Jeff Stahler by Jeff Stahler

Jeff Stahler

Comments (37) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Flash Gordon

    Flash Gordon said, 1 day ago

    Maybe not. It orbits a red dwarf star so close that it takes six of our days to make one complete orbit. At that closeness it would be tidal locked with one side always facing its star. The sky would be almost black on the day side of the planet due to the sunlight being red. On the plus side (for children) you’d have a birthday every six days but that would become old after a while.

  2. WJRuddick

    WJRuddick said, 1 day ago

    On second thought, maybe we should figure out how to live in balance with the environment on earth. I’m not so sure being slung around an M type star would work out so well for us earthlings. Just saying, I’m kind of fond of our pale blue dot.

  3. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 1 day ago

    Isn’t it “only” about 200,000 light years away?

  4. Zme

    Zme said, 1 day ago

    @dtroutma

    No, it’s only 4.2 ly away.
    .
    If we had a spaceship that could continuously accelerate at one hundredth of a g (0.1 m/s/s), it would take about 11 yrs to get halfway there, flip the ship an decelerate for another 11 years and bob’s your uncle.

  5. RasDaoud

    RasDaoud said, 1 day ago

    @dtroutma

    About 4.5 light years. Only. It’s CLOSE!

  6. NeedaChuckle

    NeedaChuckle said, 1 day ago

    It is possible that there IS intelligent life somewhere in the universe.

  7. guy fawkes

    guy fawkes said, 1 day ago

    Sweet mother of acceleration, don’t fail us now. It took homo-sapiens some 10,000 generations to realize the earth was round, and 500 years to grudgingly admit we are poisoning it. How long will it be before we grasp that 99.999999925% of us aren’t going anywhere?
    .
    Logic dictates that there are countless inhabitable planets, almost all of them speeding away from here. Our stewardship of this planet will have failed or succeeded (killing or saving humanity), long before Hawking’s / Sagan’s / Roddenberry’s (et al) dreams can be accomplished.
    .
    The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages… the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE! We’re going away. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron… It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while. – George Carlin

  8. Kylop

    Kylop said, about 24 hours ago

    Cue the Deniers….5…4….3….2….1

  9. D Lee

    D Lee GoComics PRO Member said, about 24 hours ago

    @Zme

    That’s a pretty significant “if”.

  10. Alberta-oil

    Alberta-oil said, about 22 hours ago

    We.. are short lived species in the big picture.. Over the long history of life on earth there have been many species come and go. Ours… will be just another one of those that came.. and went.
    Whether there will be something to record it is up for grabs.. but life in one form or other will be here… for many millions of years.

  11. shakeswilly

    shakeswilly said, about 22 hours ago

    @guy fawkes

    Guy, 100% of us aren’t going anywhere. The technological and logistical hurdles that need to be overcome to reach another habitable planet are so great that we can be certain that we never will.
    The problem we are facing however is not one about finding another planet to move to. Our problem is our failure as a species to be good stewards of the planet, and our inability to rise above our primal urges to consume and multiply. All those calamities you mentioned have effects that are temporary and life is able to reset after each of these. Man made changes are different. We consume what were can from our environment (as do all life forms) but we then modify our environment to be able to consume even more resources. Each of these modifications mean that other life forms that lives there will lose out. A lot of species have already been driven to extinction and others are on the brink. The only species that thrive are those that live off of and on the fringes of human habitations.
    Sooner or later the damage to life bearing ablity would reach the point of no return and we as a species will die out. The difference between this and other extinctions is that the damage we did to this planet would have been so great that any other species that had survived till then will also die out soon after and all that will be left will be a barren, dead planet.
    This process will be repeated even if we do succeed in finding and moving to, a fresh habitable planet.
    Man should learn to conquer himself before setting out to conquer the stars.

  12. magicwalnut

    magicwalnut GoComics PRO Member said, about 22 hours ago

    @shakeswilly

    Well said.

  13. Crow Nobo

    Crow Nobo said, about 22 hours ago

    We give 50% of our tax dollars unnecessarily to the military,
    we give 20% of our tax dollars to the 1%.
    Is that anyway to run a country?

  14. guy fawkes

    guy fawkes said, about 21 hours ago

    @shakeswilly

    Point of agreement- Humans must preserve and protect our environment or the human race is doomed. No one alive today has anyplace else to go. Even in the fictional 24th century Star Trek saga, planetary evacuation would be highly impractical. However…
    .
    Shakes, 555 of us (.000000075%) have indeed left the planet (and returned). Others were certain that we never would clear the ‘technological and logistical hurdles’ that needed to be overcome to fly, or reach orbit, or the moon.

  15. OldCoal

    OldCoal GoComics PRO Member said, about 20 hours ago

    If off earth migration was a priority on the level of earth’s current military forces, yes, you could, over a few hundred years, move multiple billions of people around.
    Given current policy, it won’t happen.
    However, that calculation has been done, and I can reproduce it as well as I remember it.
    When building O’Neill type colonies, the first thing built is the “construction shack”, which is a fairly large space station of essentially any type.
    This serves as the collection site at the Lagrange points for material flung from the moon with a mass driver to the Lagrange point and used for the colony construction. The construction time of a stage three colony (O’Neill cylinder) was estimated to be 20 years, and would hold up to several million people with farms and life support.
    If a requirement for construction of an O’Neill cylinder was that the colony construct two cylinders to “pay forward” the construction costs, and each cylinder held one million people, the number that could be maintained off earth grows exponentially as 10^6 * 1+2^n with n being the period for constructing one colony. In two hundred years, 10 periods, you’d have room for over a billion people to live off earth. And that’s assuming we don’t learn ANYTHING that would increase the efficiency of building these things in all that time.
    Two hundred years – the old Egyptian priests would have scoffed at such a short timeline for a major project.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (22).