English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7116834.stm

2007-11-28 21:43:32 · 21 answers · asked by John Smith 1 in Science & Mathematics Astronomy & Space

21 answers

It was feasible to put on man on Mars 20 years ago.

It is only a matter of will, and America seems to no longer have a will to be the best.

The whole world was cheering us when we reached the moon in 1969.

========
I look at space travel as the next natural step for humans.
I also think that the world should get together to reach the stars. That means every country contribute.
The millions of jobs that would create would more then offset all the money that short sighted people think we should spend on fighting hunger and poverty.

Give a man food and bucks and he'll sit there as dumb as a truck. Give a man the tools to grow food and he'll thrive and become a contributing person to human kind.

I'm all for helping those that can't help themselves, but I am also for giving those that can, the means to help themselves.
===========

Peace

Jim

.

2007-11-28 21:55:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

I think it is feasible. The US, China, Japan and even India all have their sights set on the moon. I kind of hope this mean a new spacerace comes along. Russia (or rather Putin) seems to be more interested in building more military hardware but when they realize they will gain more respect by going back into space the second most powerful spacenation after the US might do something quite unexpected and join forces with the very cashloaded chinese and announce a joined chinese/russian manned mission to Mars. If they did they could go within 20 years. I am surprised that russia haven´t joined the new spacerace yet. The US beat them to the moon. How can they sit back and do nothing while the chinese are going? How can they allow themselves to be beaten again? Somebody should tell the chinese that the russians have all the hardware needed, the Energija rocket, to go to the moon, mars and beyond just sitting in the Kasachstan plains waiting for a buyer...

2007-11-29 00:42:30 · answer #2 · answered by DrAnders_pHd 6 · 2 1

Yes. President Nixon announced a plan to send people there in 1979, which never happened, then there was an expectation they would go there in 1986, and so forth. The Russians were trying to see what would happen if people stayed in space for long enough to get to Mars in the 1970s. It has been feasible for a very long time now. All that's needed is the will and the resources.

2007-11-29 00:54:29 · answer #3 · answered by grayure 7 · 0 0

People who believe the money can be spent on better things then space exploration what are you doing on this site?

There will always be something else the money can be spent on. I know children are starving in regions of Africa and there are homeless problems in London and New York and we need better health and public transport - the list goes on forever but that is budgeting.


How many state of the art NHS hospitals could have been made for the cost of the Wembley Stadium in UK?

A trip to Mars will cost less then two Olympic games and the amount of jobs and science this will bring will make it worthwile.

2007-11-28 22:29:05 · answer #4 · answered by Tony W 4 · 4 0

gas isn't the problem, because it can certainly be achieved with prevalent fuels cargoed as a lot as LEO. except funds, which isn't trivial, as a Mars challenge can be a million-3 TRILLION funds, the subsequent maximum severe stumbling block is the environmental technologies to live to inform the tale a three hundred and sixty 5 days lengthy holiday with 0 help from Earth basically would not exist, yet. Will it ever? confident, yet no quantity of hand waving ("Oh, we've the technologies, basically we've not utilized it, yet") will ever change for actual, severe, severe priced study. No, the chinese gained't get there first, till they start up passing some funds. The chinese aren't any further a contender for optimal the area Race any time quickly. bear in concepts, they don't actually have the favor or comprehend-a thanks to even construct a plane provider on their personal, no longer to point something heavily complicated, like a spacecraft. maximum of their tech is quickly borrowed from the Russians. an greater question than even as is why? Why visit Mars in any respect?

2016-10-25 04:39:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I do hope so I am definitely going to apply to be the first woman to live on Mars Oh for some space and a holiday from the human race.

2007-11-29 20:44:21 · answer #6 · answered by devonian2001 6 · 0 0

UNLIKELY. Its very very far. If it takes 48 hours from the earth to reach the International Space Station, then how long does it takes to reach MARS ? Will there be a spacecraft rocket that can go to MARS? The distance from earth is 33.9 to 249.4 million miles. The atmosphere of MARS is 100 times thinner than that of earth and is mainly made up of carbon dioxide gas (95.3%). Do you think it is possible?

2007-11-28 23:29:25 · answer #7 · answered by Steve 2 · 1 2

Yes. Whether it is desirable is questionable. So much of the resources would be spent just keeping the crew alive and safe, you have to ask if robotic exploration, less glamorous but a lot cheaper, is the way ahead. The rovers have already done astounding work!

2007-11-28 22:12:01 · answer #8 · answered by Avondrow 7 · 0 2

It's easily feasible. The science and technology required are already available. Whether we choose to do it or not is a matter of allocation of resources, which is ultimately a matter of politics.

2007-11-29 00:22:33 · answer #9 · answered by tsr21 6 · 3 1

Countries are vying with each other only to grab the rich minerals available in moon and in other planets.

2007-11-29 02:28:11 · answer #10 · answered by Hobby 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers