Link:
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-kepler-mission-discovers-bigger-older-cousin-to-earth
http://www.startribune.com/earth-2-0-nasa-reveals-what-might-be-best-goldilocks-planet-yet/318308191/
What are your thoughts? Any chance of alien civilization on that solar system?
let's drop Democracy Bombs at that planet .
Let's recognize that we've no way to communicate with any them that might exist there…
Let's drop "rationality" bombs on this planet! :)
Let's recognize that we've no way to communicate with any them that might exist there…
Or maybe even anywhere...
- a) We are alone.
- b) We aren't.
- b) it's not more probable than a)
- of course it is.
- why?
- erh... because there are many planets.
- and so what?
- erh...
I like monologues.
They've already investigated us. We've been quarantined.
They've already investigated us. We've been quarantined.
We've been quarantined or
you've been occupied?
Maybe that planet belong to the Vulcans.
Spock: "Well, about time they discovered my homeworld. Perhaps we can teach humans how to fly at warp speed! "
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-nWOIJoJRvaQ%2FT0GKPB4DKZI%2FAAAAAAAAASc%2FRGi-Mp_T2Xg%2Fs320%2Fbalanceofterrorhd184.jpg&hash=0521adfe997ecabfa030e6fcbee2d89d" rel="cached" data-hash="0521adfe997ecabfa030e6fcbee2d89d" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nWOIJoJRvaQ/T0GKPB4DKZI/AAAAAAAAASc/RGi-Mp_T2Xg/s320/balanceofterrorhd184.jpg)
i thought when human can make a Warp Drive , Vulcans Come and offers Coalition .
in the #Plot_Twisted version .
The Vulcans and Human from the Future using Time Machine to Teach Human how to make a Warp Drive .
and the Story begins..
Living on dreams. We are alone.
We are alone.
Better we are. I doubt very much we would go along fine with "others".
Living on dreams. We are alone.
That remains to be seen. What proof--- real, solid PROOF--- do you have for this?
Earth COULD be alone in the universe, the one place where fleshly life exists. Or, we could be one of many planets scattered throughout the universe that have life. Our abilities at this time don't seem to lend to conclusive proof either way.
Fiction is Fiction .
and Science is Science .
When someone talk about Fiction then make a conclusion that was a legit Science .
that's the most genius things to do .
on the other hand ...
yes, sometimes Fiction is illogical .
it's not surprising at all , since Fiction do not have to Follow the Physics nor Physical reality .
in example ; Time machine .
if Human can make a time machine , why the heck there are no time travellers that visit us ? :left:
I don't think life is a common thing. If it were, there might be a whole lot more of it in our own solar system. Right now, Earth seems to be pretty much "it" as far as detectable life in this solar system. However, the number of stars is mind-boggling. We've recently gotten technology that allows us to detect that stars other than our Sun have planets--- and some of those planets could be within the star's "Goldilocks" zone that would allow life as we understand it to exist.
After that, right now everything is pure conjecture at this point. Our technology is still way too primitive to detect anything that might give rise to "proof" either way about life on any planet beyond our own system. The distance to the nearest star known to have an Earth-like planet is ---beyond our technology to reach it. So, we have no way of proving anything either way. Your guess is as good as the most experienced scientist's at this point.
i think that are not beyond our technology .
since the only problem is 'the distance' .
it is + 1400 light years .
and hence, that will take a long long long time to get there, using nowadays technologies .
perhaps , make a one way missionary drone is a pretty good idea .
probably with mission to create artificial Life, to make a Second earth from scratch .
note; if there are already lifeforms at that planet , that is the bonus .
Interesting to try and be balanced mjsmsprt40, however I will still remain in my corner after centuries of nothingness along with desperate space junkies will hold onto the attitude that there must be. I stopped letting space comics effecting the grey cells when I matured and grew up.
since the only problem is 'the distance' .
it is + 1400 light years .
and hence, that will take a long long long time to get there, using nowadays technologies .
Even if scientists discover light speed technology it would take 1400 years to get there. Nope, not practical . Instead of researching the possibility of traveling at the speed of light, maybe scientists could research an alternative way of traveling through space like this wormhole machine that allows traveling from one universe to another in a matter of seconds:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/SG1stargate.jpg)
What, is that just another fiction? Oh, darn it...
science is not about right or wrong .
science is about works , or do not works .
if Warp Time and Space is possible , then it is a Science .
if no , probably it is a theory , hypotesis .
or a fiction .
