Slashdot Mirror
Last Day of Terrestrial Humans
A reader writes: "According to Christian Science Monitor, tomorrow humans will begin their permanent lives off of earth. Starting with the Expedition 1 launch in Kazakhstan at 7:53 GMT, Oct. 31, NASA plans to always have a human on the ISS, which has a projected mission life of 10 to 25 years. So, it is quite possible, that for the rest of history, there will always be humans who are not living on earth. See this ISS Homepage for more information on the mission."
Hope they got their wireless lan going, I couldn't survive in space without getting my Quake on...
How Jaded Are You?
If Mir had been manned just a little longer, then it would have been years ago.
Quite frankly it is getting a bit crowded here. ;p
We really need to keep people off planet, especially if we plan on ever creating any form of long range travel, or permanent bases/stations on other stellar bodies.
We really still do not fully grasp the adverse effects prolonged exposure to a lowered gravity environment poses on the human body.
I also would think it just means that I'm just one step closer to being able to go in the garage, hop into my little shuttle and take off to catch lunch on Mars.
wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team
Dude, passage of laws like the DMCA indicate that there is already a measurable segment of humanity who aren't living on this planet.
-Rob
Keep them in space the full 25 years without returning until the span is over and plant video cameras everywhere to record the decaying of their skeletal and muscular structures and put them on the web and television in a Big-Brother-esque series so we can watch them slip into dementia and you've got something most intriquing.
Throw in hot space-space chicks and you can sell pay-per-view on the Spice channel... Then you've most certainly got something...
---
seumas.com
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for the headline to read "First day for non-earthbound humans" or something to that effect?
The last time I looked around, there were still plenty of people here on Earth. But then again, it is unreasonable to expect any kind of news medium to put forth sensible headlines. After all, they just want attention.
Evan
Yeah, ok. Let me understand this... so, people living on MIR and spacelab don't count, right? I think I missed the memo.
So what! There have been a few days over time when we haven't had people living in space. No big deal. It's not like this whole "living in space" concept is a sort of revelation! We're pretty much used to humans living in space... it's not like I'll ever live there. So, what does tomorrow really mean to me?
--cr@ckwhore
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
This isn't terribly likely. Life in space is entirely based on life on Earth. Hence, space living, though outside the atmosphere, is subject to whatever political and financial winds are blowing.
Whether it is because of a technical failure that causes evacuation, funding crisis that leaves it unmanned for a time, or political upheaval that removes support, the odds are highly in favor of there being a time with no humans in space within the next 20 years.
What will change this is when life in space is self-sustaining. Then it will no longer be subject to terrestrial issues.
..would be humans who live their lives having never been on earth.
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
(reprinted without permission from the mailing list. subscription and other info at bottom.)
...it is quite possible, that for the rest of history, there will always be humans who are not living on earth...
For further proof, Slashdot has kindly presented the story on Nader further down the main page...
These comments and opinions are mine and mine alone, although they shouldn't be.
Remember what happened to Mir and the Space Fungus?
I wonder if they will post a doctor on ISS. It would be a bummer to get a heartattack 20 miles above the closest hospital...
Now that there is habitants of outspace, who is the governing body for space?
There have clearly been humans not living on earth for some time now. The most salient example is George W. Bush, who was captured by an alien civilization and replaced here on earth by a frighteningly informed, composed, capable Presidential candidate clone. How else to explain his broad-based appeal to independents and centrists?
If the real GWB was still here running for President, this race would be a cakewalk--Gore would have had it wrapped up months ago.
But shouldn't that read:
"tomorrow humans will begin their permanent lives off of earth."?
____________________________________
-- I beleve you'll like this -->
seemed relevant.....it may happen!
No sig here...
But shouldn't that read:
:)
"today humans will begin their permanent lives off of earth."?
I did it too.
____________________________________
-- I beleve you'll like this -->
Who I'd like to see live off of earth.
Well, we'd probably have a permanent station on Mars in a year if Al Sharpton would volunteer to go and not come back.
Seriously, this really could be the dawn of a new era. I've always considered the most noticable thing about humanity is our pure, unadulterated wanderlust.
We were hardly up on our hind feet before we started spreading all over the globe. Long before history began we had spread to the far corners of the globe.
Think about that. Not modern man, but man three feet tall with only the tools that he could fashion with his bare hands simply wandered into nearly every corner of globe. Just when, and HOW, did man first reach Australia?
We travel. Tourism is a major activity. We build bypasses so people at point A can get to point B, and vice versa, for no real reason. We go places for no more reason than " we havn't been THERE before."
When a cat gets bored it takes a nap. When a person gets bored * it paces. * It goes for a walk, it * goes SOMEWHERE.*
UP is the only place left to go, and it's about time we got down to it. Not for science, not for population pressure relief, not to 'save the whales', not for financial gain, but because we are human, and that's what humans DO!
Living permanantly off planet is cool, sort of like leaving home after high school. But when will we learn to live on our planet. And not in the fuzzy tree-huggy way. For example, are there any permanant human settlement yet under water (in the oceans)? What about in the atmosphere? Colonization of space is much less important than learning to live in extreme environments on Earth.
But accepting your caveats, requires an outside sphere...i.e. Mars or Luna.
Meow.
(Hoping to be the first cat on Mars...)
Yes, that's really my e-mail. Don't change a thing.
So far, and correct me if I'm wrong, nobody's died in space yet. Challenger hadn't left the atmosphere before it blew up, and Apollo 13 got back safely (although by the skin of their teeth).
With the number of missions needed to put the station together, and the unprecedented EVA time needed, it's just a matter of time before there's a serious accident up there.
With all the trips, the odds of breaking a seal and suffocating, or a pressurised tank exploding, or some other major system failure.
And once it's all running, there's always the chance of sudden illness popping up amongst the station's crew (despite the medical checks, there's always the one-in-a-million chance), and it becoming fatal before medical help can be reached.
I thought I'd seen an article on the risks somewhere before... Google popped this one up, which seems similar enough to what I remember. According to a study, the odds are at least one astronaut will die in the next 15 years.
when I first read the story I thought it was anouther wacko perdicting Jesus is coming.
Fortunatly I realized in time so that I'm not the one doing the obligatory "This is not news for nerds" post.
"Last Day of Exclusively Terrestrial Humans"?
Or is there a big asteroid I just don't know about?
A more interesting question is, when will we have the first dead human in outer space? It almost happened with that Apollo mission, and people have gotten fried trying to get up into space or coming down, but to my knowledge there has never been a person to actually die in outer space. Am I wrong?
You! Off my planet!!!
1) A person goes into space with no plans to return to Earth. In other words, they have moved.
2) A person is born in space and stays there.
Until one of these things happen we're just fooling ourselves. Next year we will be bombarded with constant reruns of 2001. I view this as a sad thing. We are not much closer to hopes of that existence than we were when the movie was made.
the "crowdedness" of Earth has nothing to do with space travel. Sorry. The shuttle costs about $10000 per pound to life something to orbit. Slash that by 10^4.... and you get $1. Such a capability is entirely beyond our means now, but assuming we can do it... if the average person weighs 100 lbs, that's a $100 person. How many people would we need to ship off someplace to reduce the overcrowding of earth? Each million people would cost 100 million dollars. How many millions would have to go?
All the math is the long way of saying that shipping people off planet will never be the solution to Eath's overcrowding...
B
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002
Some of the great things we could might include: Colonizing Mars and terraforming it, then building a dome of sorts on the moons of Mars and sending convicts there. Colonizing the moon and making it a staging area for deep-space manned missions and scientific research. Experimenting with mining of such planets as Jupiter for fuel (yeah it's far fetched due to all that physics stuff like gravity, but a man can dream can he?)
Anyway, We should seriously consider moving away from our eden in search of new ones to ravage and the like. plbth.
I know plenty of people who are already living on some other planet.
managers...why god invented purgatory
Yes and then the colonies can send Gundams to Earth to over-throw the evil political powers. Woohoo! We're on our way!
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
World Population:
Earth: 6,106,142,623
Space: 3
but we're still terrestrial in the sense that we were conceved, born and raised on Earth. If only we still had the same economy like we did during the industrial revolution you can be sure that Carnegie Space will already have put us into space so we can live in our Rockefeller boarding houses to mine the vast ammounts of iron in the martian soil. But seriously, it only takes time and money to put us out there, we already have the technology.
:wq! DOH!
Roy Miller
--Roy
Be sure to visit Joystick101.org for in-depth gaming news.
If I spend a year on the ISS...do I have to pay taxes for my income that year?
A nice touch would be if we did to our lawyers what Douglas Adams reccomends to do with them.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Since they are already up there above our heads, would that not make today the first day?
Aside from the obvious and redundant cracks about various political figures (and I'm surprised no one has mentioned Gates yet), there seems to be one overriding theme to the responses... So what?
NASA should take some pride in this response. Those astronauts are undertaking a voyage as deadly as any in history, but the unmitigated success of the US Space Program has reduced public reaction to little more than a yawn.
This will probably be the prevailing opinion for a long time. "We are living on the Moon? So what? We got there a long time ago. We are living on Mars? Great, we should send George W. Bush III out there! But seriously, so what? We are already living on the moon!"
It certainly is fun to be a cynic, deriding everyone else's achievements and laughing at how witty and smart we are. Just try and remember the date when you grandchildren ask when people first started to live in space...
B
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002
that for the rest of history, there will always be humans who are not living on earth.
ah, thats old news. Haven't you even been in a UFO?!
It would be meaningful only if ISS would be self-supporting and would not require any shipments from Earth to sustain its crew. As we all know this is not the case - in fact ISS isn't that different from MIR or Skylab - it is just bigger. In fact its significance is not as big as one could judge from all the media attention it gets.
Read Zubrin's book about his project of Mars exploration - that's just one example of something that would be really innovative and meaningful. There were other ideas of this kind, but none was implemented so far.
Go outside, PLEASE.
Sounds a little exaggerated. Hey it's only orbit around a small blue planet.
Um, my copy of the article said "workmanlike," not "womanlike." Perhaps you should be less preoccupied with conspiricy and take time to realize how cool this all is!
Here is a related but pessimistic prediction: before I die, there will be no living person who has walked on the moon. This seems incredibly sad to me.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
I believe that it will still be quite soem time before we can say that a human or a group of humans will actually LIVE (not just take up residence) in space.
What I am referring to in this is that until we have a good way to create artificial gravity, it is NOT in ANY human's best interest to attempt to live in space for any long periods of time.
The reason? The human structure adapts -- if a human stays a prolonged amount of time in 0G then their system will adapt to 0G as the norm: possibly making it impossible for them to return to Earth. While this is quasi-true for adults living in space for a prolonged time, I wonder what would happen for a child who was born and raised in 0G. One would think that it would be impossible and deadly to attempt to return to the high gravity of Earth.
Now that thats out of the way, who wants to volunteer to build an artificial gravity machine?
How long have we gone with always having a plane in the sky? The ISS can be considered a very high altitude plane with a long flight time.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
I agree that person isn't REALLY living in space until they move there and do not intend to come back. Sure they might get guilt tripped into seeing thier mother for thanksgiving, but they always go back.
Santa Fe is like another planet. Anyone who's been here knows exactly what I'm talking about.
so when will we see the first interplanetary (or at least surface to ISS) gamming...i wonder if the astronauts are allowed to bring any sort of entertainment.....it has already been stated that some of the first commercial ventures into space will involve somesort of ground based multimedia project.
bk
Not with the muscular distrophy problems and deformed embryos, etc.
Those are effects of lack of g, not of lack of planet Earth. For those who haven't taken high school physics, g is a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 or thereabouts, which is felt by the human body as "down." It's easily to simulate g in space; simply rotate a cylindrical structure (ringworld, ds9, etc). This takes away most of the MD and [birth difference] problems.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Now if we just gave a damn about the moon we could have had people living there for the past 20 years!
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
When was the last day of outhouse-using humans? Man what a stupid headline.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Well, I give you a congratulations for showing us just how gullible they are. Venn sysnopsis and psudo sychronisity fallout are very professional sounding. Just between you and me, do these moderators know who you are, and what your goal is, or are they just really dumb?
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Just read the article last week about what humans going to Mars are going to have to do to survive, and you get a pretty quick impression that life in space isn't going to be that yummy.
