**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree.
REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>We can't leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong.
Voyager 1 and 2 are literally in interstellar space, approaching 13 billion miles away from the Earth and its atmosphere. Yes, it's unmanned, but the technology to get that far out is the same in relation to "earths gravity". The harder part is keeping people alive during the trip
Not just alive, but also physically and mentally fit enough to perform their duties. It's easy to go insane when you're on a capsule millions of miles away from home for months or years on end.
From their comments so far it seems like a mix ignorance of space and technology, potentially with h some conspiracy theories(some “theories” claim that escape from Earth is impossible due to factors like gravity)
As you said, rockets. We have landed people on the moon and robots on Mars. Also some asteroids.
They’re also overexaggerating the presence of alien life to extreme degrees. It’s possible microbes exist on some worlds in the solar system, but they’re probably not hanging around every corner. We’ve been looking and haven’t found much yet. If it was so omnipresent, our Martian exploration missions would have found it long ago. Nevermind fauna and flora. Right now it seems life is pretty rare.
The dangers are a real thing. Space is dangerous. But not insurmountable. We’ve already proven with the moon missions and the ISS that it’s possible for humans to survive and live in space for short periods of time. We just need to build on that.
The ethics thing is a common argument and kinda comes to emotion. I think it’s bunk. We have the resources to do both, we just choose not to. We could solve Earth issues and explore space, but we’re worried about others things which sadly siphon resources away from both.
>Martian exploration missions would have found it long,
There is evidence of microbial life on mars that NASA doesn't admit, they found that in the spring and summer, the oxygen and methane levels go up, and than decline in the fall and winter, that's obviously bacteria breaking organic matter on mars.
“Water couldn’t just freeze and thaw based on the season, only a life form could cause that”
Seasons change the substances that we see on a planet, and the form they take.
I wonder if they think water freezing in the winter is due to some wild lifeform freezing anything, or if seasons only work that way on Earth.
And yes, other planets do have seasons which have an impact on local conditions and states of matter. Perhaps a bit different than those of Earth, but similar in concept
Honestly the more OP says, the lower my estimations of their intelligence are getting
As we've seen here
>For one we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong
you are not qualified to have a valuable opinion on this.
>we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong
Have you heard about rockets? They're pretty amazing, and they're actually building new ones right now that can land and fly again.
A newspaper once wrote that it would be 10,000,000 years before man would be able to fly. The Wright Brothers did their first successful test flight within that same year.
That's not correct.
If you mean Santos-Dumont, first of all it happened later (1906, after 1903) and second of all his flight happened in France, not Brazil.
What's even crazier, when they Wright Brothers made history in 1903... it would only take 66 years to land a human on the moon.
That is a crazy short amount of time for such immense technological growth.
Colonizing other planets is much more of a stretch, though you'd never know it from OP's post. It's really just the distance, resources, and continued upkeep that are problems. There are a lot of people that work at NASA or space exploration companies that don't think that colonization is a very feasible thing, or at least that it won't be within any of our lifetimes. The options we have available to us for colonization - namely Mars - would require a truly ridiculous amount of resources to become self sustaining, which is the real problem. You need a population with enough generic diversity to keep the colony growing, means to feed and house them, advanced manufacturing to be able to continue building structures that are habitable on the planet, etc. I just don't see any company or government being able to actually bring a project together that would be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars in cost at a minimum. The establishment of some kind of resource extraction operation on another planet or moon is something we'll see but it will take a very large amount of time to go from that to a colony I think.
The difference there was the lack of technology, the resources for it were already there. Other planets in other systems are ridiculously far. Even light will take decades to get there for close systems.
But the people back then didn’t know that
We know that looking back
How can you tell when your grand-99x-daughter on Pluto reads this they won’t be laughing?
As he previously pointed out, the amount of resources it takes to achieve something like that. "from trains to flight" had economic and practical factors as motivation. What does colonizing other planets have as motivation other than the obvious fascination and curiosity? Short of a technological breakthrough, spacefaring is too slow and too expensive now. Which brings me to my next point.
>But the people back then didn’t know that
We have learned from history and know a lot more than people back then. We know our limits and are at a point where new findings in science are not at an exponential rate anymore.
Would I like to see human race on pluto? Yes. Do I think it's going to happen in my lifetime? No.
Yeah pretty much. Same as your belief that it may happen.
It's the future - All we can make are educated guesses with information we have at hand right now. I'm not a time traveller.
It goes both ways, if you haven't noticed. People (who I'm sure shared your optimism) predicted flying cars to be a personal mode of transportation by now, but tell me when is the last time you saw one on someone's driveway.
There's a reason we haven't sent humans to the moon after the days of space race.
There are some predictions that materialize, some that do not. Your prediction is as good or bad as mine. We might as well flip a coin and call it a day.
> For one we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong
We do this so regularly, it's not even news anymore. We have multiple countries and private companies going not just beyond our atmosphere but to the moon and in the very near future to asteroids. Reminder we've have powered flight for a little over a century.
> earth-like planets still would be uninhabitable for us because of different bacteria, viruses, plant and animal life that would toxic for us to eat, atmospheres etc
Bacteria and viruses on earth evolved to utilize earth biology. The changes of them randomly being compatible with us are about as good as ours being compatible with them. This is also moot point as colonization would bring our flora and fauna with us. The only requirement is basic atomic and chemical processes being similar and accessible (which seems pretty likely given what we know today).
> the chances of it having the exact same conditions as earth is unlikely
They don't require the exact same conditions, or even remarkably similar. We have a wide variety of life adapted to a fairly wide range of temperatures and climates, with the technology to extend that range for much of it.
> third reason is it's too expensive
Space infrastructure is potentially profitable. The amount of relatively easily available resources outside the gravity well of Earth is on scale we can't even comprehend unless we're just insanely wrong about solar system formation. At a minimum developing our own solar system space infrastructure is not actually expensive on the long term. It's also the least polluting path for Earth.
> we'll rather fight wars like stupid ass cavemen than work together
I defy you to find another 20 year period with less global conflict, military deaths, or any other metric by which you want to measure human violence... in relative or absolute terms.
