Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 36

Author Topic: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.  (Read 65419 times)

Dutchling

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ridin' with Biden
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #435 on: January 13, 2013, 10:44:08 am »

What about a Near Earth Asteroid crashing into Earth and destroying all or most of civilization? While the chances of that happening is very small, the chance that it will happen eventually obviously isn't.
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #436 on: January 13, 2013, 10:49:55 am »

Well, again, you can settle in Alaska way more easily than Mars. A really massive asteroid could wipe all live at the surface of Earth (we're talking about liquefying the top rock layer here. Anything less can be survived with an underground bunker and a pile of canned food), but it's way cheaper to invest in a anti-asteroid system than settling Mars. And had the added bonus of not letting billions die.

And as I said before, we got a lot of empty land on Earth. The best proof that empty land is not the most important ressource of all is that the Sahara is mostly empty. And it has a lot of cool perk that Mars doesn't have, like an athmosphere and protection from cosmic ray.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 10:52:02 am by Sheb »
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #437 on: January 13, 2013, 11:15:01 am »

This might be splitting hairs a little, but a cruise ship has no chance of sustainable living for even a handful of people. I'm not sure if a couple thousand people could even fit on a cruise ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_world's_largest_cruise_ships

Sustaining a population on a cruise ship is child's play compared to sustaining one on mars.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

GreatWyrmGold

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sane, by the local standards.
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #438 on: January 13, 2013, 11:48:51 am »

And as I said before, we got a lot of empty land on Earth. The best proof that empty land is not the most important ressource of all is that the Sahara is mostly empty. And it has a lot of cool perk that Mars doesn't have, like an athmosphere and protection from cosmic ray.
And as I've said before, anything you make on Earth will require stepping on someone's toes or be very limited in size, not to mention still affecting and being affected by all Terran problems.

This might be splitting hairs a little, but a cruise ship has no chance of sustainable living for even a handful of people. I'm not sure if a couple thousand people could even fit on a cruise ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_world's_largest_cruise_ships
I stand corrected. If you had one of the largest cruise ships in the entire world and some way to magically generate food, you could, in fact, have a self-sustaining population on a cruise ship.

Quote
Sustaining a population on a cruise ship is child's play compared to sustaining one on mars.
Oh? How do you get enough food? (Hypothetically, you could use the same sort of greenhouses I've been proposing for Lunar or Martian colonies, but space on a cruise ship is MUCH more limited. Related:) Where will you put everything and -one? How will you get resources to make new clothes, books, whatever when the old ones wear out? What will you do, bereft of any kind of mineral or other resource, many of which are so common on Mars, when something inevitably breaks?
Logged
Sig
Are you a GM with players who haven't posted? TheDelinquent Players Help will have Bay12 give you an action!
[GreatWyrmGold] gets a little crown. May it forever be his mark of Cain; let no one argue pointless subjects with him lest they receive the same.

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #439 on: January 13, 2013, 01:04:42 pm »

As a note for Mars as a giant greenhouse. Mars hasn't got much more Co2 in atmos than Earth. Procentually it just seems a lot because Mars has an athmospherical pressure of near zero.

As for unclaimed land on Earth. There's a lot of it. Most isn't of very good quality though, or should be better used as a natural reserve, but anyway.

Besides, a large scale Mars colonization project isn't viable before we get space elevators, or some other way to reduce launchcosts. You just end up spending more resources/ energy on sending them up than you'd needed to store them on Earth.

A small scale scientific expedition would work better.
Logged

Dutchling

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ridin' with Biden
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #440 on: January 13, 2013, 01:12:41 pm »

but it's way cheaper to invest in a anti-asteroid system than settling Mars. And had the added bonus of not letting billions die.
A NEO (of  sufficient size to cause mass destruction) is estimated to hit the Earth every one hundred thousand years. How large do you think the chance of some dictator / madman / whatever using your anti-asteroid system to steer an NEO on collision course with the Earth is?
(yes I just read Pale Blue Dot >.<)
Logged

Aseaheru

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cursed by the Elves with a title.
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #441 on: January 13, 2013, 01:14:18 pm »

yes i just read the pale blue dot?
Logged
Highly Opinionated Fool
Warning, nearly incapable of expressing tone in text

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #442 on: January 13, 2013, 01:34:55 pm »

Okay, 7 or even probably 15 billion people could survive on Earth. But not at our current standard of living, certainly not with our current environmental practices, not for the long run.
Not that it's scientifically accurate[1], but you put me in mind of the Caves Of Steel world of Asimov.  That has a world population of eight billion!  And they're forced into a "cellular and modular" underground lifestyle to squash everyone on the planet into a viable subterranean living volume, with the emphasis on communal space over personal space included.

