-of-place at beast.

Nice to see you are up to date on your IMF Faqs/Rules.

Anyway on the topic of space travel, like mentioned earlier, where will the drive to spend that type of money on something come from? Further yet, has anybody here mentioned the Privatization of space? Instead of waiting around for possibly a really long time for governments to muster enough funds to explore possibilities, wait for the private sector to through some research of thier own into it.
 
I would travel through space and time in a police box which would be a spaceship in disguise...wait..ugh..

Anyway, what I mean is that such dreams like "space cowboys" are just that-dreams and talking about them on a military forum in the thread about the issue of space colonization is..... somewhat out-of-place at beast.


Technically this forum isn't all about military as you see this is a political section, so it isn't all of out place. I don't mind the talk of colonizing space, but I couldn't care nonetheless... By the time they do, if they do, I would be long dead.
 
Nice to see you are up to date on your IMF Faqs/Rules.

Anyway on the topic of space travel, like mentioned earlier, where will the drive to spend that type of money on something come from? Further yet, has anybody here mentioned the Privatization of space? Instead of waiting around for possibly a really long time for governments to muster enough funds to explore possibilities, wait for the private sector to through some research of thier own into it.

Actually I reckon that it will come from the private sector - there are always people willing to take a chance and invest in a risky venture and this is no more pie in the sky than "machines that can think" or drugs that will cure disease.

For me the most interesting part is going to be how governments try to manage private companies as they exploit space, after all they have no jurisdiction out there - what a boon to the legal profession! Damn.

As for Stephen Hawking, I don't really rate him. Everyone says that he's super intelligent, but as far as I'm aware he hasn't said anything that isn't either blatantly obvious or hasn't already been said. I know that he's severly disabled and many people would shy away from criticizing him because of that, not me, I just don't think he's that great.
 
I think that the human race would have better luck just building some large monument to our existence that would survive our imminent doom and prove to anything that arrives here millions of years later that we existed, that seems more viable.
 
I think that the human race would have better luck just building some large monument to our existence that would survive our imminent doom and prove to anything that arrives here millions of years later that we existed, that seems more viable.


LOL, what hopelessness in the advancement of the human race. I actually do see space pirates being a huge problem for space trade. Only the most wealthy countries will be able to make a space fleet (I wouldn't leave that to PMCs). I think if I was alive at that time, I would become a space pirate and capture the biggest military ship possible; would be like capturing an Aircraft carrier with a raft.
Or :9mm::biggun: That type of comparison is pretty well.

First they should try making some sort of huge space station, big enough to carry several hundred people. 3 days to get to the moon correct? Wouldn't there be a new class? Everyone who is on Earth would look down on those who were born as resource providers? I can see that being an issue. Or something like Killzone (read the story if you want to know).
 
What a surprisingly pointless statement by the guy especially given that we all know the sun is going to swallow us up at some point in the distant future so yes if we don't colonise space we are screwed, the good news is that we have a couple of billion years to do it.

I don't buy the argument that it needs to be done in the near future as the world has suffered major cataclysms in the past and will do so in the future but the human species is a very adaptable one unlike the dominant species that have gone before us.


Good to note your confidence in dismissing the opinion of 'the guy' .

What does he know about it, anyway, eh?:confused:
 
Well, I do think that the most evident threat to human society, is....well human society.... yea if a space rock threw some nasty dust up in the air and poisoned the planet for awhile or be it a volcano, or the next season of Lost actually makes sense and the universe explodes.

The human species may have a shot at surviving, even in the smallest of numbers.

But as far as avoiding social and very "human" Apocalypse advocates, along with much less paramount social challenges, moving to Mars or out of the solar system or whatever, will not change that, as those problems would just simply be taken with first human colonists, where ever they travel to.
 
Good to note your confidence in dismissing the opinion of 'the guy' .

What does he know about it, anyway, eh?:confused:

No offence but it is like predicting there will be an earthquake in California, we know the earth has a finite lifetime due to the sun expanding and imploding so his argument can't be wrong but any theory that we have to do this within the next few years is based more of premonition than fact.

Inevitably we will expand beyond earth more than likely due to the need for resources and because it is human nature to explore but until we have found a viable method of long distance space travel (which Einstein and Newtonian physics tells us this wont happen) we wont be going very far but perhaps with some planning we may find a way to play in the Kuiper or van Oort belt.
 
Thanks, I feel safer now. How about the latest theory that the big bang in fact did not create our condition - the big bang had an ancestor, and a great many universes at the same time; at the last count 10,000 to the power of 10,000 to the power of 10,000 to the power of 7.

That should keep us going for a while, as far as questions are concerned.

I think I'll rest my mind and relax in my Catholicism.:smile:
 
Thanks, I feel safer now. How about the latest theory that the big bang in fact did not create our condition - the big bang had an ancestor, and a great many universes at the same time; at the last count 10,000 to the power of 10,000 to the power of 10,000 to the power of 7.

That should keep us going for a while, as far as questions are concerned.

I think I'll rest my mind and relax in my Catholicism.:smile:

So you are saying more of a gang bang than a big bang?

I am not sure anyone really cares how many "bangs" created the "universe(s)" as it is the "bang" principle that matters, the last thing the world needs is pseudo-science trying to revive the mythical man in the sky scenario of a few hundred years ago.
 
Nice one, but I was not saying it, the scientific world is telling me so; and almost certainly there are a great many 'mythical ' ( to our small perception) men in the sky, whether we consider that we need them or not. Without a doubt you can bet your boots on that one.

As to the number of bangs, on the contrary, it appears to be of great importance to scientific research mainstream, and nothing at all to do with any of your 'pseudo-science'; I can safely leave that with you, I'm sure; I'm for moving onwards and upwards.

As I have said before, what to we know? Beam me up Scotty.
 
Last edited:
Nice one, but I was not saying it, the scientific world is telling me so; and almost certainly there are a great many 'mythical ' ( to our small perception) men in the sky, whether we consider that we need them or not. Without a doubt you can bet your boots on that one.

As to the number of bangs, on the contrary, it appears to be of great importance to scientific research mainstream, and nothing at all to do with any of your 'pseudo-science'; I can safely leave that with you, I'm sure; I'm for moving onwards and upwards.

As I have said before, what to we know? Beam me up Scotty.

So you are going with polytheism now, not sure that will stack up well with Catholic doctrine but what ever floats your boat.

I agree however that the number of "bangs" is important I just don't accept that it is more important than the principle itself, I have no problem with the idea that there were multiple "big bangs" in fact it makes the universe much less complicated if this is the case.
 
Last edited:
So you are going with polytheism now, not sure that will stack up well with Catholic doctrine but what ever floats your boat.

No Sorry old chap, can't join you on that one; One God - many mansions. Open mind. Nice and easy. Scientists striving to uncover pre-Big Bang - fine by me - bring it on.

As for your concerns re myself and Catholice doctrine - 'Peace be with you my friend'. How's that , reassured ?:cheers:
 
Back
Top