The United States government should not continue to fund manned space flight missions to Mars because, NASA doesn’t have the advanced technology needed to get humans there without a guarantee safe return trip and lack of fuel. Since NASA doesn’t have the proper necessities such as fuel to send humans to the Red Planet with a safe trip home, then the United States government should not continue to fund manned space flight missions. I hope to learn about the mission to Mars and why funding for the Journey may not be the best solution. The fund for this spaceflight comes from researchers and scientist that are looking to send humans by 2030 to Mars. NASA believes Mars is a rich destination to start looking for potential life forms considering …show more content…
It would take several years to have a machinery capable of carrying life form to a planet that is a risk to our kind. NASA Astronaut Stan Love describes the difficult part about the Mission to Mars in which fuel plays a huge role in travel there and return back to Earth and there no possible way to get and from Mars with the technology we have today, Love states, “The difficult part of Mars mission is the fuel and supplies you need to return. For every pound of fuel that you need to launch off of Mars, you have to launch 30 or 50 or 70 pounds of propellant off the Earth just to get the propellant to Mars to propel you back. This is at the heart of why we aren't on Mars today. The technology needed to pull off the return trip is still many years away.” The quote describes that the return trip to Mars may not be probable if there isn't enough fuel to make it back. Space shuttle or rockets already have to use over 30 pounds of fuel just to get there and it takes about 18 months to get to the surface of Mars so, NASA doesn't have enough fuel to power the space shuttle to send humans on a round trip to Mars. These details prove my point because, it relies on actual facts that the technology isn’t there for human flight and until then we should spend billions of dollars on other things that we do have the equipment
“NASA Should Be about Space,” says that Obama has cut money off NASA, for Earth Science. Even though Earth Science has raised up to 63%, according to “NASA Should Be about Space,” NASA will have not enough money to send people to the moon or Mars. Since space has not controlled by anyone, really, the U.S should start to take into advance to complete mission no man has done back then. The state of Texas is willing to help fund NASA, and hope to find what is needed.
Over the past few years, NASA has been the victim of larger and larger budget cuts. The United States government thinks that money that should be being used for funding NASA is more useful elsewhere. This is a real shame, space travel is the future. One day we will run out of resources,or become over crowded on Earth, and mankind will have to expand to the stars for another place to live. Space travel is our future and needs exploration. NASA should be more highly funded by the United States government, in order to continue research towards future objectives.
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
Going to the moon and Mars is excellent, but that’s already been done. Time for something else to happen. If NASA’s budget was increased, it could be pushed to find other habitable planets and new resources to help out here on Earth. With more funding, NASA can build a manned base on the moon while finding a way to Mars.
Is it wise to continue the funding of NASA for future space travels? The health risks involved in visiting alien planets are extremely high as well as the cost for the roundtrip, which has been estimated to be between 6 to 500 billion dollars for various crewed programs. President Barack Obama has recently signed a 17.6 billion dollar NASA budget that will be used to focus on missions beyond Earth's orbit (Clark). I have found this to be wonderful news that our nation is still supporting such projects as they are the future and the hope of our existence. With modern day technology and the pace in which it advances, it is fool...
...egular people, believing that if someone was to go to Mars they might have been able to survive A variety of organic compounds present may mean a life is probable. Also, if the trip to Mars in 2023 turns out to be a positive one, then it will prove to everyone that in the future more and more people will move to this other planet. A lot of people will find it unnecessary to stay on Earth if they can start a new life somewhere else in the galaxy. Even though the trip will have America paying billions and billions of dollars, it truly is worth it. A life on Mars could mean living to an older age and being healthier. The point of going to the Red Planet is to find out if there is a better life somewhere other than on Earth. Just like NASA astronaut, Buzz Aldrin said, humans will most likely reach Mars and when they do humans will turn into a two-planet species.