Seriously, though. I understand the fascination with space and the "final frontier" but there is NO WAY you're ever going to see those massive sci-fi dreams realized. First off, humans don't colonize worthless tracts of land. There are places in the world today almost as hospitable as Mars - deserts/Ice caps/South Pole/ that are barren of people. Why? No reason to go, and no resources to exploit when they do arrive. Why did men go to Nevada? Silver - Why did they leave - Silver is gone. They had to start casinos and tourism, otherwise the whole state would be a ghost town.
Without a resource to exploit in space, and a MASSIVE energy source capable of reproducing some of life's amenities and making interplanetary travel a bit more liveable, there's no point, no profit, and no way mankind is going to spread to Mars or space stations or any other place. The one thing they might have going for them is Zero G manufacturing, and we'll have to wait and see on that.
And god help us if we ever find a planet with anything resembling a life form. Historically, Humans react VERY BADLY to foreign organisms they've never been exposed to before. (ask the Amazonian tribes, Native Americans, Europeans ) - it'll be the Andromeda strain all over again.
Not a pessimist, just a realist. People don't colonize inhospitable environments cause they want to, they plan to get something out of it. Find a valuable mineral or resource on Mars or in space, and I promise you, private corporations will beat NASA there - but without incentives, it's almost a waste of time. Go to the Sahara or the South Pole if you want to explore.
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
So until we develope a working form of artificial gravity (and a more advanced diaper) there will be no children in space (hey, maybe space really does have potential as a 'vacation destination' !)
NightHawk
Tyranny =Gov. choosing how much power to give the People.
Let's see here, the IIS has a projected lifespan to 10 to 25 years. Mir was continuously occupied for about 12 years. So, IIS could be decommissioned and deorbited two years short of setting a record for continuous habitation.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
Space Fungus!
"Ah! 30 CCs of Tolnaftate."
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
There's already a First Bank of Space waiting for you to open your account.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm a terrestrial human. It's my last day.
We can say that today Humans started living in space without relying on the earth for support. A LONG ways off for sure.
W9x:Thanks for the make-work project Bill.
The point of the article is that while Mir may have been occupied for most of its life, there are times (such as right now) where it's not occupied.
As long as we can get a second station in space (orbiting, on moon/mars/other) before the ISS tanks, the point of the article is that from now on, there'll always be 1 or more human off earth.
This is a good thing. Space is vast, unoccupied, and there's nothing out there that'll care if we strip mine the asteroid belts, or dump some toxic waste into a lunar crater or the sun. Plus, it gets us out of this "all our eggs in one basket," err, in one planet, problem. It'd still be a tragedy to see global thermonuclear war, but if enough humanity is living elsewhere, life can go on.
Nathan Mates
I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought this immediately (well, immediately after thinking the Christian Scientists were talking about the end of the world).
This would have made more sense during the Cold War, but better late than never!
Now what they need to do is to make sure that there are always at least one fertile male and female in space at all times to really do the job properly.
Respectfully, David Tallan
Pardon my preposterous butting-in, but hasn't MIR been keeping a "permanent" human presence in space for a good number of years now? As for those who scoff at the mention of the soon-to-be-scuttled Soviet space platform -- look at the NASA orbiting station in 25 years before laughing. There is no guarantee that it won't share MIR's fate. Cheers, TAE
My sig is too lon
Sounds like the makings of a baaaad science fiction movie.
Star Trek reruns being beamed out to the universe won't help stop that reputation much either...
The U.S. political will to build ISS is tenuous at best. Each year there are battles and skirmishes in Washington to keep its funding on track. Once the thing is fully built it will be hard to shut it down considering the investment.
However, it's not realistic to think there will *always* now be one or more humans in orbit (or elsewhere in outer space). Maybe for the life of ISS (which may be 100 years with upgrades, etc.) but there is just no clear mandate from the public to explore space. I think it is a good thing and there are many valid reasons for doing so. I have noticed there are a *lot* of people who do not share my enthusiasm for space exploration.
