GiraffeAdditional299

GiraffeAdditional299 t1_j7vkbww wrote

Sorry, I’m having a shit day. I’m just sick of humanity destroying nature just for fucking money. An empty, worthless notion of the universe, where true value is ignored, like life, and balance of the universe. Let’s go after asteroids, there’s so many, and they are far enough away that no matter how many we mine, their absence won’t affect anything. Sorry again.

3

GiraffeAdditional299 t1_j7vgtjc wrote

I think you’re underestimating how many companies are salivating at the prospect of raping the moon. If we open the door, it’s only a matter of time before the tides, and other magnetic field properties are affected. You have never seen the amount of quarried rock on Earth huh? Or everything else we have fucked up? The whole “humans can’t impact nature” point of view is antiquated and devoid of intelligence.

2

GiraffeAdditional299 t1_j6ntxgh wrote

You are excluding a lot of realities. Such as Electronic Warfare: where large complex networks of acquisition and search radars are integrated with thousands of concepts for lock on or break away. Banking, as you stated, is just a method of attitude control with the limitations of design. Not all aeronautical, or aerospace vehicles will need to ‘bank’. You statement is erroneous due to your assumption that the limitations of our current technology will never advance to solve your banking problem.

Not all fighters need to have a human, as such, can be piloted remotely, or autonomous. But as long as war exist my friend, there will always be a soldier on the front. Companies that want security measures for their resource operations in space will rely heavily on automation, but a human presence will always be needed: not just in the carrier.

1