Do you think NASA should stop sending manned flights to space and send robots instead?
89493
No, I do not think we should stop manned space flights.\n\nThere is an element to exploration that requires a human be involved.  You just cant get the full experience from robot transmitting data millions of miles back home as you can by standing on the surface of another world.\n\nPart of exploration means taking risks.\nManned space missions may be more expensive and more dangerous than robotic landers or space probes, but it is necesary to get a better picture of out place in the universe.\n\nI am not saying I am against probes through.  Some places are not yet practicle to send people.  For instance, sending a human out to Pluto would be extraordinarily difficult and ungodly epensive, so instead, NASA sends a probe.\nWe are slowly working our way up to sending humans to Mars, we arent quite there yet, so in the mean time, the Martian rovers are working great.
1008919
Do not count on the repuglican party or their illustrious dictator to change anything as they are invested in oil and are profiting by it every day. In answer to your question, yes we do need a super human effort like the space program. We also need to use what we know to minimize the use of fossil fuels, nuclear, renewable, wind, solar, there are many ways to generate energy that we do not use.
254789
Absolutely not !\nJehovah did not mean for us to be robots, but gave us free will to choose how we live our lives !
395742
Now that robotics have advanced it's safer to send unmaned vehicles.  However, get together a few billion dollars and people will get you there!
1148300
All space garbage should be recycled and composted into an ecosystem. Thats the complicated set of chemistry questions that goes wtih that particular problem.\n\nUsing large enough diameters and centripetal force we can generate strong enough and stable enough pseudo\ngravity to compensate for that problem. A chemical problem with a civil engineering fix.
19572
leave yes, but not forever.  then i could come back & visit & see how much space debris & space trash is floating in our upper stratosphere.  then i could appreciate how untrash the new place looks.\n\n\nby the way, do U really have monkey feet?
701683
My opinion is that we would have to change course of an asteroid headed for Earth.  That means that we would have to detect it years in advance.  With enough notice, we could build a Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) system.  Actually we would have to build several and attach them to the asteroid and start pushing.   They would need to be refueled, so we have to make several visits.   If successful, a project like this would be a real boon to the space program, the economy, and scientific knowlege.
988111
NO , I like it here on Earth. I don't even like the loss  of environmental control on airplanes. I'm not afraid to fly in them, I just don't like to although I always enjoy the veiw when there is one. The food is better on Earth too. If I was fgoing into space though, I would bring 12 cute female massage therapists. If they were going, I change my mind. I'd go too.
1116878
"...was nasa lying about neil armstrong going to the moon?..."\n\nNo, definitely not. It's unbelievable how many people prefer to accept the half-baked, erroneous "proofs" that show men never landed on the moon to the undeniable scientific facts that prove we did. Take the time to read the facts on this non-governmental website ==> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\n"...the technology is much greater today than 1965, so why cant we go up there again?..."\n\nYes, our technology has greatly advanced since 1969, but at this time we simply don't have the necessary hardware to put men back on the moon---no Saturn-like boosters, no life-support systems required for manned lunar voyages, no lunar landing equipment, etc.,. It's true that we could build all the necessary equipment, but a number of factors discourage further manned lunar exploration--the space race is over, the American public has lost interest in the moon, and NASA's budget is far below the levels needed to ramp up again for manned lunar flights.
160166
It certainly is possible to go to Mars. In fact we are more prepared to go to Mars today then we were going to the moon in 1961 when JFK made is famous speech to congress. We have the technology and the know how. There is even a plan for making rocket fuel out of the Martian atmosphere so that you don´t have to haul it out there. A few components are missing though. We don´t have a heavy lift launch vehicle with the space shuttle going out of commission. It has to be replaced or we won´t be able to launch the spacecraft needed for the trip. We haven´t even finished building the international space station. It makes sense to go back to the moon first. The moon has lesser gravity so a Mars ship could be built and launched from the surface in one piece. You don´t even need to build it aerodynamically correct as the moon doesn´t have an atmosphere. The question is if the funding will be available for a manned mars mission. Starting today it would take years to build all the components. If something happens that damages the economy chances are the funding will be pulled. The effect the vietnam war had on the Apollo programme was dramatic; as soon as no one cared about the moon anymore it was cancelled. If it hadn´t been for vietnam the US might have gone to Mars in the eighties.
255065
Hard to believe isn't it?  It's been all downhill since then.  Both the Russian and French space programs seem to be more active and appear to be actually making money, whereas NASA spends billions of $$ and to me at least, has little to show for it.
633362
Yes.  But only if the amount of resources we can get continue to increase.  If we can develop robust space industry this will not be a problem.
126942
Not anytime soon, no. First, we have to send people back to the moon and then do manned missions to Mars before we can go that far into the solar system!
994993
I woke up to a news report on the radio about how NASA had lost contact with their shuttle, and there had been reports of falling and burning debris. I was sad.\nHonestly... We should be surprised that things don't go wrong more often. Launching into space is a delicate and dangerous venture. There are far more people who are killed each year by toothpicks than die for the purpose of space exploration. This is something we should be proud of.
87341
Short answer:\n\nUnmanned space exploration is more cost effective, efficient, and lower risk. We can always build new robots, and we can send them over longer distances than people (at least initially).\n\nManned space exploration would have a better chance to capture public support. A human mind in control of a space mission might see or intuit things a computer guided sensor might not, and it might react creatively in an emergency. Ultimately, we'll place more value on manned spaceflight. We've already put robots on Mars, but the first human on Mars will be a much bigger deal. Sending humans through space safely seems to be one of the goals of space exploration.
1104643
As has already been mentioned we have at least two very fine robots on Mars.  But to make it possible for humans to make the trip, there are a number of problems.  It is a very long way to go and people need to survive the distance and still be in good enough physical condition to move around the surface of Mars.  They also need to have sufficient fuel to make the round trip.  NASA has been generating plans for such an operation for years and it continues to work on them.  For the most current ideas, try going to "www.NASA.gov" and searching the site for topics about Mars.  You'll learn a lot about the program.
284636
Yes but such programmes are needed. Sooner or later this world of ours is going to get over crowded or resouses will run out. When that happens, theres only one place we can go and thats other planets.