If we are able to develop inexpensive launch capability to orbit before ISS' days are over then there might be some hope that man's presence in space is now permanent. Before the first flight of Columbia there was a 6-year period where no Americans had been in orbit. I know the USSR had people going up all the time, but their political situation has changed a bit since then and the resources they are able to devote to space exploration aren't what they used to be. During that 6 year drought the only people who even thought it mattered were those working on the upcoming Space Shuttle program, NASA employees or space enthusiasts. There weren't many.
well everyone is entitled to their opinion, the majority of ppl don't agree with ya ya see
So Mir holds the record for continuous habitation. It's lasted longer that the projected life of the ISS, and it's now unoccupied. Who says the same won't happen to the ISS?
:v)
Look at the Apollo missions: We've not been back to the moon for over 25 years for crying out loud.
All the good aerospace gear - X15, Blackbird, Saturn V, DynaSoar - was invented when I was a youngster. All we have to show now is a broken X33, an international space station mostly made of Russian components (not that I have a problem with that) and a recycle-50%-after-every-launch space shuttle.
Roll on nanotechnology, 'cos do we ever need it to get off this dirtball.
Vik
lol there is no source that has more credibility than the CSM. Get a clue because you are looking really foolish now
---
Humans do a lot of things they shouldn't necessarily do. No, space exploration is not something comparable to war and bigotry, but we have to consider the implications of space exploration, and what its benefits and drawbacks are. We are evolved enough not to use the general behaviour of our species as an excuse.
In my mind, space exploration would serve little practical benefit. There are still so many issues we have to resolve here on earth--starvation, disease, overpopulation, pollution, war, oppression, hatred, etc--that space exploration is negative, not just because of the money and effort that could be spent elsewhere but because many people view it as a way to "escape" our problems. Leaving earth is not a way to escape our problems; they will only come back to haunt us later.
As a software engineer, I have a natural drive to want to refine systems and make them clean and efficient. So I think the idea of an Earth with a constant population of, say, 4 billion, very little disease, very little violence, no pollution, and running on 100% sustainable resources, is very compelling. It's more compelling to me to perfect what we do here on earth than to spread our very problematic and messy behaviours elsewhere.
Yes, space travel is intriguing, because we do all have an instinct to explore and expand. But many people also have instincts to kill, maim, and rape--just because they are instincts doesn't mean they are good.
Three people, you say.... "The Dolphin Method", indeed.
Obviously, I'm laughing my socks off here. Do you have a URL or a reference for these "research findings".
Also, how does someone get onto one of these research programs? Mind you, I wouldn't really want to be the one keeping the other two together and I certainly wouldn't want to be the one one on the receiving end.
Not even for a free ride in a zero-G simulator.
Mod the parent up, because it is the funniest research quote I've read in a long time.
Let's see here, the IIS has a projected lifespan to 10 to 25 years.
That's just what Microsoft wants you to think.
NO CARRIER
Yeah, but think of the really neato sports games that could be done inside a spinning cylnder habitat. Imagine trying to toss a ball back and forth with curvy coriolis-induced arcs. It could make for a wicked game of Ping Pong or racketball.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
And crawling on the planet's face
some insects called the human race
lost in time, and lost in space
and meaning
(once more for the virgins!)
meaning
Considering the source, they're just hedging their bets on the Rapture occuring in the next decade.
I agree
"As I always say, why jack-off when you can jack-in!" - Plughead from "Circuitry Man" (1990)
many people also have instincts to kill, maim, and rape--just because they are instincts doesn't mean they are good.
That they are instincts means precisely that they are good, as tested by the evolutionary process.
We have those instincts because we are the descendants of the most brutally successful killers and rapists. In hard times, they are often the difference between the end or continuation of a bloodline.
So I think the idea of an Earth with a constant population of, say, 4 billion, very little disease, very little violence, no pollution, and running on 100% sustainable resources, is very compelling.
The thought disgusts me. No disease, no pollution, I can live with. Those are realistic, and basically inevitable with continual technological development. But driving down the population while dramatically reducing violence could only be achieved by central mind-control, oppression beyond imagining.
You recommend a state of total stagnation, living death. You advocate turning away from growth and freedom in favour of comfort, like a child refusing to leave the nursery. Many would agree with you, and I couldn't be more appalled.
--------
if YOU were starving in Africa, about to die, I think you'd rather have money spent on feeding you than on internet access for some guy who calls himself karzan. Or on his computer, or his car, or any of his luxuries, or for that matter, his necessities.
