New Horizons is cool.

But to be correct, everything we've flung out into the vast reaches of interstellar space were outer planet flyby missions? The majority of the instruments won't even be working by the time they're past Neptune's orbit.

I'm sure that interstellar space isn't particularly interesting, so maybe what I'm talking about would be pointless. But the expectations for our launching capabilities are clearly misrepresented ITT.

Velocity we can send a probe at:


A "constant technology" proposition may be to hold the specific impulse constant, as well as m_0 - the total mass including propellant. In the discussion about what we should sent out right now it makes sense to talk about the payload mass, m_1, and the purposing of systems in that payload.

Someone mentioned that 0.1c = (10% of c) is possible "with current technology". The New Horizons craft weights half a metric ton, and like Voyager 1 will go close to 0.005% of c.

dv_2 / dv_NH = ln(m_0/m_2) / ln(m_0/m_NH) = 10 / 0.005 = 2000

The Atlas V rocket is 334 tons, although this may or may not be the appropriate value to use. Anyway, if you solve the above equation, you find that you can send like 10^-500 kg at 0.1 c. Obviously, in order to make the trips in question we have to use something other than chemical propulsion.

I don't think we've ever really done that yet. Nor am I sure if it's a reasonable assumption to base space exploration plans on.

1/2/2012 4:29:27 PM

Project Orion could reach those speeds

1/2/2012 4:42:55 PM

"Both spacecraft also have adequate electrical power and attitude control propellant to continue operating until around 2025, after which there may not be available electrical power to support science instrument operation. At that time, science data return and spacecraft operations will cease."


Project Orion has the capability to reach .33c. Sadly too much of our species currently thinks like The E Man and such projects will never come fruition in this generation of our species unless it is done in secret with a lot of private and hidden funding.

1/2/2012 11:05:52 PM

Instead of wasting time and resources on building log rafts to cross oceans, lets invest those same resources in RD for future technologies that can get us a real chance. Its really a much more forward, ambitious way of thinking than previously stated.

1/2/2012 11:08:57 PM

1492 - is to 1976

as

1968 - is to 20xx X


i for one am very excited for the potentials here. i hope i live to see something like this.

[Edited on January 2, 2012 at 11:26 PM. Reason : ,]

1/2/2012 11:24:16 PM

Quote :

"wasting time and resources on building log rafts to cross oceans"

Are you even trying to make sense?

1/2/2012 11:46:09 PM

It can be a pretty good analogy but maybe not in the way he means.

Imagine the human race as a civilization on an island. We could send out ships to try and colonize other islands, all of which are incredibly far away, almost all are totally inhospitable, and even the very best of which are still so hostile that just surviving on them, much less having a functional society, would be an endless struggle.

Or instead, we could just build the ships to almost perfectly emulate life on our island and live on them. Sure we wouldn't actually be "on land" but is that really so important?

Even if we somehow realize science fiction levels of technology like FTL travel, Anti/artificial gravity (true artificial gravity, not centripidal simulation), and easy terraforming, a planet is still an incredibly inefficient use of resources for supporting a population. Consider the Death Star (yeah I know but we're talking science fiction here). It's large for a man made structure yes, but astrologically it's fairly small. A sphere about 160 km in diameter. And yet something that size could house and support BILLIONS. It's also mostly hollow.

Imagine how many massive space habitats we could make from the iron core of one lifeless planet if we didn't bother trying colonize it.

[Edited on January 3, 2012 at 2:14 AM. Reason : ]

1/3/2012 2:13:58 AM

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/11/a-planet-for-every-star/
Extra-solar planets are much more frequent than previously thought.

1/11/2012 4:27:09 PM

^^ It is a lot more effort to build land than it is to sail away and occupy land where-ever you find it. Teraforming mars to produce 144,798,500 km2 of fairly habitable area will require an imperceptibly tiny fraction of the effort and energy required to build an equivalent area platform floating in space.

Send a few dozen crews out in search of ice asteroids of frozen atmosphere, attach thrusters, and send them into collision with mars. Engineer the right mix of plant and animal life, and be done with it. The inhabitants of the planet will never again need to worry about decompression, solar storms, or the downfall of civilization. People living in space do not survive a nuclear war.

1/11/2012 4:59:36 PM

Quote :

"People living in space do not survive a nuclear war."