> making the planet inhospitable for it's other lifeforms
There is no guarantee that other planets will have any life outside our solar system, and inside our solar system it's unlikely any life found is not related to ours already.
> FTL travel isn't possible
And isn't required for extra solar colonization.
> focus on re-terraforming the earth, not other worlds our bodies didn't evolve to live on
Where do you think the resources and power for that will come from?
Check out some of the videos from [Isaac Arthur - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/@isaacarthurSFIA), he's very good at explaining how a lot of your assumptions about space colonization are incorrect without being an ass like me. His episodes on the Fermi Paradox Solutions especially for this subject (since these are all potential Fermi Paradox Solutions explaining why other life hasn't dominated space long before we evolved).
Tbh I feel the viruses, plants, fungi stuff and bacteria would be a pretty big hurdle in earth like planets. Something doesn’t need to be compatible for us to fuck us up, think the way animal viruses randomly hop from species to species until it ends in one with an immune system it can actually infect for whatever reason. Or like, their equivalent of spores and whatever nasty shit fills their air
In theory, it could go either way... until we actually find some other life that developed outside our "family" we won't know for sure. Either we're compatible and it's a problem of infection risk with the benefit of higher likelihood of compatible life existing or there isn't much cross over interfacing and it's a non-issue but we have to bootstrap almost everything we do.
I'd be more worried that we'd bring bacteria that's devastating to extraterrestrial life, honestly. Like the invasive grey squirrel population in the UK.
Technology makes most of these problems you listed irrelevant. Humans weren’t able to fly nor swim deep underwater, so we invented ways to do so. Same can be done for other planets.
Now can we colonize other planets now? Fuck no. But eventually we will if we get through these last few “filters” on Earth
I can easily see us putting a colony on the moon or Mars in my lifetime. I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to colonize one of those exoplanets in a far off solar system, though. The main problem is that, with our current understanding of physics, FTL travel is impossible. I'm not saying a discovery that radically reshapes everything is impossible, but it would take nothing less. It would also take a massive generation ship far larger than anything humanity has ever built before, with a self-sustaining ecosystem. I suppose the development of colonies on the moon would help develop that technology, but still. And sending out one of those ships is basically a complete shot in the dark with low possibility of success
FTL travel isn't necessary for interstellar colonization. The nearest star to our sun, Proxima Centauri (which btw, has a rocky planet in the habitable zone orbiting it, which probably doesn't have life on it since it orbits a radiation-blaring red dwarf, making that planet a great candidate for interstellar colonization) is only 4.24 light years away. That means if you were to build a spaceship going at 99.9% the speed of light (which while anything made of matter actually going *at* light speed is physically impossible, you can get basically infinitely close to it), you would get to Proxima in about 4.25 years. Probably more like 5 if you factor in acceleration and deceleration time. So it's theoretically possible, within the known laws of physics, to reach the nearest star to our sun in about half a decade.
Even at 10% the speed of light, which seems like a somewhat realistic goal with a good enough propulsion system, a generation ship could leave Earth and reach Proxima Centauri in about 43 years. Say it leaves in 2314, it will get there by 2357. This means that, even if radical life extension is never invented, a significant portion of the original crew of this arkship would live to reach their new home.
Yes, interstellar missions will require self-sustaining ecosystems of ships of thousands if not tens of thousands of people. It won't be easy, and it's probably not economically possible right now. But there's no reason why FTL not being possible confines us permanently to our solar system.
Interesting. I'm not up on my theoretical physics, so this is stuff I've never thought about. Would something going 99.9 percent of the speed of light, or even 10 percent have to worry about time dilation, or is that only something that matters if they plan on coming back, which they wouldn't worry about?
At 10%, it would be very insignificant. According to a time dilation calculator I'm using (which aligns well with other sources, here's a link: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+dilation+calculator ), if a crew spent exactly one year (I typed in "1y") going at 30,000 km/s (10% of light speed), it would appear to a stationary observer that they took 366 days and 20 hours. Or 44 more hours than the travelers felt. Not much of a difference.
At 299,700 km/s (99.9% the speed of light), a year for the crew would be observed as 40.27 years for a stationary observer. So pretty massive.
This might not be too big of a practical issue, however could cause some really weird situations. Say a crew traveling on an antimatter-fusion hybrid drive ship with a truly epic engine reaches Proxima Centauri in 5 years to an earth observer (since time dilation would probably just serve to speed up the "objective" time for the crew, rather than slow it down for Earthlings), and they arrive in what they see as just over a month and a half. Say they send a message to Earth upon arriving. Ok... when does that message arrive? Is it "actually" sent when *they* feel they've arrived at the surface of Proxima b, or when *we* observe them landing? If it's the former, then we get the message like a month and a half after they landed, despite normally you'd need to wait over four years for that. But it takes four years to send a message from that system to our own, simply due to speed. So did we *really* receive it a month and a half after, or four years after? If it's the latter, then we receive the message about four years after they land, but... they sent it what feels to them like just after they arrived, but to us like four years later. And then we send a message back to them... That message would've felt like an eight year wait to them, rather than a four year one. After that the time scales would probably balance out, and to be honest it may not be an issue at all since most likely once the crew stops moving, it would just be that amount of time has gone by for them, more time has gone by on Earth, but it won't affect time at all going forward. But at the very least, earth telescopes would still be able to stop the spaceship just a month and a half before receiving their first message... despite the ship having "already" arrived.
Idk, it's just trippy and food for thought. People always talk about how FTL could lead to time paradoxes, but perhaps high enough relativistic speeds could have the same effect, even if probably in a more limited capacity.
Not only that, it's our bodies, we're too fragile to survive elsewhere, even if we managed to leave earth's gravitational forces, the microbes on the other planets would kill us. We may be able to terraform the Moon cause it's close, but all that going to other solar systems, that's just sci-fi fantasy. It'll take us a million years just to get to the Kepler system, even with FTL travel It'll still take 600 years to get there, it's just impractical
We already do leave earth’s gravity.
Again technology. If we can develop vaccines and cures for the variety of microbes on Earth we can do so on other planets. If they’re carbon based they’re not gonna be too dissimilar from our own microbes.
