Sure, but in the model of "it's a barren, atmosphere-less planet close to its parent star", it's quite like an Earth-scale version of Mercury.

Trappist-D, -E, and -F might all be habitable. E has the best chance.

That's significantly different from previous models, which suggested it was more akin to Venus. This is more like a super-sized Mercury.

Black holes don't "suck things in" anymore than anything else in the universe does.

How should we know, and how could we possibly predict it accurately?

I doubt Vlad and Boris have the power to call in an airstrike.

I don't think so. The Russian military has enough on its plate right now.

You aren't responding to anything I'm saying.

I think this conversation is over.

If you want to discuss migration, do it elsewhere. This isn't about that.

>So when Florida goes underwater and we can't just lock out all the refugees at the border, all the Floridians are going to go where?

Which has what do do with a moonbase?

Regardless, I'm not making an assertation about what the future of climate change-induced migration will look like. I'm asking what that has to do with a moonbase.

Besides, you still haven't explained why you believe:

• "we" can barely maintain the funding for the ISS (whoever "we" is)
• there's a "99.9% chance that a moon colony never materializes"
• why a "giant heavy lift rocket" is a bad thing

Why do you believe these things? I've explained why I believe what I believe. Why can't you explain what you believe?

>I don't know that it's really all that useful for the average Joe to spend a lot of time pondering all the doom and gloom. So I get the desire to ignore it or focus on other things.

So, in other words, you're above the "average joe". You're enlightened. Unlike all those stupid optimists, you understand that the world is actually a shitty place, that we're all inevitably doomed due to, say, climate change, and that you're smarter than all the stupid, childish sheeple, because you're a complete cynic, just like a wise, mature adult. Reality is awful and horrible, and you're the only one smart enough to realize that. Everyone who doesn't believe in what you do just needs to grow up and face the harsh, cruel truth: the world sucks.

Have you considered you might just be depressed and trying to rationalize that? Objectively speaking, things don't really suck as much as you apparently think they do.

>But it is the reality.

"It's cynical! Therefore, it's true!"

>Why wouldn't mass internal migration lead to pullbacks in pretty much all discretionary spending?

Well, for starters, it's probably not going to be internal migration, because a whole bunch of people living around the equator are going to try to flee north or south. There'll be an actual refugee crisis at the US-Mexico border because of it.

But, that aside, why do you think that precludes spending on a moonbase?

>Are you living in Elon's fantasy land?

"anyone I'm against is living in Elon's fantasy land"

​

You still haven't explained why you believe:

• "we" can barely maintain the funding for the ISS (whoever "we" is)
• there's a "99.9% chance that a moon colony never materializes"
• why a "giant heavy lift rocket" is a bad thing

Like, do you actually believe any of what you're saying? You don't seem to be able to explain why you actually believe these things. To me, it appears you're assuming the things you're saying are so clearly true that anyone who believes otherwise is mentally deficient, which your other comments reflect.

>Reality seems to be wallowing in doom and gloom.

If you view everything through social/news media and a lens of cynicism, yes.

Just because a view of the world sucks doesn't mean that view of the world is true.

> I get it if it's too much to face directly.

"You're too afraid to acknowledge how sad and horrible reality is, unlike me, who's an mature adult because I understand how much everything sucks and is hopeless."

Not what you actually said word-for-word, but essentially the same message you're trying to get across.

Believe it or not, people aren't naive children for believing in things you don't.

>Because once mass migrations start, we're going to have to pull back on any grand space colony fantasies.

Why?

>And the idea that the govt is going to actually foot the bill for a space colony seems kind of ludicrous.

Who says it'll all be the government?

There are sources of funding outside of government spending, you know.

>We can barely maintain the funding for ISS lol.

[citation needed]

Oh, and you're still not addressing why you believe there's a "99.9% chance that a moon colony never materializes" and why a "giant heavy lift rocket" is a bad thing.

You apparently think the things you're saying should be self-evident. They're not. Please explain why you think they are.

If people are against space colonies because Elon Musk is for space colonies, that's on them, not on Musk.

>By the end of the century, decent chance that parts or all of the Cape could be underwater.

Why does this make a moonbase a bad idea?

People spend money on, say, improving education, or developing infrastructure. But there are other problems that could also be solved with that money. Does that mean we shouldn't spend money on improving education or developing infrastructure?

>Are we really going to need a moon colony at that point?

A moon colony is useful at any point.

>But the reality is that 99.9% chance that a moon colony never materializes

How do you know that?

>and all we're left with is a big old giant heavy lift rocket for whomever to use for whatever purpose.

You say that like it's somehow a bad thing.

How is that in any way relevant to this?

People who mention Elon Musk without someone else having already done so are, more often than not, obsessed with him.

Not everything related to space is about Elon Musk, which means that someone who mentions Musk (without him already having been brought up) is irritating regardless of whether they're for him or against him. It's very clear that he lives rent-free inside their minds, regardless of whether they see him as some kind of infallible god or as the embodiment of modern economic evil.

Don't be one of those people.

"Anyone who thinks a moonbase is a good thing is clearly a simp for Elon Musk."

Could you explain why you think that?

If you think the profitability of a social media platform is more important for humanity than a moonbase, that's on you.

>Given everything going on down here, it is kind of silly to be making plans for moon colonies that will never happen.

"Given everything going on in the 1800s, it was kind of silly to be making plans for communications methods that would never be built."

"Given everything going on in the early 1900s US, it was kind of silly to be making plans for flying craft that would never be built."

"Given everything going on in the 1970s US, it was kind of silly to be making plans for high-yield grain varieties that would never be planted."

​

"There's so much going on right now! That means we can't do anything else!"

Yes, but there would've been more cost-effective ways of doing it than Artemis.

Also, it's nice to see a Guardian article that doesn't swerve into a tangent about "bUt WhAt AbOuT pRoBlEmS oN eArTh?"

>There's zero chance he believed his cars could drive NY to LA in 2016.

Which has what to do with this?

Him lying under other circumstances (even if he was lying) doesn't mean that he's lying in this one. If he said the sky was blue, would you not believe him because he lied in 2016?

Have you considered that, instead of consciously lying, he might simply have no clue what he's talking about?

Why would he lie in this case? What benefit does it provide him?

Automatically assuming everything Musk says is a lie has logical gaps that are pointed out the second he says something like "the sky is blue" or "one company I run, SpaceX, builds rockets".

Whether or not it's Musk saying it has no bearing on whether or not it's possible. Objectively, though, it's probably not.

Objectively, it's probably possible, and SpaceX has certainly made moves in that direction, what with Starship and the offshore launch platform conversion project.

But by 2029? Musk is either lying — which I see no motivation for him to do — or he hasn't an idea what he's talking about.

At most, maybe an empty, uncrewed Starship will smack the Martian atmosphere by 2029, and potentially even make a one-way landing. But the odds of that are low, IMO.