Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Space..wat does giving someone space really mean?

Ok i have gotten alot of responses to my other question that i need to give her space..does that mean stop with everything, the phone calls, the nights out, and even the sex...How can i be there for her and give her space at the same time..And how long is this supposed to last till some results are shown..



Space..wat does giving someone space really mean?adult myspace





Ever hear the phrase; "Absence makes the heart grow fonder"?..that means: being apart, with other interests makes you long to be together...miss each other...also it gives you new experiences and more to talk about when you are together...but how can you miss each other, long to be together and share new experiences if your always together?..Space means she wants to do some things on her own...be with her own friends and family...she was an individual long before she was your girlfriend. Let her have her space, and she will appreciate time with you more...if you don't you will be smothering her and your relationship.



Space..wat does giving someone space really mean?bad girls club myspace.com



not being with eachother alot
tell her u will always be there for her but dont call her as often if she wants to call she will call u she needs time alone dont go out if she wants to again she will and well ya sex obviously not
they are thinking about saddling up another horse from the stable.
meaning SHE will be the one who decides when you have given her enough space. =) good job for trying hard though
it means she needs to think its not you you should offer to talk to her about what she means in "space"
It means:"Leave me alone"
"give me space" means I'm not attracted to you... you're getting on my nerves. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I'm just being honest with you. Go out with someone else.
These are questions you probably need to be asking her.The fact that she wants space may mean she feels smothered or may want out the relationship altogether.the best advice that I can give you is to talk to her.Ask her how she feels and to what degree.Ask her if that means she dosen't want you to be there for her, or no dates, no sex, etc.good luck.
GIVE THEM ROOM, BACK OFF A LITTLE....THEY NEED AIR IT SEEMS....
your all up on his/her back and u need to go shopping or something other than wondering what their doing
If people are telling you to give the girl space, more likely than not you're being compulsive, and even obsessive with your communication with her. I don't know the details of what your relationship is, but when someone tells you they need space, it normally means, literally, quit smothering them. Don't call all the time, e-mail all the time, or just "stop by." Think of it this way. Communication, if sound, should be like a scale. Any time she calls, you can call her back. Any time you call, you have to WAIT until she calls you back, otherwise, you've just tipped the scale. This applies to every form of communication, both literal and digital.
depend on the person. some people when they say give me space they dont want to see u at all but r just trying to be nice about it. others mean that they need time away from u.
personaly when i hear i need space they are saying i want to see what else is out there! Do your own thing be unavailable!
It means that you are giving each other the space to go out with friends, and not be around each other as much as you are. It doesnt mean that you have to stop everything, just dont hang or talk to each other as much as you normally do.
they don't want you following every where that they go or they want to break up.
OK this just happend to me to, ive been in this relationship for 3 years off %26amp; on. last week he told me that he needed space that he was feeling smothered. So i decided to give him his space, and i left him. How is someone going to expect someone else to just sit back and wait untill they dont want their space anymore. A friend told me: Girl he isn't in jail your not going to wait for him, If and when he is ever ready then he can call me if its not to late.
Giving some one space, simply they want you to be a fool for them and allow them to do their thing, while you set by and wait, or if they don't care for you hold hearted they really don't care what you do. An other words you were just a booty call. Sometimes a person just wants or needs time alone to think out what they really want or where they want to go.

Naming the feature space in my museum?

It's for my final project, designing a fashion museum. On a certain storey, we have to create a feature space where visitors will gather and see the exhibits or shows or events. My feature space has a small exhibition space, a mezzanine floor where drinks are serve and this floor overlooks a fashion runway show. Beside these spaces, its a theme restaurant. Any suggestion on what to name the feature space?



Naming the feature space in my museum?pimp myspace





Robert Tonner's Hideaway. Put fashion dolls in glass cases all along the walls.



Naming the feature space in my museum?stars myspace myspace.com



After the theme of the show - Fashion through the Ages.



Eat and Drink your way through History



Authentic Historical Food.



Actually I don't think it is a great idea to have people eating and drinking above the Cat walk - especially if they have their 2 year old with them who likes to throw food around!
hot space
I would base it on the theme of the restaurant.



If you sell Italian food you could name your mezzanine after the Piazzas in Italy. Doesn't that name imply meeting place as well as adding an Italian aura.



Have a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year friend,



Michael %26lt;%26gt;%26lt;

Space is subject to gravity?

I just asked a question about the dimensions of 3-D space at the moment of the. Big Bang. Thank you -- all who answered. Does the expansion of space, along with the matter in space imply that space is actually subject to gravitational force? If it is, why don't black holes suck up 3-D space like a vacuum? Also, if space is "expanding" then it seems that it should be expanding equally at all points; as opposed to just adding more space at the edge of the universe; why have we not seen any evidence of this in any laboratory experiment?



Space is subject to gravity?hack myspace





Gravity affects the metrical properties of space (its "curvature"), but it doesn't pull on it as if it were a material thing. And, yes, the average expansion of space (that is, averaged over a scale of millions of light years) is assumed be the same thoughout the universe. The "local" expansion of space can prevented by higher concentrations of mass, such as you would have inside of a galaxy. (Which is really just a fancy way of saying that gravity is strong enough to hold relatively dense objects like galaxies togother, but not the universe as a whole).

How did we get space?

If no space or matter existed in the beginning, only God, or whatever caused it all, then wouldn't it be safe to say that this "whatever cause" took up all the space there was in existence?



If all this space was taken up, then in order to create anything new wouldn't space have to be created first?



How would you create space if it was already taken up by something?



So, in order to create space in an already filled up place, wouldn't you have to create a division in the existing substance?



Then wouldn't you have to divided that substance with enough distance that you could fit all the things you wanted to create?



After creating that big division to fit all that you wanted to create, wouldn't all the substance that previously took up all the space be scattered about this space as a result of this dividing process?



Would this scattered substance be the stuff we see all over the universe?



How did we get space?custom myspace





Space is emptiness. It has always been. It is no thing. Ain was considered existence before there was existence. 'God' (the great I Am) created matter by speaking the 'Word'. He created things to fill the space. Earth, the Heavens, the Sun, the Moon, the stars, etc.



Then there is the 'big bang' theory. And the universe still expanding. Scientists want to know the edges of the universe. So far? Zilch.



How did we get space?myspace ip myspace.com



And since space and time are intertwined, there is no "before".



All of these paradoxes have probably been considered since the beginning of human thought.
Well once apon a time there was a man... we call him god now. I suppose it could be his initials for what his name really meant G.O.D... that could be anything. Buttt, i suppose one day he just up and decided to make himself his own niffty little universe and BAM!!! here it is home sweet home. God is a truely an amazing person. I plan on meeting him some day. :-D
Space only exists because of humans and the mind. "Outside" the universe is just irrelevent void because it is defined by humans.
Mostly yes. Space isn't a thing separate from the 'what's in it'. Matter warps space so that when all the matter (or energy with the matter-energy conversion) is close, the 'space' is warped close also. And this carries one down to as small as we can guess about.



Now, if the matter expands, it takes space with it since it is shaping the space it is in. If you can get your head around this idea, that space and matter in space are linked and not really separate things, you have the essentials and your idea is sound, except for the even harder idea that space can be infinite in 3 dimensions, but finite in 4 or more.



Good luck, it's a brain cramper.
first the universe is mostly hydrogen, and a lot of carbon. second maybe you should read some of albert einsteins theories, he thinks our universe exists inside other universe's. my personal belief is that we are inside of something else and that i have a theory thta we could make another universe with common lab equipment, im only 20 but have big dreams for science. the unverse was created, theoretically, by hydrogen diffusion, i think, like and a-bomb going off, then galaxies were formed by large gatherings of gas (cluster) and inside each galaxy is solar systems which are similar but smaller, a solar system is formed by another hydrogen process, forget how, but its a large gas cloud and it is spinning and as it spins the gas in the middle spins faster than that outside so the middle becomes more and more dense until it is too packed and cannot fit more the nit explodes, the remaining gas that was spinning around the center slows and forms rings of some sort, then these rings can create the planets that revolve around the middle object which is now a star or sun if u will, if done properly in a giant vacuum filled space i hope to oneday create a similar small universe inside earth and who knows if it ever happend maybe life would result, would i then be god???
You have a lot of answers to your own questions and then more questions for your answers!! I give up!!