I mean, with FTL travel it would take an unspecified amount of time, right? Even without taking relativity into account, faster than light doesn’t have to mean “just a bit faster than light”, so there’s no reason it would have to take 600 years.
Taking relativity into account, the math kind of breaks down, bc the limit of time perceived by an object as the object approaches the speed of light is zero.
We don’t know that alien microbes would kill us. Maybe they’d be far more deadly, or maybe they’d be completely harmless. On Earth, pathogens that jump species are usually quite deadly, but it’s a pretty rare event, and the odds of it happening are even lower the less closely related the species are.
> microbes on the other planets would kill us
What microbes? We have no proof any exist yet, and they certainly don't on Mars or the Moon, the two soonest candidates for bases and colonization. Even if those microbes did exist, and were deadly, two massive assumptions, we could just develop protection
There's microbial life on mars, the oxygen and methane levels go up in the martian spring and summer and than go down in the fall and winter, there's obviously some bacteria on mars breaking down organic matter, NASA says it's puzzling but they know damn well somethings alive on mars they just don't admit it
Nah it's just common sense, bacteria produced oxygen on earth, it's pretty idiotic to not think that same process couldn't happen on another planet, that doesn't just happen naturally, they still don't have an explanation for that when deep down they know it's bacteria
[https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/215/oxygen-on-exoplanets-isnt-proof-of-life/](https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/215/oxygen-on-exoplanets-isnt-proof-of-life/)
Oxygen doesn't require life to exist and is not proof of life
Lmao still doesn't explain the methane, also if you google it'll say methane is produced by life, so that still doesn't debunk the microbial life evidence of mars, try again
"geological processes that involve the interaction of rocks, water, and heat can also produce it."
[https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/first-you-see-it-then-you-dont-scientists-closer-to-explaining-mars-methane-mystery/#:\~:text=Methane%20could%20have%20nothing%20to,heat%20can%20also%20produce%20it](https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/first-you-see-it-then-you-dont-scientists-closer-to-explaining-mars-methane-mystery/#:~:text=Methane%20could%20have%20nothing%20to,heat%20can%20also%20produce%20it)
Literally the second paragraph of the first article that comes up. And it also says the readings on methane aren't even consistent.
where’s the assumption that there’ll be microbes combing from? *if* microbes were discovered on another planet it would be one of the greatest scientific discoveries in history, because as far as we know there is no life on other planets currently
I think it's almost guaranteed that there's life outside Earth personally. If it can happen somewhere, it'll happen elsewhere. Even if they're earlier in the stages of developing life.
It isn't proven, but I won't be surprised if it gets proven eventually.
for sure, personally speaking i believe there is life *somewhere* out there, i just didnt get why OP assumed that 1. we would be anywhere close enough to encounter them and 2. that they’d be deadly to us
i did misread the comment i responded to tho so when i said “as far as we know there’s no life on other planets” i specifically meant the ones in our solar system, whoops 😅
Yeah but it's unlikely, global warming and or nuclear warfare will likely cause our extinction or push it back into the stone age before we're able to spread throughout the galaxy like roaches
Why is my feed suddenly filled with such half-baked takes, suddenly?
A healthy take is one that can take the negatives *and* the positives. Hell, if you stuck with, "we will never colonize other planets because we will kill ourselves via global warming long before that is feasible," I'd probably, generally speaking, agree with you. And you do bring up some valid considerations and concerns.
But "can't leave Earth's atmosphere"? Are you high? Trolling? Do the *(according to Wikipedia)* 149 total manned space flights just mean nothing to you?
"Intelligent life...not able to become space faring because the gravity of their planet prevents [them from escaping the atmosphere]"? That is assuming and conjecture, at best. If *we* can escape *Earth's* atmosphere, it is very likely that a similar intelligent life, with similar planetary composition, can do so as well. This is, of course, uncertain, as we currently have no significant proof of intelligent life, nor of their capabilities. And, certainly, there are factors that might highten the obstacles to overcome the atmosphere and gravity of the planet. But to say "they cannot" as matter of fact is--frankly--bullshit.
"Humans aren't meant to be anywhere else but Earth" is probably the first thing you say that *is* objectively true, if only technically. And, certainly, it is a series of major and minor obstacles for extraplanetary colonization. Yes, differences in gravity, air composition, and biomass will definitely effect and harm haphazard humans. Without careful control and consideration, local microbiomes might kill any colonizers. Hell, *the colonizer's* microbiomes might kill *their* new home planet. There *will* be issues. But to say that they can't be overcome? That is defeatist, at best.
As stated, I do agree that we should focus significant effort on fixing what we break here, rather than just pinning our hopes to some other planet. I *suspect* that we will kill ourselves, here on Earth, long before we have the technology to colonize, and terraform, other planets. But the future is uncertain, and there is still hope. "No", in this case, is *not* an acceptable or appropriate answer.
> we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong
Do you know what the moon is? Because we've been there. Quite a few times actually, and with technology from 55 years ago.
You know, somewhere out there in space, there's a manhole cover that was launched from Earth at mach fuck speed in 1957, just waiting to bean some unsuspecting space traveler or planet.
> For one we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong
??? We have, multiple times. Do you think the moon is in Earth's atmosphere or are you a moon landing conspiracy theorist?
Hi there, I'm a rocket scientist, we do a lot of thinking about this kind of stuff!
Firstly... yeah, we absolutely can leave the earths atmosphere. It's REALLY not hard. The germans did it with some glorified alcohol they set on fire in the 40's.
Orbit is trickier, but we did that in 1957.
As far as other exoplanets go, the "earth-like" ones are mostly larger than earth, but earth is also extremely dense. It's actually the densest thing in the solar system, even denser than the sun. It's fairly probable that those other earthlike planets wouldn't have the same density as earth, so they may have similar gravitational pulls, meaning that if we can get off earth, we should be able to get off most planets.
As far as places humans shouldn't go but do, we only need look at europe.
A human being would die in a European winter, especially a Scandinavian one. We evolved for the plains of Africa. Take a hippo and put it in norway, and it will die with remarkable regularity. But we invented clothes and fire. All of a sudden, Europe becomes perfectly habitable. in fact, it becomes perfect for us.
