NASA Seeks Bight Undergraduates To Fly Research In the Vomit Comet

Undergrads, now is your chance to make a splash in the scientific community and do your own research with NASA.

Teams interested in conducting student-driven research should submit a letter of intent by Sept. 14. This step is optional, but serves as an introductory notice that a team plans to submit a proposal for the competition. Proposals for student-driven experiments are due Oct. 26, and selected teams will be announced Dec. 7. The actual flight experience will take place in June 2012.

This opportunity will set you up for a career in space, so what are you waiting for, my permission. Get a team together and start designing.

How Fresh is the Field: An Initial Look

I run into a ton of really, really old studies and books while researching space habitation. For example, I found books on space habitation from my school's and my local library that look like they have not been opened since the Apollo program. All the articles I read seem to be from the 80's. This has built the impression in my mind that the field of space settlement is stale. However, before I make this claim, I have to prove it. This is my plan to prove of disprove my idea:

I want to look at every database I have access to and generate a list of every article I can field that is directly related to space settlement and articles where the author claims the paper be applied to space habitation. I also will include books on the field in the list. But, before I do that, I want to see if there is any value in doing this. So, I did a smaller version of the massive study I want to do. 

I went to Google Scholar and ran a search for "Space Settlement". Out of the 500 articles found, 161 seemed to be related to this field after reading the abstract. I looked at the date of publishing, not the date it was written. Now, I know this isn't a random sample, the term space settlement could be more popular in our politically correct age then in the past and Google may only find newer articles. But, if, despite all those reasons for the data set to be made of mostly articles that are older then 1989, I find that most articles are that old, then I have a very strong reason to think most of the articles on space settlement are old.

Here's what I found:

In math speak:
The average is 1997.75
The median is 2002
The first quartile is 1990
The third quartile is 2006.25

But, all in all, it looks like this study, if fully done, could prove that the space settlement field is expanding. One of the things I think that helped accelerate research into space settlement is the growing fields of astrosociology and space law; I ran into tons of those articles in those two fields and they were newer. It would be worth looking into how much those fields make up for the academic work on space habitation.

So, I turn it over to you, the readers. Did you see any errors in the way I put this together? Do you think it is worth doing?

Edit: Here's my data, I forgot it. I also feel like I should point out that this is very subjective.

SPC #23: Kalpana One

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer an analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper; basically, I read the paper and write down my thoughts while I read it. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes and ideas are from the paper, unless otherwise noted.

This week we are reviewing the paper Kalpana One: A New Orbital Space Colony Design. I am using a new format based on the Lifehacker article Back to School: Keep an Academic Reading Journal.


Article Information

Title: Kalpana One: A New Orbital Space Colony Design

Author(s): Al Globus, Ankur Bajoria and Nitin Arora

Date: May 2006

Conference: International Space Development Conference 2006

Article Overview

This paper is an update to the O'Neill Cylinders and other cylinder space habit designs.

Key/Interesting Quotes

“Cylinders minimize shielding mass per unit of 1g living area compared with other feasible shapes.” Page 1

“Princeton physicist Gerard ONeill led two Stanford/NASA Ames Research Center summer studies that supported the feasibility of kilometer-scale orbital cities. These studies assumed that the NASA space shuttle would operate as expected, a flight every week or two, $500/lb. to orbit, and one failure per 100,000 flights. The studies also assumed that a more efficient follow-on heavy lift launcher would be
available”. Page 1

“Taken together, the earlier designs have a number of serious problems: 1. Excessive shielding mass (Bernal Sphere, Stanford Torus) , 2. Extremely large mirrors to bring in natural sunlight (ONeill Cylinders) , 3. Lack of natural sunlight (Lewis One) , 4. Rotational instability (Bernal Sphere, ONeill Cylinders) , 5. Lack of wobble control (Bernal Sphere, Lewis One, O'Neill Cylinders, Stanford Torus) , 6. Catastrophic failure modes due to rotating hulls with minimal clearance to non-rotating shield mass (Lewis One, Stanford Torus)” Page 2


