After all this effects all of us (according to the media) so shouldn't we be 100 percent sure it isn't a planet. I would sure hate to see what happens if we find out that we are wrong about this important issue. Think of the minds of the small children that could be corrupted if Pluto really is a Planet afterall.
2006-08-24 12:27:36 · 16 answers · asked by dam 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Yea zoemstof, do you think there was anything else they misinformed us about in all those years of school. My whole foundation has been totally shattered by this news of Pluto's misinformation.
2006-08-24 12:45:52 · update #1
Tell me this jeffreyconrathmiller, if the question was the stupidest one you ever saw, how is it that you gave a totally complete and honest answer?
And where were you when my teacher was filling my tiny little brain with incorrect facts.
2006-08-24 12:55:08 · update #2
Heck yes! Seriously. I was pissed when i found out I was told wrong all through my school years. Imagine how future generations will feel!!! lawl. :)
2006-08-24 12:37:54 · answer #1 · answered by zoemstof 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is the stupidest question I've ever seen on here.
Yeah...let's spend a few decades and a few billion dollars or so to go see if a big icey-rock is in fact a big icey-rock...
I think the unmaned mission is sufficient; AND a waste of time.
In response to another question/assertion... careful, Pluto/Charon is more of a comet than an asteroid. Asteroids, while existing all over the Solar System are typically those rocky bodies relegated to the space between Mars and Jupiter with Jupiter's gravity keeping them as small chunks.
2006-08-24 19:41:07 · answer #2 · answered by jeffreyconrathmiller 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The word 'planet' is just a term, used to classify things which qualify under its definition. The thing floating around in space is still named 'Pluto' and it is, believe it or not, not very much affected by what we decide to classify it as here on Earth.
If you were to send a manned mission there what information could you glean to learn to better define it that you can't learn through telescopes. Per the definition of a planet, a mass under consideration should have sufficient self-gravity to form itself into a nearly-spherical shape. Pluto is not spherical. Therefore, its a dwarf planet. In fact, there are asteroids in our galaxy and others that are larger than Pluto and they have orbits around suns.
If you want to modify the definition of planet to include Pluto you will end up including a number of other objects which are currently not planets. Your tiny mind would remain just as vexed.
2006-08-24 19:35:38 · answer #3 · answered by Matthew M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe a mission to Mars is supposed to take 40 months. That is a neighboring planet. Pluto is the farthest away from us, so can you imagine how long that would take. We're probably talking decades here. That aside from the fact that we're not even technically able to do these missions any time soon.
2006-08-24 19:35:36 · answer #4 · answered by ilovemyarmyguy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there will be a maned mission to Pluto. But I dont think it will prove anything, the problem comes with sive, not landing on it. but I will say I think its possible to make it to pluto in our life time, the problem with the travel starts when were trying to leave earth to pluto, but if you go from the moon to say a planet closer to, then jump to another planet,and so forth, hey we may build a Stargate some day, but a rail system in 0 g would be a good close, and it requires little fuel, think of a roller coaster on the moon, and in a perfect alinment of all the planet, you would be able to jump, from planet to planet
2006-08-24 19:54:08 · answer #5 · answered by Derrick 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure. How about you go and find out. It will only take about 25 years round trip.
Obviously you have no idea why it is they called it a planet but are now changing that. What is the definition of a planet? Oh wait they don't have one that all the scientists agree on.
2006-08-24 19:39:01 · answer #6 · answered by DoctaB01 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh, maybe try Mars first....Pluto is kinda REALLY far. Anyways, a manned mission isn't going to be able to discover if it's a planet or not. Isn't like we can even land on it, or most planets for that matter.
2006-08-24 19:34:28 · answer #7 · answered by Tim 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not, NASA wastes money everyday and risks the lives of people just to hang out in space... why not waste some more and put more people at risk of being killed?
2006-08-24 19:33:56 · answer #8 · answered by sarahbeth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO the space and TIME it would take would be out of our range in this lifetime, they would probably die or freeze to death before getting there
2006-08-24 19:31:54 · answer #9 · answered by kirkboi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be nice, but it takes like a bazillion years to get out that far.
2006-08-24 19:36:57 · answer #10 · answered by Maurice H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