In today’s day and age, we’ve all seen the promises, new and old, of sending Man to Mars. Whether it's from Elon Musk or the President, these seem like pretty far out goals. But as we make strides towards space, the only place left to go is up. Scientifically, a manned mission to Mars is a viable option for America, as we have the technology to do it. Furthermore, we have everything we need there, and the technology is on track to be ready by the time the endeavor comes around. Even though some might argue that astronauts don’t know what they are doing and that it might fail, SpaceX and NASA’s plan still deals with these specific obstacles.
Scientists are saying we have everything we need already to make this work, with SpaceX and NASA’s plan
…show more content…
In an article by Vartan Starre (2017) of Newsweek, the optimal space suits benefits are discussed, “their best bet may be a hybrid Mars suit. 'You'd have a gas-pressurized helmet and torso and then mechanical counterpressure legs and arms,' says Trotti. 'This way, your limbs are flexible, but the body has reliability and structure to mount the life-support system, helmet and ability to carry tools'". The technology used here can give us a better understanding of how space works, and that demonstrates that we already have a plan of what we need to protect an …show more content…
For example, the aforementioned critics of SpaceX and NASA say that the plan they want to use is not plausible and is uncertain. While not necessarily wrong, it fails to mention that there will be a test run on the moon beforehand to see what will and won’t work, before a full trip to Mars. As mentioned before, this will give us knowledge of what we exactly are getting into, shown here by Paul Marks (2017), a technology journalist for New Scientist, BBC Future, and the Economist, when he touches on this idea “we should get off-world living right before venturing too far - and the moon is the best place for that”. He argues that we need to back to the moon before we go to mars, as it gives us an idea to work with. Others are concerned about potential explosions and their repercussions. This sounds familiar to a learning experience of SpaceX’s mentioned here in an article by Eric Betz (2017), another scientific journalist for New Scientist: “September brought a reality check. After eight successful 2016 flights, a Falcon 9 exploded during routine fueling at Cape Canaveral. On Twitter, Musk called it 'the most difficult and complex failure we have ever had'”. From that, we learned so much and made sure to test it in the situations it would be in before the major event. Both of these problems shown here
The word race is defined at its core as a competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc. to see which is the fastest in covering a set course. Well, interestingly enough, a race of a different kind occurred between two countries from the years 1957 to 1969. The competition was unclear, and the opponents were on two entirely different continents, not something as simplistic as two horses. The United States and the United Soviet States of Russia both set out as arch rivals in the “Space Race,” a quest for dominance beyond the known Planet Earth. Ironically enough, just as communism was spreading to all parts of the world, the United States always sought to squash this form of government, despite somewhat dire consequences. Now, with
On May 25, 1961, Congress met in a joint session to hear the American president, John F. Kennedy, address them in a speech he referred to as a second State of the Union. In his speech, the young president geared America for a race that would send men to the moon. Kennedy challenged America to “take longer strides” and to take a “leading role in space achievement, which, in many ways, may hold the key to our future on earth” (Burrows 330-331). America rose to the challenge, and within a decade, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were walking on the moon, becoming the first of the human race to walk on a world besides our own. The giant strides of which Kennedy challenged us soon slowed to a crawl, however, and after a few more missions, America would not go back again, possibly for good. America would soon turn its attention to other earthly issues, and its moon program would become nothing more than a memory. This gives rise to an inevitable question: should humans return to the moon? This question has haunted us for years, continuously rising and then fading away again. In recent months, new discoveries have brought it to the forefront, and with these new discoveries, the answer becomes obvious: humans should once again set their sights for the heavens, and putting a civilian lunar base and colony on the moon should be our next step.
In going along with this plan, there will be more demand for scientists and engineers alike. Engineers will build the manned bases and vessels, while scientists occupy them and gather data to benefit the world. In this way, NASA will be able to see if it is possible to make Mars the next “Earth”, making plans to help make that a reality if this does happen. “Through space exploration and innovative thinking, NASA has injected science and inspiration into our culture and projected us into the future” (Haberle).
The idea of space exploration and/or colonizing in outer space is fascinating to many people. In fact, it has intrigued societies for decades. The book, “The Martian” by Andy Weir, is a fictional story that presents the possibility of manned space exploration to Mars. Although, no country has sent a manned spacecraft to Mars, Weir does an excellent job making this task seem like a reality. He seemed to portray space travel accurately. The story presents problems, mathematical, scientific, and sociological, in such a way that draws the reader into the dilemmas of the characters without the reader doubting the accuracy or probability of the situation (Weir 18-20). The manner in which the author does this indicates that he either has a scientific
Who knows what kind of opportunities can come from Mars? We can use the many resources that have already been found on this planet, it could help us in many ways beyond space exploration, and it could even be a new place for us to live. That’s why I believe that the government should fund space exploration to Mars.