“Earth orbiting colonies will come first [because]: 1g (pseudo-)gravity levels are possible on orbital colonies...,Rapid resuppply from Earth ...Better communication with Earth ...Weightless and low-g recreation near the axis of rotation ...Relatively easy 0g construction of large living structures ...Near-Earth orbital colonies can service our planet’s tourist, exotic materials and energy markets more easily than the Moon, and Mars is too far away to easily trade with Earth ” Page 2


“Without children, you don’t have a colony, so 1g is a hard requirement for early colonies.” Page 5

“the maximum length of a rotationally stable cylinder is approximately 2.5r” Page 5

“Thus, Kalpana One’s 1g LivingArea is approximately 1500m by 550m, for a total of 863, 500m2 , providing 172m^2 living area for each of 5,000 residents”. Page 6

“It appears that approximately 15cm of steel meets this [hull strength] requirement” Page 6

“Astronauts working on the hull exterior would experience > 1g centrifugal acceleration away from the hull. This is an unacceptable risk, so all external maintenance must be accomplished by teleoperated or automated robots.”. Page 6

“High intensity, controlled environment agriculture requires 50m^2 to feed one person.9 For a population of 5,000, the total agriculture area required is 250, 000m^2” Page 7

“...thermal rejection system consists of thermal radiators attached around the rotation axis of the colony”. Page 8

Personal Response

This colony purposed to use thermal radiators to get rid of heat, however, it is not as easy as the single sentence suggest. Heat transfer would only occur with the radiation of heat through the vacuum of space. This is a painfully slow process, however, this problem is overcome in the design by the size of the panels. But, thermal radiators can be a problem because they must the keep away from the sun's rays. ISS achieved this, so it is possible here.

I think that the station's spinning will have to be stopped with or without robotics to preform external maintenance. It will be very hard to keep the robot on it's target with a 1g outwards force, such a robot would need huge thrusters or some method to stick to the wall . However, Stanford did develop a robot that can stick to the wall like a gecko, maybe it could be of use here.

Questions Raised by Paper

Could we counteract the lack of gravity on other planets by wearing weights?

Can we make steel with resources in space? (There is iron on the moon, but steel is a mix of many elements)

SPC #11: Applications of Living Systems Theory of Life in Space

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper; basically I read the paper and write down my thoughts are I read it. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes are from the paper unless otherwise noted. All papers I review are available for free online.

This week we are reviewing the paper Applications of Living Systems Theory of Life in Space.

Since some humans will be spending more and more time in space, we need to think of the human factor more then ever. So far, astronauts have been able to endure the stressful environment of space because the astronauts were able to build up enough motivation to cope with the stress. But, as people are subjected to small living spaces and a lack of privacy, they may burnout or snap. As we move farther from Earth, feeling of isolation from humanity will grow.

If we use living systems theory, it could solve the problem that come with the human factor. Living systems theory is the combined study of technology, sociology, biology and ecology. Of course, this brings a problem, the sciences are compartmented. So, we must reinvent our education system to give people a general sense of how their systems effect other factors because we need to study every aspect of space habitation in order for it to work.

Living systems theory is to categorize the subsystems of non-biological systems into twenty categories and identify the amount of inputs for the system to work based on the categorizes of subsystems in biological systems. Once we know this, we can fix dysfunctional systems. The 20 subsystems are: the reproducer, the boundary, the ingestor, the distributor, the converter, the producer, matter-energy storage systems, the extruder, the motor, the supporter, the output transducer, the encoder, the decider, memory, the associator, the decoder, the timer, the channel and net, and the internal transducer.

The study has a very interesting diagram on page 25 of the PDF which maps every part of a moon base to the 20 subsystems. It really shows how complicated even the simplest moon base would be.