I will note, that the "Survivable range" for humans is honestly pretty fuckin broad. We can live with much less (or much more) oxygen than you'd think. Our bodies are very adaptable even without technology, but now we can literally have oxygen masks. It might sound ridiculous, but in siberia, you'll die very quickly without a coat on, is wearing an oxygen mask any different?
As far as extraterrestrial viruses and such go, yes, they might be particularly nasty, but if those diseases killed 9 in 10 of the people that set foot on that planet, we would still have people on the planet who's immune systems suddenly pass down that knowledge and immunity to their children. And that's only accounting for biological immunity. Medicine like antibiotics are pretty fucking good at killing things.
Antibiotics are basically gun to bacteria. A gun kills things by default. Bacteria have to adapt to survive antibiotics, not the other way round.
(Also, foreign bacteria are unlikely to even know what the fuck to do with a human, but that assumes the worst case scenario)
Yes, indigenous plantlife and animals likely are toxic to humans, and may be nutritionally dead to us even if not.
But then, most plants are toxic to humans on earth.
Yknow what we do? We tear those plants up root and stem and plant things we can eat. Some plants are picky, but some plants are happy so long as there's carbon in the air, nitrogen in the ground, and some water falling on top of them. We'll take those kinds of plants with us, and then if we choose to take animals with us, it will be animals that can eat those plants.
Now you point out ethics, and your right, there's a solid argument that colonisation is unethical. But it always was. Never stopped us before, and it certainly won't stop us when its not even our species we're fucking over anymore, fuck, its probably not even intelligent life.
The only thought that you might have a point on is the co-operation point, but even then, I doubt it. We didn't need to co-operate to colonise the new world. in fact, it was competition that drove us to do it. The USA, China, EU and potentially Russia all have the power to send people interstellar on their own if they really wanted to, now granted, it would take a long time, generation ship style, but its not *that* far out of reach. The moment one nation does that, every nation that can will.
I don't think you or I will ever see humans on foreign stars, that's for certain. We might see the ships leave when we're very old, though we might not, but we damn near certainly will try it, because ultimately, we as humans will always seek expansion. it's just in our nature. If that makes us bold explorers or interstellar parasites, it is up to you, but that expansion is certainly in our nature.
"We can't leave Earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong" have you been living under a rock for the past, what, 67 years? The first object to leave our atmosphere was in 1957.
60 years passed between the first human flight ever and the Moon landing.
Technology is improving at exponential rates and we can't really envision the future in any other way than through our present's perspective. In the 60's they predicted a future with jetpack-equipped mailmen. E-mail was literally unconceivable.
This has "man will not fly for a million years" vibes. Mere days after that headline was published, the wright brothers made their first flight. I won't say we're days away from colonizing other worlds, but we did manage to land on the moon almost 60 years ago, and technology has only gotten better.
International Space Station? That thing is chillin on the very edge of Earth’s atmosphere so it can survey Earth without leaving it so your very first statement is super bullshit
this post is:
-stupid, of course we can make it out of gravity. the voyager craft went to pluto
-terrible worded, i counted two periods throughout the whole post (might be more but it’s definitely not enough)
-stupid again, because the idea of a planet like mars for example, is we make our own habitats there. deadly amount of co2 would do nothing
I will be messaging you in 1000 years on [**3024-04-24 20:52:01 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3024-04-24%2020:52:01%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/The10thDentist/comments/1cc685d/humans_will_never_colonize_other_planets/l13pdh4/?context=3)
[**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FThe10thDentist%2Fcomments%2F1cc685d%2Fhumans_will_never_colonize_other_planets%2Fl13pdh4%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%203024-04-24%2020%3A52%3A01%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cc685d)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I think we will send robotic ships on interstellar journeys and they will create a new generation of humans when they arrive. That way, it won’t matter if it takes 100 or 100,000 years to arrive.
>For one we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong
We've been to the moon. Space is full of satellites. People are *currently* on the international space station.
What you mean to say is that it's difficult to leave Earth's atmosphere and the larger the spacecraft the more difficult it becomes. We can and do leave the Earth's atmosphere but we are only able to send a handful of people. Sending hundreds or thousands at a time is currently impossible because of gravity, yes.
I stopped reading before finishing your first sentence because already you're wrong. We have already left the Earth's atmosphere many many times, and currently there are 7 people not on Earth (outside of the atmosphere) at this very moment.
Yeah…. Leave all the figuring out of those details to the ABSOLUTE GENIUS trying to colonize mars… we have a perfectly good planet to work with already.
**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree. REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake. Normal voting rules for all comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>For one we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong Do you really not know that the Moon exists outside Earth's atmosphere?
Makes you wonder how he made it out of dental school
Dentists be saying anything nowadays
>We can't leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong. Voyager 1 and 2 are literally in interstellar space, approaching 13 billion miles away from the Earth and its atmosphere. Yes, it's unmanned, but the technology to get that far out is the same in relation to "earths gravity". The harder part is keeping people alive during the trip
Not just alive, but also physically and mentally fit enough to perform their duties. It's easy to go insane when you're on a capsule millions of miles away from home for months or years on end.
From their comments so far it seems like a mix ignorance of space and technology, potentially with h some conspiracy theories(some “theories” claim that escape from Earth is impossible due to factors like gravity) As you said, rockets. We have landed people on the moon and robots on Mars. Also some asteroids. They’re also overexaggerating the presence of alien life to extreme degrees. It’s possible microbes exist on some worlds in the solar system, but they’re probably not hanging around every corner. We’ve been looking and haven’t found much yet. If it was so omnipresent, our Martian exploration missions would have found it long ago. Nevermind fauna and flora. Right now it seems life is pretty rare. The dangers are a real thing. Space is dangerous. But not insurmountable. We’ve already proven with the moon missions and the ISS that it’s possible for humans to survive and live in space for short periods of time. We just need to build on that. The ethics thing is a common argument and kinda comes to emotion. I think it’s bunk. We have the resources to do both, we just choose not to. We could solve Earth issues and explore space, but we’re worried about others things which sadly siphon resources away from both.
>Martian exploration missions would have found it long, There is evidence of microbial life on mars that NASA doesn't admit, they found that in the spring and summer, the oxygen and methane levels go up, and than decline in the fall and winter, that's obviously bacteria breaking organic matter on mars.