Seriously, NO ONE KNOWS the answer to this in any way, shape, or form, except the 'educated' speculation of the scientific community who are interested enough or getting paid enough to 'specualte'!! Your imagination wanders and you're entitled to do so - good for you - but it amounts to as much 'balderdash' as the scientists come up with, except they use BIG words to give credence to their ideas!!
i like your mind, don't give up thinking.



to answer your question, it'd depend on what side your belifes are on. if you are on the universe physics (everything is almost unexplained and the laws we have don't apply to the universe) or basic earth physics (gravity pulls down).



the laws of physics are very different out in the universe. let me start off with what you said: "If all this space was taken up(in one small point), then in order to create anything new wouldn't space have to be created first..." yes it'd have to take up space going by out laws of physics. like i said, our laws of physics are way diferent from the universes. things happen in space that is impossible for our physics to do. so in a way it's almost unexplainable.



if you beleive in god, which would make it easier to understand. then you don't really have to ask and just rely on faith.



then if albert einstin was alive, he'd probably leave you an answer that'd take about 30 minutes to read.



all in all i'd have to agree with you though. this universe, as masive as it is, would have to have taken up space.
We didnt get it! It inherited us!
According to the String Theory,after the phase transition, the strings were formed in a random network of self-avoiding curves/loops. Some of the strings were in closed loops and some were as infinite strings. The distribution of strings so happened that a constant number of loops entered the Horizon. If the infinite strings would simply straighten out, then the numbers of open strings across the horizon-sized volume would also increase with time and strings would soon come out to dominate the density. Velenkin .A [Physics Review D23, p852; 1981] showed that the geometry produced by the gravitational field near a length of straight string is that of Minkowski space with a three dimensional wedge taken out of each space like slice. The vertex of the wedge lies along the length of the string and the angle subtended by missing wedge lies in rest frame of the string and is equated as δπ Gμ The two exposed faces of the strings are thus identified. Thus the Space Time remained flat everywhere except along the Strings , where it was highly curved. If Gμ%26lt;%26lt;1, then the stress energy of the strings would produce only small (lenier) perturbations from the metric of rest of the universe. Because the matter in the Universe did not produce significant purturbation from the Minkowski metric Space ,on scale ,less then horizon, the Gravitational field at a point much closer to a length of a string would be essentially then the same as gravitational field at a similarly located point in Minkowski space. In the rest of frame of the strings, all particles were when passing , the strings were deflated by an angle 8πG μ with respect to all particles passing on other side of the strings. The magnitude of discontinuity in temperature(While passing of particles) across the string was δT/T= 8πGβ, where β=Transverse Velocity of the strings which was typically was close to Unity. This Jump of temperature persisted on angular distance away from the string, corresponding to the present angular size of the radius of curvature of the strings. The magnitude of temperature jump was then independent of the Red shift (Z) at which Light Rays reaching to us, passed by the strings. If we calculate the general properties of microwave sky anisotropy in string mode , then let us assume that microwave photons were last scattered at Red shift Z 1s. In a perfectly homogenious Universe ,the matter became mostly neutral and optically then at Z 1000. However in a Universe with strings, there will be large amplitude in homogeneity on small scale and the heat output from objects forming at or before Zγee may re -ionize the plasma. If the plasma were kept fully ionized then Z1s%26gt;10 and we have 1000%26gt;Z1s%26gt;10,the angle subtended by a horizon-sized volume space at Z1c is o1s-1/2%26lt;%26lt;1. One would do expect to see on a round patch of sky of strings per horizon volume at red shift Z, will project to one length of string of angular size o if z%26lt;z1s. These strings will be moving relativistic ally, as they were unable to straighten themselves out of these length scale.



In the modern Gauge theories of fundamental interaction of the Vacuum was far from being nothing. Rather it is now recognized as a dynamical object that was in different state. The current state of vacuum affects the properties such as masses and interaction of any particles put into it. Although the vacuum is thought to lie in it’s ground state ,that with the lowest state of energy, this state had not always been the same. Thus in the early universe when the particle component [ordinarily matter and radiation] was at a very high temperature, the vacuum adjusted it’s state in doing so modified the properties of particles so as to minimize the free energy of the entire system. [Vacuum plus particles. ] e i. the vacuum went into higher energy state in order to lower the energy of hot plasma by even greater amount. As the universe cooled to keep the entire system at the lowest possible energy at a given temperature , the vacuum had to change eventually, ending up in it’s present state which is nearby the true or zero temperature vacuum. It was possible in early universe that as the Universe expanded , the cooling happened too rapidly for the vacuum to find it’s true ground state and the vacuum was frozen into ground state with defects. Defects that probably could occur in a three dimensional space could be Zero dimensional (Monopoles), Two dimensional (Domain walls) or One dimensional (Strings). The Strings are macroscopic objects. In most cases of cosmological interest they have no ends and are either infinitely long or closed in a loop.



