Hello Asgardians The Asgardia Trade and Commerce website has 5 registered businesses already. http://asgardia.trade/UK/registeredcompanies.awp Go and check out these businesses and if you have products and services to offer to Asgardians, consider registering your own business in Asgardia. Let us start to support each other in our business and personal lives and build the Asgardia Economy via trade, employment, manufacturing, selling and buying from each other. Kind regards Kind Regards

I have not read every submission on this forum however i have tried to go through as many as possible of the suggestions. So I appologise if i step on someone's toes, it is not intentional. I feel a constitution should be more about the fundamental principles and how they are enacted, rather than the detail of the legal and governmental system. It is true that some countries have their constitution spread over laws and articles etc however it seems that a simple short constitution covering the principles of: (a) what defines the nation with a statement of purpose and goals (b) what defines membership of the nation (c) what defines government of the nation (d) definition of the rule of law with some statement of the limits of power (e) some definition of how positions of government are allocated/gained (f) some statement of how finances are to be handled by govt. Possibly these parts contain the basis of a constitution. My reasoning expands from 2 thoughts: (1) The more detail that is placed in the over-riding principles the more human nature tends to find ways around them. This seems to lead to the problems surrounding most of our current legal systems bringing us to the litigious situation we have in many countries these days. (2) A constitution should be simple, compact and easily read, understood and remembered by all living under it. It should not be cumbersome or contain the minutia of the law. Please don't think I'm saying there doesn't need to be detailed laws. These can be handled in by-laws and articles of law which can and should be drafted and voted on in whatever manner of ratification we finally settle on. I am saying, rather than a lot of detailed laws within the constitution i feel we should set out the PRINCIPLES by which we are to live and govern. I guess it might even be appropriate to codify the principles and sentiment encapsulated by the founder with the addition of the statements of limits of power, as if you look carefully at the statements that have come out from "head office" (so to speak) most of the content principle is there. Having said all the above here are some thoughts to be critically analysed by all and sundry: (a) Certainly our fundamental principles should include neutrality, equality and freedom to practice lifestyles/culture that don't hinder, impede or harm others. (b) Perhaps we should put some thought into how govt is selected. Maybe govt positions are selected from the pool of citizens without elections. In other words everyone who has not disqualified themselves must serve and are appointed by random selection. I understand there are problems with this approach, however it would certainly remove the even bigger problems with the 3 main forms of govt selection currently being used on earth. This would also require proper education of all citizens and solid, enforceable rules of conduct and limitation on power. (c) Perhaps our by-laws could follow a compact principle arrangement as well. Perhaps something like (not being religious) the 10 commandments - which most countries kind of follow in their laws anyway. My point is not to follow a religion, however the principles encoded in at least 7 of those statements cover life in general and give a framework of principles that all subsequent law must stem from. I understand that it's possible my approach leaves room for moralising etc, I guess this is why we are all putting forth ideas for discussion rather than putting forth our own version of the constitution :-)

Exclusive articles: “Smoothing the journey to space”, “Revealing the magnetic universe”, several renowned astrophysicists, including NASA Chief Scientist Jim Green Lead article “Earth - no longer humanity’s only home” by William Gerstenmaier, former NASA Associate Administrator, Human Exploration & Operations. Read more about the anniversary issue https://bit.ly/3G8kLSn

I really like the entire concept behind Asgardia, I believe we as a species are headed towards failure and need to do better. Asgardia is the answer. One Humanity — One Unity.

The magnetic field guarantees life on our planet: what made it work for billions of years? Perhaps a feature of the Earth's core that was not thought of. Illustration: plumes of the Earth's magnetic field | Jurik Peter / Shutterstock One of the characteristics of our Planet is its magnetic field, neither too weak nor too intense: just what is needed to protect the surface of the Earth from charged particles of the solar wind and cosmic radiation. If the magnetic field were not there, life, as it appeared, would disappear in a short time. Today we know that this shield is produced by the motions of liquid iron, the most abundant element in the outer core of the Earth, which gives life to a geodynamo: a planetary dynamo which, originating an electric current, causes the appearance of a magnetic field as a consequence ... This description is a simplification, however, and hides questions for which geologists still have no answers. However, an international study (published in Nature Communications) could make us take a step forward in understanding the mechanism of the geodynamo: for the team, it would be the presence of elements lighter than iron in the Earth's core to allow the geodynamo, in the present as in the past. . The structure of the Earth and the motions of the mantle The structure of the Earth and the motions of the mantle, highlighted by the arrows. The arrows indicate the direction of motion of the mantle, which cools near the crust and partly exits the oceanic ridges and partly returns to the depths. The movement raises and lowers the oceanic crust by up to 2 kilometers. For further information: The paradox of the Earth's core. | Our Planet was formed from the accumulation of dust and gases that surrounded the protostar that would give rise to the Sun: in those early stages the heavier elements - such as iron - aggregated towards the center of what would become a planet, while the lighter ones were distributed and differentiated towards the outside, towards what would become the surface. This is why the Earth today has a chemical diversification passing from the crust to the mantle and up to the core, but there are no homogeneous zones: while the iron sank to form the core, it also dragged with it a part of light elements - such as oxygen, sulfur, carbon, hydrogen ... - whose presence is confirmed by seismographs that measure the way in which the seismic waves of mega earthquakes cross the planet. Little importance has been given to these elements in relation to the functioning of the geodynamo, powered, as has always been thought, exclusively by the heat of the inner core. According to this hypothesis, the energy emitted by the inner core is sufficient to keep the liquid iron of the outer core in motion, which thus generates the magnetic field. The new study wants to add a piece to this scenario: it hypothesizes that the lighter elements present in the outer core lower the threshold of the temperature necessary to keep liquid iron in motion, and that, without these elements, perhaps it would never have triggered the geodynamic effect, even with the same heat. The models used for the study have highlighted a scenario in which 8% of silica in the outer core would be sufficient to have the geodynamo in operation from the beginning of the planet's history to today. There are still no projections or models on the role of the other light elements, and this is what the next studies will focus on.