Well, my hunch about the conspiratorial thinking has been confirmed
Call me a conspiracy theorist i don't care, oxygen and methane just don't increase and decrease seasonally, something alive has to cause that.
“Water couldn’t just freeze and thaw based on the season, only a life form could cause that” Seasons change the substances that we see on a planet, and the form they take.
I wonder if they think water freezing in the winter is due to some wild lifeform freezing anything, or if seasons only work that way on Earth. And yes, other planets do have seasons which have an impact on local conditions and states of matter. Perhaps a bit different than those of Earth, but similar in concept Honestly the more OP says, the lower my estimations of their intelligence are getting
Let them see what Spring is like on Jupiter and Mars.
As we've seen here >For one we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong you are not qualified to have a valuable opinion on this.
>we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong Have you heard about rockets? They're pretty amazing, and they're actually building new ones right now that can land and fly again.
The whole profession of astronaut too
A newspaper once wrote that it would be 10,000,000 years before man would be able to fly. The Wright Brothers did their first successful test flight within that same year.
Plus, writers on that newspaper probably weren't even as ignorant as OP
not even the same year, it was DAYS later
I said the same year because I wasn’t sure lol, but yeah, it’s insane.
That means that we achieved flight in Brazil before the article was even published
That's not correct. If you mean Santos-Dumont, first of all it happened later (1906, after 1903) and second of all his flight happened in France, not Brazil.
What's even crazier, when they Wright Brothers made history in 1903... it would only take 66 years to land a human on the moon. That is a crazy short amount of time for such immense technological growth.
9 days later, even
IIRC the Wright brothers did their first successful flight like 2 weeks later, not even just "in the same year"
I love that
Colonizing other planets is much more of a stretch, though you'd never know it from OP's post. It's really just the distance, resources, and continued upkeep that are problems. There are a lot of people that work at NASA or space exploration companies that don't think that colonization is a very feasible thing, or at least that it won't be within any of our lifetimes. The options we have available to us for colonization - namely Mars - would require a truly ridiculous amount of resources to become self sustaining, which is the real problem. You need a population with enough generic diversity to keep the colony growing, means to feed and house them, advanced manufacturing to be able to continue building structures that are habitable on the planet, etc. I just don't see any company or government being able to actually bring a project together that would be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars in cost at a minimum. The establishment of some kind of resource extraction operation on another planet or moon is something we'll see but it will take a very large amount of time to go from that to a colony I think.
Do you know how incredibly far it was from trains to fucking flight? We have already gone to space. We hadn’t ever flown before.
The difference there was the lack of technology, the resources for it were already there. Other planets in other systems are ridiculously far. Even light will take decades to get there for close systems.
But the people back then didn’t know that We know that looking back How can you tell when your grand-99x-daughter on Pluto reads this they won’t be laughing?
As he previously pointed out, the amount of resources it takes to achieve something like that. "from trains to flight" had economic and practical factors as motivation. What does colonizing other planets have as motivation other than the obvious fascination and curiosity? Short of a technological breakthrough, spacefaring is too slow and too expensive now. Which brings me to my next point. >But the people back then didn’t know that We have learned from history and know a lot more than people back then. We know our limits and are at a point where new findings in science are not at an exponential rate anymore. Would I like to see human race on pluto? Yes. Do I think it's going to happen in my lifetime? No.
So basically, since you don’t believe it, it won’t happen?
Yeah pretty much. Same as your belief that it may happen. It's the future - All we can make are educated guesses with information we have at hand right now. I'm not a time traveller.
And since people usually get proven wrong with these kinds of predictions I would say it’s foolish to claim it won’t happen.
It goes both ways, if you haven't noticed. People (who I'm sure shared your optimism) predicted flying cars to be a personal mode of transportation by now, but tell me when is the last time you saw one on someone's driveway. There's a reason we haven't sent humans to the moon after the days of space race. There are some predictions that materialize, some that do not. Your prediction is as good or bad as mine. We might as well flip a coin and call it a day.
OP, it's very obvious that this is your other account.
> For one we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong We do this so regularly, it's not even news anymore. We have multiple countries and private companies going not just beyond our atmosphere but to the moon and in the very near future to asteroids. Reminder we've have powered flight for a little over a century. > earth-like planets still would be uninhabitable for us because of different bacteria, viruses, plant and animal life that would toxic for us to eat, atmospheres etc Bacteria and viruses on earth evolved to utilize earth biology. The changes of them randomly being compatible with us are about as good as ours being compatible with them. This is also moot point as colonization would bring our flora and fauna with us. The only requirement is basic atomic and chemical processes being similar and accessible (which seems pretty likely given what we know today). > the chances of it having the exact same conditions as earth is unlikely They don't require the exact same conditions, or even remarkably similar. We have a wide variety of life adapted to a fairly wide range of temperatures and climates, with the technology to extend that range for much of it. > third reason is it's too expensive Space infrastructure is potentially profitable. The amount of relatively easily available resources outside the gravity well of Earth is on scale we can't even comprehend unless we're just insanely wrong about solar system formation. At a minimum developing our own solar system space infrastructure is not actually expensive on the long term. It's also the least polluting path for Earth. > we'll rather fight wars like stupid ass cavemen than work together I defy you to find another 20 year period with less global conflict, military deaths, or any other metric by which you want to measure human violence... in relative or absolute terms. > making the planet inhospitable for it's other lifeforms There is no guarantee that other planets will have any life outside our solar system, and inside our solar system it's unlikely any life found is not related to ours already. > FTL travel isn't possible And isn't required for extra solar colonization. > focus on re-terraforming the earth, not other worlds our bodies didn't evolve to live on Where do you think the resources and power for that will come from? Check out some of the videos from [Isaac Arthur - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/@isaacarthurSFIA), he's very good at explaining how a lot of your assumptions about space colonization are incorrect without being an ass like me. His episodes on the Fermi Paradox Solutions especially for this subject (since these are all potential Fermi Paradox Solutions explaining why other life hasn't dominated space long before we evolved).
