i didn't find the map yet. it was on tv (natgeo) so i hope i can get it.
anyway i found a very nice artical about building a moon base. wich explains all the problems we are facing.
also is there a other habitable planet closer to earth. 37 light years away. but it's on the edge of the habitable zone. it's called HD 85512 b it only is not confirmed yet like kepler 22-b is.
It's 600 lightyears away. And scientists think it is a good candidate for life, not that it has life.
aww just 1 min off. and no there are not, if so can you give me the locations of the others outside the main 4? sofar i know 1 of the 4 places was even a maybe. and if so only small. maybe there are places where 1 building (outpost) would be safe but not a base. (i'll post my map later when ive searched.)
Prove to me there are only four. It's easier then me searching for thousands of them.
it's called HD 85512 b it only is not confirmed yet like kepler 22-b is.
So? It's not like we need to visit. And I just want to tell you it's only about 600. Not 3 million. 3 Million would not be inside our galaxy.
it's confirmed habitable.
I'm sorry? If it is hotter then Venus with molten lava on it's surface, is that considered habitable?
does it matter? the planet isn't going away.
Not my point.
do you just have any idea how big the moon is?
I make simulations about solar systems. Of course I know how big the moon is. It's diameter is 3474 km, roughly 1/4th of earths. (3.7, but we are rounding up here)
So? It's not like we need to visit. And I just want to tell you it's only about 600. Not 3 million. 3 Million would not be inside our galaxy.
dude read my posts will ya. there is more then 1 guy you are talking to. i never said 3 mill ive always knowed it was 600. your rejecting the point by attacking me whit something ive never said.
I'm sorry? If it is hotter then Venus with molten lava on it's surface, is that considered habitable?
do you even know a single tiny thing about this planet and what it means that scientists have confirmed this? i guess not. if you did then you would not make such a stupid comment.
Not my point.
your avoiding my points all the time why should i care it's not your point? it's my point.
I make simulations about solar systems.
hmm how come i don't believe this. must be me right? hahaha.
dude read my posts will ya. there is more then 1 guy you are talking to. i never said 3 mill ive always knowed it was 600. your rejecting the point by attacking me whit something ive never said.
Whoops, Someone else said that.
do you even know a single tiny thing about this planet and what it means that scientists have confirmed this? i guess not. if you did then you would not make such a stupid comment.
It means that Kepler has confirmed her first planet in the HZ. It does not mean that world is habitable as in having water on it's surface.
While today, she confirmed a planet only 3% larger then earth.
your avoiding my points all the time why should i care it's not your point? it's my point.
My point was that it is old news; heck, it's not even confirmed.
I personlley belive we should, because our recorses shall run out one day, so we will need a back-up plan to get more, hence another planet to colonize.
I think we should colonize other planets. We have over 7 billion people on this little planet, and we need more space. We are already studying the surface of Mars, but there is unfortunately no water on Mars. Also Mars is a very desolate place, because it's so cold. It is an unbearable -81 degrees Fahrenheit. No human life can live there.
I have neither the patience nor the will to read through 14 pages worth of arguments, so I'll say my piece and the good people of the WEPR can feel free to agree or disagree.
Humanity has two options, either they can expand beyond the limits of our planet, or the governments of Earth can start a major war that will result in the loss of billions of people and an equal amount of resources and arable land, possibly permanently and then be forced to colonize.
Should we colonize, we have to start with sub orbital stations and move outwards, not only does that create an efficient supply chain but it allows for weak links amongst potential colonists to be weeded out. It sounds harsh, but if you can't cut it in space, your sure as hell won't be able to cut it on a different planet.
However before humanity even reaches this step they must develop the technology necessary to establish a self-sustaining colony on a foreign planet, the most pressing concerns being food, water, and air. And as I'm sure someone has pointed out, humans can't seem to agree on land on our planet, I have no idea what the hell they'll do on others, I'm positive that there are world powers who wouldn't be above an orbital strike on another nation's colony. Accidents do happen. So, we need a global space government, a Colonial Alliance if one wishes to be cliche.
I believe that covers it, feel free to refute all points, I'm in the mood for an argument.
Humanity has two options, either they can expand beyond the limits of our planet, or the governments of Earth can start a major war that will result in the loss of billions of people and an equal amount of resources and arable land, possibly permanently and then be forced to colonize.
Third, more probable option, the population reaches an apex and starts to decrease again, making it potentially possible for a constant population of humans to sustaintially live on earth. The second part actually is an utopia, but there are reports possibly hinting at a decrease of the population. So, we may not even be forced to colonize other planets.
