Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of goin to mars
Pros and cons of goin to mars
Pros and cons of goin to mars
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of goin to mars
Imagine very little water source, never returning to Earth. Imagine standing in the middle of a sand storm, one of the many dangers on Mars. With no return to Earth, barely any water, hard conditions and dangers for anyone who goes, regular sand storms...This all proves that NASA should not send people to Mars. There’s a lot more research about space and Mars that needs to be done so we can know what other precautions to take before humans go and settle on Mars.
People should not go to Mars because it is dangerous, people would never return home and it can have negative changes to people’s bodies in more than just one way, there’s very little water supply, and the environment is harsh. There are so many contrary details about going, so the question stands, why risk it and go to Mars?
First of all, anyone who goes to Mars could never return home. We know this because, the text states, “...as long as you don’t mind that you can never return to Earth” (Ross). The author states this for the readers to be informed of what the people that are going to Mars are going to go through, and what other humans possibly, one day, could too! All of the conversations with people’s family would become digital and they’d never breathe Earth’s oxygen again. Is it really worth losing that much?
…show more content…
This can be seen in the text where Ross writes, “Space travel is hard physically; in addition, being isolated for a long period of time can be tough mentally” (Ross). It can be hard because people’s bodies would go through so many different changes. It could be hard mentally because Ross says, “So what happens to the body in space? For starters, muscles weaken and bones grow brittle” (Ross). Overtime, it might be enough to kill humans or make them so weak they couldn’t walk. Hence, people might not be able to do the work and research that needs to get done on
Space has lots of radiation. Exposure to space radiation can have a bad effect on a person’s health. Support C: Travelling and exploring space can actually endanger the life of an astronaut. THIRD POINT:
Starting with Mars being too dangerous. Colonists could be exposed to radiation which can result in cancer, brain damage, tumors, sickness, or death. Secondly, Mars has a lower gravity than Earth which means over time colonists would lose bone mass, have a weaker immune system, and have a weaker heart and body. Lastly, colonists would be in a closed environment for a long periods of time which could lead to mental problems according to NASA and Mars One.
The first question is, why should we go to Mars? What are the advantages of traveling to Mars in the first place? One reason could be that it would help increase life across our universe, (Mars One 2017), Or to have another planet to live on if the Earth dies. Increasing life across our universe would help us spread out our population and prosper as the human race.
The air in Mars is really thin and if there was any liquid on mars it would all boil through. There is low oxygen and it is impossible to breath. The martian clouds contain crystals of water ice. The air is so thin That water droplets cannot form in Mars Atmosphere. Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth, Scientist measured if you times Mount Everest three times it would equal how the air is on Mars. When the air is that thin water can boil at low temperatures and near its freezing
It’s because “..Everyone had technology too much of it, and the consequences were disastrous. Now we have the basic technology… ports, readers, scribes-- and our information intake is much more specific: Nutrition specialization don’t need to program air trains… such specialization keep people from being overloaded we don’t need to understand everything. And, as the society reminds us. There’s a difference between knowledge and technology knowledge does not fail us” (pg. 31-32). In this near future world it’s obvious that the technology has failed us.
I believe that it is possible for Mars to have the ability to support life because of the possibility of there being water increases the probability of organisms being able to exist on Mars’ ecosystem, therefore the chance of Mars being able to sustain life. Furthermore, even if water never did or will, as a matter of fact, exist on Mars there is a chance that an organism is able to survive without it.
This Topic does not have a lot of light shined on it. The reason why this
Even thirty days later, “he had never glanced back” (p. 76) to think about any negative impact. A little while later, after a substantial amount of rain, he awoke to thousands of trees and an abundant amount of oxygen. Doctors on the planet suggested, before he planted the trees as a solution, that he return to Earth but he was adamant that he stay there. He went directly to the Director of Mars, not the Martians that have lived there for many years, to see if he could plant trees on Mars. There are not any trees on Mars and there probably is a reason for that
Scientists have dreamt over the possibility that it may be possible to live on another planet. Some think that Mars has that potential to support life, if it's hidden resources are uncovered and exploited to their full potential. There is even evidence that it once contained enough water that it had been possible to hold life. Think about it, what if we could transform it into such a place, even if only our children's children get to see any result? The following will describe Mars, present evidence of ice and water, give possible ideas for the future exploration of Mars, and give reasons for why it is important.
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
Carl Sagan once said “every planetary civilization will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring--not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive... If our long-term survival is at stake, we have a basic responsibility to our species to venture to other worlds.” The National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA, is executing Sagan’s words every day. President Dwight D. Eisenhower created NASA in 1958 with the purpose of peaceful rather than military space exploration and research to contribute to society. Just 11 years after the creation, NASA put Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon, the first humans to accomplish this feat. NASA’s research and innovation looked promising but it came at a cost. Money, resources, and spacecraft accidents most famously Apollo 13 all hindered NASA’s research. In the 21st century the debate between funding for NASA is at its peak since the birth of the organization in 1958 especially when there are numerous problems throughout the world. Is the money spent on space exploration worth the advantages and advances it contributes to society?
The recent events regarding the NASA Mars probes have renewed the debate of reinstalling manned space missions with the objectives of exploring and landing on foreign worlds such as the moon and the red planet Mars, rather than the use of solely robotic craft and machines. It is my belief that we should return to the days of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, those of manned lunar landings and manned space exploration. Robots simply cannot and should not be allowed to be the sole means of visiting these worlds, nor should humans only be able to witness new findings second hand through the use of computers and machines. It is human nature to be normally curious of one’s surroundings, and it is important that we send one of our own to new worlds. The effects that past missions have had on the world’s people, as well as our political and cultural climates are another valid reason for flesh instead of metal to lay claim to space. Also, the limitless applications and new education that manned flights can bring to us from on site human interactions could lead to another technological and industrial revolution like the original lunar programs had done for us during the Gemini and Apollo programs.
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.
intensive study and most organisations do not have the time or resources to enable employees to