This whole thread is a pipe dream. There is no where else we can survive more than temporarily. Earth is all we get. Period.

1/11/2012 5:06:49 PM

Quote :

"Even if we somehow realize science fiction levels of technology like FTL travel, Anti/artificial gravity (true artificial gravity, not centripidal simulation), and easy terraforming, a planet is still an incredibly inefficient use of resources for supporting a population. "

This is correct insight, and you know what drives me nuts? Even real physicists will talk as if they're ignorant of this fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QLks9QkVLM&t=6m51s

The Kardashev scale is fundamentally based on the fallacy that you point out, with a small extension that a star is an inefficient use of energy, just as planets are an inefficient use of materials. The sun produces low entropy energy and raises its entropy and it moves it to the surface, leaving it at a given temperature which is, yeah, high, but it could be much higher in addition to the fact that our conversion efficiency from photons of that energy into electrical energy remains very poor.

And in case there are any photon groupies out there, know that electric energy has the best energy conversion of anything we know. This is why exergy uses it as the baseline. Many fusion reactions allow direct conversion into electrical energy, QED.

Quote :

"Consider the Death Star (yeah I know but we're talking science fiction here)."

Automation in microgravity factories will scale like we've never seen. But we're still very far from that, no one even brings up the point. But more to your point, making a structure the size and composition of the Death Star (minus the Hollywood gravity) is totally doable with present materials.

Consider a skyscraper. It is penalized by gravity due to the fact that the lower floors have to set aside some # of square feet in order to hold up the upper floors. The self-gravitation of half of the Death Star from the other half could be no more than the weight of the Sears Tower, and that's a lot of productive volume.

[Edited on January 11, 2012 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2012 5:10:07 PM

Quote :

"There is no where else we can survive more than temporarily. Earth is all we get. Period."

Not if we terraform mars. Then we can live there as easily as we live here.

It would be a major undertaking, but it is certainly not impossible.

1/12/2012 1:11:18 AM

Quote :

"There is no where else we can survive more than temporarily. Earth is all we get."

so let me get this straight:

1) earth = temporary
2) there is nowhere we can survive more than temporarily


lol gotta love smc logic. i'll admit though, this guy delivers.



hahaha not really,probably the biggest retard that ever went to ncstate.

1/12/2012 10:21:01 AM

Quote :

"^^ It is a lot more effort to build land than it is to sail away and occupy land where-ever you find it. Teraforming mars to produce 144,798,500 km2 of fairly habitable area will require an imperceptibly tiny fraction of the effort and energy required to build an equivalent area platform floating in space. Send a few dozen crews out in search of ice asteroids of frozen atmosphere, attach thrusters, and send them into collision with mars. Engineer the right mix of plant and animal life, and be done with it. The inhabitants of the planet will never again need to worry about decompression, solar storms, or the downfall of civilization. People living in space do not survive a nuclear war."

Yes mars might be easier, but I'm talking about EXTRA-SOLAR habitiation. Colonizing planets that are hundreds of light years away at least.

In the Island metaphor, Mars would be visible on the horizon while other planets would be on the other side of the planet.

1/12/2012 1:50:06 PM

the problem with terraforming mars is that if you DID get the atmosphere thick enough, it would dissipate over time in part due to mars' lack of magnetic field and lower mass than Earth.

1/12/2012 1:52:21 PM

Quote :

"In the Island metaphor, Mars would be visible on the horizon while other planets would be on the other side of the planet."

I'll take the other position, that space settlement within our solar system will make sense long before Mars and Venus (where's the love for Venus btw?)

Quote :

"^^ It is a lot more effort to build land than it is to sail away and occupy land where-ever you find it. Teraforming mars to produce 144,798,500 km2 of fairly habitable area will require an imperceptibly tiny fraction of the effort and energy required to build an equivalent area platform floating in space. "

But energy doesn't matter! It's leverage that matters!

You're talking about how it will take so much more energy to build space platforms as opposed to teraforming a planet surface, and this is ridiculous on its face. It still costs > $1000 per kg for us to send something into Low Earth Orbit, and even if our launch systems are PERFECT it will still cost > $100 kg because of the energy costs. If the plan to teraform Mars involves transporting any significant amount of material from Earth to Mars, then it's energetically going to be horrendous!

