Exploration of other planets. When will the the time come?
With the fastest rocket we ever launched it would take 19,000 years to reach the closet star to our sun. Then of course this would be impossible no rocket we build would able to carry the fuel. They are working with ion thrusters to interstellar travel but then that would take 81,000 years to get to the nearest star . We are limited for a.long time yet to travel to the moon and mars. And we will probably just send men to our moon and mars for economic gain like to mine both. Maybe in a hundred years we can send men to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. To go other solar systems maybe in 500 years. To other galaxies I would think in a thousand to 10 thousand years . The closet galaxy is 42,000 light years away. So unless we have some great scientific breakthroughs traveling to other solar systems is a long long long way off. Going to ther galaxies I would say man might even look like man by the time that happens
Question about the Mars One mission?
I was a bit curious, seeing as it is a "One Way Ticket to Mars", what happens if someone gets severely sick. Sick with cancer or something slimier. Will that person be brought back to Earth, or will they be stuck there?
What are some good arguments against space exploration?
While I disagree with the concept, there are some good arguments against space exploration that do need to be answered if we are to continue with space exploration. There may be more, but these eight should be on any list of significant arguments against space exploration.The Cost is very high for little practical return. With the exception of near Earth space efforts what has been the return of space exploration that justifies its cost up to this point? GPS alternatives are already in development considering the extreme cost of supporting GPS satellites and their poor reliability (Not useful underground, in doors, under water, in canyons, in cities, and they are susceptible to damage from solar flares, space debris, and terrestrial weapons.Space exploration represents a brain drain. Those minds being used to advance space exploration could be better utilized solving terrestrial issues of much more immediate concern.Space exploration brings with it the possibility of contaminating new bodies we visit. Currently all space craft are not sterilized because of the extreme cost which means we could be causing irrecoverable damage to unknown ecosystems.Space exploration requires exotic materials that are difficult to manufacture and cause significant ecological damage and pollution. Just because we can off load such cost to other nations does not mean that the damage hasn’t been done.Space exploration carries with it significant threats to human culture. Many religions would be forced to seriously re-evaluate their nature in the face of certain discoveries or encounters that could destabilize significant regions not ready for such radical reinterpretations of their beliefs. Religious change and advancement is a historically slow process that is often accompanied by significant hardships. This would be accelerated and amplified at a significant human cost along with potential for significant psychological shock to humanity in general.Earth could accidentally announce itself to a hostile intergalactic intelligence it is ill prepared to deal with.Earth could accidentally announce itself to a benevolent intergalactic intelligence that brings biological contaminates which wipe out or seriously damages Earth’s ecosystems.Earth could find itself in a position where space developments lead to hostile groups in positions to do great damage to Earth’s nations through attacks from space.
Can someone put the information in this link into context... with respect to timelines, possible missions, etc.?
Not sure what you're looking for but I'll give it a swing. Had Project Nerva gone ahead and (this the critical part) NASA's funding not be cut, putting people on Mars by the '80s, along with a lunar base, were the plan. The engines would have also been used in space tug system, to haul cargo from low Earth orbit, to high Earth orbit or possibly other planets or the Moon. Note that the space tug idea was part of the proposed Shuttle system, where the Shuttle would haul cargo off planet, transfer it to a space tug, powered by Nerva engines, would take it further.Since building new Nerva type engines hasn't even happened yet, it's impossible to say what the timeline or possible missions would be. But I suspect that NASA has its eyes on a manned mission to Mars. That's not secret, there's a lot of people within the agency who very badly want to put astronauts on the red planet. Exactly how that will happen and when depends on the financial backing the agency gets from the US Congress. So any such overt backing in the next 10 years is unlikely, but I"m betting NASA is squirreling money away and making long term plans. In case you haven't noticed, the skycrane system used to plop a 1 ton rover on Mars could theoretically be used to send supplies and/or equipment for a manned mission.The future holds much promise!
Why hasn't nasa gone back to the moon since like the 70's?
9 SPACE ODDITIES: 1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air. 2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming? 3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot? 4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints. 5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares. 6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot? 7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? 8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars? 9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.