Starport: Galactic Empires

why do you think the US or the eu or whomever else needs a space program, regardless of all the BBQ happening down here on earth?

i think its needed expressly for that purpose, earth is and will be further overcrowded until its like soylent green, at which point mars and the moons of saturn better damn be colonized and made pretty for those who work hard to get there :3

plus the chinese have already tested a space kinetic interceptor, so i think its best we get some of our own, or at the very least some kind of rudimentary EM spectrum deflector to hide our secret stuff up there. (certain bands of the EM spectrum have been deflected before on small scales in laboratory settings)

Yes we need one for human civilization to advance, No I don't think we need to get one at the moment due to the Economical Crisis.

And China is the richest country on earth right now(communists ^-^) Im not suprised.

Mel'Kaven wrote:Yes we need one for human civilization to advance, No I don't think we need to get one at the moment due to the Economical Crisis.

And China is the richest country on earth right now(communists ^-^) Im not suprised.

MadAce wrote:

Mel'Kaven wrote:Yes we need one for human civilization to advance, No I don't think we need to get one at the moment due to the Economical Crisis.

And China is the richest country on earth right now(communists ^-^) Im not suprised.

the best ones come from TNG

Easy solution to take care of population problem: Force African countries and India to enact a 1 child/family policy just like China did.
Developed nations, on the other hand, currently are in serious risk of an aging workforce, and should probably encourage more baby making.

Ultimate way to decrease births in poorer countries:

Increase standard of living.

MadAce wrote:Ultimate way to decrease births in poorer countries:

Increase standard of living.

Problem is that country leaders are just dictators who're filling their own bank accounts and ignoring the citizens.
And that's why this protest crap is good for us.

Woots wrote:

MadAce wrote:Ultimate way to decrease births in poorer countries:

Increase standard of living.

Problem is that country leaders are just dictators who're filling their own bank accounts and ignoring the citizens.
And that's why this protest crap is good for us.

Those dictators, all of them, can be removed. The military budget of all of those dictatorships are nothing compared to the means NATO can bring to bear.

Of course, NATO won't do that.

You know, with all of its countries being democracies. And democracy being ill suited to tackle any actual issues save for how to maintain status quo and keep an elite in power.

MadAce wrote:

Woots wrote:

MadAce wrote:Ultimate way to decrease births in poorer countries:

Increase standard of living.

Problem is that country leaders are just dictators who're filling their own bank accounts and ignoring the citizens.
And that's why this protest crap is good for us.

Those dictators, all of them, can be removed. The military budget of all of those dictatorships are nothing compared to the means NATO can bring to bear.

Of course, NATO won't do that.

You know, with all of its countries being democracies. And democracy being ill suited to tackle any actual issues save for how to maintain status quo and keep an elite in power.

Majority rule and minority rights.
That's why democracies are such terrible government structures.
If you do anything, anything at all, people will I love you man! and complain and nothing will be accomplished

eww politics.

Funny thing is we have more than enough to feed the entire world as it is. If we stopped spending money on things like NASA and other stuff that, while interesting, doesn't DO anything, we might be able to better feed everyone. The real issue isn't having food, its getting it to where its needed. Africa and other third world areas simply do not have the infastructure to get food to where its needed. And the governments of such nations aren't all that helpful either.

Earth can easily sustain 20 billion people, IF we're willing to all work cooperatively. Human history shows us that we're REALLY bad at that.

Space exploration is the most important thing we can spend on.

Caia wrote:Funny thing is we have more than enough to feed the entire world as it is. If we stopped spending money on things like NASA and other stuff that, while interesting, doesn't DO anything, we might be able to better feed everyone. The real issue isn't having food, its getting it to where its needed. Africa and other third world areas simply do not have the infastructure to get food to where its needed. And the governments of such nations aren't all that helpful either.

Earth can easily sustain 20 billion people, IF we're willing to all work cooperatively. Human history shows us that we're REALLY bad at that.

NO!

What you say is the most immense load of BS that anyone has ever uttered in such a short span of time.

NASA and space exploration ARE NOT standing in the way of feeding everyone on the planet. The budget of NASA is marginal at best. About 18 billion dollars a year is spent on NASA

To add perspective: Since 2001 (a short ten years) the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost about 150 billion dollars a year. With no real tangible advantages that couldn't have been achieved a lot cheaper.

In contrast, you would hard pressed to find any aspect of our lives not improved by space exploration.
If anything the budget of space exploration should be increased. By a lot.

MadAce wrote:

Caia wrote:Funny thing is we have more than enough to feed the entire world as it is. If we stopped spending money on things like NASA and other stuff that, while interesting, doesn't DO anything, we might be able to better feed everyone. The real issue isn't having food, its getting it to where its needed. Africa and other third world areas simply do not have the infastructure to get food to where its needed. And the governments of such nations aren't all that helpful either.

Earth can easily sustain 20 billion people, IF we're willing to all work cooperatively. Human history shows us that we're REALLY bad at that.

NO!

What you say is the most immense load of BS that anyone has ever uttered in such a short span of time.

NASA and space exploration ARE NOT standing in the way of feeding everyone on the planet. The budget of NASA is marginal at best. About 18 billion dollars a year is spent on NASA

To add perspective: Since 2001 (a short ten years) the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost about 150 billion dollars a year. With no real tangible advantages that couldn't have been achieved a lot cheaper.

In contrast, you would hard pressed to find any aspect of our lives not improved by space exploration.
If anything the budget of space exploration should be increased. By a lot.

NASA budget = negligible.
Also, FEEDING the planet is not the issue here, it's how to deal with human nature.

Conflicts due to religion, racial differences, land grabbing need to be resolved, but in my view, that's the impossible task.

Also, no matter how many people thing global warming is complete I love puppies, they're wrong, and in a few decades it's gonna bit them in the donkey.

True, space exploration has given us many things (Velcro ) but in all seriousness, HOW SOON do you think we can just go to the moon or Mars start up a colony on another planet? The answer: Not soon enough

Dave34 wrote:

Woots wrote:Also, no matter how many people thing global warming is complete I love puppies, they're wrong, and in a few decades it's gonna bit them in the donkey.

It snowed in Houston Texas, and in 48 other states this year. Global Warming my donkey. Also meteorology is a very inexact science, we can't even accurately predict the weather in a week let alone in the next 50 years .

Change the Global Warming to "Shifting Weather Patterns", which really is just the same thing.
The name is quite misleading, as it doesn't cause overall warming. The effects of global warming can be mostly be felt as extremely unpredictable weather, and possibly stronger storms (though that's not exactly accurate).

Weather =/= climate:


It's easy to confuse current weather events with long-term climate trends, and hard to understand the difference between weather and climate. It's a bit like being at the beach, trying to figure out if the tide is rising or falling just by watching individual waves roll in and out. The slow change of the tide is masked by the constant churning of the waves.

In a similar way, the normal ups and downs of weather make it hard to see slow changes in climate. To find climate trends you need to look at how weather is changing over a longer time span. Looking at high and low temperature data from recent decades shows that new record highs occur nearly twice as often as new record lows.

MadAce wrote:Weather =/= climate:


It's easy to confuse current weather events with long-term climate trends, and hard to understand the difference between weather and climate. It's a bit like being at the beach, trying to figure out if the tide is rising or falling just by watching individual waves roll in and out. The slow change of the tide is masked by the constant churning of the waves.

In a similar way, the normal ups and downs of weather make it hard to see slow changes in climate. To find climate trends you need to look at how weather is changing over a longer time span. Looking at high and low temperature data from recent decades shows that new record highs occur nearly twice as often as new record lows.

Climate's what I meant to say XD

madace is completely right on all counts. on average the world is heating up. and for all the people saying "lets put the money to feeding starving third world country's," there are 5 who would like to pocket that money or beat the crap out of their neighbors for 4 extra miles of sand or jungle.

and yes we cant possibly use space colonization to fix the problems here on earth. there are too many babies being born, and if you can put population controls effectively accross the entire world, then the rest of human issues will be solved soon enough anyway and space expansion will be the only productive use of resources anyway.

but regardless i dont think our problems can/will be fixed because of human nature expressly. if we arent off this timebomb of messed up people BBQ will hit the fan for thr rest of us. thats why i want to be in epsilon eridani sipping coke and playing low-g soccer, aight?!

EDIT: there are over six billion people on the earth right now, and if each one of them lived at the standard of living the average american has, you would quickly see the dangers of over population. the only way 20 billion people could live on the planet is if 19 billion of them lived under a dollar a day.

JuliusCaesar wrote:
EDIT: there are over six billion people on the earth right now, and if each one of them lived at the standard of living the average american has, you would quickly see the dangers of over population. the only way 20 billion people could live on the planet is if 19 billion of them lived under a dollar a day.

BS. The American/Western way of living happens to be woefully inefficient. Such are also our systems of governance, systems of resource allocation and systems of production.

MadAce wrote:

JuliusCaesar wrote:
EDIT: there are over six billion people on the earth right now, and if each one of them lived at the standard of living the average american has, you would quickly see the dangers of over population. the only way 20 billion people could live on the planet is if 19 billion of them lived under a dollar a day.

BS. The American/Western way of living happens to be woefully inefficient. Such are also our systems of governance, systems of resource allocation and systems of production.

ummm thats what i said.

Space program....without it, there would be no reality driving SGE!! noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Also. China is not the richest country by any standards and if you take away their Foreign Direct Investment, their economic yearly % growth is smaller than that of the United States. They have also been lingering on the verge of their own banking crisis, as their banks are required to be lenient in giving out loans for houses, and they assume that housing prices always go up...so we know what happens when that occurs. Called a bubble, bru!