Trantor (probably the intellectual result of the Caves Of Steel prototype, both in-universe and conceptually) is at one point posited to house 40 billion souls (and is mostly a produce importer, rather than self-sustaining, at that point).  I can't guarantee the scientific or sociological accuracy of this latter case, either.  I just thought it an interesting point to add.  I may well be wrong. ;)




[1] Well, it's better than some, but it's also a 1950s view of things, and just like we don't have nuclear-powered plane engines[2] or positronic brains[3]

[2] Being undesirable to current sensibilities, even if it could have been done.

[3] Still on the more squidgy side of "hard" sci-fi, never mind that it doesn't seem to be possible even after 60+ years of human advancement.
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #443 on: January 13, 2013, 01:45:50 pm »

I remember reading an article by Krugman where he said that Trantor had half the opulation density of New Jersey. Still a lot for a planet, but New Jersey doesn't look like a huge pile of steel.

GreatwyrmGold, it depend what you mean by "threading on someone's toe". All the land belong to government, sure. But a lot is unoccupied. And as I said, people aren't going to let you claim Mars for your own. And anything that affect the Earth is still going to let it into a better shape than Mars is.

As for ressources, we got everything on Earth.

The problem is you were talking about using Mars as a place to store our overpopulation at first, and now you seem to present it as the ideal place to establish a free, entirely autarcic colony. I don't really see the point, unless you're misanthropic enough that you want a minimum of 0.6 AU between you and the rest of humanity.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #444 on: January 13, 2013, 02:22:54 pm »

Oh? How do you get enough food? (Hypothetically, you could use the same sort of greenhouses I've been proposing for Lunar or Martian colonies, but space on a cruise ship is MUCH more limited. Related:) Where will you put everything and -one? How will you get resources to make new clothes, books, whatever when the old ones wear out? What will you do, bereft of any kind of mineral or other resource, many of which are so common on Mars, when something inevitably breaks?

You have pretty much unlimited space around you in the form of ocean.  Making a floating greenhouse isn't all that difficult.

Getting resources on the ocean is pretty irrelevant since you were talking about the limits of space.  I was just pointing out the absurdly bad return on investment of colonizing mars for land area, for a fraction of the cost of making people live in cramped conditions on mars you could make them live in luxury on the ocean.  And we haven't even filled up very attractive landmasses like New Jersey yet.

If you want space then just make space habitats, they'd be vastly cheaper then mars.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #445 on: January 13, 2013, 02:40:04 pm »

I remember reading an article by Krugman where he said that Trantor had half the opulation density of New Jersey. Still a lot for a planet, but New Jersey doesn't look like a huge pile of steel.
Indeedy.  Also reminds me of a little of this, if you don't mind a slightly disjointed reference.

Which, of course, leads me to this, as well.  Which is where I'll stop, as there are even more relevant links in this series, and the parent webcomic, but not everybody likes that place (and those that do will surely have seen 'em all already!) and only madness lies there if I go further down that particular road. ;)
Logged

Aseaheru

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cursed by the Elves with a title.
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #446 on: January 13, 2013, 02:48:17 pm »

hey, has anyone here heard of the freedom ship?
floating city.
Logged
Highly Opinionated Fool
Warning, nearly incapable of expressing tone in text

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #447 on: January 13, 2013, 03:47:47 pm »

Yes.  An idea whose time has come...  for a long time now (I'm sure it was an '80s idea, in its current form).  Not sure if they've got the whole lot of millionaire evacuee signups that they needed to get it up and running... has it been started to be built yet?  It's the New Millennium already, and everything...

I know there's at least one "Residential Cruise Ship" operating, though...  Maybe the more conventional size of this (300 'residents'? and no fancy hydroponic farms or anything, that I know of, but dock-supplied) has attracted all the working capital, instead.


I still like those "artificial atoll" cities from the speculative science textbooks of the 60s and 70s, though.  The one I remember in particular is an almost closed "Crescent moon"-plan structures, built up high (but wide enough to be relatively "low-rise"), free-floating, harbour through the entrance 'gap' into the shelter in the middle, as well as quayside options on the outer rim as well.  No idea what the plans were to exert station-keeping/movement/anchoring functions (though doubtless at least partly mobile, to avoid the worst of the weathers), nor how they'd deal with those occasional monster waves (although they've been largely unproven, if not not uknown, until very recently) coming along and causing problems by breaking over their extremities (if not breaking their backs as the city tries to ride over them).

