Why go to another galaxy?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







4















Was it ever explained why did they decide to go through the black hole and to another galaxy instead of simply going to Mars? Mars is much closer than Saturn and we know much more about it, so they could've started sending people there right away.










share|improve this question




















  • 7





    Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua.

    – OrangeDog
    Sep 27 '15 at 7:01






  • 3





    @AndrewThompson - Edmunds World may be a bit desolate to begin with, but the settlers will have access to dozens of moons and planets worth of easily accessible resources and mineral assets. In the long run, it's a far better bid than staying in orbit, waiting to get clobbered by the next passing asteroid

    – Valorum
    Sep 27 '15 at 9:33






  • 1





    @OrangeDog "Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua." Yes I did note that. The point is that once they had the data to (build and) launch the space stations, there were a lot better places to live, and many more options, than on some desert planet (which had a notably different sidereal period) in the outer accretion disk of a black hole!

    – Andrew Thompson
    Sep 27 '15 at 9:43






  • 1





    Space station isn't big enough. Presumably they want to have children etc.

    – OrangeDog
    Sep 27 '15 at 11:46






  • 1





    @AndrewThompson - This is a bit like asking why people go on holiday when they could just stay at the first service station or live in the car.

    – Valorum
    Sep 27 '15 at 13:21


















4















Was it ever explained why did they decide to go through the black hole and to another galaxy instead of simply going to Mars? Mars is much closer than Saturn and we know much more about it, so they could've started sending people there right away.










share|improve this question




















  • 7





    Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua.

    – OrangeDog
    Sep 27 '15 at 7:01






  • 3





    @AndrewThompson - Edmunds World may be a bit desolate to begin with, but the settlers will have access to dozens of moons and planets worth of easily accessible resources and mineral assets. In the long run, it's a far better bid than staying in orbit, waiting to get clobbered by the next passing asteroid

    – Valorum
    Sep 27 '15 at 9:33






  • 1





    @OrangeDog "Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua." Yes I did note that. The point is that once they had the data to (build and) launch the space stations, there were a lot better places to live, and many more options, than on some desert planet (which had a notably different sidereal period) in the outer accretion disk of a black hole!

    – Andrew Thompson
    Sep 27 '15 at 9:43






  • 1





    Space station isn't big enough. Presumably they want to have children etc.

    – OrangeDog
    Sep 27 '15 at 11:46






  • 1





    @AndrewThompson - This is a bit like asking why people go on holiday when they could just stay at the first service station or live in the car.

    – Valorum
    Sep 27 '15 at 13:21














4












4








4


1






Was it ever explained why did they decide to go through the black hole and to another galaxy instead of simply going to Mars? Mars is much closer than Saturn and we know much more about it, so they could've started sending people there right away.










share|improve this question
















Was it ever explained why did they decide to go through the black hole and to another galaxy instead of simply going to Mars? Mars is much closer than Saturn and we know much more about it, so they could've started sending people there right away.







interstellar






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Sep 27 '15 at 20:57









Valorum

415k11330223240




415k11330223240










asked Sep 27 '15 at 1:23









ventsyvventsyv

554313




554313








  • 7





    Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua.

    – OrangeDog
    Sep 27 '15 at 7:01






  • 3





    @AndrewThompson - Edmunds World may be a bit desolate to begin with, but the settlers will have access to dozens of moons and planets worth of easily accessible resources and mineral assets. In the long run, it's a far better bid than staying in orbit, waiting to get clobbered by the next passing asteroid

    – Valorum
    Sep 27 '15 at 9:33






  • 1





    @OrangeDog "Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua." Yes I did note that. The point is that once they had the data to (build and) launch the space stations, there were a lot better places to live, and many more options, than on some desert planet (which had a notably different sidereal period) in the outer accretion disk of a black hole!

    – Andrew Thompson
    Sep 27 '15 at 9:43






  • 1





    Space station isn't big enough. Presumably they want to have children etc.

    – OrangeDog
    Sep 27 '15 at 11:46






  • 1





    @AndrewThompson - This is a bit like asking why people go on holiday when they could just stay at the first service station or live in the car.

    – Valorum
    Sep 27 '15 at 13:21














  • 7





    Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua.

    – OrangeDog
    Sep 27 '15 at 7:01






  • 3





    @AndrewThompson - Edmunds World may be a bit desolate to begin with, but the settlers will have access to dozens of moons and planets worth of easily accessible resources and mineral assets. In the long run, it's a far better bid than staying in orbit, waiting to get clobbered by the next passing asteroid

    – Valorum
    Sep 27 '15 at 9:33






  • 1





    @OrangeDog "Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua." Yes I did note that. The point is that once they had the data to (build and) launch the space stations, there were a lot better places to live, and many more options, than on some desert planet (which had a notably different sidereal period) in the outer accretion disk of a black hole!

    – Andrew Thompson
    Sep 27 '15 at 9:43






  • 1





    Space station isn't big enough. Presumably they want to have children etc.

    – OrangeDog
    Sep 27 '15 at 11:46






  • 1





    @AndrewThompson - This is a bit like asking why people go on holiday when they could just stay at the first service station or live in the car.

    – Valorum
    Sep 27 '15 at 13:21








7




7





Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua.

– OrangeDog
Sep 27 '15 at 7:01





Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua.

– OrangeDog
Sep 27 '15 at 7:01




3




3





@AndrewThompson - Edmunds World may be a bit desolate to begin with, but the settlers will have access to dozens of moons and planets worth of easily accessible resources and mineral assets. In the long run, it's a far better bid than staying in orbit, waiting to get clobbered by the next passing asteroid

– Valorum
Sep 27 '15 at 9:33





@AndrewThompson - Edmunds World may be a bit desolate to begin with, but the settlers will have access to dozens of moons and planets worth of easily accessible resources and mineral assets. In the long run, it's a far better bid than staying in orbit, waiting to get clobbered by the next passing asteroid

– Valorum
Sep 27 '15 at 9:33




1




1





@OrangeDog "Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua." Yes I did note that. The point is that once they had the data to (build and) launch the space stations, there were a lot better places to live, and many more options, than on some desert planet (which had a notably different sidereal period) in the outer accretion disk of a black hole!