At GUT’s the Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic forces behaved as if, they had equal strength, much as line defects found in the crystal. They formed as a net work across the space%26amp; time. The GUT”s predicts that strings were formed at a temperature of about 1015 to ~1016 Gev. at a Cosmological time of about 10?35 Second. The Cosmic Strings were formed at the mass scale of GUTs Symmetry breaking (Mx-? 2x1015 Gev) was typified by a mass per unit length μG/c2?? ~ 2x10 6 in dimensionless unit.[ G= Gravitational Constant, C= speed of Light, which is corresponding to μ= ~ 2.6X10 21, Kgm-1~ 4x107 MOPC-1 where MO= Mass of Sun . Or in other words the strings were formed with a mass per unit length of about 1020 kg-1. They have a mass per unit length μ=ε/G [where ε= ~( %26lt;φ%26gt;/ mp)2 is the dimensionless amplitude of their Gravitational potential, mp is the Plank Mass and the Vaccum Expectation value of Higgs field is φ.] Because of their enormous tension ε/G , the net work of the Strings were formed in the phase transition. In this Theory the Strings contributed only a small fraction of mass of the Universe. The Galaxies were formed by Accreating of ordinary matter about the Strings. The Strings were stretched by subsequent expansion of the Universe on waves, on a given scale and began to oscillate then. The strings underwent Oscillation in which the Transverse intertia acted as weight and the restoring forces were provided by longitudinal tension of the strings. As a result of oscillation in such that the scale entered the particles horizon and whenever the strings crossed itself and exchanged particle partners and produced closed Oscillating loops of the Strings with long life(Peebles. P.G. Z- large scale Structure of the Universe.- Princeton University press 1981).



The Strings actually underwent Oscillation in which the Transverse inertia acted as weight and the resting force was provided longitudinal tension of the strings. The gravitational field of these strings loops caused accretion of matter around them. Brosche. P.J in the journal of Astrophysics stated that angular momentum of an astronomical object is proportional directly t square of mass and constant of proportionality is comparable to String Theories, which suggest that the Universe had evolved through hecrchial breaking of rotating or oscillating strings and the angular momentum with mass between various classes of different objects ranging from planets to super clusters (brosche.PZ.J-Astrophysics Vo 57; P143; 1963). This whow we got the Space



Professor Pranab Kumar Bhattachatrya,Mr Rupak Bhattacharya, Mr Ritwik Bhattacharya, Mrs Dahlia Mukherjee



www.unipathos.com



Copy Right of the answer Strictly reserved to Authors as per copy right rules of IPR. Do not use the answer



Taken from- "Did universe strated from Big Bang Gospel or Just Be" Published in www.unipathos.com



Professor Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya
There may not have been space and time at the beginning of the universe, but there was something you could call the "ether" - probably some n-th dimensional material that was disturbed by the big bang and turned into the matter, anti-matter and dark matter that exists in the universe today.

Space shuttle question?

How much fuel does the normal space shuttle take into space. I would imagine space being a vacuum meaning no resistance so does that show in lets say MPGs?



Space shuttle question?celebrities myspace





The space shuttle does not require fuel to remain in orbit. However, the RCS thrusters need fuel to orient the vehicle and the OMS engines use fuel for the burn that brings the shuttle out of its orbit. The total amount carried is 923 pounds of fuel and 1,464 pounds of oxidizer.



The shuttle also carries three hydrazine tanks to run the Auxilary Power Units, which are high-speed turbines that power hydraulic pumps. The hydraulic system is used to move the main engines during ascent and it powers the aerosurfaces and landing gear during re-entry. The three tanks carry about 325 pounds of fuel each for a total of 975 pounds. All together, the fuel load is about 1,900 pounds.



For comparison purposes, a car with a 20 gallon tank carries about 120 pounds of fuel, so 1,900 pounds of gasoline would be about 320 gallons, which is very close to the amount of fuel carried by an 18-wheeler.



Giz



P.S. The space station does require fuel to stay in orbit. All satellites do because their orbit decays due to atmospheric drag. The orbit needs to be reboosted a couple of times per year. In this case, it is possible to calculate an MPG but since you didn't ask, I didn't make the calculation.



