Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

strvgglecity t1_j2ny82a wrote

Dude you said there are many habitable planets, and then you referenced Mars, and I have no idea why. Mars is not habitable. Any human exposed to Mars would be dead in under one minute from numerous fatal effects. I think you're greatly overestimating your own knowledge about space, physics and science in general. We went to the moon 50 years ago, and we can barely even get back.

Going to another star is not realistic for human beings. We can send machines.

2

IamSorryiilol t1_j2nzb65 wrote

You're really really being pedantic here to try and brute force some sense of being right.

You know fine well I meant potentially habitable. We will have humans living on mars by 2040 at the latest. Co-HABITATING there as a group of HUMANS living on MARS.

Take your nonsense elsewhere. Humans will be living on other planets long before the end of the millennium, including those in far-off star systems you seem to think, is unachievable. It is a necessity, a requirement for survival.

Enjoy your bubble

−5

strvgglecity t1_j2o2mbf wrote

Lol being right is right. Not pednatic. Being accurate has meaning.

You didn't say "potentially habitable", you said habitable. Literally any planet anywhere is "potentially habitable". Even asteroids. Maybe we'll design a Venus or Uranus habitat one day. That phrase is functionally meaningless.

NASA isn't projecting the first manned flight until at least 2035 (super likely to be delayed). I suspect you think space works like it does in the movies.

1

IamSorryiilol t1_j2o5w2x wrote

I mean it isn't.. potentially habitable has meaning and it is not an asteroid or gas giant.

Lol.

Hmm no think you're incorrect on that one.

I suspect you do Mr 'Faster than light travel'.

This is what's called a tangent anyway. No we do not need new physics for interstellar travel, end of discussion.

1