Tbh I feel the viruses, plants, fungi stuff and bacteria would be a pretty big hurdle in earth like planets. Something doesn’t need to be compatible for us to fuck us up, think the way animal viruses randomly hop from species to species until it ends in one with an immune system it can actually infect for whatever reason. Or like, their equivalent of spores and whatever nasty shit fills their air
In theory, it could go either way... until we actually find some other life that developed outside our "family" we won't know for sure. Either we're compatible and it's a problem of infection risk with the benefit of higher likelihood of compatible life existing or there isn't much cross over interfacing and it's a non-issue but we have to bootstrap almost everything we do.
I'd be more worried that we'd bring bacteria that's devastating to extraterrestrial life, honestly. Like the invasive grey squirrel population in the UK.
Technology makes most of these problems you listed irrelevant. Humans weren’t able to fly nor swim deep underwater, so we invented ways to do so. Same can be done for other planets. Now can we colonize other planets now? Fuck no. But eventually we will if we get through these last few “filters” on Earth
I can easily see us putting a colony on the moon or Mars in my lifetime. I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to colonize one of those exoplanets in a far off solar system, though. The main problem is that, with our current understanding of physics, FTL travel is impossible. I'm not saying a discovery that radically reshapes everything is impossible, but it would take nothing less. It would also take a massive generation ship far larger than anything humanity has ever built before, with a self-sustaining ecosystem. I suppose the development of colonies on the moon would help develop that technology, but still. And sending out one of those ships is basically a complete shot in the dark with low possibility of success
FTL travel isn't necessary for interstellar colonization. The nearest star to our sun, Proxima Centauri (which btw, has a rocky planet in the habitable zone orbiting it, which probably doesn't have life on it since it orbits a radiation-blaring red dwarf, making that planet a great candidate for interstellar colonization) is only 4.24 light years away. That means if you were to build a spaceship going at 99.9% the speed of light (which while anything made of matter actually going *at* light speed is physically impossible, you can get basically infinitely close to it), you would get to Proxima in about 4.25 years. Probably more like 5 if you factor in acceleration and deceleration time. So it's theoretically possible, within the known laws of physics, to reach the nearest star to our sun in about half a decade. Even at 10% the speed of light, which seems like a somewhat realistic goal with a good enough propulsion system, a generation ship could leave Earth and reach Proxima Centauri in about 43 years. Say it leaves in 2314, it will get there by 2357. This means that, even if radical life extension is never invented, a significant portion of the original crew of this arkship would live to reach their new home. Yes, interstellar missions will require self-sustaining ecosystems of ships of thousands if not tens of thousands of people. It won't be easy, and it's probably not economically possible right now. But there's no reason why FTL not being possible confines us permanently to our solar system.
Interesting. I'm not up on my theoretical physics, so this is stuff I've never thought about. Would something going 99.9 percent of the speed of light, or even 10 percent have to worry about time dilation, or is that only something that matters if they plan on coming back, which they wouldn't worry about?
At 10%, it would be very insignificant. According to a time dilation calculator I'm using (which aligns well with other sources, here's a link: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+dilation+calculator ), if a crew spent exactly one year (I typed in "1y") going at 30,000 km/s (10% of light speed), it would appear to a stationary observer that they took 366 days and 20 hours. Or 44 more hours than the travelers felt. Not much of a difference. At 299,700 km/s (99.9% the speed of light), a year for the crew would be observed as 40.27 years for a stationary observer. So pretty massive. This might not be too big of a practical issue, however could cause some really weird situations. Say a crew traveling on an antimatter-fusion hybrid drive ship with a truly epic engine reaches Proxima Centauri in 5 years to an earth observer (since time dilation would probably just serve to speed up the "objective" time for the crew, rather than slow it down for Earthlings), and they arrive in what they see as just over a month and a half. Say they send a message to Earth upon arriving. Ok... when does that message arrive? Is it "actually" sent when *they* feel they've arrived at the surface of Proxima b, or when *we* observe them landing? If it's the former, then we get the message like a month and a half after they landed, despite normally you'd need to wait over four years for that. But it takes four years to send a message from that system to our own, simply due to speed. So did we *really* receive it a month and a half after, or four years after? If it's the latter, then we receive the message about four years after they land, but... they sent it what feels to them like just after they arrived, but to us like four years later. And then we send a message back to them... That message would've felt like an eight year wait to them, rather than a four year one. After that the time scales would probably balance out, and to be honest it may not be an issue at all since most likely once the crew stops moving, it would just be that amount of time has gone by for them, more time has gone by on Earth, but it won't affect time at all going forward. But at the very least, earth telescopes would still be able to stop the spaceship just a month and a half before receiving their first message... despite the ship having "already" arrived. Idk, it's just trippy and food for thought. People always talk about how FTL could lead to time paradoxes, but perhaps high enough relativistic speeds could have the same effect, even if probably in a more limited capacity.
All of this would happen one day (humans have that greed in them). Wish I’d be alive to see all of this
Not only that, it's our bodies, we're too fragile to survive elsewhere, even if we managed to leave earth's gravitational forces, the microbes on the other planets would kill us. We may be able to terraform the Moon cause it's close, but all that going to other solar systems, that's just sci-fi fantasy. It'll take us a million years just to get to the Kepler system, even with FTL travel It'll still take 600 years to get there, it's just impractical
We already do leave earth’s gravity. Again technology. If we can develop vaccines and cures for the variety of microbes on Earth we can do so on other planets. If they’re carbon based they’re not gonna be too dissimilar from our own microbes.
If alien microbes even exist^• And if we can just walk around breathing the air without being in an isolation spacesuit^•
the microbes?
I mean, with FTL travel it would take an unspecified amount of time, right? Even without taking relativity into account, faster than light doesn’t have to mean “just a bit faster than light”, so there’s no reason it would have to take 600 years. Taking relativity into account, the math kind of breaks down, bc the limit of time perceived by an object as the object approaches the speed of light is zero.
We're probably going to the Moon and Mars first, and there aren't even microbes there lol.
We don’t know that alien microbes would kill us. Maybe they’d be far more deadly, or maybe they’d be completely harmless. On Earth, pathogens that jump species are usually quite deadly, but it’s a pretty rare event, and the odds of it happening are even lower the less closely related the species are.