– Andrew Thompson
Sep 27 '15 at 9:43





@OrangeDog "Note they can't launch the space stations until they have TARS' data from Gargantua." Yes I did note that. The point is that once they had the data to (build and) launch the space stations, there were a lot better places to live, and many more options, than on some desert planet (which had a notably different sidereal period) in the outer accretion disk of a black hole!

– Andrew Thompson
Sep 27 '15 at 9:43




1




1





Space station isn't big enough. Presumably they want to have children etc.

– OrangeDog
Sep 27 '15 at 11:46





Space station isn't big enough. Presumably they want to have children etc.

– OrangeDog
Sep 27 '15 at 11:46




1




1





@AndrewThompson - This is a bit like asking why people go on holiday when they could just stay at the first service station or live in the car.

– Valorum
Sep 27 '15 at 13:21





@AndrewThompson - This is a bit like asking why people go on holiday when they could just stay at the first service station or live in the car.

– Valorum
Sep 27 '15 at 13:21










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















13














The film's official novelisation speaks to this issue. Bluntly, Mars is simply too hard for them to colonise through classical (rocket-propelled) means and by the point that humanity has mastered gravity control, courtesy of Coop and his crew, there are already better and easier candidates that they can access through the wormhole, starting with Edmunds World, a world with a breathable atmosphere and ready access to 12 whole planets worth of minerals and resources:




Mars had been an object of fascination from the earliest days of
modern astronomy, in part because it seemed so Earthlike.



Whole civilizations had risen on the red planet—in the imaginations of
Lowell, Wells, Weinbaum, Burroughs, and so many other famous authors.
Those civilizations had all fallen when the first robotic landers
reported the dull truth. If Mars had ever been a place habitable by
human beings—or anything like them—it had been a very long time ago.

And if there was life there now, it was hiding itself very, very well.
Which is why they had left it behind.



Mars wasn’t going to be
humanity’s new home, any more than the Moon was.







share|improve this answer

































    10














    Lexible has done an excellent job already of explaining why we wouldn't go to Mars. (To repeat this in my own words, they wouldn't be looking for a planet with poorer biological prospects than their Earth — and Mars today would certainly have poorer prospects — but rather a planet that would be similar to a healthy Earth.)



    But the Mars issue seems to be secondary to the actual question:



    Why did they have to leave the galaxy?



    First of all, "Goldilocks planets" are not so uncommon, even within our galaxy. According to the most recent NASA studies, there could be as many as 8.8 billion solar systems in our own galaxy with Earth-like planets:




    Space is vast, but it may not be so lonely after all: A study finds the Milky Way is teeming with billions of planets that are about the size of Earth, orbit stars just like our sun, and exist in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot and not too cold for life....



    For perspective, that's more Earth-like planets than there are people on Earth.



    As for what it says about the odds that there is life somewhere out there, it means "just in our Milky Way galaxy alone, that's 8.8 billion throws of the biological dice," said study co-author Geoff Marcy, a longtime planet hunter from the University of California at Berkeley.




    (Source)



    Note that this estimate was publicly available before principal filming began on Interstellar (but not necessarily before the final script was completed).



    In any case, assuming that our galaxy does contain an ample selection of at least marginally Earth-like planets, it would seem that the future humans who created the wormhole had decided that none of the possibly 8.8 billion candidates were suitable for some reason or other.



    The reason why they were not suitable may have had nothing to do with their biological prospects. Rather, it seems that the future humans wanted to point us to a particular combination: an Earth-like planet in orbit of a giant rotating black hole. This effectively kills two birds with one stone: it gives us a habitable planet and the data necessary to solve the "gravity problem" (care of the black hole), which would be necessary for moving the surviving Earth population to their new home, i.e. the realization of "Plan A".



    They pointed the humans of Coop's time to a galaxy that did have a suitable combo — although he and Brand and the others would have to figure out which of the twelve planets at the other end of the wormhole were most suitable.



    (Acknowledgements to @AndrewThompson, @Yasskier, @JaneS, and @Hypnosifl for useful discussions.)






    share|improve this answer





















    • 5





      I thought they (who opened the worm hole from the future) opened the worm hole to Gargantua because when they consulted the history books, that's exactly where the humans went..

      – Andrew Thompson
      Sep 27 '15 at 9:34






    • 1





      Lexible is not a he.

      – Lexible
      Sep 27 '15 at 15:27











    • @Lexible : I'm sorry, I did worry about that when writing this. (I even went to your profile and found that you were simply shrouded in mystery.) I've fixed this (through the addition of further mystery).... :-)

      – Praxis
      Sep 27 '15 at 15:35








    • 1





      @Hypnosifl: But one think I was thinking when typing up the original answer (part of my logic, I suppose) is that if it were easy for them to open up such wormholes, why not open up two, one to a black hole capable of supplying the necessary data and another to a Goldilocks planet. There's no need for the planet(s) to be orbiting the black hole, if it is easy to open up such wormholes...in any case, working on revisions now.

      – Praxis
      Sep 27 '15 at 22:39






    • 1





      @JaneS : Thanks --- great points. See also my responses to Hypnosifl.

      – Praxis
      Sep 27 '15 at 22:39



















    6














    Mars is inhospitable to macro-cellular life. The expedition beyond the wormhole is a crap-shoot (with twelve chances) to find a hospitable planet... one that has water, a breathable atmosphere, and both sunlight and temperatures in or near the Goldilocks Zone. Mars is on the near side of failure (but still failure) for water, does not have anything approaching a breathable atmosphere, is extraordinarily cold, and has questionable amounts of sunlight to support enough primary photosynthetic production to feed an herbivorous population.



    Space is even worse on all fronts, with the exception of available sunlight. That's why we don't find living things there in the abundance we find them on our planet.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 2





      "Space is even worse on all fronts.." This looks quite hospitable to me..

      – Andrew Thompson
      Sep 27 '15 at 9:48











    • @AndrewThompson Such habitats are strictly more costly and more dangerous than (a) and alternate habitable planet, and (b) habitable Earth (i.e. pre-blight).

      – Lexible
      Sep 27 '15 at 15:27











    • "Such habitats are .. more dangerous.." Tsunami, Earthquake (Marsquake, Edmundsquake, call it what you will), cyclone, tornado.. You were saying?

      – Andrew Thompson
      Oct 19 '15 at 14:35











    • @AndrewThompson I grew up in California, yo: earthquakes aren't as dangerous as space (yes, there are dangers, including quakes). Here's a clue: where do you find life? As to floating habitats: stray comet? Radiation shielding for cosmic rays? Space is just more dangerous for us.

      – Lexible
      Oct 19 '15 at 14:53













    • "..where do you find life?" Humans aren't just (dumb) life. We have technology. "As to floating habitats: stray comet?" It's easier to alter the orbit of a space habitat than a planet. And people that bring that up seem to forget it affects planets as well, and probably worse given the localized nature of them, and their tendency to attract other objects. "Radiation shielding for cosmic rays?" .. Umm.. you'd use radiation shielding for that. It could take many forms. It would be easier to do for a large structure than a typical spacecraft or current day space station.

      – Andrew Thompson
      Oct 19 '15 at 15:06



















    2














    The humans of the future (apparently from Plan B) built the wormhole from the Solar System to Gargantua so the humans on Earth could obtain the quantum data necessary to solve the gravity equation and then leave Earth en masse.



    Gargantua is a rare type of black hole with an event horizon you can cross without being ripped apart. As Romilly states:




    Gargantua's an older, spinning black hole. It has what we call a gentle singularity...They're hardly gentle, but their tidal gravity is quick enough that something crossing the horizon fast might survive...




    Being rare, they had to travel a long way to find such a black hole.



    Mars obviously would not have the quantum data needed.






    share|improve this answer
























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "186"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103799%2fwhy-go-to-another-galaxy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      13














      The film's official novelisation speaks to this issue. Bluntly, Mars is simply too hard for them to colonise through classical (rocket-propelled) means and by the point that humanity has mastered gravity control, courtesy of Coop and his crew, there are already better and easier candidates that they can access through the wormhole, starting with Edmunds World, a world with a breathable atmosphere and ready access to 12 whole planets worth of minerals and resources:




      Mars had been an object of fascination from the earliest days of
      modern astronomy, in part because it seemed so Earthlike.



      Whole civilizations had risen on the red planet—in the imaginations of
      Lowell, Wells, Weinbaum, Burroughs, and so many other famous authors.
      Those civilizations had all fallen when the first robotic landers
      reported the dull truth. If Mars had ever been a place habitable by
      human beings—or anything like them—it had been a very long time ago.

      And if there was life there now, it was hiding itself very, very well.
      Which is why they had left it behind.



      Mars wasn’t going to be
      humanity’s new home, any more than the Moon was.







      share|improve this answer






























        13














        The film's official novelisation speaks to this issue. Bluntly, Mars is simply too hard for them to colonise through classical (rocket-propelled) means and by the point that humanity has mastered gravity control, courtesy of Coop and his crew, there are already better and easier candidates that they can access through the wormhole, starting with Edmunds World, a world with a breathable atmosphere and ready access to 12 whole planets worth of minerals and resources:




        Mars had been an object of fascination from the earliest days of
        modern astronomy, in part because it seemed so Earthlike.



        Whole civilizations had risen on the red planet—in the imaginations of
        Lowell, Wells, Weinbaum, Burroughs, and so many other famous authors.
        Those civilizations had all fallen when the first robotic landers
        reported the dull truth. If Mars had ever been a place habitable by
        human beings—or anything like them—it had been a very long time ago.

        And if there was life there now, it was hiding itself very, very well.
        Which is why they had left it behind.



        Mars wasn’t going to be
        humanity’s new home, any more than the Moon was.







        share|improve this answer




























          13












          13








          13







          The film's official novelisation speaks to this issue. Bluntly, Mars is simply too hard for them to colonise through classical (rocket-propelled) means and by the point that humanity has mastered gravity control, courtesy of Coop and his crew, there are already better and easier candidates that they can access through the wormhole, starting with Edmunds World, a world with a breathable atmosphere and ready access to 12 whole planets worth of minerals and resources:




          Mars had been an object of fascination from the earliest days of
          modern astronomy, in part because it seemed so Earthlike.



          Whole civilizations had risen on the red planet—in the imaginations of
          Lowell, Wells, Weinbaum, Burroughs, and so many other famous authors.
          Those civilizations had all fallen when the first robotic landers
          reported the dull truth. If Mars had ever been a place habitable by
          human beings—or anything like them—it had been a very long time ago.

          And if there was life there now, it was hiding itself very, very well.
          Which is why they had left it behind.



          Mars wasn’t going to be
          humanity’s new home, any more than the Moon was.







          share|improve this answer















          The film's official novelisation speaks to this issue. Bluntly, Mars is simply too hard for them to colonise through classical (rocket-propelled) means and by the point that humanity has mastered gravity control, courtesy of Coop and his crew, there are already better and easier candidates that they can access through the wormhole, starting with Edmunds World, a world with a breathable atmosphere and ready access to 12 whole planets worth of minerals and resources:




          Mars had been an object of fascination from the earliest days of
          modern astronomy, in part because it seemed so Earthlike.