Well an awful lot of it is well, theory. Then when something is found to be slightly less that we are told the theory then changes. Kind of says it all and all the money spent on space would be far better off spent here for the lesser off in our planet than stuff that makes no damn difference to lives except for science goofs and scifi-'s who haven't grown up.
I don't think life is a common thing. If it were, there might be a whole lot more of it in our own solar system. Right now, Earth seems to be pretty much "it" as far as detectable life in this solar system.
You did include a qualifier but in even the most general sense we've barely looked. It's completely possible we haven't even found all the Earth sized planets in our solar system, and our probes have been the equivalent of tossing a rock down a well to see if there's water.
who haven't grown up
For the most part science fiction has either predicted or influenced the development of modern tech. Fantasy>Theory>Reality is one way causality has worked... As people who grew up with sci-fi develop it, it becomes real and often better than the fantasy.
Anything is possible. Even train simulators, who'd of thunk it?
Even train simulators, who'd of thunk it?
Indeed... one has to be at the bottom of vegetative life to remain hour after four watching trains passing by.
It seems that cows like to do it.
who haven't grown up
For the most part science fiction has either predicted or influenced the development of modern tech. Fantasy>Theory>Reality is one way causality has worked... As people who grew up with sci-fi develop it, it becomes real and often better than the fantasy.
Anything is possible. Even train simulators, who'd of thunk it?
Star Trek generated a fair amount of it. Cell phones? Communicators. Automatic sliding doors that open as you approach? Yep, that too. Right now, scientists are working on robotic controls for vehicles, and one day in the not-too-distant future you may have an android "friend" who will be able to hold his/her (depending on your choice) end of a conversation, among other things.
Indeed.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM594RsDAvA[/video]
Even warp drive has moved more to the theoretical.
Yup, a few decades ago before cellphones existed, Star Trek communicator was merely science fiction.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtqGZx0s.png&hash=867591a8e0d527415846562eb4de1cb4" rel="cached" data-hash="867591a8e0d527415846562eb4de1cb4" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/tqGZx0s.png)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fdetectiveclub.info%2Fstar%2520trek%2520joke.jpg&hash=33752c64c57c7daf4f7e56fd6301a486" rel="cached" data-hash="33752c64c57c7daf4f7e56fd6301a486" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://detectiveclub.info/star%20trek%20joke.jpg)
Or maybe even anywhere...
- a) We are alone.
- b) We aren't.
- b) it's not more probable than a)
- of course it is.
- why?
- erh... because there are many planets.
- and so what?
- erh...
I like monologues.
I would guess that's all you are----Heeeeeere's Frager!! :knight: :cheers:
:knight: :cheers:
What are your thoughts? Any chance of alien civilization on that solar system?
Life (and I mean intelligent life), is out there. It's just that the odds of your examples are in the 10s of billions to ones. We are just beginning to scratch the surface Syav, so don't get excited friend--we have a long, long way to go. :knight: :cheers:
All calculations involving probabilities in order to calculate the possibility of life's existence in the universe are flawed right from the beginning.
Life it's not a matter of probability, in fact it's the least probable thing to happen. It needs much more than just chance, the size of the universe, the number of planets being totally indifferent.
That reasoning it's a consequence of the wrong idea that life appears wherever there's some cosy "primordial soup" - just a matter of time and voilá -there's life. Nope.
All calculations involving probabilities in order to calculate the possibility of life's existence in the universe are flawed right from the beginning.
This I can agree with!
Life it's not a matter of probability, in fact it's the least probable thing to happen.
But then the poster says this silly thing!
That reasoning it's a consequence of the wrong idea that life appears wherever there's some cosy "primordial soup" - just a matter of time and voilá -there's life. Nope.
And you'd refute that — how? :)
(Jump up and down and stomp your feet! Maybe burn some people at the stake… That's what you do, isn't it?)
But until we have more evidence we don't know… (Is it not knowing that makes you so angry? :) ) Are there other intelligent
peoples (…I know I'm probably the only one here who'd use this term…) as yet beyond our rockets and electromagnetic communications' range?
