I know humans wouldn't be able to survive 100 years on there, but at least this way, we could use remote controls to travel this far.
2007-01-04 11:19:33 · 7 answers · asked by John 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Voyager 1 and 2 are headed out into deep space. The problem is, they run out of power, or otherwise wear out (no one out there to repair or recharge dead space probes).
2007-01-04 11:26:25 · answer #1 · answered by Randy G 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A robotic space shuttle would be a costly waste. We have already sent out probes which are now on the outermost fringes of our solar system. They are so far away that we can only recieve very weak data from them though if any at all still. Remote controlls are a problem, because radoi signals take a long time to reach the target. The probes on Mars tak like 20 hours to communicate with, and they're relatively close to earth in comparison...
2007-01-04 11:31:06 · answer #2 · answered by xooxcable 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We don't have the technology to get any kind of space craft going fast enough to even make it to the nearest star (Proxima Centauri) within your lifetime. Then there's the challenge of keeping the space craft powered in the blackness of space during the long trip. Then, of course, we need it fully functional when it gets there to send an extremely powerful radio signal back home for pictures, etc.
Then there's the question of economics. Who would be willing to invest billions and never see the results? Also, there are so many things that can go wrong. A spacecraft made for interstellar travel will be way more complicated than your car. And with nobody on board to maintain it, if anything breaks down, the ship could become a multi-billion dollar flying hunk of space junk.
2007-01-04 11:33:31 · answer #3 · answered by vrrJT3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have explored almost every planet in our solar system, but by robotic probes, not manned. Beyond the edge of our solar system, the next closest major celestial objects we might want to explore is the Alpha Centauri star system, but even if we could propel a probe up to the speed of light (..which we can't..) it would take 4 YEARS for information to be returned to us. The major drawback to exploring beyond our solar system is the immense distances involved. Right now the most efficient means we have of exploring the universe is with the good ol' reliable telescope.
By the way...the person who told you that a message from Mars takes 20 hours to arrive at Earth is wrong. The figure is actually more like 21 MINUTES.
2007-01-04 11:51:17 · answer #4 · answered by Chug-a-Lug 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, i think the final area return and forth ought to be donated to a museum as quickly as we've replacements for it-- only in case the will for an usa owned spacecraft equivalent... as nicely can we've the money for the gasoline to squander on the costly holiday to the sunlight? Why no longer use the money to purchase the gasoline for one in each and every of those project to fund faculties, libraries, or pastime centers for the masses?
2016-11-26 19:43:28 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We started that, our probes are just now getting out of the solar system after 35 years or so. And they are the fastest things we've ever made.
Now they have a distance 2,000 times greater than that to get to the closest star. That mean 2,000 times 35 years... get it?
2007-01-04 11:32:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh we haven't?
I thought that was the deep space project
2007-01-04 11:23:05 · answer #7 · answered by Xas 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