          Whole civilizations had risen on the red planet—in the imaginations of
          Lowell, Wells, Weinbaum, Burroughs, and so many other famous authors.
          Those civilizations had all fallen when the first robotic landers
          reported the dull truth. If Mars had ever been a place habitable by
          human beings—or anything like them—it had been a very long time ago.

          And if there was life there now, it was hiding itself very, very well.
          Which is why they had left it behind.



          Mars wasn’t going to be
          humanity’s new home, any more than the Moon was.








          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Sep 27 '15 at 22:54

























          answered Sep 27 '15 at 8:16









          ValorumValorum

          415k11330223240




          415k11330223240

























              10














              Lexible has done an excellent job already of explaining why we wouldn't go to Mars. (To repeat this in my own words, they wouldn't be looking for a planet with poorer biological prospects than their Earth — and Mars today would certainly have poorer prospects — but rather a planet that would be similar to a healthy Earth.)



              But the Mars issue seems to be secondary to the actual question:



              Why did they have to leave the galaxy?



              First of all, "Goldilocks planets" are not so uncommon, even within our galaxy. According to the most recent NASA studies, there could be as many as 8.8 billion solar systems in our own galaxy with Earth-like planets:




              Space is vast, but it may not be so lonely after all: A study finds the Milky Way is teeming with billions of planets that are about the size of Earth, orbit stars just like our sun, and exist in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot and not too cold for life....



              For perspective, that's more Earth-like planets than there are people on Earth.



              As for what it says about the odds that there is life somewhere out there, it means "just in our Milky Way galaxy alone, that's 8.8 billion throws of the biological dice," said study co-author Geoff Marcy, a longtime planet hunter from the University of California at Berkeley.




              (Source)



              Note that this estimate was publicly available before principal filming began on Interstellar (but not necessarily before the final script was completed).



              In any case, assuming that our galaxy does contain an ample selection of at least marginally Earth-like planets, it would seem that the future humans who created the wormhole had decided that none of the possibly 8.8 billion candidates were suitable for some reason or other.



              The reason why they were not suitable may have had nothing to do with their biological prospects. Rather, it seems that the future humans wanted to point us to a particular combination: an Earth-like planet in orbit of a giant rotating black hole. This effectively kills two birds with one stone: it gives us a habitable planet and the data necessary to solve the "gravity problem" (care of the black hole), which would be necessary for moving the surviving Earth population to their new home, i.e. the realization of "Plan A".



              They pointed the humans of Coop's time to a galaxy that did have a suitable combo — although he and Brand and the others would have to figure out which of the twelve planets at the other end of the wormhole were most suitable.



              (Acknowledgements to @AndrewThompson, @Yasskier, @JaneS, and @Hypnosifl for useful discussions.)






              share|improve this answer





















              • 5





                I thought they (who opened the worm hole from the future) opened the worm hole to Gargantua because when they consulted the history books, that's exactly where the humans went..

                – Andrew Thompson
                Sep 27 '15 at 9:34






              • 1





                Lexible is not a he.

                – Lexible
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:27











              • @Lexible : I'm sorry, I did worry about that when writing this. (I even went to your profile and found that you were simply shrouded in mystery.) I've fixed this (through the addition of further mystery).... :-)

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:35








              • 1





                @Hypnosifl: But one think I was thinking when typing up the original answer (part of my logic, I suppose) is that if it were easy for them to open up such wormholes, why not open up two, one to a black hole capable of supplying the necessary data and another to a Goldilocks planet. There's no need for the planet(s) to be orbiting the black hole, if it is easy to open up such wormholes...in any case, working on revisions now.

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 22:39






              • 1





                @JaneS : Thanks --- great points. See also my responses to Hypnosifl.

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 22:39
















              10














              Lexible has done an excellent job already of explaining why we wouldn't go to Mars. (To repeat this in my own words, they wouldn't be looking for a planet with poorer biological prospects than their Earth — and Mars today would certainly have poorer prospects — but rather a planet that would be similar to a healthy Earth.)



              But the Mars issue seems to be secondary to the actual question:



              Why did they have to leave the galaxy?



              First of all, "Goldilocks planets" are not so uncommon, even within our galaxy. According to the most recent NASA studies, there could be as many as 8.8 billion solar systems in our own galaxy with Earth-like planets:




              Space is vast, but it may not be so lonely after all: A study finds the Milky Way is teeming with billions of planets that are about the size of Earth, orbit stars just like our sun, and exist in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot and not too cold for life....



              For perspective, that's more Earth-like planets than there are people on Earth.



              As for what it says about the odds that there is life somewhere out there, it means "just in our Milky Way galaxy alone, that's 8.8 billion throws of the biological dice," said study co-author Geoff Marcy, a longtime planet hunter from the University of California at Berkeley.




              (Source)



              Note that this estimate was publicly available before principal filming began on Interstellar (but not necessarily before the final script was completed).



              In any case, assuming that our galaxy does contain an ample selection of at least marginally Earth-like planets, it would seem that the future humans who created the wormhole had decided that none of the possibly 8.8 billion candidates were suitable for some reason or other.



              The reason why they were not suitable may have had nothing to do with their biological prospects. Rather, it seems that the future humans wanted to point us to a particular combination: an Earth-like planet in orbit of a giant rotating black hole. This effectively kills two birds with one stone: it gives us a habitable planet and the data necessary to solve the "gravity problem" (care of the black hole), which would be necessary for moving the surviving Earth population to their new home, i.e. the realization of "Plan A".



              They pointed the humans of Coop's time to a galaxy that did have a suitable combo — although he and Brand and the others would have to figure out which of the twelve planets at the other end of the wormhole were most suitable.



