There continues to be a good bit of confusion with the terms "Asgardian," "Resident," and "Citizen." Along those lines, I think there is a good bit of confusion (certainly with regard to me) as to how this whole Mayor thing works. Let's take a look at my local area (Greater Boston, MA - specifically Somerville) as an example. If you go to the Somerville City Page, it notes we have one person running for Mayor. I doubt this person is active anymore. He lists no activity beyond him announcing his Mayorship back in Libra, 0002. Now the Somerville City Page indicates that you will only be able to run for Mayorship when the city reaches 100 RESIDENTS. Taking a look at the Mayor Elections map, there is no city on the planet that fufills this requirement, including those cities like London who have mayors (London: 3165 USERS (Users? Should this be "Asgardians?"), 35 RESIDENTS. Toronto: 1059 USERS, 8 Residents. Istambul: 26930 USERS, 20 RESIDENTS). Were these Mayors grandfathered in, and what will happen when their terms run out? Somerville's Elections (USERS: 32, RESIDENTS: 0) are listed as HOLD. Boston's elections (Users:272 , Residents: 3) are listed as UNDERWAY with 3 Candidates). All three candidates have no activity beyond their posts to run for Mayor (although one does list the current Chair of Parliament as a friend, so there IS that! :) I have to admit, it is a distinction I'd love to have. I thought Mr. Öpik's interview in the last Space Citizen News podcast was fantastic!). NYC is similar with 3 candidates, 17 RESIDENTS and Mayoral Elections that are listed as UNDERWAY. In this context what does UNDERWAY mean? Miami, weirdly, as 3 RESIDENTS, but six Mayoral candidates. How long is a Mayoral term? The Constitution is completely silent with regard to the office of Mayor. The Mayor FAQ, done in 0002 doesn't mention this, although it does say that you had to have your applications in by 00:00CET, Ophiuchus 05, 0002). Since it is Gemini, 0005, we may need an update. :) Right now the Asgardian front web page speaks of political "areas," "districts," and "Continents." None of these terms seem to have any specific definitions, although the Constitution does state that the Head of Nation appoints the Continental Representatives. The Civil Service Act (Decree #42 ratified 27 Aries 0004) does mention representatives of these terms, but lacks any particular definition. Again, "Mayor" is not in this document, although it is my guess that "City Representative" is supposed to mean the same thing. If someone has some wisdom for me I would very much welcome it! If there are links to specific documents that people know of, those would be much appreciated as well!

I've been interested in the concept of micronations. This, along with the basic concept of Asgardia focusing on space, is the source of my interest in the project. Like virtually all micronations, Asgardia seems large on rhetoric and ideas, and short on reality. That isn't, by itself, a bad thing since ideas are the basis of what can become reality. Perhaps one of the best legacies of Asgardia might be to bring the idea of common space colonization to greater discussion. Is Asgardia a nation? No. Asgardia is, at best, a Austrain corporation. Will Asgardia become a nation? No, that probably won't happen either. At least not in any sense that will be recognized by common citizens. There are a few reasons why Asgardia will find it difficult to attain nationhood in any realistic sense. First, of course, there is no more land for Asgardia to hold. Holding land has been a foundation of nationhood since the concept began. Gaining and holding "land" has been the dream and failing of every micronation that has come into existence. Some have even gotten to a point of taking control of oil rigs in international waters to get "land." This has nearly always ended in a military takeover once the micronation has gained too much attention. The only exception to this has been the Principality of Sealand, an abandonned oil rig off the SE coast of Britain. It based its national claim on being in international waters, which a British court recognized. Then Britain took over the area (extended its claim around itself), taking Sealand into British territory. No one recognizes Sealand. Its citizens and government comprises one or two people, neither of which live on the oil rig. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea specifically ruled that artificial structures don't have the status of land in international law. There was a 1990 US court case whereby ships were banned from registering in Sealand as a flag of convenience. This has been the most successful nation to date. Having said all of that, and using Sealand as a jumping off point, minus the land, Asgardia is actually doing very well. We have a MUCH more robust government and infrastructure. But that could be a problem as well. Nations traditionally don't like competition, and they see themselves increasingly as a closed club. Traditionally you get into the club by successfully splitting off from a current member of the club and then being recognized as successfully having done so by other members of the club. South Sudan is a good, recent example here. But South Sudan is both an example we wouldn't want to follow, nor can we. In the end, I think, the only way into the nation club is to get other members to recognize you as being in the club. To get there, we need to be able to offer something to other nations to be able to form - frankly - alliances. What do we have that other countries might find valuable? Why would they want us to be a nation? Here the only thing I can think of is our people and our ideas. Our people seem to range from people with some validity (sometimes so much so that I wonder why they're part of this wild idea!), to - frankly - crackpots that offer simple circuits to generate "free energy" and "polymaths" that tout their ability to predict the future. Perhaps some thought might be given to if we really want to be a nation at all. Are nations has-been institutions? Is the real power corporate now? It might seem that, reading through all of this, that I'm anti-Asgardia. I'm not. The idea is interesting, certainly, and it can be argued that even now Asgardia is the most successful micronation in history given its activity and infrastructure. Usually micronations are one or two people - Asgardia is definitely not. It does seem to have some sort of momentum behind it, and in the end, that might be what is most important. However, to the people who I see express impatience as to how long things are taking (passports, citizenship, etc), you may need to realize that if Asgardia succeeds in these things at all, many of us may not live to see it. But we may all be seen, someday, as visionary founders. Maybe.

