Just to make things clear, we didn’t asked anything from Lea. Specially nothing related to her boobs. I mean, why would we even think about that matter? We just asked her why didn’t she post more often at LAGL. And it wasn’t a very inquisitive question, just a “oh and well you don’t do it” and such.
10 Likes
Girls, what are you even doing? This is kind of my place now…
10 Likes
11 Likes
Guess it’s this spring-like weather, it’s affecting their hormones. If they’re looking for men, this is the right place, demographically speaking.
11 Likes
10 Likes
(Just don’t get me started on the range of choices…)
10 Likes
Hmm, its actually a bucket of cold water on hot heads of those who are too optimistic. “Possible” doesnt have to mean it will happen.
11 Likes
The motivations are not there for him, perhaps for the best.
NASA and other entities do have probes and devices on mars working there 24/7.
Perhaps not him.
Also, 24/7 on earth is not 24/7 on mars.
There are also other devices in space around other planets and orbits.
But ,
… the history of human explorations to show that the right circumstances are not there to motivate a settlement on Mars…or on any other planet.
Hopefully they don’t pass a law against it, or else it would be crazy to think about going to the moon, like from around 5,000 to 7,000 years ago.
What else, only Venus has the closest conditions to earth for gravity, although only in it’s orbit, and not on the planet itself.
All the satellites of the gas giants are smaller than earth or mars in gravity.
Mars may well be the nearest to earth gravity for the surface of the planet.
Uranus is much further and cold than Venus, and Neptune still more cold and complicated to reach.
The gravity is still a problem compared to earth, as it is greater than on earth, even with and if all other needs are being covered.
At 7:00, “…the first child would be born on the moon by the year 2,000”, the main problem is the gravity, although there may be ways around this, if it can be done for a short period of time.
There is no use for it though.
Other conditions are more beneficial and easier for an already complex if not naturally painful process…
The same problem on mars, as gravity change would affect even vegetation.
What are the test results on vegetation on the space station?
Doesn’t gravity change affects their integrity over generation of growth cycles and so on?
If birth is anything related to multiplication and growth cycles, some apparently possibly accomplished without 2 sexes, it would have to be a child from another system, if not from a parent child relation of an information system and subsystem, the parent system being related to its child subsystems.
10 Likes
His points are very realistic. War, economic reasons, or cults of individals or imagined individuals.
There are no people who make mars their religious mission. the stuff on mars may be good, but how to get it, who makes the effort? What about ownership laws. Its all very real.
I go to mars for what, what i will do there. How I will come back and with what. I cant walk there in my shoes. everything needs a lot of work… He clearly states that this was and is a big part of peoples wellbeing, that what scientists try to develop for people as a side usage, but whole economy is here on earth.
If someone make at least sell sufficient habiat for mars, that could produce things to sustain itself for years and give enough to continue into the future, but what people would need from mars as a place to live, as a home… Its really inhospitable, good place to test the will to survive and our knowledge.
When we could see mars as a good place to live?
8 Likes
War is real, I’m affected by one and offered work to help victims of the war.
It does interfere against my work related to space projects, but that’s life.
I can’t have it both ways and it’s not my fault if others try to make it my problem.
That is their own business and they are getting paid for it.
Others pay them to cause problems, which is why they find it legal even though they commit war crimes.
Usually in war, both legal parties attack one another and try to justify their ground.
Sometimes, a party fails to justify their ground and their victory may become de facto, meaning without justifiable grounds.
Some people have too much money, resources, and also think it’s legal when it’s not.
That’s also their own problem too.
It’s too easy to mix false religious belief with facts and think that one doesn’t work with the other.
The men’s faith that work on those project have to be strong enough to be able to accomplish their mission, or else they would fail.
The same goes for robots on mars.
If the faith of the people in charge is not good enough, it is not going to work, and it would not have worked.
There is no half measure on this. It either works or fails and that’s it.
Just because someone try to make someone else fail doesn’t mean it will fail.
Not only that, but the person who try to make the other one fail, not necessarily by good and honest competition like during the space race would also be liable for the failure even if they tried to blame it on their victims.
I linked a law for the ownership and why no one should claim land there.
I can still post, it was done after world war 2 because of factors related to defense in space.
This is still going on and are valid treaties. I would have to look for it.
I think I may have also shared the links on twitter and have a note saved in my files for it.
Why should you go to mars? There are only a few ways for humans to come back to earth from mars, compared to how robots would be able to do it in more complicated ways, without human life support.
If you’re referring to market on earth, that is all psychological.
Yes, the gravity change would force them to come back to earth as soon as possible which would be around a year or so.
I am not sure of the exact figure and there may be new ways to speed up the process later.
You also have to realise that it is more work to go faster and do it faster than slower.
Not the other way around really.
Sure, one can argue it takes more energy to do it slower, but if time is money , and energy is money, than it would cost more to do it slower too.
The best possible scenario would be to bring them back to earth in the least amount of time.
Factors to consider involve the orbit of the earth and mars, and the best points to reach earth from mars once they are there.
We already have robots on mars and we can actually do building without living there.
We could have a whole group of robots working on the moon.
They are planning to have a green house on mars to grow vegetable from earth there, with the proper temperature and conditions, to feed them.
The final design for this is not yet reached.
You too can participate without going there.
https://twitter.com/TheMarsGen
https://t.co/G3k600Zuv2
Student Space Ambassador Leadership Program
That is with NASA by the way.
Don’t try to make yourself false ideas.
It’s a good thing to stay in touch with reality.
https://twitter.com/AstronautAbby
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html
By the way, all the previous links I saved are not retrieved yet.