So let's talk about self-sufficiency. There are abundant materials on the surface of a planet (obviously... it's a surface), and you can mine what you need there. However, a mine in Mars will have very little inherent advantage over a mine on Earth. It's pretty much the same stuff aside from the fact that you need only 1/3rd of the lifting capacity. But if we're talking about space habitats you need NO lifting capacity. The drawback, of course, is that materials are more scarce in space. But those materials (asteroids) that are out there can be harvested over long periods of time for extremely low energy costs, as we can target orbital windows of opportunity.

Of course, I haven't addressed the main leverage advantage for teraforming, which is biological leverage. For Mars, if we could engineer an invasive plant that can grow in its soil then we can accomplish a step or two of teraforming with a huge amount of leverage. But if that crop is going to need artificial irrigation, then you're back to our conventional NASA-esque bulky equipment at astronomical costs.

Actually, I think Venus in certain ways has more potential. Its atmosphere is thick and hostile, but if an extremophile bacteria could survive... then it could float around and take over the planet with ease. The thin atmosphere on Mars is something that will be very difficult to engineer around and it impairs mobility.

1/12/2012 2:07:01 PM

I just don't feel like ending up like this on Mars:




or this:

1/12/2012 2:14:47 PM

Quote :

"If the plan to teraform Mars involves transporting any significant amount of material from Earth to Mars, then it's energetically going to be horrendous!"

It involved lifting a few dozen remote controlled spaceships to go locate frozen asteroids containing the right atmospheric elements in the outer reaches of the solar system and nudge them into a collision course with mars. People don't need to set foot on mars until the atmosphere is already thick and warm enough to only need an oxygen mask.

Quote :

"it would dissipate over time in part due to mars' lack of magnetic field and lower mass than Earth."

Over time scales that don't matter to us. Just maintain the search for atmospheric asteroids to over time replace whatever is lost. Of course, there might be a problem if martian civilization ever collapses and cannot maintain the asteroid hunters.

1/12/2012 7:12:49 PM

Life has been on Earth for pretty much the whole time Earth has existed.

1/12/2012 7:15:19 PM

care to back that up? I mean, maybe I missed a few reports on it, but I highly doubt that life we would recognize existed in or on a mass of molten rock. I know there are extremophiles, but everything I've read suggests that such creatures evolved from creatures with far less tolerance to those conditions

1/12/2012 7:30:22 PM

Actually, it's about 3/4 of the Earth's existence.

1/12/2012 7:41:06 PM

If the lifespan of the earth was a single 24 hour day at the movies, life appeared with the 5am cleaning crew. Things really started to get interesting(things that look like real critters) during the after-dinner matinee. Dinosaurs arrived for the 9:30pm main feature. We showed up after 11:59pm for the Rocky Horror Picture Show and really trashed the theater.

[Edited on January 12, 2012 at 7:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2012 7:52:00 PM

The theater was in far worse shape after the dinosaurs left than it is now.

1/12/2012 8:25:16 PM

Yeah it sucked ass when they turned the HVAC system on around noon too.

1/12/2012 8:30:57 PM

Quote :

"It involved lifting a few dozen remote controlled spaceships to go locate frozen asteroids containing the right atmospheric elements in the outer reaches of the solar system and nudge them into a collision course with mars. People don't need to set foot on mars until the atmosphere is already thick and warm enough to only need an oxygen mask. "

The mass of Earth's atmosphere is 5×10^15 tonnes = 5 x 10^18 kg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Density_and_mass

Asteroid masses
Ceres 1 x 10^21 kg
#5 asteroid 5 x 10^19 kg
#10 asteroid 2.2 x 10^19 kg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_asteroids#Largest_by_mass

Yes, it will probably require less material to make the Martian atmosphere "Earthlike" than what Earth has in its own atmosphere, but in addition to having a smaller area, the thickness will be greater for the same surface pressure due to the lower gravity. So it's not all that trivial, and it might not be different by much (say 1/3rd area with 3x as much thickness).

I'm still skeptical about this plan. I imagine you would get something closer to asteroid #3,213 in size versus the above sample space. Even if you did crash a few into Mars, is what you're left with really going to be that much better?