There may be. There may not… Be patient. (I know I'd be asking too much if I asked you to be
reasonable.)
the size of the universe, the number of planets being totally indifferent.
Don't dare to belittle His six days of hard work. :angel:
That reasoning it's a consequence of the wrong idea that life appears wherever there's some cosy "primordial soup"
Wherever there's some cosy "primordial soup" - all around there is also a "cosy primordial" cook :)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcreationrevolution.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2FPrimordial-Soup.jpg&hash=469b0b45a7b354039d0798071be16f94" rel="cached" data-hash="469b0b45a7b354039d0798071be16f94" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://creationrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Primordial-Soup.jpg)
And you'd refute that — how? :)
(Jump up and down and stomp your feet! Maybe burn some people at the stake… That's what you do, isn't it?)
But until we have more evidence we don't know… (Is it not knowing that makes you so angry? :) ) Are there other intelligent peoples (…I know I'm probably the only one here who'd use this term…) as yet beyond our rockets and electromagnetic communications' range?
There may be. There may not… Be patient. (I know I'd be asking too much if I asked you to be reasonable.
This one now believes in life's spontaneous generation... he must be at the materialist phase. Soon, he'll jump to the solipsist state, arguing with some hallucinogenic inner mental state that it's supposed to explain all the entire existence...
Interesting to note that you classify the possibility of "alien" existence exactly the same way you deny the existence to climatic alterations. Because Oakdale wants to, aliens may exist, because Oakdale wants not, climate alterations don't exist - the solipsist phase.
Jimbro Scots Broth is the answer.
All calculations involving probabilities in order to calculate the possibility of life's existence in the universe are flawed right from the beginning. Life it's not a matter of probability, in fact it's the least probable thing to happen. It needs much more than just chance, the size of the universe, the number of planets being totally indifferent.
Outside of your religious beliefs, how do you, Belfrager, personally know that life is 'the least probable thing to happen'? I've never read this anywhere. The 'right conditions' don't necessarily lead to intelligent life--I will grant you that--but with perhaps around 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 (50 quintillion) potentially habitable planets in the universe (in the goldilocks zone as estimated by the Kepler mission), there are huge odds for intelligent life being out there. You ever been to a casino? With these kinds of odds one could expect a very near perfect twin of Earth so many times over as to make it absurd to think intelligent life such as ours doesn't exist elsewhere.
If you are using a philosophical reasoning to say that just because abiogenesis occurred here on Earth doesn’t mean that the same occurrence would necessarily happen elsewhere, then you are simply overlooking the inconvenient fact that just "ONE" other incidence of "any" kind of microbial life arising independently of our lineage (solar system), would provide sufficient evidence to show that abiogenesis is not extremely rare in this universe (the odds again ya see?). Do you wish to take the bet that we won't ever discover a single speck of life anywhere else in this universe for the duration of human existence in this universe? Bad bet my friend.
Did Drake get it right? Not very likely, but it is a start, we will get better numbers for the parameters, we may eliminate some, add others, maybe come up with totally different ways of thinking about this. But just how pessimistic would one have to be to believe that life hasn't developed on any of those other 50 quintillion planets in the habitable zone? It is of course a slam sunk just using logic--intuitively, it is even more of a certainty. You are a fundamentalist creationist and so you will ignore statistics/mathematics in any and every way you can--not surprising at all, or as Ersi would say "very predictable of you". :knight: :cheers:
This one now believes in life's spontaneous generation...
...while others believe in gods who have always existed. Doing what? Nobody knows. Ah! The mystery of it.
=========================
You are a fundamentalist creationist and so you will ignore statistics/mathematics in any and every way you can--not surprising at all, or as Ersi would say "very predictable of you". :knight: :cheers:
He hears voices and thinks they're from god.
If you are using a philosophical reasoning to say that just because abiogenesis occurred here on Earth doesn’t mean that the same occurrence would necessarily happen elsewhere, then you are simply overlooking the inconvenient fact that just "ONE" other incidence of "any" kind of microbial life arising independently of our lineage (solar system), would provide sufficient evidence to show that abiogenesis is not extremely rare in this universe (the odds again ya see?). Do you wish to take the bet that we won't ever discover a single speck of life anywhere else in this universe for the duration of human existence in this universe? Bad bet my friend.
Since we have yet to discover such a "ONE" and we have only wishful thinking to say that we know what circumstances
caused this ONE event here on Earth, it is you,
James, who is being silly — with statistical games that you don't understand!
Don't feel too bad: Big numbers cause a lot of ridiculous thinking…
I'd certainly like for there to be other intelligent life in the universe. And I'd like them to get in touch with us, sooner than later! But the "arguments" for such happening are mere pipe-dreams.
BTW: When you say "the odds" you must mean what most gamblers mean! No? :) My advice: Don't bet the farm, not even on a "sure thing" — you're not being rational, if you do!
You are a fundamentalist creationist
Don't be so sure. Catholics usually don't refer to themselves like that.
Outside of your religious beliefs, how do you, Belfrager, personally know that life is 'the least probable thing to happen'?
Because I'm aware of the required complexity to the most simple form of life to exist.
Tell me something, how does your chance or hazard system knows when to stop making random alterations? How does it "knows" that's the "right working form of life"? what a mystery indeed...
You are a fundamentalist creationist and so you will ignore statistics/mathematics in any and every way you can--not surprising at all, or as Ersi would say "very predictable of you".
Go travel the world instead making such ridiculous statements. Maintain your mouth shut while you travel, that's a good advice. :)
The simple truth is that we don't know. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, the answer remains we don't know.
We now know that a lot of stars have planets. We conjecture that some planets may be like our own. On those planets like our own, it is possible-- whether by evolution or by creation-- that life as we know it and can understand it-- fleshly life-- exists.
It is also possible that, in the entire universe comprising untold galaxies and stars in those galaxies-- that we're it. It could be that there is no life on any planet save this one.
We don't know.
We don't know.
We do.
We know that not only it's irrelevant the number of planets and the size of the universe to the occurrence of life but we also do know that life it's not the result of a random success and failure process.
The idea that an horde of monkeys, each with a typewriting machine, would, just by mere chance, to a certain point, write the entire text of Hamlet it's no more than a stupidity. The entire universe would not be big enough to hold the amount of paper full with the nonsense monkeys would type... and yet that's at the very base of the idea of life appearing "naturally" from some cozy primordial soup.
It must be a magic soup, the primordial one.
In an infinite universe, everything is not only possible but inevitable.
In an infinite universe, everything is not only possible but inevitable.
Another monkey typewriting Hamlet...
Intellectual pollution.
Faith is just your measure of probability. The term insinuates the lack of concrete evidence for direction.
The exploration of the cosmos isn't so different. Drowning in possibility one has to measure their own probability.
Faith is just your measure of probability. The term insinuates the lack of concrete evidence for direction.
Deep...
:lol:
You have to do better than that.
In terms you understand...
I have faith there is life out there. Nothing you can say will change that.
I have faith there is life out there. Nothing you can say will change that.
That I accept.
No pseudo science. Sorry if I didn't understood.
Sometimes I also do...
What's deep inside human beings has to be true. We need company.
We need company.
I can think of nothing more boring than if we don't find any.
Sorry, we won't find any. The distances are mind boggling. Anything that looks suggestive will only lead to guesswork.
Sorry, we won't find any. The distances are mind boggling. Anything that looks suggestive will only lead to guesswork.
I haven't given up on some form of life closer to home. Short of little green men of course. After you think of moons of Jupiter and Saturn that can have earth like temperatures and conditions as well as that Mars could support life beneath the surface and Venus in the upper atmosphere, you still haven't considered life may not be bound by our idea of it. Life that exists in oceans of what we think of as frozen gas and where water is to them a rock or crystal may be possible. Seems unfair to just say meh and not look first.
As far as distances... I've no idea what's possible. I may miss the truth of that. Given my cell phone would be Satan's Voodoo Box to a nineteenth and early twentieth century human, I'll assume more is possible than I know of.
I'm reminded of a short story by Alfred Bester: Time is the Traitor!
Psychopathology drives a perverse view of probability…
The man liked time, did he? Cf. "The Men Who Murdered Mohammed". :P
I have faith there is life out there. Nothing you can say will change that.
That I accept.
No pseudo science. Sorry if I didn't understood.
Sometimes I also do...