Space shuttle question?small myspace myspace.com



Let's not say Miles Per Gallon. It's more like Tons Per Inch... the space shuttle burns an INCREDIBLY large amount of fuel to get into orbit. It has to burn practically nothing once achieving orbit (with the occasional course correction or orbit transfer) and then it fires it engines to slow down enough for re-entry...



The external tank alone burns about 1.1 million gallons of fuel in about 8 minutes during liftoff...



Definitely not a hybrid, green-conscious vehicle...
take into space? zero. its a glider once it reaches space. a little fuel is around for positioning, but not for the big engines in the back.
The Space Shuttle burns up a half a ton of fuel per second during the 510 second journey into orbit. it drains enough liquid propellant from it's external tank that is equivilant to draining an average sized swimming pool in 25 seconds.



meanwhile it burns 1 million pounds of Solid rocket propellant that is in each solid rocket booster (so 2 million pounds all together), in 2 minutes 5 seconds from launch.
My neighbor son's is a astronaut, probably is going out to space this year, he told me, the amount of fuel that the space shuttle just to jump out to space is 10,000 tons of fuel, if you can multiply, that will be 10,000 x 4=liters= 160, 000 gallons of fuel x liters = almost 400,000 liters of unleaded gas (am kidding on the last part!) so you answer should be 160,000 galons of fuel! just for the push to the out side space!...i don't know how much do that thing spends on the way back?
you could use miles per gallon but the equation would allways be open ended due to inertia and how long you coast. all thrust sytems use burn time given that they know the amonut of fuel being burnt in 1 second. while burning you will never go faser then the speed of your exhaust but yo can go equal to it.

What is the fabric of space like at the interface point of physical and quantum?

Given:



- the essential laws of physical space--eg. .a moving object travels in a straight line in the absence of external forces



- and that quantum space doesn't seem to follow the same rules



is anyone addressing this assumption: that at the quantum level, the fabric of physical space is porous. we observe the quantum as it interfaces with our physical. Can a particle move back and forth across the threshold? What's the interface like? If we're viewing a particle as it shows characteristics observed in quantum space- movement, etc could the bent shape of physical space not explain the objects movement as it travels in a straight line distance in quantum space? [eg. at the quantum level, if a partical enters/exits physical space, and our physical space is bent back on itself, then a particle moving across that threshold would appear to disappear from one spot and instantly reappear in another part of physical space. [Non-physics person, so please explain w/o formulas, if possible.]



What is the fabric of space like at the interface point of physical and quantum?flash myspace





There is no such thing as physical and quantum space. They are both the same thing, viewed at different magnification.



Newtonian physics were correct (and still are correct) for large objects moving at low speeds. Since our measuring capablities have increased we started noticing that more laws are needed to explain the behaviour of very small and very fast object, hence we we developed quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity.



Quantum mechanincs assumes that some physical quantaties are quantitized, that is they come in indevisable amounts. For example the potential energy of an electron in a hydrogen atom is quantitzed. So is its angualar momentum and a spin.



The electron's position (i.e. space) is still assumed to be a continuum, that is the electron's position is not quantitzed and it can occupy all positions in space.



It may well be that space is also quantitized, however we have not been able to achieve a technological breakthrough that will allow us to probe such small measure.



If you want a simple demonstration then look at any smooth metallic surface. To the human eye (and touch) the surface appears smooth and straight. However if you use a powerful enough microscope you will see it consists of billions of ball shaped atoms so the smooth surface is actually built of many many balls stuck together. Does that mean that the surface is not smooth? No! For all intents and purposes it is smooth because you percieve it as such.



The same is true for space. Even if a particle does "hop" from one point to another, those points are so closed together that even today with all our advancments in sub-atomic studies, we still can't tell if there is or if there isn't an intervail between two adjacent point in space.

Do we need a Space Program?

I did a bit of research and found out that all of our current technology, academic knowledge, even new facts about our origins on this planet were all due to the experiments conducted in space. Cell phones would still be years away if we didn't have a space program. Computers would just be like they were back in the 70's. Even philosophy and current religious views would still be as they were 100 years ago. Space is were we came from,not some slime ball,and it's to space we shall all return some day.The space program has been the only thing that has united our planet together in our quest for knowledge, and because of our contry's efforts in space our world has been made a better place to live. Now I find out that NASA might be dissolved in the future. A big mistake for us and our children. I guess that Pres.Reagan was right in saying that our world will be united if a major threat from space to our world would be the only thing that would bring us together. Do we need a space program?



