i know theres no oxygen there but im sure there are other reasons...
-
Do you mean if you just plunked a human on mars with no supplies?
In that case:
No Oxygen
Not enough water
Too cold
No Food
No Cable TV or Internet.
However, with the right supplies and technology, a sustainable community of humans could live on Mars indefinitely.
In that case:
No Oxygen
Not enough water
Too cold
No Food
No Cable TV or Internet.
However, with the right supplies and technology, a sustainable community of humans could live on Mars indefinitely.
-
The biggest reason is that it's dangerous and would require enormous cost to boost just a few humans to the Red planet. It's costly because we would need to send equipment first and hope it lands safely.
Beyond this, the political will to do it is a challenge, especially considering the economics.
Then the technical challenges of providing oxygen, food, protection from the hostile environment and keeping all of that working well for a year or more makes it even more difficult.
But the answer is that humans CAN sustain themselves on Mars ... the technology exists today or could be developed with commitment to do so.
Beyond this, the political will to do it is a challenge, especially considering the economics.
Then the technical challenges of providing oxygen, food, protection from the hostile environment and keeping all of that working well for a year or more makes it even more difficult.
But the answer is that humans CAN sustain themselves on Mars ... the technology exists today or could be developed with commitment to do so.
-
Humans might find more resources on Mars than on the Moon to survive! The main reason this might not happen is the distance and the time a crew would take to get to Mars, stay for a bit, come back, and in the mean time have resources sent to Mars.
The other reason is "politics". A friend I grew up with is an engineer for NASA and says that every change in administrations brings changes to the funding and priorities of "NASA" as defined by the current "administration". In other words, whoever is in charge next election, changes the "goal post" for NASA. And of late its gotten worse in that the changes are not space agendas, but now the agencies primary "mission" is accommodation of certain cultural leanings (here, not in space).
You could say that in my opinion a country that sends them up there (to Mars) can change so often as to strand them there in a new administration whose policy is to abandon that mission. I just don't see how we can go on multi-year, long missions in space when the political support changes like "toilet paper".
The other reason is "politics". A friend I grew up with is an engineer for NASA and says that every change in administrations brings changes to the funding and priorities of "NASA" as defined by the current "administration". In other words, whoever is in charge next election, changes the "goal post" for NASA. And of late its gotten worse in that the changes are not space agendas, but now the agencies primary "mission" is accommodation of certain cultural leanings (here, not in space).
You could say that in my opinion a country that sends them up there (to Mars) can change so often as to strand them there in a new administration whose policy is to abandon that mission. I just don't see how we can go on multi-year, long missions in space when the political support changes like "toilet paper".
12
keywords: on,cannot,reasons,own,mars,life,me,their,Give,humans,sustain,why,the,Give me the reasons why humans cannot sustain their own life on mars