Basically, NASA is using living systems theory to make sure every possibility is planned for. If every subsystem is strong, then the whole system could stand up to a lot.

Reactions

- Is it a good idea to low at what we need for space habitation in terms of what our body needs to function?

In Case You Skimmed

-Biological systems have 20 subsystems

-In order for a space habitat to function well, it must replicate biological systems with its own version of the 20 subsystems

SPC #9: Analyses of a Lunar Base Electrostatic Radiation Shield Concept

(Average Read Time: 56 Seconds)

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper; basically I read the paper and write down my thoughts are I read it. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes are from the paper unless otherwise noted. All papers I review are available for free online.

This week we are reviewing a Analyses of a Lunar Base Electrostatic Radiation Shield Concept.

Current radiation shielding is... lackluster. What we use is passive radiation shielding, in the form of plastics. Materials which have a lot of hydrogen in them are effective radiation shielding. But, aluminum, which is the material of choice for spacecraft, produces deadlier radiation when cosmic radiation hits it (Brehmsstrahlung X-Rays is the deadlier radiation produced). At least, according the the Series Mars Rising. We are considering making making spacecraft out of a hydrogen based material, but the shielding effect isn't perfect. The crew will still have to move into a radiation bunker in the ship or in the base in a solar storm.

But, what if we had active shielding. In theory, you could have a radiation shield that allowed particles to slow down. This would avoid Brehmsstrahlung X-Rays since they are produced by sudden changes in a radioactive particles' velocity.

The shield will consist of two spheres made out of gold "plated" Kapton. Kapton is used for it's ability to with stand high voltages. The spheres will be held up by the repulsive forces of like charges. One could achieve the same effect with a Spherical Solenoid (A wire, wrapped into a sphere that when current is applied, creates an magnetic field.)

But, there is a problem with these spheres. The electro-magnetic shield is in the shape of a sphere that just touches the ground. So, particles that just skim the ground will get past the shield. This system also needs 100+ megavolts to produce the shielding effect. High voltage power lines have about 110 kilovolts running through them. That's 100,000,000 volts vs. 110,000 volts. That's a bolt of lighting running around your head. I have trouble imaging a space habitation producing that many volts. However, you could easily keep a system like this cold by exposing it to space.

So, Energy shield are possible, but impractical.

SPC #8: ASTEN Report

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper; basically I read the paper and write down my thoughts are I read it. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes are from the paper unless otherwise noted. All papers I review are available for free online.

This week we are reviewing the ASTEN Report, the paper which made a kid from Canada famous.

From the first 2 pages of the report, I was impressed. What this kid did was minimize the human extinction argument and presented it in a way the made his point not something to fear, but something that if we address would bring the improvement of mankind. He also points out the positives of a space habitation by writing about how space habitations will promote space and make it more useful.

The paper's assumptions are fairly solid. The writer has assumed that solar panels and Aerogel will have their manufacturing costs reduced. Also, sustainable public opinion is critical for this to work. This will be a major piece of a society's work and the whole society must stay behind it for a long time.

The report goes through the author's thought pattern for designing this station by showing the reader pro and con lists for each element. He presents a very good argument for smaller space stations, stating increased size would "make the project financially unfeasible".

I don't understand why the author stated that the ability to look across and see the other side of the space station as a negative. It might confuse some people and it also might not allow for the space station's residents to be immersed in the illusion of a Earth like environment. But, I don't think the later is a big deal and people eventually stop being confused in spinning structures. However, the paper does choice to use a cylindrical design, which would disprove an early concept I posted about which was spherical. Basically, cylinders allow for even gravity across all surfaces. This student's idea also allows for the modular design which also caused me to call that earlier post's idea brilliant.

What was interesting was the industrial sections are in the middle of the sphere, while the living areas are on the outside. This allows for micro-gravity to be used in industrial applications and the residents while not have all the bone zapping negative effects of Zero-G. Another design advantage over the idea which I held up as brilliant is the inflatable of this space settlement. Also, any industrial accidents would be contained to the center.

