We have only successfully completed Mars missions 16 out of 39 times. Mars should not be colonized. To colonize Mars is not a good idea. The trip to Mars would take about eight or nine months, and it is approximately 140million miles away from Earth. Sending people to Mars is not a good idea since it is so risky, unsafe, and a one way trip.
In the movie, it has been mentioned there that the government didn’t want to spend a part of the nation’s savings for space exploration. The reason is that it would just be a waste of money, which is not the case. If the end of the Earth really did happen and the only solution is to leave the Earth, space exploration would become a necessity. It would save human beings from extinction and would preserve mankind’s
Before exploring the reasons as to why the U.S government should fund NASA, it is first necessary to observe what percentage of people think that NASA’s budget should be raised and why they do so. According to Thompson (2013), “76 percent of Americans agree that NASA’s budget should be increased to 1 percent of the total federal budget to fund initiatives, including a mission to Mars” (p.1). There are two reasons behind supporting the funding of NASA. Firstly, the main reason as to why people support space activities is curiosity. Curiosity has made man explore regions that have never been explored.
The suggestion of using drones to fight in wars may sound as if it was the greatest idea ever, but many people would disagree with allowing drones to fight. For example, researchers say that out of the total amount of persons killed by drones, only 2 percent are “high-level” targets (Americas). That means there are more innocent people killed than there are of those who are a threat. The US government does not recognize the large amount of civilians killed, although there is plenty of proof. Many people would hate to think that innocent people are being killed by drones.
This article explains that the government does not have enough money to pay for NASA’s rockets/space missions. It also says that even the military supports privatization, because it’s cheaper. In October of 2004, Burt Rutan 's Space Ship One won the $10 million Ansari X Prize. His rocket was the first private flying machine to go to space.
Those who choose to spend the rest of their lives on Mars will inevitably become disfigured and brittle. Conseption is also nearly impossible to do in such low gravity, so the new found era of Martian humans would probably only last a couple generations at
I for one am super jealous that they get to go into space, then again I don’t have that kind of money, but I think this is a great thing Space X is starting. Like I said before, space exploration is not something we’re just going to brush under the rug, sooner or later we’ll have to go
The moon landing was the most inportant event in NASA history. 1.If it wouldn’t have been for the landing we wouldn’t know what we know about our galaxy. They found water and a trace of life on the moon. 2. If we wouldn’t have known that there was something else out there, because of people wondering they wouldn’t have found water on the moon.
There is no chance that humans would survive in space the way that the characters in the movie did. It would take many years for us to figure out how to reside on another planet. For a good climate change movie to happen we need to feel inspired to get out and do something good for our planet, but the reality of the movie is that it left a us feeling helpless. If the movie would have portrayed a realistic answer to climate change, maybe there would not be such of an impending doom because we can not seem to fix nor adapt to the
But, people have started to think that space exploration funds should be used for organizations down on Earth, and that’s where they’re wrong. As has been noted, some people think that the money invested in space should be used for other equally important things like education. People might think that traveling outside of Earth is dangerous and can cause health problems, and truth be told it is. “Extremely sharp-edged moon dust can harm
Would the military have a right to deploy weapons then? Not under the current terms of the treaty, no. As technology improves over the next several decades, or longer, the idea of civilian space travel is not so far-fetched. NASA is already planning a mission to Mars, and if missions see continued success, there is no doubt that States will invest their time, money, and resources to expand the space industry further. It needs time to develop before a decision can really be determined.
An interest of mine is with the privatization and commercialization of space. One of issues that is preventing this from being accomplished is current laws. If the world ever wants to truly privatize and commercialize space it will need to re-look at or come up with new laws. The Outer Space Treaty does not address private companies specifically. Reason for this being because when it was drafted only a handful of countries had a space program and they were lead primarily by government agencies.
If I asked you “What does NASA stand for?” you would probably say either “Need another seven astronauts” or “Need another shuttle also”. Today those jokes can’t be funny because NASA’s funding has been cut by congress, so they could probably use more astronauts and another space shuttle, but they don 't have the funding to hire more people and or keep up with today 's progress. NASA’s funding shouldn’t be cut by the government because NASA doesn’t have much money to support its educational programs, NASA also doesn’t have the funding to keep up with technology, so NASA can’t send anyone into space until 2021, and they won’t have the ability to keep up with the progress which will set them back generations. NASA has recently halted some of their educational programs due to budget cuts and American citizens are not happy.
Indeed one of the main reasons why this telescope should not be built on Mauna Kea is because of the excessive funds. The costs for building this new telescope are estimated at $1.4 billion (Fox). The funds from the telescope could instead go to another project that could be located elsewhere so that the public do not get angry. Although the telescope could provide more space research, it’s not worth building a telescope that is going to cost
Government funding of NASA On July 29, 1958, the United States government found the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA beat the Soviet Union in the space race. President JFK gave them the challenge of sending a man on the moon and return him home safely, this challenge not only provided motivation, but united the country for a common goal. Over the years NASA has been a crucial part of our lives and gave us things like mass communication, satellite entertainment, and most importantly, knowledge of what surrounds us. Lately, the government is refusing to raise the budget for NASA, so NASA has had to shut down programs like the space shuttle program prematurely. The government should raise the funding of the space program because NASA gives us access to knowledge, biological studies, and a goal that unites the country.