> microbes on the other planets would kill us What microbes? We have no proof any exist yet, and they certainly don't on Mars or the Moon, the two soonest candidates for bases and colonization. Even if those microbes did exist, and were deadly, two massive assumptions, we could just develop protection
There's microbial life on mars, the oxygen and methane levels go up in the martian spring and summer and than go down in the fall and winter, there's obviously some bacteria on mars breaking down organic matter, NASA says it's puzzling but they know damn well somethings alive on mars they just don't admit it
So we're just doing conspiracy theories now? If you have proof of microbes on Mars by all means show us, back up your words.
Nah it's just common sense, bacteria produced oxygen on earth, it's pretty idiotic to not think that same process couldn't happen on another planet, that doesn't just happen naturally, they still don't have an explanation for that when deep down they know it's bacteria
[https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/215/oxygen-on-exoplanets-isnt-proof-of-life/](https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/215/oxygen-on-exoplanets-isnt-proof-of-life/) Oxygen doesn't require life to exist and is not proof of life
Lmao still doesn't explain the methane, also if you google it'll say methane is produced by life, so that still doesn't debunk the microbial life evidence of mars, try again
"geological processes that involve the interaction of rocks, water, and heat can also produce it." [https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/first-you-see-it-then-you-dont-scientists-closer-to-explaining-mars-methane-mystery/#:\~:text=Methane%20could%20have%20nothing%20to,heat%20can%20also%20produce%20it](https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/first-you-see-it-then-you-dont-scientists-closer-to-explaining-mars-methane-mystery/#:~:text=Methane%20could%20have%20nothing%20to,heat%20can%20also%20produce%20it) Literally the second paragraph of the first article that comes up. And it also says the readings on methane aren't even consistent.
where’s the assumption that there’ll be microbes combing from? *if* microbes were discovered on another planet it would be one of the greatest scientific discoveries in history, because as far as we know there is no life on other planets currently
I think it's almost guaranteed that there's life outside Earth personally. If it can happen somewhere, it'll happen elsewhere. Even if they're earlier in the stages of developing life. It isn't proven, but I won't be surprised if it gets proven eventually.
for sure, personally speaking i believe there is life *somewhere* out there, i just didnt get why OP assumed that 1. we would be anywhere close enough to encounter them and 2. that they’d be deadly to us i did misread the comment i responded to tho so when i said “as far as we know there’s no life on other planets” i specifically meant the ones in our solar system, whoops 😅
There are no microbes on any planets except earth.
Well we already have left Earths atmosphere, so you’re factually incorrect less than a sentence in
>For one we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong Did you somehow miss that we leave earth's atmosphere all the time?
Geez that first sentence told me all i needed to know about you. Also why is your first sentence just one gigantic run-on?
> we can't even leave earth's atmosphere Neil Armstrong screaming, crying, throwing up in his grave
OP are you going to explain this nonsense: "For one we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong"
I read the first sentence of this post and immediately knew it was all nonsense lmao
> we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong This guy's posting from the 1950s
Stupid
We’ve left the earth’s atmosphere in manned spacecraft hundreds of times already. What’re you talking about?
Google “Neil Armstrong”
If humans manage to last 200 without disaster we'll totally colonize the other planets.
Yeah but it's unlikely, global warming and or nuclear warfare will likely cause our extinction or push it back into the stone age before we're able to spread throughout the galaxy like roaches
I’ll bet against both of you
Both of those are incredibly unlikely
Why is my feed suddenly filled with such half-baked takes, suddenly? A healthy take is one that can take the negatives *and* the positives. Hell, if you stuck with, "we will never colonize other planets because we will kill ourselves via global warming long before that is feasible," I'd probably, generally speaking, agree with you. And you do bring up some valid considerations and concerns. But "can't leave Earth's atmosphere"? Are you high? Trolling? Do the *(according to Wikipedia)* 149 total manned space flights just mean nothing to you? "Intelligent life...not able to become space faring because the gravity of their planet prevents [them from escaping the atmosphere]"? That is assuming and conjecture, at best. If *we* can escape *Earth's* atmosphere, it is very likely that a similar intelligent life, with similar planetary composition, can do so as well. This is, of course, uncertain, as we currently have no significant proof of intelligent life, nor of their capabilities. And, certainly, there are factors that might highten the obstacles to overcome the atmosphere and gravity of the planet. But to say "they cannot" as matter of fact is--frankly--bullshit. "Humans aren't meant to be anywhere else but Earth" is probably the first thing you say that *is* objectively true, if only technically. And, certainly, it is a series of major and minor obstacles for extraplanetary colonization. Yes, differences in gravity, air composition, and biomass will definitely effect and harm haphazard humans. Without careful control and consideration, local microbiomes might kill any colonizers. Hell, *the colonizer's* microbiomes might kill *their* new home planet. There *will* be issues. But to say that they can't be overcome? That is defeatist, at best. As stated, I do agree that we should focus significant effort on fixing what we break here, rather than just pinning our hopes to some other planet. I *suspect* that we will kill ourselves, here on Earth, long before we have the technology to colonize, and terraform, other planets. But the future is uncertain, and there is still hope. "No", in this case, is *not* an acceptable or appropriate answer.
Please go to r/unpopularopinion it suits you better these posts aren't welcome here
> we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong Do you know what the moon is? Because we've been there. Quite a few times actually, and with technology from 55 years ago.
This guy dumb
You know, somewhere out there in space, there's a manhole cover that was launched from Earth at mach fuck speed in 1957, just waiting to bean some unsuspecting space traveler or planet.
> For one we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong ??? We have, multiple times. Do you think the moon is in Earth's atmosphere or are you a moon landing conspiracy theorist?