1/12/2012 10:19:23 PM

Are your numbers right? They imply we might be done after directing in only one asteroid, as each of the asteroids you list weigh more than Earth's entire atmosphere by a factor of 10. I envisioned an automated process we set in motion and leave in motion, directing in many dozens or hundreds of asteroids containing the right atmospheric stuff (nitrogen, water, methane, etc).

We don't need Earth's sea level density, as we are tweaking the contents to obtain the needed warmth at lower pressures. Which is important, as you say a deeper/heavier atmosphere is needed for the same pressure. Comfortable temperatures might require more than just asteroids, as natural super-greenhouse gasses (such as methane) seem unlikely to be found in asteroidal form, necessitating the construction of CFC production facilities on mars by the inhabitants that eventually settle there.

Or, if the asteroid search goes well, perhaps we can just leave it running until mars has a super-heavy atmosphere more like Venus than Earth, obtaining the needed temperatures through sheer force of pressure. Would make airline travel cheap for martians.

And how would the ability to live and work outside with only an oxygen mask not be that much better? Nevermind the ability to grow food and plants outside with regular rainfall? And after plant life gets going, even the oxygen mask would be optional at low elevations.

1/13/2012 9:27:32 AM

I don't know of any nearby asteroids that are mostly composed of frozen atmospheric gasses. to me it would make a LOT more sense to utilize in situ resources on mars, like the frozen CO2 at the poles to thicken up the atmosphere and kick up the greenhouse effect.

1/13/2012 10:55:41 AM

Quote :

"They imply we might be done after directing in only one asteroid, as each of the asteroids you list weigh more than Earth's entire atmosphere by a factor of 10"

Yeah, that's right. But redirecting asteroids requires being very picky. Any random asteroid probably doesn't have a favorable orbit to change course to Mars. It depends on how much time you have too. (it's all about leverage, right?)

I'm more worried about the asteroid having suitable materials... and the collision physics.

The total asteroid belt mass is about 3x that of Ceres, and obviously Mars is their closest neighbor, so I get that part of the argument. Per your arguments, mass needed for the atmosphere is < 1/600th what is available in the asteroid belt. But what elements are we talking about? I don't know.

One of the "ironic" arguments I've heard is that for terraforming, it would be perfect to make a big tube that funnels Venus's atmosphere to Mars. Both planets would be made more suitable with that (ridiculous) plan.

Quote :

"And how would the ability to live and work outside with only an oxygen mask not be that much better? Nevermind the ability to grow food and plants outside with regular rainfall? And after plant life gets going, even the oxygen mask would be optional at low elevations."

Yeah, this is the sequence I've heard NASA entertains. Going from < 0.1 psi to about 5 psi is obviously the first necessity. By the Oxygen mask argument, it makes sense that having an ambient pressure, irrelevant of the composition, is helpful for human operations. Space stations tend to be 1/3rd sea level pressure since they can just make it nearly pure Oxygen so our lungs work normally (enough).

I just think to myself that the scale of the space missions for step #1 with Mars would be so crazy beyond anything else we've done. An atmosphere is nice, but we're talking about major fundamental changes to our cosmic neighborhood (although the same might be said for global warming). If you think about electrical machines, they're really a "lifeform" well suited for the vacuum of space, and we could have a huge number of asteroids teeming with robots in 100 years. That would be exciting, particularly if it led to a space economy where we could make stuff. The discussion about terrestrial habitats seems like it's jumping the gun.

Quote :

"I don't know of any nearby asteroids that are mostly composed of frozen atmospheric gasses. to me it would make a LOT more sense to utilize in situ resources on mars, like the frozen CO2 at the poles to thicken up the atmosphere and kick up the greenhouse effect."

People argue this exact thing for "Mars step #1". Basically, heating the planet will create an atmosphere.

[Edited on January 13, 2012 at 10:57 AM. Reason : ]

1/13/2012 10:56:18 AM

Quote :

"I don't know of any nearby asteroids that are mostly composed of frozen atmospheric gasses."

Main-belt comet activity is proof that such volatiles exist in the asteroid belt. Although you are right, it is possible our asteroid belt mining attempts don't work out. But the spacecraft being sent to redirect the asteroids are unmanned, so if the asteroid belt is too close to the sun to contain what we need, the space-craft could be sent further out to the colder realms of the solar system where the desired elements were less likely to evaporate.