              (Acknowledgements to @AndrewThompson, @Yasskier, @JaneS, and @Hypnosifl for useful discussions.)






              share|improve this answer





















              • 5





                I thought they (who opened the worm hole from the future) opened the worm hole to Gargantua because when they consulted the history books, that's exactly where the humans went..

                – Andrew Thompson
                Sep 27 '15 at 9:34






              • 1





                Lexible is not a he.

                – Lexible
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:27











              • @Lexible : I'm sorry, I did worry about that when writing this. (I even went to your profile and found that you were simply shrouded in mystery.) I've fixed this (through the addition of further mystery).... :-)

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:35








              • 1





                @Hypnosifl: But one think I was thinking when typing up the original answer (part of my logic, I suppose) is that if it were easy for them to open up such wormholes, why not open up two, one to a black hole capable of supplying the necessary data and another to a Goldilocks planet. There's no need for the planet(s) to be orbiting the black hole, if it is easy to open up such wormholes...in any case, working on revisions now.

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 22:39






              • 1





                @JaneS : Thanks --- great points. See also my responses to Hypnosifl.

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 22:39














              10












              10








              10







              Lexible has done an excellent job already of explaining why we wouldn't go to Mars. (To repeat this in my own words, they wouldn't be looking for a planet with poorer biological prospects than their Earth — and Mars today would certainly have poorer prospects — but rather a planet that would be similar to a healthy Earth.)



              But the Mars issue seems to be secondary to the actual question:



              Why did they have to leave the galaxy?



              First of all, "Goldilocks planets" are not so uncommon, even within our galaxy. According to the most recent NASA studies, there could be as many as 8.8 billion solar systems in our own galaxy with Earth-like planets:




              Space is vast, but it may not be so lonely after all: A study finds the Milky Way is teeming with billions of planets that are about the size of Earth, orbit stars just like our sun, and exist in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot and not too cold for life....



              For perspective, that's more Earth-like planets than there are people on Earth.



              As for what it says about the odds that there is life somewhere out there, it means "just in our Milky Way galaxy alone, that's 8.8 billion throws of the biological dice," said study co-author Geoff Marcy, a longtime planet hunter from the University of California at Berkeley.




              (Source)



              Note that this estimate was publicly available before principal filming began on Interstellar (but not necessarily before the final script was completed).



              In any case, assuming that our galaxy does contain an ample selection of at least marginally Earth-like planets, it would seem that the future humans who created the wormhole had decided that none of the possibly 8.8 billion candidates were suitable for some reason or other.



              The reason why they were not suitable may have had nothing to do with their biological prospects. Rather, it seems that the future humans wanted to point us to a particular combination: an Earth-like planet in orbit of a giant rotating black hole. This effectively kills two birds with one stone: it gives us a habitable planet and the data necessary to solve the "gravity problem" (care of the black hole), which would be necessary for moving the surviving Earth population to their new home, i.e. the realization of "Plan A".



              They pointed the humans of Coop's time to a galaxy that did have a suitable combo — although he and Brand and the others would have to figure out which of the twelve planets at the other end of the wormhole were most suitable.



              (Acknowledgements to @AndrewThompson, @Yasskier, @JaneS, and @Hypnosifl for useful discussions.)






              share|improve this answer















              Lexible has done an excellent job already of explaining why we wouldn't go to Mars. (To repeat this in my own words, they wouldn't be looking for a planet with poorer biological prospects than their Earth — and Mars today would certainly have poorer prospects — but rather a planet that would be similar to a healthy Earth.)



              But the Mars issue seems to be secondary to the actual question:



              Why did they have to leave the galaxy?



              First of all, "Goldilocks planets" are not so uncommon, even within our galaxy. According to the most recent NASA studies, there could be as many as 8.8 billion solar systems in our own galaxy with Earth-like planets:




              Space is vast, but it may not be so lonely after all: A study finds the Milky Way is teeming with billions of planets that are about the size of Earth, orbit stars just like our sun, and exist in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot and not too cold for life....



              For perspective, that's more Earth-like planets than there are people on Earth.



              As for what it says about the odds that there is life somewhere out there, it means "just in our Milky Way galaxy alone, that's 8.8 billion throws of the biological dice," said study co-author Geoff Marcy, a longtime planet hunter from the University of California at Berkeley.




              (Source)



              Note that this estimate was publicly available before principal filming began on Interstellar (but not necessarily before the final script was completed).



              In any case, assuming that our galaxy does contain an ample selection of at least marginally Earth-like planets, it would seem that the future humans who created the wormhole had decided that none of the possibly 8.8 billion candidates were suitable for some reason or other.



              The reason why they were not suitable may have had nothing to do with their biological prospects. Rather, it seems that the future humans wanted to point us to a particular combination: an Earth-like planet in orbit of a giant rotating black hole. This effectively kills two birds with one stone: it gives us a habitable planet and the data necessary to solve the "gravity problem" (care of the black hole), which would be necessary for moving the surviving Earth population to their new home, i.e. the realization of "Plan A".



              They pointed the humans of Coop's time to a galaxy that did have a suitable combo — although he and Brand and the others would have to figure out which of the twelve planets at the other end of the wormhole were most suitable.



              (Acknowledgements to @AndrewThompson, @Yasskier, @JaneS, and @Hypnosifl for useful discussions.)







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Sep 28 '15 at 5:07

























              answered Sep 27 '15 at 8:10









              PraxisPraxis

              89.4k36445611




              89.4k36445611








              • 5





                I thought they (who opened the worm hole from the future) opened the worm hole to Gargantua because when they consulted the history books, that's exactly where the humans went..

                – Andrew Thompson
                Sep 27 '15 at 9:34






              • 1





                Lexible is not a he.

                – Lexible
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:27











              • @Lexible : I'm sorry, I did worry about that when writing this. (I even went to your profile and found that you were simply shrouded in mystery.) I've fixed this (through the addition of further mystery).... :-)

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:35








              • 1





                @Hypnosifl: But one think I was thinking when typing up the original answer (part of my logic, I suppose) is that if it were easy for them to open up such wormholes, why not open up two, one to a black hole capable of supplying the necessary data and another to a Goldilocks planet. There's no need for the planet(s) to be orbiting the black hole, if it is easy to open up such wormholes...in any case, working on revisions now.

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 22:39






              • 1





                @JaneS : Thanks --- great points. See also my responses to Hypnosifl.

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 22:39














              • 5





                I thought they (who opened the worm hole from the future) opened the worm hole to Gargantua because when they consulted the history books, that's exactly where the humans went..

                – Andrew Thompson
                Sep 27 '15 at 9:34






              • 1





                Lexible is not a he.

                – Lexible
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:27











              • @Lexible : I'm sorry, I did worry about that when writing this. (I even went to your profile and found that you were simply shrouded in mystery.) I've fixed this (through the addition of further mystery).... :-)

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:35








              • 1





                @Hypnosifl: But one think I was thinking when typing up the original answer (part of my logic, I suppose) is that if it were easy for them to open up such wormholes, why not open up two, one to a black hole capable of supplying the necessary data and another to a Goldilocks planet. There's no need for the planet(s) to be orbiting the black hole, if it is easy to open up such wormholes...in any case, working on revisions now.

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 22:39






              • 1





                @JaneS : Thanks --- great points. See also my responses to Hypnosifl.

                – Praxis
                Sep 27 '15 at 22:39








              5




              5





              I thought they (who opened the worm hole from the future) opened the worm hole to Gargantua because when they consulted the history books, that's exactly where the humans went..

              – Andrew Thompson
              Sep 27 '15 at 9:34





              I thought they (who opened the worm hole from the future) opened the worm hole to Gargantua because when they consulted the history books, that's exactly where the humans went..

              – Andrew Thompson
              Sep 27 '15 at 9:34




              1




              1





              Lexible is not a he.

              – Lexible
              Sep 27 '15 at 15:27





              Lexible is not a he.

              – Lexible
              Sep 27 '15 at 15:27













              @Lexible : I'm sorry, I did worry about that when writing this. (I even went to your profile and found that you were simply shrouded in mystery.) I've fixed this (through the addition of further mystery).... :-)

              – Praxis
              Sep 27 '15 at 15:35







              @Lexible : I'm sorry, I did worry about that when writing this. (I even went to your profile and found that you were simply shrouded in mystery.) I've fixed this (through the addition of further mystery).... :-)

              – Praxis
              Sep 27 '15 at 15:35






              1




              1





              @Hypnosifl: But one think I was thinking when typing up the original answer (part of my logic, I suppose) is that if it were easy for them to open up such wormholes, why not open up two, one to a black hole capable of supplying the necessary data and another to a Goldilocks planet. There's no need for the planet(s) to be orbiting the black hole, if it is easy to open up such wormholes...in any case, working on revisions now.

              – Praxis
              Sep 27 '15 at 22:39





              @Hypnosifl: But one think I was thinking when typing up the original answer (part of my logic, I suppose) is that if it were easy for them to open up such wormholes, why not open up two, one to a black hole capable of supplying the necessary data and another to a Goldilocks planet. There's no need for the planet(s) to be orbiting the black hole, if it is easy to open up such wormholes...in any case, working on revisions now.

              – Praxis
              Sep 27 '15 at 22:39




              1




              1





              @JaneS : Thanks --- great points. See also my responses to Hypnosifl.

              – Praxis
              Sep 27 '15 at 22:39





              @JaneS : Thanks --- great points. See also my responses to Hypnosifl.

              – Praxis
              Sep 27 '15 at 22:39











              6














              Mars is inhospitable to macro-cellular life. The expedition beyond the wormhole is a crap-shoot (with twelve chances) to find a hospitable planet... one that has water, a breathable atmosphere, and both sunlight and temperatures in or near the Goldilocks Zone. Mars is on the near side of failure (but still failure) for water, does not have anything approaching a breathable atmosphere, is extraordinarily cold, and has questionable amounts of sunlight to support enough primary photosynthetic production to feed an herbivorous population.



              Space is even worse on all fronts, with the exception of available sunlight. That's why we don't find living things there in the abundance we find them on our planet.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 2





                "Space is even worse on all fronts.." This looks quite hospitable to me..

                – Andrew Thompson
                Sep 27 '15 at 9:48











              • @AndrewThompson Such habitats are strictly more costly and more dangerous than (a) and alternate habitable planet, and (b) habitable Earth (i.e. pre-blight).

                – Lexible
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:27











              • "Such habitats are .. more dangerous.." Tsunami, Earthquake (Marsquake, Edmundsquake, call it what you will), cyclone, tornado.. You were saying?

                – Andrew Thompson
                Oct 19 '15 at 14:35











              • @AndrewThompson I grew up in California, yo: earthquakes aren't as dangerous as space (yes, there are dangers, including quakes). Here's a clue: where do you find life? As to floating habitats: stray comet? Radiation shielding for cosmic rays? Space is just more dangerous for us.

                – Lexible
                Oct 19 '15 at 14:53













              • "..where do you find life?" Humans aren't just (dumb) life. We have technology. "As to floating habitats: stray comet?" It's easier to alter the orbit of a space habitat than a planet. And people that bring that up seem to forget it affects planets as well, and probably worse given the localized nature of them, and their tendency to attract other objects. "Radiation shielding for cosmic rays?" .. Umm.. you'd use radiation shielding for that. It could take many forms. It would be easier to do for a large structure than a typical spacecraft or current day space station.