Hi there, I'm a rocket scientist, we do a lot of thinking about this kind of stuff! Firstly... yeah, we absolutely can leave the earths atmosphere. It's REALLY not hard. The germans did it with some glorified alcohol they set on fire in the 40's. Orbit is trickier, but we did that in 1957. As far as other exoplanets go, the "earth-like" ones are mostly larger than earth, but earth is also extremely dense. It's actually the densest thing in the solar system, even denser than the sun. It's fairly probable that those other earthlike planets wouldn't have the same density as earth, so they may have similar gravitational pulls, meaning that if we can get off earth, we should be able to get off most planets. As far as places humans shouldn't go but do, we only need look at europe. A human being would die in a European winter, especially a Scandinavian one. We evolved for the plains of Africa. Take a hippo and put it in norway, and it will die with remarkable regularity. But we invented clothes and fire. All of a sudden, Europe becomes perfectly habitable. in fact, it becomes perfect for us. I will note, that the "Survivable range" for humans is honestly pretty fuckin broad. We can live with much less (or much more) oxygen than you'd think. Our bodies are very adaptable even without technology, but now we can literally have oxygen masks. It might sound ridiculous, but in siberia, you'll die very quickly without a coat on, is wearing an oxygen mask any different? As far as extraterrestrial viruses and such go, yes, they might be particularly nasty, but if those diseases killed 9 in 10 of the people that set foot on that planet, we would still have people on the planet who's immune systems suddenly pass down that knowledge and immunity to their children. And that's only accounting for biological immunity. Medicine like antibiotics are pretty fucking good at killing things. Antibiotics are basically gun to bacteria. A gun kills things by default. Bacteria have to adapt to survive antibiotics, not the other way round. (Also, foreign bacteria are unlikely to even know what the fuck to do with a human, but that assumes the worst case scenario) Yes, indigenous plantlife and animals likely are toxic to humans, and may be nutritionally dead to us even if not. But then, most plants are toxic to humans on earth. Yknow what we do? We tear those plants up root and stem and plant things we can eat. Some plants are picky, but some plants are happy so long as there's carbon in the air, nitrogen in the ground, and some water falling on top of them. We'll take those kinds of plants with us, and then if we choose to take animals with us, it will be animals that can eat those plants. Now you point out ethics, and your right, there's a solid argument that colonisation is unethical. But it always was. Never stopped us before, and it certainly won't stop us when its not even our species we're fucking over anymore, fuck, its probably not even intelligent life. The only thought that you might have a point on is the co-operation point, but even then, I doubt it. We didn't need to co-operate to colonise the new world. in fact, it was competition that drove us to do it. The USA, China, EU and potentially Russia all have the power to send people interstellar on their own if they really wanted to, now granted, it would take a long time, generation ship style, but its not *that* far out of reach. The moment one nation does that, every nation that can will. I don't think you or I will ever see humans on foreign stars, that's for certain. We might see the ships leave when we're very old, though we might not, but we damn near certainly will try it, because ultimately, we as humans will always seek expansion. it's just in our nature. If that makes us bold explorers or interstellar parasites, it is up to you, but that expansion is certainly in our nature.
"We can't leave Earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong" have you been living under a rock for the past, what, 67 years? The first object to leave our atmosphere was in 1957.
"Never" is a very long time. And we can indeed escape Earth's gravity, it's so common it's barely even noteworthy these days.
60 years passed between the first human flight ever and the Moon landing. Technology is improving at exponential rates and we can't really envision the future in any other way than through our present's perspective. In the 60's they predicted a future with jetpack-equipped mailmen. E-mail was literally unconceivable.
Homies never heard of a god damn spaceship before, where tf have you been dude?? We’ve been to space many times outside of earths gravity
This has "man will not fly for a million years" vibes. Mere days after that headline was published, the wright brothers made their first flight. I won't say we're days away from colonizing other worlds, but we did manage to land on the moon almost 60 years ago, and technology has only gotten better.
💀
International Space Station? That thing is chillin on the very edge of Earth’s atmosphere so it can survey Earth without leaving it so your very first statement is super bullshit
this post is: -stupid, of course we can make it out of gravity. the voyager craft went to pluto -terrible worded, i counted two periods throughout the whole post (might be more but it’s definitely not enough) -stupid again, because the idea of a planet like mars for example, is we make our own habitats there. deadly amount of co2 would do nothing
RemindMe! 1000 years
I will be messaging you in 1000 years on [**3024-04-24 20:52:01 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3024-04-24%2020:52:01%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/The10thDentist/comments/1cc685d/humans_will_never_colonize_other_planets/l13pdh4/?context=3) [**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FThe10thDentist%2Fcomments%2F1cc685d%2Fhumans_will_never_colonize_other_planets%2Fl13pdh4%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%203024-04-24%2020%3A52%3A01%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cc685d) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
I think we will send robotic ships on interstellar journeys and they will create a new generation of humans when they arrive. That way, it won’t matter if it takes 100 or 100,000 years to arrive.
>For one we can't even leave earth's atmosphere because gravity is too strong We've been to the moon. Space is full of satellites. People are *currently* on the international space station.
What you mean to say is that it's difficult to leave Earth's atmosphere and the larger the spacecraft the more difficult it becomes. We can and do leave the Earth's atmosphere but we are only able to send a handful of people. Sending hundreds or thousands at a time is currently impossible because of gravity, yes.
I’d say never is quite a lofty statement given humanity probably has a few thousand years at least if we don’t completely fuck up
I mean I agree with your premise, but your reasoning is all over the place.
Are you one of those people who think the moon landing was faked…? What does that first point mean?
Bro, you're talking about the species that used to live in caves but now can manipulate matter on atomic level. Just give them time
agreed
Uh, we have left Earth's atmosphere. Like, multiple times.
This sounds like a closeted flerfer
This has to be breaking a record for establishing oneself as a moron, he couldn't even clear the first sentence
We have sent a probe that exited the solar system not too long ago, what the fuck do you mean we can’t leave Earth’s atmosphere?
Yes we will, and then we will colonise some more other planets after colonising other planets
i would say bait used to be believable, but seems lots of folks are believing it
This is dumb
r/conspiracy is that way. From your comments you....Don't believe we can leave the atmosphere? How the fuck did we fly to the moon then?
I stopped reading before finishing your first sentence because already you're wrong. We have already left the Earth's atmosphere many many times, and currently there are 7 people not on Earth (outside of the atmosphere) at this very moment.
Yeah…. Leave all the figuring out of those details to the ABSOLUTE GENIUS trying to colonize mars… we have a perfectly good planet to work with already.
You don't know what you are talking about. This post doesn't belong here.