Do we need a Space Program?myspace quiz





Absolutely! Most of the major technological advances in the last 100 years are due to NASA and the Military. Communications, Computers, Materials, etc. Everything that we take for granted was created by our Space Program and Military. GPS, Cellphones, Computers, Satellite TV, Carbon Fiber.... the list goes on forever... Besides that issue, the main reason to do it is that WE CAN! For the first time in the history of human beings we can look at the Moon and say "we have walked on it". The amazing pictures that Hubble captures are what inspires children to focus on Math and Science. Our country is the world leader in developing new technologies and this is no coincidence. We are reaping the rewards that our Space Program started back in the 50's and 60's. We should drastically increase funding for NASA. It is only about 1% of the National Budget, tell your Senators and Congressmen that you want it increased. Just imagine what we could really do if the funding was there. I am an Aerospace Engineer and I currently work on the Orion spaceship which will return us to the Moon.



Do we need a Space Program?kids myspace myspace.com



No.We would just spread our hate,and make money off other lifeforms.
Yes, we need a space program. Without one humanity is doomed to die with this planet. There are people who say that one is a waste of money but they are wrong. Global warming -is- destroying this planet. The core of our planet is dying, and with it its magnetic field. Storms are becoming exponentially more frequent with each passing decade. If we do not take to space we will go extinct.
Having a technological challenge to apply our brains under pressure to reduces the world wide conflict caused by our aggressive natures.



It becomes sort of "duelling by proxy"



The only outcomes being the advances in accessible gadgets etc for the public.



I reckon the Program is a positive thing then.
Absolutely!! I think you answered the question yourself in your posting. We've all benefited from the technology, communications, and even medical research. Besides, it does humanity good to look outside our tiny little squabbles and realize that we are NOT the center of the universe. If we stop looking for knowledge in space, in the oceans, and on land, we'll give up what makes us so unique -- curiosity, desire for knowledge, and hopefully the recognition that we must all work together to solve the world's problems.



I've watched at least six shuttle launches, and on a purely visceral level it's incredible to be a part of a crowd waiting for that tremendous rumble of engines. When thousands of people start cheering in unison, it makes me proud that we are reaching past the petty issues of this world and can, finally, slip the surly bonds of earth and touch the face of God.
Of course we need a space program. Today we have plenty of ideas that we depend on and some theories which need more evidence from space.



We might someday colonize one of the moons of Jupiter. For that we need much preparation.
Yes we do need a space program. No matter how much money or lives have been spent in the quest for space the long term value may turn out to be the survival of human life on Earth. The search for near Earth asteroids that could one day destroy all life of our planet would not have even begun if science had confined itself to terrestrial pursuits. It could be seen as money well spent if in the future a asteroid of planet changing size is detected and diverted.



For the same reasons that countries around the world have established scientific bases in Antarctica for the advancement of knowledge, so too will a Moon base and later a Mars base will benefit mankind.
Absolutely, in this time of shrinking natural resources our best hopes for survival are in space. Not only does it provided mankind with areas to expand into as populations grow it could be the possible source of unlimited resources. Water in the form of ice in comets or other celestial bodies also iron, copper, cobalt, etc, etc.... within the same objects. Imagine a future where the Sahara, Gobi, or Mojave is farmed with water from space. Pollution is also an ever increasing problem, think about it: all the radioactive waste on earth could be shot into the Sun and the Sun would burn it up and never even notice it! All you would have to do is get started in the right direction and the suns gravity would do the rest.
Good question. It has a simple answer too.



The next big rock out there has our name on it.



If we dont learn how to manipulate the orbits of asteroids to insure that we don't get nailed by one, all the answers above really wont matter. The global catastrophie of a large asteroid impact is unimaginable and modern civilization will not survive it.



The mineral wealth of harvesting asteroids is a good perk too.



The question is more like: "Do we live in space or die here with the very tools in our hands to save ourselves?"



Survival of our species depends on a space program that will work with asteroids and from what I have seen so far it could use a lot more help and soon!
DAHHHH!!!!! Instead we are going to keep populating the planet, and burn up all the natural resources. Poluting the air, not to mention all the hazardus waste.

 
cafe racer