“Space, the final frontier….” These are the words that stirred the imaginations of millions of men, women and children with the debut of “Star Trek” in 1966. The show has arguably one of the most loyal followings of any production, and has inspired scores of people to consider the stars and wonder if we as a people will ever travel outside of our own solar system. The idea of space travel and exploration was not new when “Star Trek” hit the airwaves though. The United States was at odds with the Soviet Union, and both powers were locked in a battle that would come to be known as “The Space Race” during the height of the cold war. It was in 1961 that President John Kennedy made his famous appeal to the American people, challenging us as a nation to put a man on the moon before the decade was out. On July 20, 1969, that challenge was achieved when the astronauts of Apollo 11 made the first manned landing on the moon, and returned safely to earth. This, the highest achievement in the United States space program, will turn 45 years old this year. After 45 years, and a technological explosion over the past 25 years, the greatest achievement in the space program has been a manned lunar landing. Countless billions of American tax payer dollars have been spent on the space program over the decades, and there have been no achievements to match that of the moon landings. Though the budget for NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is but a tiny fraction of the entire annual budget for the country, many of those billions that are allotted in the NASA budget for space exploration would better serve the country if they were re-directed to other areas. De-funding the space exploration portion of the NASA programs could create a “...
“Mars is there, waiting to be reached” (Buzz Aldrin). My opinion is that there should be not manned mission to mars.
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.
In 2012, under the Obama administration the total budget was $3.73 trillion and $18.7 billion of that money went to NASA. Now this may sound like a considerable amount of money, but if the U.S budget were to be represented by one hundred pennies, then merely half of a penny would be given to NASA. Since landing the first man on the moon, NASA’s budget has gone down from 4.5% of the Federal budget to 0.5%. According to a survey, most Americans think that NASA receives 20% - 25% of the U.S yearly budget. In reality, they only receive 0.5% of the budget. It is amazing to see how the space agency has benefited people on Earth with this budget, but imagine the possibilities if they received a larger portion of the budget each year. How close would we be to colonizing Mars, or what other types of technology would have been
Have you ever wondered how you are able to call and watch tv from satellite? Well, just one word can lead to a heated discussion. NASA. Some will debate that NASA is not worth it, while some will.
THE MOST PROFITABLE BLANK , SPACE “The spacecraft carries along our secret hope that there is something better out there, a better place, a better way to live, a world where we may someday go and leave the errors of the past behind”( Easterbrook, 1986, para. 1) emphasized the importance of the space research well. Because space is the limitless blank and it is full of chance, chance of new lives, new resources, chance of a new page for humanity and meeting new species. Then, what is space research and how is it done? Logsdon(n.d.
In, 1969 the U.S. sent Apollo 11 the the Moon but, did that actually happen? There are some people that do believe that we did land on the Moon but other people don’t believe that we actually did. So do you think that we could have gone to the Moon?
There are many reasons that space exploration should continue. If Earth ever becomes too overpopulated or over polluted, then perhaps people can move to Mars. The world population in 1970 was approximately 4 billion people, and is currently nearly 6 billion people. The world population in 2015 is estimated to be 7 billion people. There is a possibility that there are useful resources on Mars. Scientists have found ice and some other clues, such as craters, volcanoes, and valleys, that have led them to believe that there was once life on Mars, and they believe that sometime in the future, should planet Earth need to be evacuated, humans will be able to live there (Jakosky 142). Many of the rocks on Mars appear to have been formed by gasses, breathable by humans and other creatures. A process called terraforming will allow astronauts to make use of the resources that are on the planet and create an atmosphere that will support life. One method for terraforming is that scientists would convert the gaseous rocks back into gasses, and use gas-eating organisms to eat the gas, which results in the formation of other gasses. If these organisms continue the cycle, then Mars would have a stable atmosphere for humans to live in (Getz 39).
The main argument against space travel is that the money used could be better put on other matters. This is, in fact, very untrue. Looking at NASA’s 2015 budget of $17.5 billion, it may seem like a lot, until you realize that the US military budget for 2014 was $581 billion (5). Furthermore, it was estimated that each dollar in NASA’s budget was equivalent to 8 – 10 dollars of economic benefit (6). If an organization can bring about economic value at 10 folds the original budget, it would be logical to continue funding it, if not increasing the funds.