This station uses a algae oxygen recovery system. With such a critical system, a natural processes will reduce the moving parts and thus the failure rate of the system. It truly is brilliant. The station uses Demron to protect it's self from radiation.

In short, this is a very interesting idea and this kid is the next Gerard K. O'Neill. I can't wait to see his doctoral paper.

SPC #7: Maslow Windows

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes are from the paper unless otherwise noted. All papers I review are available for free online.

This week we are reviewing the paper 21st Century Waves: Forecasting Technology Booms and Human Expansion Into the Cosmos.

Photo by Grant MacDonald

One of my favorite rebuttals for economic arguments against space habitation is the Maslow Window theory. However, when I asked a question on the blog Ask Me Anything, I found myself unable to explain this theory in depth. If I am going to continue to use this theory to support the space habitation argument, I must at least read the paper.

Basically, Maslow Windows are economic time periods that are similar to the 1960s, the height of the space race. Every major event in human history tends to be clustered in 56 year bursts. This theory suggests that economic booms are the driving force behind history's biggest wars and finest engineering projects.

An optimistic society is a more productive one. During times of economic prosperity, the people of the world tend to be happier. If they are happier they are more productive, plus they have the time and resources to dream. I can tell you right now, no major progress in space will be made during this recession. In my opinion, humanity is focused on the negative; we are a pessimistic society. I see extreme movements with negative opinions of the future, like the 2012 movement, forming and growing. If we think humanity is on a downward slide to it's doom, if we think that we will never return to the good old days, then we will not have the will to better ourselves.

I feel, right now, only the most passionate people are in the space field. You can only find people who where born to work in this field, supporting and funding this field. The general public simply doesn't care about space anymore. Dreams of space cities are crazy when your in a world stocking up emergency supplies for a end of the world date which was born out of fear for the future.

It is possible that this recession, a time where the space field is in danger, was born out of the lack of hope in the future. If you thought everything was going downhill, you would roll up into a ball and pull all your money into gold. Look at the news, just looking at this small sample of human event, it is very reasonable to conclude that we are all doomed. But, if you where to look at each industry, each area of human life in depth, there is reason for hope. "The critical factor is our belief about what's going to happen to us".

"Rene Dubos [said] [t]he most distressing thing about the modern world is not the gravity of its problems...it is the dampening of the human spirit...[o]ut very survival as a species depends on hope". I agree with and have first hand experience with this statement. I'm graduating from high school on Monday, yet the morale of my high school's class of 2009 is at an all-time low. My class has a sense of impeding doom; the child-free movement is strong in my class, 2012 is a favorite topic. My class does not have the ambition and passion and all the other characteristics of youth that a fresh, 18 year old, high school graduate should have. Let me give you an example, this is a discussion thread on Facebook. The names have been blacked out for legal reasons. My real name is Daniel Sims.

I see comments like this all the time. We are the youth and we are hopeless. Space dreams can not survive if they can't even seek refugee in our youth. The human spirit is crushed and with it, dreams of space. The Internet might be a factor in triggering the mindset change needed for space habitation. With the Internet, bigger audiences then ever are reachable. One person can try and comfort someone with a dark mind. The great events that happened today are easier to find.

Something I found interesting was the description of a Macro-engineering project: "although sometimes practical in purpose, they are often aimed at satisfying intangible needs of a spiritual or psychological nature and are highly inspiring". A mass space habitation project would be enough to push my classmates out of the dark frame of mind. Since it is a need, maybe, as we get darker, the support for any inspiration will grow. Just like how people start wanting to eat anything as they get hungry.

