2007-06-07 06:36:38 · 10 answers · asked by Gil D 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Absolutely. The potential knowledge, resources, and new homes is more than worthwhile. And we wouldn't even have to go thousands of lightyears to do so, nevermind millions. There was an earth-like world discovered only 20.5 lightyears from here.
Did you know that if the entire world lived the way that just the U.S. does that we'd need 3 earths just to sustain ourselves?
Moving day might be coming sooner than we think.
But of course in order to explore space we'd need to improve our technology in a major way. For starters, you just don't get good space-mileage carrying liquid rocket fuel. So we'd need better propulsion. Then those shuttles are as fragile as tinfoil pie plates. No protection from cosmic rays that can be deadly, and the tiniest pebble traveling at high velocity will pass right through a shuttle and can destroy one if it hits the wrong place. And then of course we'd need a way to survive traveling at high speeds without becoming a stain on the wall. Finally, and most importantly, we need artificial gravity. Astronauts today run on treadmills for hours while in space to keep their bone density and muscle mass up, but even after only a few months, they are too weak and frail to stand under their own weight when they first return to earth. After long periods, your heart gets weaker, and pretty soon you couldn't survive in normal gravity anymore. We'd need to have gravity for long trips.
2007-06-07 07:03:56 · answer #1 · answered by Nunna Yorz 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nobody is exploring anything that far away. And NASA's annual budget is far less than the US spends every DAY on the war in Iraq. Which is the better use of money?
2007-06-07 11:54:39 · answer #2 · answered by GeoffG 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i wouldn't think so. i have no objection to studying these places from the earth, but it's ludicrous to send satellites to these places.
these places are light years away. it would take millions (billions and trillions) of years for our satellites to arrive. by then, our technology will definitely be outdated. i'm sure our descendants will have much more efficient methods of study by then. until then, i say we shouldn't waste our money and resources.
2007-06-10 15:43:07 · answer #3 · answered by durhamdouglas 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The sun, as previously noted, is the closest star to the Earth. Next closest is Proxima Centauri, which is 4 light-years away. Please brush up on your science before you go rushing off like that; it makes you look like the brainwashing worked.
2016-05-19 01:00:42 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I think so . But I have recently
found out that NASA could be paying less to do so. It's a shame they don't act upon it.
2007-06-07 09:31:31 · answer #5 · answered by spaceprt 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For science maybe, in general no. One day, we may want to leave earth and then such explorations will have benefits for society.
2007-06-07 06:44:53 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
We can throw all the billions we want at it and we won't get there. That's why no one is even looking at doing that
2007-06-07 06:40:25 · answer #7 · answered by Gene 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
no.....i think we shud utilise those billions in cleaning and preserving our home planet......after that we may do all the spending we want...
2007-06-07 06:46:17 · answer #8 · answered by shadowfax . 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
in my opinion, absolutely.
2007-06-07 08:21:56 · answer #9 · answered by neutron 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion it is not.
2007-06-11 03:55:50 · answer #10 · answered by johnandeileen2000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