Shared Future Timeline (Editable Google Doc Inside)

[NASAFanboy]

I give up. This is timeline is a sci-fi story now...

By the way, I mean't for it to be 6,000 LY, but someone changed it. I thought improvements in Acclubierre drive would allow a range of 3000LY extending from earth, in a realistically real way.

[Grove]

I give up. This is timeline is a sci-fi story now...

Calm down, it's just 4 milestones, your Aclubierre drive is as much of sci-fi as is the other stuff.

[NASAFanboy]

Calm down, it's just 4 milestones, your Aclubierre drive is as much of sci-fi as is the other stuff.

Atleast it has scientific proof behind it, and a team at NASA is working on it. But going extra-dimensional is sci-fi, as it has no scientific basis.

Besides, mine is based off several websites for such timelines, but that sounds like something out of Mass-Effect. We would'nt know about the losses and such for sure, but we can estimate when the drive will be operational.

But still, I want all events to have an Atleast a >70% chance of occurring.

Edited May 22, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[NASAFanboy]

Nevermind, saw the other section... Nevermind.

[Holo]

Nevermind, saw the other section... Nevermind.

Yeah, I added that because I saw a couple of complaints about it.

[ShachonianX]

Yeah, I added that because I saw a couple of complaints about it.

I see what you did. Of course, the thing is is that after becoming a Type III, things just start becoming sci-fi.

[Holo]

I see what you did. Of course, the thing is is that after becoming a Type III, things just start becoming sci-fi.

Indeed, but describing specific events rather than general technologies makes it tip over to the "too sci-fi" side.

.

[hugix]

I've added some reasonable end of life parameters for current missions.

[Holo]

To whomever written killjoy next to the Virgin Galactic goes bankrupt, ha ha, very funny, don't do it again

I've added some reasonable end of life parameters for current missions.

Thanks! I've merged the ones in the same year into one year box to avoid page stretching and redundant year boxes and stuff.

[hugix]

I'll browse through the active space missions this weekend to update the guestimated end of mission list.

[Kerbface]

Population change on Earth stabilises at around 8.9G, due to widespread civilian colonization of the moon.

How does this make sense? So we manage to build permanently liveable civillian infrastructure and rocket people to the moon at a faster rate than people are being born?

I'm sure the population of our planet could easily stabilise around this level, but only because of either war or plague wiping out large groups or people simply being educated enough to know about the risks of overpopulation and not have so many kids.

I don't consider it an impossibility that we could have permanent space colonies and even major civilisations in the future (distant for the latter) but I never understand when people give these colonies as methods of minimising the population of Earth.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Kerbface

[MGUARN]

I think I got one idea for a future timeline.

2120-First Colonial ship (Generation ship)is sent to a star system with livable planet.

2190-Contact via ships computer is lost

2200-Man makes it's first successful colony outside of the solar system.

2210-the ship of the lost colonial ship is found at it's destination ,but with out contact with earth the human that came from the ship started to create civilization on it's own (there progress similar to that of the history of man on earth ,but goes in a different direction in the industrial revolution),in which we decide not to interve ,but watch.

2280-We create a uniformed space nation

2290-The first Trans-light engines are invented

2300-A new era of exploration ,and spreading of humanity

2305-Simple forms of life are discovered

SO what do you think about that.(seems a little impossible if you ask me)

But hey who knows what could actually happen.

[PIRATEONTHERUN]

I don't want to sound like a negative jerk but this all seems really over-optimistic.

[Nullspace250]

Well, seems i dont have an account, so ill put it here so someoneelse puts it there

2210: 90% off the countries on the world had already been into space at least once

[Holo]

You don't need an account' anyone should be able to edit it :-)

[NASAFanboy]

I don't want to sound like a negative jerk but this all seems really over-optimistic.

I'm taking editing it based on an group of more than five timelines like this. You are over-pessimistic.

[Kryten]

I don't want to sound like a negative jerk but this all seems really over-optimistic.

You misspelled 'ridiculously'.

[Holo]

You misspelled 'ridiculously'.

Ah, pessimists

How does this make sense? So we manage to build permanently liveable civillian infrastructure and rocket people to the moon at a faster rate than people are being born?

I'm sure the population of our planet could easily stabilise around this level, but only because of either war or plague wiping out large groups or people simply being educated enough to know about the risks of overpopulation and not have so many kids.

I don't consider it an impossibility that we could have permanent space colonies and even major civilisations in the future (distant for the latter) but I never understand when people give these colonies as methods of minimising the population of Earth.

The idea is that after a major population scare in the 70s due to longevity advancements, strict policies were added. Dunno why it says that, I'll fix it.