Quote :

"to me it would make a LOT more sense to utilize in situ resources on mars, like the frozen CO2 at the poles to thicken up the atmosphere"

Such stores are insufficient, as is demonstrated by their current predicament of being frozen. As I understand it, even melting everything on the planet, too much of the atmosphere has blown off over four billion years for it ever to be close to habitable. Even if we could melt all the trapped atmosphere, there is not enough of it to keep it all from freezing right back. Factories would be built on the planet pumping out CFCs and other artificial greenhouse gasses, but I don't think this is enough to render the atmosphere usable for life. But this process would always be slower and more costly than organizing a few collisions.

1/13/2012 12:02:49 PM

^oort cloud objects

1/24/2012 3:29:43 PM

^ how did we ever even detect the ort cloud?

I mean, wtf scientists?

1/25/2012 1:26:17 PM

We haven't. It's hypothetical.

1/25/2012 1:44:28 PM

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0512256v1.pdf (several mb's)


Comets are often considered to be the gateway for understanding Solar System
formation. In fact, they are probably the most primitive objects of the Solar
System because they formed in distant regions where the relatively cold temperature preserved the pristine chemical conditions. For this reason they have
been the target of very sophisticated and expensive space missions like Giotto,
Stardust and Rosetta for in-situ analysis or sample return. To best exploitthe
information collected by ground based and space based observations, however,
it is necessary to know where comets come from, where they formed, and how
they evolved in the distant past. For instance, did they form at 5, 30 or at 100
AU? Are they chunks of larger objects that presumably underwent signi?cant
thermal and collisional alteration or are they pristine planetesimals that could
never grow larger?
In addition, the orbital structure of the comet reservoirs records information
of the dynamical processes that occurred when the Solar System was taking
1shape. For example, it carries evidence of the migration of the giant planets,
and/or of close encounters of our Sun with other stars. Modeling these dynamical processes and comparing their outcomes with the observed structures,
gives us a unique opportunity to reconstruct the history of the formation of the
planets and of their primordial evolution.
The purpose of this chapter is to review our current understanding of comets
from the dynamical point of view and underline the open issues which still need
more investigation. The ?rst part is devoted to the current Solar System. In
Section2 I describe the orbital and dynamical properties of the trans-Neptunian
population: the Kuiper belt and the scattered disk. Section 3 is devoted to the
evolution of comets from their parent reservoirs –the trans-Neptunian population or the Oort cloud– to the inner Solar System. As we know the current
Solar System quite well –the orbits of the planets, its galactic environment– the
results discussed in this part are quite secure. In contrast, the second part of
the chapter focusses on more controversial topics, as it is devoted to the origin
of the Solar System, namely how the comet reservoirs formed and acquired their
current shapes. More precisely, section 4 is devoted to the formation of the Oort
cloud, section 5 to the primordial sculpting of the trans-Neptunian population
and section 6 discusses a recently proposed connection between these events and
the Late Heavy Bombardment of the terrestrial planets. In the ?nal section I
will speculate on a scenario of solar system primordial evolution that would put
all these aspects together in a coherent scheme.

[Edited on January 27, 2012 at 10:21 AM. Reason : ,]

1/27/2012 10:18:39 AM

welcome to 1962 india:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t33SXyAWOII

2/25/2012 9:07:12 AM

Quote :

" According to The Daily Yomiuri, Tokyo construction company, Obayashi Corporation, hopes to erect a space elevator by 2050."

http://news.discovery.com/tech/space-elevator-120225.html

even though the elevator will zoom up the ribbon at 124 miles per hour, it's still going to take a week to get there.

2/25/2012 12:11:12 PM

too bad it will be going 0 mph because the space elevator is an infeasible idea.

2/25/2012 12:22:44 PM

You’re the first person i’ve heard say it’s infeasible. Why do you say this?

You do mean technically or politically or what?

2/25/2012 1:02:43 PM

First level:

The material strength requirement needs manufacturing of the sort we have never even demonstrated at any production volume. The microscopic things they've made which presumably have the strength can't have a price tag put on them. Because of that, the space elevator would, at best, be put in the "list of things we would do if we had stronger materials". Material science affects all industries, and the existence of a material that can make the space elevator might make the space elevator obsolete. We don't know.