There comes a time when we reach the limit of our knowledge and experience and need to strive for more. I've reached that with the Asgardian Parliament. Can someone give me a pointer as to where to learn some of the finer legislative points. For a particular example, the upcoming Sitting will have a third reading of the National Currency Act, and a first reading of the Asgardian Tax Act. I'm assuming legislation is brought to the floor by AMPs. How many readings does a piece of legislation get? Does it have to be in different sittings? Can someone give me a pointer to this knowledge? THANKS!

Elon Musk is incorporating Boca Chica and it's going to become Starbase, Texas. Freaking sick.. \m/

I was four years old when we landed on the Moon. I saw it, crouching on the stairs wondering what my parent's were watching that night. I wouldn't make the connection for a few years after that. For years, only two things would get me up before dawn: a chess tournament, and a shuttle launch. Challenger was one of the first I actually missed because I was registering for college classes at the time. My astronomy prof and I at the time were going to go down to FL to help NASA in the recovery efforts before that idea was officially nixed. I'd programmed my school's computer system to send out a login message to everyone on the anniversary of this launch, a script that I'm told lasted more than four years after I graduated. And old colleague of mine had a years-running argument: manned space exploration vs robotic space exploration. He came firmly down on the robotic side, siting better scientific returns for the money. While acknowledging that truth, I fought for manned space exploration. I wanted another moment in time where the majority of the human race would come together in awe of what we could do, as we did in July of 1969, rather than horror of what could be destroyed as we did in September of 2001. Still, having said that, there are some diamond, human moments in our current robotic exploration program. To this day, over 17 years later, I still choke up watching Steve Squyres pump both his fists and fall to his knees in thanks for the safe landing of Spirit after more than 15 minutes trying to pin down the rover downlink. Todays events and possibilties remain exciting and educational. From China's successful far-side lunar rover landing, right to Israel's lunar landing failure. That last proved especially educational since I was having my middle school watch it live that day, leading to a magnificent dicussion that rocket science is not easy, sometimes is really does fail, and then we try again. This last week saw our latest triumph in Perseverance. I am starting - just starting, mind you - to gain hope that my life will be able to finish off as it largely started: watching a human walk on the surface of the Moon again. It never happens as fast as you want. I can remember my first boss and I seriously talking about the possibility of his newborn son being the first person on Mars back in 1988. That won't happen now, of course. But we are moving forward. Oh sure, a large part of me worries that in the next couple of decades all of it will slam to a halt as we have to then spend all of our energy and capital reacting to the reality of climate change. But with things like this, I'll continue to hope! https://youtu.be/4czjS9h4Fpg

Wasn't quite sure where to put this question. We now know that the Solar uses the QTUM blockchain. Does this mean that Solars are QTUM coins, or will Solars just be riding on top of, and using, the QTUM blockchain? Put another way, if I get QTUM coin will it zhow up in my Solar wallet? Many thanks!

I've been interested in the concept of micronations for some time. I'm also no stranger to the "ice cube's chance in Hell" social causes being an Esperantist. :) I currently care for a terminally ill partner while teaching science in the local public school district. I'm semi active in local politics, an active Amateur Radio operator, and on the Board of my local Meetinghouse. I find Asgardia populated by a wide range of people - from those wondering when the nation will move us all into space, to those who are experienced in actual politics. Let's see where this goes.

Hi everyone hope the world is treating you well. I’m mining PĪ a new crypto currency in my bubble right now and busy with my garden which has moved in doors for the winter and keeping my air purified and looking forward to a Covid free summer here in my earth location. I’ve made 68 trips around the sun and working on my 69th stay positive my fellow asguardians