What's deep inside human beings has to be true. We need company.
i assume that was an apriori , which that also an apriori .
on the other hand , appeal to belief is logically fallacious.
thus.. empirical Evidences is needed .
so the Apriori becomes Aposteriori .
Empirical evidence is exactly where the problem is. We have no firm evidence of life on other planets-- at least so we're told (giving a nod to the Roswell camp). On the other hand--- we can't prove that there is no life on some other planet.
In order to do these things, we either have to get some sort of signal from outer space-- so far nothing intelligible has been detected-- or we actually have to go to the planet in question and look for ourselves.
Problem: At the present stage of technology, we can barely get men to Mars--- and then there's question about when or if those men we sent could get back to Earth. A planet in another solar system? Fergeddaboudit, Not gonna happen in our lifetimes.
i think most people do it wrong .
rather than searching for intelligence lifeform .
why not search , unintelligence lifeform ?
Germs , microbes , etc .
well , the bad news is ..
i dont think they can make an electrical device to sending signals .
More speculation.
http://iopp.fileburst.com/article-objects/phw/2015/61961-PW-2015-07-22-podcast-exoplanets.mp3 (http://iopp.fileburst.com/article-objects/phw/2015/61961-PW-2015-07-22-podcast-exoplanets.mp3)
Sara Seager TED Talk...
https://www.ted.com/talks/sara_seager_the_search_for_planets_beyond_our_solar_system?language=en (https://www.ted.com/talks/sara_seager_the_search_for_planets_beyond_our_solar_systemlanguage=en)
i think most people do it wrong .
rather than searching for intelligence lifeform .
why not search , unintelligence lifeform ?
Germs , microbes , etc .
well , the bad news is ..
i dont think they can make an electrical device to sending signals .
Maybe, in this solar system, on planets and moons we can actually reach, we may be able to find something. We can send robots-- like we've already done on Mars-- and have our robot-pooch sniff around and see what he can dig up.
Once you get beyond our solar system-- forget it. Any planets we find that we think might support life-- we'll just have to guess about, and your guess is as good as anybody else's. There's no way to prove the existence or lack thereof of any kind of life-- intelligent or otherwise-- when you're talking distances of multiple thousands of lightyears.
our robot-pooch sniff around and see what he can dig up.
That's fun and all, but literally one hour of human presence on Mars makes everything that NASA has done thus far obsolete. Aside from map the surface. It's time to take many samples and crack some rocks open... Do people stuff on that planet.
Do people stuff on that planet.
This is a
wise description… Programming robots to do what people do naturally is deucedly hard!
There's much more advanced technology available and being used in Earth than the Nasa's garbage they sent to space.
Those ridiculous robots and space rockets are shown to fool the public.
Every single day, literally thousands of people all over the world watch it around the skies.
Even yesterday a friend was showing me a couple of photographs he took from the same machine. Those are not "objects" those are man made machines able to break every single law of physics we've learned.
Wake up.
man made machines able to break every single law of physics we've learned
O-kay… That explains a lot.
(Where's a Galactic Cop when you need one! :) )
Be aware that there's a decided difference in the distance between Earth and its Moon, and the distance between Earth and Mars.
The distance between Earth and its Moon is relatively short and doesn't vary much. We can--- if we wish to do it again-- send manned missions to the Moon and expect a round-trip in a matter of days--- weeks at the most if they spend much time there.
The distance between Earth and Mars is considerably greater, and varies by a huge margin. There's only a narrow window when a manned mission may launch from Earth and expect--- reasonably-- to get to Mars. Then, the planets get out of alignment for quite some time and it may be several months-- if not more than a year-- before the return trip can be made. If it can be made. The possibility has to be accepted that a manned trip to Mars could very well be a one-way trip.
Of course, if you've had a hankering to get away from it all a Mars mission could be your chance. Just don't get homesick--- if you do, you're bollixed.
The possibility has to be accepted that a manned trip to Mars could very well be a one-way trip.
I believe many people wouldn't have a problem with that. Although in reality the time concerns are not so different than they were for the exploration and colonization of the new world. Ever decreasing as experience and tech develops.