Do you weigh every spending decision based on how many lives your dollars could save? Remember, you're killing someone every time you buy a snack. You're wiping out a village when you get a new car. So fucking what?
Do you think the poor starving guy in Africa would give a rat's ass about you if the situation was reversed? Sure, he might give lip service to the idea, like you do, but he wouldn't actually weigh your life as meaningful against his comforts or his dreams.
Don't ask what we can do for the starving people. Ask what they can do for us. If we were exploiting them, making profit from their labor, we would have a vested interest in their well-being, and they would have some leverage to make us send them the food they need. Your pity won't save them, but your greed could.
--------
I think you are being optimistic to think you will live that long.
--------
The first step was to wear clothes. This got us out of the Congo. It kept our bodies warm in hostile enviroments. Think about it, we wouldn't be living anywhere that it snows.
Space is just the next logical step into a hostile inviroment. I can imagine in the future a suit that can survive space, while still blending into the backround without notice. Think animal skins vs. t shirt.
"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum."
-- Arthur C. Clarke
I believe the the first video game in space was a Game Boy with Tetris. It was about 1991 I think.
Isn't it true that Mir has been continually occupied, and is presently occupied by people for years? So, while it's neat that we're near the start of our maybe-permanent venture into space, to say that this age begins today doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The fastest way for them to acheive a moderately comfortable lifestyle (by our standards) is for us to take over their lives, but that's basically what we did to (er, ehm, I mean "for", right?) the natives of North America and Australia, and I don't hear them thanking us.
In the long run, they're better off if we just leave them alone. But we won't do that, because if they develop into powerful nations that stand on their own feet, they might offer a military challenge. Manipulators such as the CIA have been knocking the little guys back on their asses for ages.
--------
don't you forget about the MIR? mh?
PAT
SEO Test: TIGI und SEBASTIAN - Online Shop - V
Sorry but the post is a bit ingenuous. Soviet Union started the permanent expeditions with Salyut 7. And Mir was only unnocupied for some monthes when people started procedures to down it. For nearly ten years there were humans always on space. One cosmonaut took even one year on Mir. It was the first timetraveller on Earth... It left when Soviet existed and returned into Russia :)
:) ), see Internet Holywood 24h/d from Redmond... and think if some jerks did really landed on the Moon in 1969. Proabably it was another Holywood blockbuster.
Yes probably it is a point to say that ISS may be "more permanent" than Salyut & Mir. Maybe this time humans will never ever leave Cosmos. But it is a point of ingenuity to consider that the "big construction kit" will be a guarantee of permanence.
People say it will live for 10-15 years. I will risk 25-40 from what we saw with Mir and all these MirII, station Freedom & Co. In the next 10 years politicians will try to forget about Cosmos and get into a more mundane world. So this will well push he living span of the station.
However there is a problem. Time will go and politicians may forget Cosmos AT ALL. Like Moon exploration... Where are the Moon stations, expeditions to Mars? So it is probable that this permanent presence may last only 50 years. By then we will be all on Earth, eat BigMacs, drink Coke, speak bad english (worser than mine
At some point, the station will come down or destroyed, and the "forever" will be over. If not, Russians might claim they started the permanent human presence in space, only it had been interrupted due to technical difficulties a few times.
--
I am American: don't flame me, use the flag!
there is a opinion, Rome was able to start Moon humaned fly at VI century, if not Christian DarkTimes.
The launched yesterday, and they are only a few hours away from docking.
Please re-write the story in past tense when it is posted late.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
When Mir was launched, the Russians said space
would be permenantly inhabited. Was for many
years.
Um, wouldn't that be the "last day of ONLY terrestrial humans"? I mean, all of us still on Terra won't disappear or anything when those guys go up, right? :-)
The revolution will NOT be televised.
If you can still say it then I might believe it, though even then I would argue with you. You can't say for sure that it's permanent until it can exist without dependance on Earth. The ISS can't do that technically or politically.
Look around, and choose your own ground. -PF
Actually, the correct plural form of "penis" is either "penu" or "penises", depending on which linguist you listen to.
http://www.klub.org/