Hi Lena, thanks for doing such a great job covering so many topics well (and live). I'm sure many Asgardians such as myself greatly appreciate the efforts of you and the team not only when visible like this, but behind the scenes as well. The video chat was a terrific idea. Accessible, genuine, and warm. The kind of spirit Asgardia aspires to embody. Thank you! :-)

I think the question itself is not entirely true.

All the traditional religions originated before pre-space epoch and in respect of any natural disaster, the more space, involves the reliance of people on some higher power. Moreover, these disasters are usually perceived as a manifestation of the will (or anger) of these forces.

In Asgardia in its conception the people themselves prevent disaster, i.e. do not rely on a higher power, and to some extent take over their function, and if they believe in something all together, it is only in progress and human potential (as it was at the birth of practical cosmonautics in the USSR in the late 1950s – early 1960s).

But in private, everyone can believe in anything, even in Santa Claus.

@espheim Asgardia considers ones religion, or lack of it, a personal choice. Therefore as is mentioned in the Concept and on the FAQ page, Asgardia does not take a stance regarding religion, or ones personal choices. However, respecting everyone's right to personal choices, also means that not everyone will make the same choices and must respect the right of each other. If you have any other questions just let us know.

It is wonderful to see Asgardia beginning to grow from concept into something more concrete. I congratulate you all for the hard work that has been put into this document. While for the most part, it seems workable, I have some major concerns.

Firstly, when setting out to create a new way of living, why are we adopting such an antiquated notion (and I say this as a British citizen) as Constitutional Monarchy? We do not need a monarch or a royal court. Nor should we introduce in any way, the notion of heredity, as a form of succession (which is included here, in the clause stipulating that the Head of State can submit offspring as successor).

Monarch or President, the way the current Constitution stands, the Head of State has far too much power, basically making all of the important appointments, whilst holding the right to dissolve any parliament with which they disagree. This is a recipe for potential autocracy and there is no system in place to provide a check against that possibility.

It makes much more sense to adopt a Constitution that is based on a more democratic exercise and transition of power, rather than return to the worst of old Earth. I understand that the Monarch here is supposed to act as check and balance, but this is why we should have an independent judiciary and a second chamber, of some kind, that must ratify Parliament's decisions, before they are law.

There is mention of closed sessions for parliament, under certain circumstances under the law. What circumstances and what law? Again, this opens the door to abuse.

MP have to be 40? And Royal Council members 60? Why? This is unnecessarily high. It will not only alienate an overwhelmingly youthful population, but it could create a chasm between governors and the governed. These age limits should be decreased by 20 years, in both cases.

There is much mention of taxes, little of how those funds will be spent.

Will Asgardia have a social security system? Will there be healthcare, free education and help for the elderly and unemployed? How will housing be priced and distributed, once we are off-planet? How will air, water and food be handled?

The notion of the Gor is difficult to understand. What exactly does " in the amount tied to the ideal parameters of the Moon set by a special law of Asgardia" mean? Also, why not use a more globally comprehensible term, like 'credit'. Gor seems totally arbitrary.

There is much talk of morality/immorality (and the mandating of punishment for those who spread immoral propaganda). This is a notoriously fluid term. Who decides what is moral/immoral? And what are these 'generally recognised international norms' that you refer to? UN standards? Western? Islamic? Christian? Buddhist? Because there are a lot of international norms to chose from and we, as a world, have not yet been able to agree on what they should be.

Lastly (and this is related to the preceding point), there is no mention of equal rights or protection under the law for non-heterosexuals (but quite a bit of mention of family, children and parenting). It is stated that prejudice based on " Earth country of birth, residence, citizenship, race, nationality, gender, language, wealth, creed or belief and other differences" is prohibited, why is there no mention of sexual orientation? Given that this is one of the last 'acceptable' prejudices in many parts of the world, I am dismayed that it is not included in this Constitution.

I appreciate this opportunity to raise my concerns and look forward to seeing how our collective feedback will filter into the revised Constitution.