1968 is a long time ago - so how come, with all the massive computer advances since then, have we not done anything as remotely exciting as putting a man on the moon, since?
Also - had we moved with the same progression, should we have put a man on Mars by now?
2006-09-16 03:47:15 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
1969. And, do you know we even landed?
No, just teasing. We're going for mars sometime in 2020... maybe...
Guber's explanation is plausible, but there is one problem with his theory. People on the ISS have probably been there for about two years, and can still come back. The trip to Mars and back takes only a quarter of that time, six months. The time spent on Mars doesn't count, because there is still pressure there. (Although they would only weigh about 1/2 as much as they do on Earth... I think that's enough to keep your bones from disinterating.)
2006-09-16 03:58:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Great answers! Even the ones I don't agree with - which express sentiments about "saving Earth first" and of the doubtful value of a manned Mars expedition - are expressing solid economic judgements.
Space exploration. First of all, and always, this is a political and economic question. China sent people into space to pump up the value of its exports, for instance. (1.)
We in the USA, on the other hand, have "been there, done that," haven't we? Kennedy sent men to the moon on the advice that that was the first space goal we could beat the Soviet Union at. So off we marched; but that was it.
No goal post-Apollo. It seemed only logical that the Apollo program was just the beginning of human settlement / exploration of space, so I can understand your puzzlement at why we've not gone back in over thirty years now.
Us space geeks, who appreciate the enormous benefits of space settlement and space industrialization, got taken for a ride by the feds, and by NASA, though. There's no long-term benefit being explored right now worth having folks in space.
So far as manned space goes, NASA just wants us to know one thing: NASA=space. It is a branding exercise. A good brand gets more tax dollars, yea verily.
So the Mars exploration idea must be promoted in a very distorted cost/benefit proposition about the whole question of people in space. If the "Mars now!" movement understood this, they'd know that until space is a paying proposition, they won't get but a fraction of the funding they want for their expedition.
(And space probes will remain massively expensive. "Unmanned space exploration" will, paradoxically, be massively enabled by manned space settlement.)
I've said it before - for the most part, our manned space efforts are a show pony. It is the wrong effort, for the wrong reasons, but the tax money keeping this beast alive it is just as green as the money that would have given us a long-term reward in space.
One such reward being living more lightly on the Earth.
After all, without some frontier to expand economically in, no "green" movement will ever have the mainstream political capital to promote it's environmental agenda.
As a previous Answerer put it, "save OUR planet," or something like that. Scarcity translates to value; precisely.
2006-09-16 06:29:14 · answer #2 · answered by wm_omnibus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Part of the driving force for putting a man on the Moon was to beat the Soviet Union to that goal. With the USSR out of the picture for fifteen years now, that impetus is gone. However, bear in mind that we did put other men on the Moon as late as 1972. Also bear in mind that a manned mission to Mars is an order of magnitude more difficult than a manned mission to the Moon, although a number of future unmanned missions are planned.
2006-09-16 03:51:49 · answer #3 · answered by DavidK93 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It comes down to politics. Back in the 60's our motivation was to beat the Russians at all costs. Nowadays the cost didn't justify the risk and necessity of the space missions.
If we had moved with the same progression I think we would have been to Mars and maybe beyond by now. It's unfortunate in my opinion. Space travel should have been pursued more aggressively over the past 35 years.
2006-09-16 03:50:30 · answer #4 · answered by T F 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No we are fine. We could put people on Mars but it would be perfect to assure their safely return to Earth. In 37 years we've landed on the Moon, played golf on it, and had a geologist explore it. We are on schedule to explorer our neighborhood. The US does not have the competition to fuel the space race that it once had. We will get to Mars and safely return one day and people will say it was an impossible accomplishment.
2006-09-16 04:05:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it is so expensive and of very little value. Sorry to say this but I just don't think that it is worth it to spend so much money and resources to go to Mars. Maybe in the future when the technology is better it would become a more attractive idea.
2006-09-16 04:56:28 · answer #6 · answered by bruinfan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Space travel will take a great leap when the government steps aside and it becomes commercially viable. We are seeing that in its infancy now. Visitors to the space station ($22,000,00 kinda pricey). Enterprising individuals have made that first foray into space and intend on carrying passengers in the not to distant future.
Space exploration will become more vigorous when a way to make it commercially beneficial.
2006-09-16 03:59:14 · answer #7 · answered by Albannach 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was told by a professor that one of the problems with putting a man (or woman) on Mars is that their bones would loose density and they would fracture the second they came back to Earth. Bones need gravity to keep them dense, the constant pressure keeps them strong. If you are in a situation without gravity for a long time (the time it would take to get to Mars and back) your bones would basically disintegrate once gravity was acting on them again. That is just one of the many obstacles to getting someone to Mars.
2006-09-16 03:53:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why would we would prefer to bypass to Mars as quickly as we've machines that could do the activity for longer, greater low fee, and at no danger to human life? confident I agree that we would desire to constantly proceed area exploration, yet we would desire to constantly not deliver human beings accessible till all of us understand greater related to the planet, and would realistically, and wisely, deliver human beings there for a first rate volume of time. till then, sending machines is purely superb.
2016-12-18 11:18:00 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its not so easy mark though im a tennager i say that IT has its own ways but placing a man on mars is tough because thare is no evidence that life would be possible but im sure that the day we find out something remarkable you would holiday on mars
2006-09-16 04:04:46 · answer #10 · answered by akieboy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