                – Andrew Thompson
                Oct 19 '15 at 15:06
















              6














              Mars is inhospitable to macro-cellular life. The expedition beyond the wormhole is a crap-shoot (with twelve chances) to find a hospitable planet... one that has water, a breathable atmosphere, and both sunlight and temperatures in or near the Goldilocks Zone. Mars is on the near side of failure (but still failure) for water, does not have anything approaching a breathable atmosphere, is extraordinarily cold, and has questionable amounts of sunlight to support enough primary photosynthetic production to feed an herbivorous population.



              Space is even worse on all fronts, with the exception of available sunlight. That's why we don't find living things there in the abundance we find them on our planet.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 2





                "Space is even worse on all fronts.." This looks quite hospitable to me..

                – Andrew Thompson
                Sep 27 '15 at 9:48











              • @AndrewThompson Such habitats are strictly more costly and more dangerous than (a) and alternate habitable planet, and (b) habitable Earth (i.e. pre-blight).

                – Lexible
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:27











              • "Such habitats are .. more dangerous.." Tsunami, Earthquake (Marsquake, Edmundsquake, call it what you will), cyclone, tornado.. You were saying?

                – Andrew Thompson
                Oct 19 '15 at 14:35











              • @AndrewThompson I grew up in California, yo: earthquakes aren't as dangerous as space (yes, there are dangers, including quakes). Here's a clue: where do you find life? As to floating habitats: stray comet? Radiation shielding for cosmic rays? Space is just more dangerous for us.

                – Lexible
                Oct 19 '15 at 14:53













              • "..where do you find life?" Humans aren't just (dumb) life. We have technology. "As to floating habitats: stray comet?" It's easier to alter the orbit of a space habitat than a planet. And people that bring that up seem to forget it affects planets as well, and probably worse given the localized nature of them, and their tendency to attract other objects. "Radiation shielding for cosmic rays?" .. Umm.. you'd use radiation shielding for that. It could take many forms. It would be easier to do for a large structure than a typical spacecraft or current day space station.

                – Andrew Thompson
                Oct 19 '15 at 15:06














              6












              6








              6







              Mars is inhospitable to macro-cellular life. The expedition beyond the wormhole is a crap-shoot (with twelve chances) to find a hospitable planet... one that has water, a breathable atmosphere, and both sunlight and temperatures in or near the Goldilocks Zone. Mars is on the near side of failure (but still failure) for water, does not have anything approaching a breathable atmosphere, is extraordinarily cold, and has questionable amounts of sunlight to support enough primary photosynthetic production to feed an herbivorous population.



              Space is even worse on all fronts, with the exception of available sunlight. That's why we don't find living things there in the abundance we find them on our planet.






              share|improve this answer















              Mars is inhospitable to macro-cellular life. The expedition beyond the wormhole is a crap-shoot (with twelve chances) to find a hospitable planet... one that has water, a breathable atmosphere, and both sunlight and temperatures in or near the Goldilocks Zone. Mars is on the near side of failure (but still failure) for water, does not have anything approaching a breathable atmosphere, is extraordinarily cold, and has questionable amounts of sunlight to support enough primary photosynthetic production to feed an herbivorous population.



              Space is even worse on all fronts, with the exception of available sunlight. That's why we don't find living things there in the abundance we find them on our planet.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited yesterday

























              answered Sep 27 '15 at 4:30









              LexibleLexible

              8,07412662




              8,07412662








              • 2





                "Space is even worse on all fronts.." This looks quite hospitable to me..

                – Andrew Thompson
                Sep 27 '15 at 9:48











              • @AndrewThompson Such habitats are strictly more costly and more dangerous than (a) and alternate habitable planet, and (b) habitable Earth (i.e. pre-blight).

                – Lexible
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:27











              • "Such habitats are .. more dangerous.." Tsunami, Earthquake (Marsquake, Edmundsquake, call it what you will), cyclone, tornado.. You were saying?

                – Andrew Thompson
                Oct 19 '15 at 14:35











              • @AndrewThompson I grew up in California, yo: earthquakes aren't as dangerous as space (yes, there are dangers, including quakes). Here's a clue: where do you find life? As to floating habitats: stray comet? Radiation shielding for cosmic rays? Space is just more dangerous for us.

                – Lexible
                Oct 19 '15 at 14:53













              • "..where do you find life?" Humans aren't just (dumb) life. We have technology. "As to floating habitats: stray comet?" It's easier to alter the orbit of a space habitat than a planet. And people that bring that up seem to forget it affects planets as well, and probably worse given the localized nature of them, and their tendency to attract other objects. "Radiation shielding for cosmic rays?" .. Umm.. you'd use radiation shielding for that. It could take many forms. It would be easier to do for a large structure than a typical spacecraft or current day space station.

                – Andrew Thompson
                Oct 19 '15 at 15:06














              • 2





                "Space is even worse on all fronts.." This looks quite hospitable to me..

                – Andrew Thompson
                Sep 27 '15 at 9:48











              • @AndrewThompson Such habitats are strictly more costly and more dangerous than (a) and alternate habitable planet, and (b) habitable Earth (i.e. pre-blight).

                – Lexible
                Sep 27 '15 at 15:27











              • "Such habitats are .. more dangerous.." Tsunami, Earthquake (Marsquake, Edmundsquake, call it what you will), cyclone, tornado.. You were saying?

                – Andrew Thompson
                Oct 19 '15 at 14:35











              • @AndrewThompson I grew up in California, yo: earthquakes aren't as dangerous as space (yes, there are dangers, including quakes). Here's a clue: where do you find life? As to floating habitats: stray comet? Radiation shielding for cosmic rays? Space is just more dangerous for us.

                – Lexible
                Oct 19 '15 at 14:53













              • "..where do you find life?" Humans aren't just (dumb) life. We have technology. "As to floating habitats: stray comet?" It's easier to alter the orbit of a space habitat than a planet. And people that bring that up seem to forget it affects planets as well, and probably worse given the localized nature of them, and their tendency to attract other objects. "Radiation shielding for cosmic rays?" .. Umm.. you'd use radiation shielding for that. It could take many forms. It would be easier to do for a large structure than a typical spacecraft or current day space station.

                – Andrew Thompson
                Oct 19 '15 at 15:06








              2




              2





              "Space is even worse on all fronts.." This looks quite hospitable to me..

              – Andrew Thompson
              Sep 27 '15 at 9:48





              "Space is even worse on all fronts.." This looks quite hospitable to me..

              – Andrew Thompson
              Sep 27 '15 at 9:48













              @AndrewThompson Such habitats are strictly more costly and more dangerous than (a) and alternate habitable planet, and (b) habitable Earth (i.e. pre-blight).

              – Lexible
              Sep 27 '15 at 15:27





              @AndrewThompson Such habitats are strictly more costly and more dangerous than (a) and alternate habitable planet, and (b) habitable Earth (i.e. pre-blight).

              – Lexible
              Sep 27 '15 at 15:27













              "Such habitats are .. more dangerous.." Tsunami, Earthquake (Marsquake, Edmundsquake, call it what you will), cyclone, tornado.. You were saying?

              – Andrew Thompson
              Oct 19 '15 at 14:35





              "Such habitats are .. more dangerous.." Tsunami, Earthquake (Marsquake, Edmundsquake, call it what you will), cyclone, tornado.. You were saying?

              – Andrew Thompson
              Oct 19 '15 at 14:35













              @AndrewThompson I grew up in California, yo: earthquakes aren't as dangerous as space (yes, there are dangers, including quakes). Here's a clue: where do you find life? As to floating habitats: stray comet? Radiation shielding for cosmic rays? Space is just more dangerous for us.

              – Lexible
              Oct 19 '15 at 14:53







              @AndrewThompson I grew up in California, yo: earthquakes aren't as dangerous as space (yes, there are dangers, including quakes). Here's a clue: where do you find life? As to floating habitats: stray comet? Radiation shielding for cosmic rays? Space is just more dangerous for us.

              – Lexible
              Oct 19 '15 at 14:53















              "..where do you find life?" Humans aren't just (dumb) life. We have technology. "As to floating habitats: stray comet?" It's easier to alter the orbit of a space habitat than a planet. And people that bring that up seem to forget it affects planets as well, and probably worse given the localized nature of them, and their tendency to attract other objects. "Radiation shielding for cosmic rays?" .. Umm.. you'd use radiation shielding for that. It could take many forms. It would be easier to do for a large structure than a typical spacecraft or current day space station.

              – Andrew Thompson
              Oct 19 '15 at 15:06





              "..where do you find life?" Humans aren't just (dumb) life. We have technology. "As to floating habitats: stray comet?" It's easier to alter the orbit of a space habitat than a planet. And people that bring that up seem to forget it affects planets as well, and probably worse given the localized nature of them, and their tendency to attract other objects. "Radiation shielding for cosmic rays?" .. Umm.. you'd use radiation shielding for that. It could take many forms. It would be easier to do for a large structure than a typical spacecraft or current day space station.

              – Andrew Thompson
              Oct 19 '15 at 15:06











              2














              The humans of the future (apparently from Plan B) built the wormhole from the Solar System to Gargantua so the humans on Earth could obtain the quantum data necessary to solve the gravity equation and then leave Earth en masse.



              Gargantua is a rare type of black hole with an event horizon you can cross without being ripped apart. As Romilly states:




              Gargantua's an older, spinning black hole. It has what we call a gentle singularity...They're hardly gentle, but their tidal gravity is quick enough that something crossing the horizon fast might survive...




              Being rare, they had to travel a long way to find such a black hole.



              Mars obviously would not have the quantum data needed.






              share|improve this answer




























                2














                The humans of the future (apparently from Plan B) built the wormhole from the Solar System to Gargantua so the humans on Earth could obtain the quantum data necessary to solve the gravity equation and then leave Earth en masse.



                Gargantua is a rare type of black hole with an event horizon you can cross without being ripped apart. As Romilly states:




                Gargantua's an older, spinning black hole. It has what we call a gentle singularity...They're hardly gentle, but their tidal gravity is quick enough that something crossing the horizon fast might survive...




                Being rare, they had to travel a long way to find such a black hole.



                Mars obviously would not have the quantum data needed.






                share|improve this answer


























                  2












                  2








                  2







                  The humans of the future (apparently from Plan B) built the wormhole from the Solar System to Gargantua so the humans on Earth could obtain the quantum data necessary to solve the gravity equation and then leave Earth en masse.



                  Gargantua is a rare type of black hole with an event horizon you can cross without being ripped apart. As Romilly states:




                  Gargantua's an older, spinning black hole. It has what we call a gentle singularity...They're hardly gentle, but their tidal gravity is quick enough that something crossing the horizon fast might survive...




                  Being rare, they had to travel a long way to find such a black hole.



                  Mars obviously would not have the quantum data needed.






                  share|improve this answer













                  The humans of the future (apparently from Plan B) built the wormhole from the Solar System to Gargantua so the humans on Earth could obtain the quantum data necessary to solve the gravity equation and then leave Earth en masse.



                  Gargantua is a rare type of black hole with an event horizon you can cross without being ripped apart. As Romilly states:




                  Gargantua's an older, spinning black hole. It has what we call a gentle singularity...They're hardly gentle, but their tidal gravity is quick enough that something crossing the horizon fast might survive...




                  Being rare, they had to travel a long way to find such a black hole.



                  Mars obviously would not have the quantum data needed.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Feb 16 '18 at 17:31









                  Stone TrueStone True

                  351412




                  351412






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103799%2fwhy-go-to-another-galaxy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to label and detect the document text images

                      Tabula Rosettana

                      Aureus (color)