The next Portuguese space mission will clear up many of Belfrager's misunderstandings, of which there are so very,very many.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyfaze.tk%2Fslides%2Fbeam.gif&hash=85e4dcb62b5d9978963b9bfd9d9a0275" rel="cached" data-hash="85e4dcb62b5d9978963b9bfd9d9a0275" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileyfaze.tk/slides/beam.gif)
O-kay… That explains a lot.
Of course it explains. It explains what you don't even dream about.
You might mention a couple of the machines that break the laws of physics.
You might mention a couple of the machines that break the laws of physics.
I said machines on purpose because I have no reasons to believe that such things, objects, whatever come from outer space. It has to be man made and therefore there's no better calling then call it, in a very simple way, machines.
That's not flying machines in the sense that those things don't fly according any rule of physics that allows airplanes or rockets to fly. It just dislocates in the air and stops at unbelievable velocities. It doesn't suffer any consequence from contact with the air, gravity or anything else.
All that exists. Today.
Countries, Obamas, Merkels, Putins, oil, energetic dependence and so on are fuckery. The real thing are those machines.
Er, I'm sorry: What machines? Are you referring to some old Kodachrome stills? :) A Polaroid? :)
If you take such things seriously, what do you make of the fact that -since cellphones and their cameras became ubiquitous- "sightings" have declined?
Smoke your peace-pipe, Yaqui! :)
Er, I'm sorry: What machines? Are you referring to some old Kodachrome stills? :) A Polaroid? :)
If you take such things seriously, what do you make of the fact that -since cellphones and their cameras became ubiquitous- "sightings" have declined?
Smoke your peace-pipe, Yaqui! :)
Isn't that odd?? In the same time that cell phones and their cameras became ubiquitous, so did Photoshop. Given that, I might expect MORE sightings, not fewer.
I note that cell-phone cameras have gotten better. My first phone to have a camera had a 2 megapixel unit that was OK, but not exactly stellar. The cell-phone camera I just bought early last week boasts ten times that, plus it does motion too.
If you take such things seriously, what do you make of the fact that -since cellphones and their cameras became ubiquitous- "sightings" have declined?
I couldn't care less about the amount of "sightings", about your "statistics" and even less about your "conclusions".
I know what I and others I know personally - and totally deserves my trust - sees more than once, your remarks about what you don't even want to see doesn't interests me at all.
All the unbelievable millions spent on space is totally pointless and would be far better spent here on Earth.
Makes sense to spend more given our planet's ability to sustain our population growth over the next 100 years is questionable.
All the unbelievable millions spent on space is totally pointless and would be far better spent here on Earth.
It is spent here on Earth.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyfaze.tk%2Fslides%2Fcheerskj4.gif&hash=2ad60a94340ffa94a64f832935dc8125" rel="cached" data-hash="2ad60a94340ffa94a64f832935dc8125" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
But! Scotland's first satellite was launched successfully in Kazakhstan in 2014.
UKube-1 is a cubesat, packing six payloads into a space not much bigger than a shoebox.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fichef-1.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F304%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F51050000%2Fjpg%2F_51050456_ukube-1.jpg&hash=e45f24d29fd1e9f73d2d3ce2c0113d8f" rel="cached" data-hash="e45f24d29fd1e9f73d2d3ce2c0113d8f" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/51050000/jpg/_51050456_ukube-1.jpg)
It can be used as a toaster.
Scotland's first satellite was launched successfully in Kazakhstan in 2014.
They used Russian space rockets?
ESA launches from French Guiana.
Yes,jimbro but as they were putting in ex-colonist brains it didn't need a lot of space.........
Scotland's first satellite---- maybe it's part of the engine for the Enterprise. Get the parts up there, then build the starship. Saves time waiting for parts once construction starts.
No there is not enough being spent here on Earth and the tragedies of many places bears that one out. As for space exploration and that in the next 100 years we will have problems here means zilch. There is nowhere else for them to go.
We sent our first satellite more than 10 years ago, the Posat. No one knows what for or what happened to it meanwhile.
But I remember the responsible "scientist" for that, he looked exactly as Pavarotti. No one has ever listened about him since then.
I'm glad Germans the EU must have payed for such imbecility.
Well, satellites are not too much expensive these days. The price of wine it's much worst thanks to Northerner barbarians drinking it as a luxury.
But throw in the cost of ambitious things like wanting to go to Mars and more exploration into nothingness which is drearily pointless.