Maslow windows also call attention to the need for humanity to stop fighting each other. Maslow windows are often shattered by war. The reason we are not in an infinite time of abundance is because of the destruction war brings. "To a visitor from Mars, it must have appeared that the Western world in 1914 was on the brink of Utopia". WW1 brought us away from that joyous brink. Something that is stopping NASA from getting more funding is the Iraq war; if we weren't in Iraq, we might have more money for dreams.

Maslow windows are triggered by great technological developments. If someone where to develop a very cheap rocket, then humanity would less economic reasons not to go, and more reasons to go to space. Which we need to have because if we do not establish space habitations by 2025, according the the theory, we will have to wait till 2081.

Call for Subjects for a Study

I'm redoing my last poll using some of the concepts I just learned in AP Statistics. I want to ensure that this poll is valid so I can make conclusions about the public opinion of manned space flight. To do this, I need a random sample from some pool of subjects. So, I'm asking anyone interested in participating in this study to sign up for it in the comments below. I'm going to offer at least 100 entrecard credits to those who are chosen to participate and links to all those in the subject pool, but you need to sign up now to participate. I'm going to give 10,000 entrecard credits (about 10 US dollars) to one subject.

Analysis of the Poll "Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?"

Introduction

Public opinion will be a huge factor when advancing to humanity's colonization of other planets and the future of manned space flight. Disasters like the space shuttle Columbia have the possibility of reducing public support. However, “A poll taken yesterday [,a few days after the Columbia accident,] suggests that Americans still support the shuttle program, with 82 per cent in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll saying manned flights should continue. That's about the same percentage who said it should continue after the 1986 Challenger disaster. The poll of 462 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points”(The Globe and Mail 1). In a poll more recent poll with a larger sample size, the Coalition for Space Exploration found that 43% of American adults placed a very, very high value on the space program, compared to 12% placing very little to no value, and the rest ranging in between those extremes. This report found that the highest source of value American adults what in technological innovation and development that came with the field, at 77%, and consumer goods developed from the space program, at 73%. A interesting part of the Coalition for Space Exploration's report pointed out a problem the space community faces, before giving examples of spin-off technology, only 38% said that they where completely sure they interacted with technology developed from space. After being show examples of spin-offs, 93% said they where completely sure they interacted with technology developed from space. Further education in the survey increased respondents opinions of the space program, 76% and 79% strongly affected positively by learning that the aerospace industry contributes 2% to the gross domestic produce and adds 500,000 jobs to the Unites States, respectively. The survey gave more information and education throughout, resulting in a gain of 30 percentage points in those who placed a huge value on the space program, up from 43% to 73%. This survey had a large sample of American adults (n = 1,018), so these results can be generalized to the whole population of American adults. (Coalition for Space Exploration 2)

Aim

This study is geared to find the opinions of those who visited my blog. The results should be of use to those blogging about manned spaceflight so they may gear their articles to better serve their readers.

Methods

Design

This study used the blogger.com poll widget to ask the question “Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?”. The poll had the following options: “No, it is too risky.”, “No, there is no will to do so.”, “Yes, there is a big enough of a reason to go.”, “Yes, we need to move off earth to survive.”, “Maybe, only if we get out if this bad economy”, “Other”, “Maybe, only if the public is motivated enough to support it”. The subjects where then invited to leave their blog's URL and post a explanation of their vote and voice their opinions on the subject using the blog's comment system. A dedicated post was “sticked” for this purpose. The participants where offered a free backlink for participating in the survey, this was a voluntary sample, yielding 17 responses.

Because of the high bounce rate and the low time amount of time visitors spend on my blog, this survey had to be quick. I also did not have a large enough subject poll to take an SRS (simple random sample) from. This survey took place over a week, but comments where left open to allow non-subjects to voice their opinions.

Subjects

We do not know much about the subjects because we did not ask for any demographical information. We can assume they all have Internet access and that they vast majority are bloggers because many subjects left URLs.