Logged

GreatWyrmGold

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sane, by the local standards.
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #448 on: January 13, 2013, 04:06:46 pm »

GreatwyrmGold, it depend what you mean by "threading on someone's toe". All the land belong to government, sure. But a lot is unoccupied. And as I said, people aren't going to let you claim Mars for your own. And anything that affect the Earth is still going to let it into a better shape than Mars is.
1. Precisely. In addition to land claims, I'm willing to bet that, say, the Japanese would be a bit nervous if someone suddenly settled an island near them...to say nothing of if you tried mining nearby...
2. I highly doubt anyone would try to evict an NGO which worked hard to set up a home on Luna or Mars and didn't cause trouble, especially since no one has claimed either of those worlds.
3. The idea is to put our eggs in multiple baskets, and to do so before we need to. I'll divide this into two subpoints for your convenience:
a. Having a colony on Luna or Mars or both would increase the chances of the survival of human civilization and knowledge in case of a war or major environmental disaster. Even if something doesn't kill every human on Earth, it could well cause the collapse of the global economy and society, which would probably lead to a loss of our hard-earned knowledge. Extraterrestrial colonies could probably keep this knowledge, possibly passing it back on to the Terrans when they could do so without getting killed.
b. Will this be needed in the next 20-30 years? Probably not. Will we be able to set it up in time once the deadline rears its ugly head? Almost certainly not.

Quote
As for ressources, we got everything on Earth.
I was refuting your idea of setting up a similar colony in Alaska for the same benefits, which is (to put it bluntly) stupid.

Quote
The problem is you were talking about using Mars as a place to store our overpopulation at first, and now you seem to present it as the ideal place to establish a free, entirely autarcic colony. I don't really see the point, unless you're misanthropic enough that you want a minimum of 0.6 AU between you and the rest of humanity.
1. I still had remnants of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in my head from the last time I read it. In the book, the main conflict is driven, in essence, by Luna exporting wheat (and precious nutrients and water therein). The idea that Lunar land could grow wheat is a bit silly, though, so when I realized that's where my thoughts were coming from I throttled that line of thought.
2. What does autarcic mean? Autocratic?
3. The idea is to escape the problems of Terra. Right now, Luna does have more problems with it, but the idea is to set up a base for when that's no longer the case.

As for unclaimed land on Earth. There's a lot of it. Most isn't of very good quality though, or should be better used as a natural reserve, but anyway.
You left out how much of it is in the form of little chunks of land in the ocean.
Yes, you could make similar colonies on Earth, and it would probably be cheaper. It would just probably be smaller, almost certainly negatively affect the environment, and certainly not avoid all the problems that the idea is to get away from in the first place.

Quote
Besides, a large scale Mars colonization project isn't viable before we get space elevators, or some other way to reduce launchcosts. You just end up spending more resources/ energy on sending them up than you'd needed to store them on Earth.
Agreed. Three things: 1. Luna first. Not a big difference, but everyone seems to be assuming I'm advocating we colonize Mars now instead of getting a working colony on Luna first, to test the ideas and get our feet wet. 2. Of course you'll spend more resources getting stuff into space than keeping them on Earth; warehouses are theoretically costless. 3. Space colonization has benefits, which must also be accounted for.

Quote
A small scale scientific expedition would work better.
Gotta start somewhere...but any long-term expedition to somewhere as far away as Mars (and even ones as close as Luna, if they're long-term) should include at least the basics of the kind of infrastructure needed to sustain a colony (mostly in the form of greenhouses and such, but still).

but it's way cheaper to invest in a anti-asteroid system than settling Mars. And had the added bonus of not letting billions die.
A NEO (of  sufficient size to cause mass destruction) is estimated to hit the Earth every one hundred thousand years. How large do you think the chance of some dictator / madman / whatever using your anti-asteroid system to steer an NEO on collision course with the Earth is?
If you mean "tires to use," close to 100%. If you mean "succeeds in using," a bit smaller.

Okay, 7 or even probably 15 billion people could survive on Earth. But not at our current standard of living, certainly not with our current environmental practices, not for the long run.
Not that it's scientifically accurate[1], but you put me in mind of the Caves Of Steel world of Asimov.  That has a world population of eight billion!  And they're forced into a "cellular and modular" underground lifestyle to squash everyone on the planet into a viable subterranean living volume, with the emphasis on communal space over personal space included.
Trantor (probably the intellectual result of the Caves Of Steel prototype, both in-universe and conceptually) is at one point posited to house 40 billion souls (and is mostly a produce importer, rather than self-sustaining, at that point).  I can't guarantee the scientific or sociological accuracy of this latter case, either.  I just thought it an interesting point to add.  I may well be wrong. ;)
The thing to consider is that, in that case, the surface would likely be being largely used for food production or wilderness. Heck, I would probably support advancements that make underground cities practical for just that reason. Will such measures be needed? Not for a while. Would they help the lives of many? Probably. Will they happen before they are desperately needed? No.