Second level:

Even if we just assume that we can make those materials in the quantity needed, the molecular structure and engineering tolerance is mutually exclusive with the radiation environment where it would be placed.

2/25/2012 2:09:39 PM

I vaguely recall seeing the DoD has a lab that’s pumping out carbon nanotube materials by the yard…

And on all the websites ive seen about the topic seem to say that a nanotube tether is up to the task of handling the environmental issues.

[Edited on February 25, 2012 at 2:14 PM. Reason : ]

2/25/2012 2:13:19 PM

Maybe DoD is making polymers that have Carbon nanotubes in them and participating in the linkage. It is certainly not sufficient strength for what the space elevator needs.

The nonotubes might be up for handling the environmental issues, but it's still an open question as to whether this academic problem of a ribbon 1,000s of miles long made out of perfect Carbon nanotubes would work for this.

Again, we would revolutionize all of construction if we could make this stuff, so why the lack of enthusiasm about that? Why is an elevator that takes 2 weeks to bring a few tons to GEO orbit such a great thing? We could accomplish that same thing with other launch methods.

2/25/2012 3:55:54 PM

Quote :

"The space elevator will be built "about 10 years after everyone stops laughing". I believe people will stop laughing once a proper tether is demonstrated"

i bet it's incredibly easy to beat a guy like mrfrog in a game like chess or tennis.

i have no respect for people who say something is impossible however improbable.

2/25/2012 9:19:26 PM

Quote :

"Why is an elevator that takes 2 weeks to bring a few tons to GEO orbit such a great thing?"

like.... you realize it takes 32 times the weight of the object in fuel to get it simply to low orbit right?

so if you want to get something simple like a bus into orbit it takes 10's of millions of pounds of fuel.

i guess your cool with that being 'all the option we got'... keep driving your gas car around in 2030 also.




[Edited on February 25, 2012 at 9:35 PM. Reason : -]

2/25/2012 9:22:44 PM

You seem to continue to debate the feasibility of the space elevator.

Even though I'm not willing to concede that point, if I do, it still never gets built. Under no circumstances.

You fail to compare the space elevator against its alternatives. That's where you separate something you like thinking about from something that might actually matter someday. The space elevator won't.

The space elevator would suck at its purpose. A very major reason is that its alternatives, aside from being far far far faaaaar cheaper and realistic, would have a faster launch rate. Mother fucking conventional launch systems could bring 100s of tons to orbit.

http://autogeny.org/tower/tower.html

2/25/2012 10:33:42 PM

that's pretty cool actually

not sure why but a magnetic launch system would be pretty cool too (thinking of that since i was on a roller coaster recently with that shit. you go from 0-60 in like .2 seconds)

[Edited on February 26, 2012 at 11:10 AM. Reason : here it is.. like this ]

2/26/2012 11:08:00 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXYsDdPvbo

The Quicklaunch people lay out the details pretty well in this video. Magnetic railguns generally can't get the payload to the needed speed to reach orbit, or they haven't so far.

That said, I don't think it rules out a space pier because the fact that we have an atmosphere creates a lot of the complications with the railguns. Although, I should distinguish between a railgun (which uses electrical contacts) from actual maglev type acceleration.

Nonetheless, a simple sea-level Hydrogen gas launch system would make sense as per his arguments.

2/26/2012 11:30:07 AM

^that was actually pretty informative (long but informative)

but i think i'm gonna stick with the space elevator and put my stock in Obayashi Corporation

2/26/2012 9:05:25 PM

We would be a lot better persuing a subsea civilization. Most people would disagree because of the pressure problems but even though its science in a different direction, being able to survive at high pressures could some day benefit space travel (living under the surface of europa or even inside of a gas giant.

The main reason for living at the bottom of the ocean would be survival. A lot of the things that could possibly exterminate humanity could be avoided living in a sealed-off self containing dome under the ocean.

2/26/2012 10:38:52 PM

Bring back sealab?

2/27/2012 8:36:43 AM

Branson is working on this currently. Virgin Galactic gets all the attn but he has a big project going on in the ocean also

2/27/2012 10:41:16 AM

Why would we live inside of a gas giant when we could just live in space?

2/27/2012 11:06:28 AM