if it have been or not
what changes ? what's the next step hat justifies such billions spent on it ?
2007-08-08 03:08:50 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
You could ask this question for a lot of different things... Irak, bombs, oil and even for cars. Do you realize how much we spend to have a car? petrol, insurrance, carpark, taxes... that s amazing...
2007-08-08 21:48:19 · answer #1 · answered by J 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why spending a lot $ in order to blow up Iraq ??
if it have been or not
what changes ? what's the next step hat justifies such billions spent on it ?
2007-08-08 10:30:26 · answer #2 · answered by GeoffG 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since Mars would be uninhabitable on the surface regardless of how well we terraformed it, the argument that we could use it for colonies is a bit of a stretch. Mars has little or no magnetic field, so the surface is sterilized by cosmic radiation, and the atmosphere is sublimated by solar wind.
That being said, we are still going to explore it someday. Finding water there before we go means we can refuel there, thus avoiding the necessity of carrying reaction mass for the return trip.
We must go to the stars. To fail to do so inevitably dooms humanity to extinction. Mars is the first (well, second) step.
2007-08-08 13:13:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If there is water, then we could possibly live there some day. It would be hard, because Mars lacks almost everything else we need, but water is probably the most important thing of all. Maybe even more important than air, because oxygen can be easily extracted from water. If the Moon had water, there would probably be a permanent base there now. And if you were rich, you could probably visit it yourself, just like rich people can now visit the base at the south pole.
2007-08-08 12:11:36 · answer #4 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you find water, you could find life. We are trying to find life. If we do that, it will be worth almost anything we have done. Probably more.
If we are the only signs of life in our solar system, it's possible that we are the only ones in the Universe. So that means we are a once in a trillion chance.
So let's say there are two SEPARATE life forms in the Universe. Isn't it INCREDIBLY, SUPER unlikely that they are both found in the same solar system? It's like a one in a infinity chance. It's so unlikely it's impossible. Therefore it's not a once in a trillion chance, but a once in a hundred, or such.
If we find life in our solar system, we can almost safely say the Universe is bustling with life.
2007-08-08 12:06:41 · answer #5 · answered by Jimbomonkey1234 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
These arguments were done in the 1950's when we started to go in to space. A few years later we started to have communication and weather satellites.
All scientific exploration is needed before we can make practical use for every day. There is a need for lead time of years because our exploration is not receiving top pay for now. The pace is slow because the funding is lower than before.
2007-08-08 10:26:39 · answer #6 · answered by eric l 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I just find it sad that some people feel that research and discovery of the natural world has to have some economic value. "What, we found life on another planet? Well, unless I can make money off of it I don't care." I for one would like to know what's out there beyond the tip of my nose. Just because. Discovery, gaining knowledge, enlightenment, these things shouldn't need justification.
2007-08-08 14:38:00 · answer #7 · answered by aarowswift 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