It seems they were deleted so I will have to copyright register data on this to avoid further forfeiture.
(Not that no one is not trying to cause this kind of forfeiture.)
There are also restriction about storing items in space which could pose security risks, and without approval, or without authorization.
Additional searched revealed:
The United Nations and the Outer Space Treaty. COPUOUS was established in 1958 and made permanent in 1959. … The fundamental treaty is the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, or simply the "Outer Space Treaty."Oct 27, 2017
The treaty has several major points to it. Some of the principal ones are:
- Space is free for all nations to explore, and sovereign claims cannot be made. Space activities must be for the benefit of all nations and humans. (So, nobody owns the moon.)
- Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are not allowed in Earth orbit, on celestial bodies or in other outer-space locations. (In other words, peace is the only acceptable use of outer-space locations).
- Individual nations (states) are responsible for any damage their space objects cause. Individual nations are also responsible for all governmental and nongovernmental activities conducted by their citizens. These states must also “avoid harmful contamination” due to space activities.
…
COPUOUS has also created five sets of principles to support these treaties.
- The “Declaration of Legal Principles” (1963), from which the Outer Space Treaty was created in 1967, lays down guiding principles, including the idea that space exploration is for the benefit of all humans.
- The “Broadcasting Principles” (1982) has to do with television broadcast signals. These principles include the idea of noninterference with other countries’ signals, the provision of information to help with knowledge exchange, and the promotion of educational and social development (particularly in developing nations).
- The “Remote Sensing Principles” (1986) concerns the use of electromagnetic waves to collect data on Earth’s natural resources. Remote-sensing activities are supposed to be for all countries’ benefit and should be carried out in the spirit of international cooperation.
- The “Nuclear Power Sources Principles” (1992) concerns how to protect humans and other species from radiation if a launch goes awry, or a spacecraft flying by Earth accidently crashes to the surface. It’s common for spacecraft exploring the outer solar system to use nuclear power sources for energy, since solar power is so weak out there.
- The “Benefits Declaration” (1996) says that space exploration shall be carried out for the benefit of all states. This was created two years before the International Space Station — an effort of 15 nations — launched its first two modules into space.
…
UNISPACE+50 (2018): Will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first UNISPACE conference and focus on what COPUOUS should do now that more nations and nongovernmental entities are exploring space.
Major Debates:
It should be emphasized again that the U.N. treaties are nonbinding, but there is a sort of international pressure by other nations when a nation strays from the principles. There have been, however, some debates over the years about some of the major principles of space law. While the ultimate interpretation of these matters is up to lawyers, here are some of the major questions:
…
Mining rights. In the United States, there are two major companies hoping to perform asteroid mining in the coming years: Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources. In 2015, the United States passed the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, which in a nutshell allows for U.S. citizens to exploit asteroids and other space resources, but not the land on which the resources sit. While this makes resource hunting legal for U.S. citizens, some experts have said this could violate the Outer Space Treaty.
Boundary disputes and property rights. For the moment, the Outer Space Treaty says that space and celestial bodies cannot be claimed by other nations, but it is unclear how these provisions would apply to private companies. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (see above) does not allow for territorial claims. But with nations talking about landing on places such as the moon and Mars, it is unclear how the exploitation rights and the property rights would work in the case of adjacent colonies. Some suggest that Antarctica, a territory owned by no nation and used mainly for scientific purposes, could be a model to follow — but not everyone agrees.
I need some rest now.
9 Likes
Beddy time… nighties lovelies!
Also:
Launching a Falcon Heavy, best moments (and what happened to the main body)
10 Likes
found diamonds and oil, silver, gold, platinum, cobolt and uranium.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/INFtreaty
https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm
Those links being about space treaty, who owns what and so.
It’s like saying some people think they own the street.
Do not confuse
and
like I did.
The von Neumann computer models were not designed nor implemented by von Braun.
Even if they both worked together, some parts privy to one were not what the other worked on.
Astronomical science and Ballistics can be similar in certain aspect, however, computer systems are another field of science especially at this high a level.
10 Likes
Good morning,lovelies. 
9 Likes
Timezone everyone 
/
Even the people in Middle Ages knew that:
O Fortune,
like the moon
you are ever-changing,
ever waxing
and waning;
hateful life
first oppresses
and then soothes
as it fancies;
poverty
and power
it melts them like ice.
Fate – monstrous
and empty,
Fate, you whirling wheel,
you are malevolent,
well-being is in vain
and always fades to nothing,
shadowed
and veiled
you plague me, too;
now through the game
I bring my bare back
to your villainy.
Fate is against me
in health
and virtue,
driven on
and weighted down,
always enslaved.
So at this hour
without delay
pluck the vibrating strings;
since Fate
strikes down the strong man,
everyone weep with me!
9 Likes
Intel dying? No loss there, if you ask me. Whatever replaces them can only be better.
11 Likes
I would like them to stay. Competition is a lot better than the best monopoly. If he is endangered, he may come up with something better.
10 Likes
Intel is a monopoly. A veeeeeeeery abusive one at that.
10 Likes
Intel competitors is AMD and ARM processors. The market is out there for processors. In that sense, the more competition, the better.
11 Likes
Mornings LAGLers! Much to read & comment but no time at the moment…
11 Likes
Intel is making about 100% of its profits with x86 chips. The only other manufacturer there is AMD and Intel bullied them into a duopoly where AMD can never gain more than 30% market share. Intel has no competition, that’s why they can freely pull all the ■■■■ they’re constantly doing.
This merger would finally introduce some actual competition for Intel and it would be good for consumers. Bad for Intel, however, because I don’t think they know how to survive without aggressive bullying tactics, abusing their monopoly position.
11 Likes