Results and Discussion

Technicalities

Because of the low sample size, I can not generalize these results to the population of Americans, I may be able to generalize to my readers, but it is a stretch at best. It is also possible for a person to enter their opinion twice, over the course of 2 days. Also, bias may be formed because of the voluntary nature of the survey because only interested people will take the survey.

Outcomes

The answer choices were: “No, it is too risky.”(5%), “No, there is no will to do so.”(29%), “Yes, there is a big enough of a reason to go.”(11%), “Yes, we need to move off earth to survive.”(17%), “Maybe, only if we get out if this bad economy”(0%), “Other”(17%), “Maybe, only if the public is motivated enough to support it”(17%). They are numbered in this order on the above chart.

Conclusions

Though I got opposite results when compared to current research, this is not surprising. Because of the huge increases in opinion of manned space flight when subjects where provided literature on the subject, I think may sample did not know the benefits of space or I got extremes of opinions because of the low sample size and voluntary nature of this survey. These results show a failing of the space community to educate the public on space. These results could also show my selection of a voluntary survey type which is prone to error and underrepresentation.

Another anomaly is the general pro-space stance of the comments, verses the less positive survey results. Because of the errors in my method I have to label this as inconclusive. However, I have learned enough to modify my methods and try again, building a survey that will reduce the number of people who answer “Other” is crucial as well. Further exploration into what other opinion exist is necessary, as well as a more in depth survey. Maybe I can offer entrecard credits to increase my sample size.

Acknowledgments

The participants who chose to identify themselves are:

chato of Mental Health Humor and Cartoons,
sarah of PC Game Trek,
Bob of Black holes and astrostuff,
Spicybugz of Spicybugz World,
Metallman of Metallman's Reverie,
Ravyn of Exchange of Realities,
bstone of planet earth looks blue,
nipsy of its completely nipplelicious,
Jude of Mature Not Senile,
April of The Crazy Green Cheapskate,
RevOxley,
Stephanie of Rocket Scientist,
webbielady of Webloglearner,
Lubasa of Lubasa sketchlog.
Thank you to all the other poll takers who did not identify themselves and to those who did id themselves.

Sources

(1) Ha, Tu Thanh. “NASA woes put space future on hold” The Global and Mail. 3 Feb. 2003. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20030203/UNASAN/International/international/internationalAmericasHeadline_temp/9/9/18/>

(2) CSE_Gen Pop National TOPLINE_090203. No publication date given. Coalition for Space Exploration. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.spacecoalition.com/banners/09_88percent/CSE_Gen%20Pop_National_TOPLINE_090203_adjusted.pdf>

4. chota. “No humanity” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15277006> 28 Feb. 2009

3. sarah. “I think” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15277185> 28 Feb. 2009

4. Bob. “We have to” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15282426> 28 Feb. 2009

5. Spicybugz. “And where” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 16 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15284076> 28 Feb. 2009

6. Metallman. “Hey there” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15293712> 28 Feb. 2009

7. Ravyn. “It's all dependent” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15373370> 28 Feb. 2009

8. bstone. “well, we've always” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15379180> 28 Feb. 2009

9. nipsy. “Unfortunately” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15403953> 28 Feb. 2009

10. Jude. “I think many” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15423662> 28 Feb. 2009

11. April. “I think the” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15480089> 28 Feb. 2009

12. RevOxley. “I think eventually” [Weblog comment.] Approximately 23 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15646321> 28 Feb. 2009

13. Stephanie. “No. I hope we do” [Weblog comment.] 24 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15716415> 28 Feb. 2009

14. webbielady. “Unless the earth” [Weblog comment.] 25 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15750241> 28 Feb. 2009

15. Lebasa. “Probably” [Weblog comment.] 27 Feb. 2009. Poll: Do you think humanity will move off earth in the near future?. Daniel Sims. Habitation Intention. <http://habitationintention.blogspot.com/2009/02/poll-do-you-think-humanity-will-move.html#IDComment15828434> 28 Feb. 2009