Well, Robert Zubrin, an aerospace engineer, believes that inevitable scientific advances and the “challenges of terraforming other worlds” is what will draw humanity to Mars and beyond. Which is certainly likely as the chance to explore where no one else had ever set foot and the advances humanity had made is what led to the Apollo missions and the international space station. But humanity has sat on the technology to travel to Mars for a long time, why would that motivate them, humanity needs a greater shove. Perhaps that shove might come from wanting to generate a better society. Kenya Armbrister, a humanitarian, has given up her normal life on the chance that she could be one of the few picked to colonize Mars with the new Mars One mission. Armbrister believes that the colonization of Mars is “ the next step for humanity” and that it might create a society “where people are truly equal.” Even though a society of people who are all equal seems like a long shot, perhaps for a lot it is enough to risk their lives for. And if the wonder of a whole new planet and equal society is not enough for you perhaps the continuation of the whole human race is what will motivate you to support a mission to Mars. Alana Semuels, writer for the Atlantic and graduate of Harvard University, believes that our time on Earth is numbered and we should prepare for the worst by perpetuating humanity's existence on Mars. Anyone of these reasons may be what leads humanity to Mars, but could it not be a far simpler reason? Humans contain a natural curiosity for anything they don’t understand, why would this not lead humanity to Mars. Yes, we see pictures of Mars all the time from out Mars rovers, but pictures don’t capture the sound of the wind as it whips through valleys, or the smell of the dirt you walk in. Would our curiosity not be what leads us to
Having sent the first man to the moon, the country enjoys great pride and improved the nation’s heritage. The Apollo missions that followed ascertained that the country was indeed a leader in space exploration in the quest to understand extraterrestrial life forms. With this milestone, the next step in space exploration would be to send manned flights to other planets. This culminated in the exploration of Mars to investigate the possibility of existence in the planet. Though the explorations are still ongoing, many of the pundits opposed to continued funding of NASA claim that the explorations are a waste of money, which would otherwise be channeled to other ‘more important sectors.’ This has sparked a debate on the importance of NASA’s mandate and elicited mixed feelings from proponents and
Mars is our next best hope in life on another planet. Because of science mankind can grow and harvest plants in the modified mars soil, make a thick warm atmosphere, and drink no frozen mars water. Mankind can grow and flourish more as a species with this idea of colonizing mars. With more scientific advancements we can colonize mars and we will colonize mars.
Buzz Aldrin once said “Mars has been flown by, orbited, smacked into, radar examined, and rocketed into, as well as bounced upon, rolled over, shoveled, drilled into, baked and even blasted. Still to come: Mars being stepped on.” While the verity in this matter is true, it still demonstrates the lack of progress produced by NASA. NASA, a publicly funded program, has been experiencing a deficit in funds due to the increased importance in other programs like education or healthcare. To address this issue, the leaders of technology and innovation- John Bezoes for Blue ORigin; Richard Branson for Virgin Galactic; and most importantly Elon Musk for SpaceX- have stepped up to fill in the need of more capital in space funds.
Option #2: NASA spends money on both manned space flight (like the Space Shuttle) and unmanned robotic probes. Now that the Shuttle fleet has been retired, should NASA develop new rockets to send people back to the moon? Should we send people to Mars? Should NASA focus on unmanned missions instead? Is money spent on space exploration beneficial to society? State your opinion about the proposals currently being considered to send astronauts to the moon or to Mars.
It has always been a part of human nature for a man or woman to be curious of their surroundings. First it was what is beyond those mountains; then what is beyond that ocean, then the sky, under the sea, and in the 50s, 60s, and 70s it was space and the moon. Our ancestors and the early civilizations were strongly focused on explorations and expansion. Even notable historical figures were primarily focused to either expand their empire for increased power and fame like Julius Caesar, or to explore new lands for rich booty or possible colonization like Eric the Red. We are doing nothing out of the ordinary by wanting to explore the vast expanse of space first hand. We are curious what is out there. Is there life? Is there a world out there that can sustain human life? As curious beings, we must at least try to answer these questions. If not for man taking personal initiative to answer the question left before him, we would not have a Columbus or Lewis and Clark. Manned space flights instead of robotic crews bring this human element of curiosity to the table.
Technologies developed during the space race have helped humans to communicate better, be safer in our daily lives, help us to prevent or recover from disease or injury, and even just be more comfortable every day. These innovations have shaped the world that we know today and are still changing it right now. We thought that sending a man 238,900 miles to stand upon the moon was a long ways, but plans are in place to send mankind to mars, to set foot over 35,000,000 miles away from home. There is no way to see into the future, or to see what we will come up with next to help us on our journey, but a man named Alan Kay, a computer visionary, once said that, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”
The idea of space travel has fired the imaginations of people for hundreds of years. From the publication of Jules Verne’s book, From the Earth to the Moon, in 1865 to the recent release of the movie, The Martian, space travel has held a special place in the hearts of human beings. However, unlike so many other fictional sciences, modern humans have the capability to travel through space! Unfortunately, skeptics say that space exploration is a futile waste and that programs like NASA are throwing away money that the government should spend on more useful projects. These naysayers would put to death one of the greatest undertakings in human history without considering the various values of space travel. For one instance, numerous innovative
Humans can expect to face some major challenges on an expedition to Mars. It has been proven that humanity can travel in space for over two years. Cumulatively, Sergei Constantinovich Krikalev, a Russian cosmonaut, has spent over eight-hundred and three days in Earth orbit (Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, 2005). The expedition to Mars would require the crew to endure a six month journey to the planet, a year of living on the planet, and a six months journey back to Earth. Russian cosmonaut, Valery V. Polyakoz, clocking in at four-hundred and thirty-eight days for just one stay in Earth orbit, shows humanity is capable of a twelve month round trip to Mars (Schwirtz, 2009). Earth's orbit has provided some benefits to space exploration, like the magnetic field from cosmic radiation, and the proximity to Earth if an emergency were to arise (Jones, 2009). The further humans travel away from Earth the greater the risks become. The major risks to human health on a flight to Mars, living on Mars, and returning to Earth are: radiation exposure, biological problems induced by weightlessness, spacecraft malfunctions, and psychological problems brought on by isolation.
Robert Zubrin, an engineer that is working for Lockheed Martin, suggests that NASA should send humans to Mars, instead of machines. Machines are too limited in what they can accomplish, and humans need to be there to make up for what machines are incapable of doing (Easton 170). He brings up the point that Lewis and Clark did not spend the time or the resources to even try to take enough food and supplies to last them the entire time that they were exploring new lands.