Oh? How do you get enough food? (Hypothetically, you could use the same sort of greenhouses I've been proposing for Lunar or Martian colonies, but space on a cruise ship is MUCH more limited. Related:) Where will you put everything and -one? How will you get resources to make new clothes, books, whatever when the old ones wear out? What will you do, bereft of any kind of mineral or other resource, many of which are so common on Mars, when something inevitably breaks?
You have pretty much unlimited space around you in the form of ocean.  Making a floating greenhouse isn't all that difficult.
...Even pretending that the ocean's surface is worthless for all causes at the moment and ignoring political consequences, weather alone will cause more problems than Luna's environment ever will (assuming a good standard of construction for the colony). And the ocean surface is pretty important for, you know, phytoplankton and such...ever hear of it? Base of the marine food chain, produces 50% of oxygen on the planet? A single greenhouse might not impact it much, but there would be impact, meaning that it's not "unlimited."

Quote
Getting resources on the ocean is pretty irrelevant since you were talking about the limits of space.
So? You'll still need resources once on-site. Are you going to ship steel and plastic to your greenhouse

Quote
I was just pointing out the absurdly bad return on investment of colonizing mars for land area, for a fraction of the cost of making people live in cramped conditions on mars you could make them live in luxury on the ocean.  And we haven't even filled up very attractive landmasses like New Jersey yet.
"Live in luxury?" I doubt it. Not unless you want to spend more resources, which you could by the way also spend to make the Lunar colony more spacious. And Earth's surface is a lot more useful than Luna's or Mars's.

Quote
If you want space then just make space habitats, they'd be vastly cheaper then mars.
Than, and space habitats have the exact same major disadvantage as floating ones: The difficulty of obtaining resources. It's worse, in fact, due to not having an easy way for the outside world to ship them steel or whatever and not being able to take anything from outside their living space.

hey, has anyone here heard of the freedom ship?
floating city.
Note to self: Look this up when I have time to kill not consumed by Bay12.
Logged
Sig
Are you a GM with players who haven't posted? TheDelinquent Players Help will have Bay12 give you an action!
[GreatWyrmGold] gets a little crown. May it forever be his mark of Cain; let no one argue pointless subjects with him lest they receive the same.

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: Humans, and eventually a colony on Mars.
« Reply #449 on: January 13, 2013, 04:50:06 pm »

2. I highly doubt anyone would try to evict an NGO which worked hard to set up a home on Luna or Mars and didn't cause trouble, especially since no one has claimed either of those worlds.
2. Internation Space law: Any partaking country (Ie, pretty much anyone) is responsible for anything that it's citizens/NGO's/coorporations do in space. I also believe that claiming planetary bodies is illegal.

As for unclaimed land on Earth. There's a lot of it. Most isn't of very good quality though, or should be better used as a natural reserve, but anyway.
You left out how much of it is in the form of little chunks of land in the ocean.
Yes, you could make similar colonies on Earth, and it would probably be cheaper. It would just probably be smaller, almost certainly negatively affect the environment, and certainly not avoid all the problems that the idea is to get away from in the first place.
Not that much actually. Most of it's locked up in the world's deserts, or other inhabitable areas. Rainforests and such. I was talking about the expand to avoid pop density problem btw.
Quote
Quote
Besides, a large scale Mars colonization project isn't viable before we get space elevators, or some other way to reduce launchcosts. You just end up spending more resources/ energy on sending them up than you'd needed to store them on Earth.
Agreed. Three things: 1. Luna first. Not a big difference, but everyone seems to be assuming I'm advocating we colonize Mars now instead of getting a working colony on Luna first, to test the ideas and get our feet wet. 2. Of course you'll spend more resources getting stuff into space than keeping them on Earth; warehouses are theoretically costless. 3. Space colonization has benefits, which must also be accounted for.

1. Same principle. Launch costs for mass migration projects to anywhere not Earth are simply too high.
2. I was talking about the people. Getting everyone a decent living will be much more practical on Earth than shooting them into space is.
3. The freedom to be irradiated? Less silly, there are some benefits, but they are few and far between and only apply to select sections of industry. Most people only get hindrance.

Quote
Quote
A small scale scientific expedition would work better.
Gotta start somewhere...but any long-term expedition to somewhere as far away as Mars (and even ones as close as Luna, if they're long-term) should include at least the basics of the kind of infrastructure needed to sustain a colony (mostly in the form of greenhouses and such, but still).
[/quote]
Sure, every expedition needs to be able to sustain itself for at least 2 years, as that is the earliest we can afford to bring them back (travel time not included). The most likely thing to run out is the nuclear power core, or maintenance failures of the life support system.
Quote
Okay, 7 or even probably 15 billion people could survive on Earth. But not at our current standard of living, certainly not with our current environmental practices, not for the long run.
Not that it's scientifically accurate[1], but you put me in mind of the Caves Of Steel world of Asimov.  That has a world population of eight billion!  And they're forced into a "cellular and modular" underground lifestyle to squash everyone on the planet into a viable subterranean living volume, with the emphasis on communal space over personal space included.
Trantor (probably the intellectual result of the Caves Of Steel prototype, both in-universe and conceptually) is at one point posited to house 40 billion souls (and is mostly a produce importer, rather than self-sustaining, at that point).  I can't guarantee the scientific or sociological accuracy of this latter case, either.  I just thought it an interesting point to add.  I may well be wrong. ;)
The thing to consider is that, in that case, the surface would likely be being largely used for food production or wilderness. Heck, I would probably support advancements that make underground cities practical for just that reason. Will such measures be needed? Not for a while. Would they help the lives of many? Probably. Will they happen before they are desperately needed? No.
Just a general note. The largest problem for a Crocusant style planetary city would be overheating. Energy can't be 100% efficient, and these stacked infrastructure tends to work as a gigantic heat magnet. Last numbers I heard would be that the Earth could reliably, using state of the art technology sustain about 20 billion people. This would have it's effect on standard of living and environement.

Quote
Oh? How do you get enough food? (Hypothetically, you could use the same sort of greenhouses I've been proposing for Lunar or Martian colonies, but space on a cruise ship is MUCH more limited. Related:) Where will you put everything and -one? How will you get resources to make new clothes, books, whatever when the old ones wear out? What will you do, bereft of any kind of mineral or other resource, many of which are so common on Mars, when something inevitably breaks?
You have pretty much unlimited space around you in the form of ocean.  Making a floating greenhouse isn't all that difficult.
...Even pretending that the ocean's surface is worthless for all causes at the moment and ignoring political consequences, weather alone will cause more problems than Luna's environment ever will (assuming a good standard of construction for the colony). And the ocean surface is pretty important for, you know, phytoplankton and such...ever hear of it? Base of the marine food chain, produces 50% of oxygen on the planet? A single greenhouse might not impact it much, but there would be impact, meaning that it's not "unlimited."
Solar storms are freaky, if unlikely. Normal storms are evadable, and usually not that bad. A good modular,flexible colony should be able to weather them without problems. People inside will get sick, probably. (Actually, it depends. If the entire thing weights enough, it might just ignore the waves at all. Same reason why a modern Cruise ship doesn't experience waves that much, but a small fisherboat would be thrown over immediatly.)

Also, since you're going to be eating that plankton, and encouraging it's growth, you'd end up increasing the amount of carbon fixated. Provided you let enough plankton live, and open up enough space for fishes, you can expand quite far.

Quote
Quote
Getting resources on the ocean is pretty irrelevant since you were talking about the limits of space.
So? You'll still need resources once on-site. Are you going to ship steel and plastic to your greenhouse
Bioplastics?

Quote
Quote
I was just pointing out the absurdly bad return on investment of colonizing mars for land area, for a fraction of the cost of making people live in cramped conditions on mars you could make them live in luxury on the ocean.  And we haven't even filled up very attractive landmasses like New Jersey yet.
"Live in luxury?" I doubt it. Not unless you want to spend more resources, which you could by the way also spend to make the Lunar colony more spacious. And Earth's surface is a lot more useful than Luna's or Mars's.
Launchcosts alone justify the earlier statement.

Quote
Quote
If you want space then just make space habitats, they'd be vastly cheaper then mars.
Than, and space habitats have the exact same major disadvantage as floating ones: The difficulty of obtaining resources. It's worse, in fact, due to not having an easy way for the outside world to ship them steel or whatever and not being able to take anything from outside their living space.
Space habitats being cheaper is doubtfull actually. They might be in the short term, but space habitats might have a larger launchcost(Habitat needs much more reinforcing than say a dugout on Mars/Moon), have troubles with taking up orbital space and having to evade spacegarbage.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 36