[ad_1]
You've heard a lot about humans on Mars in recent years because of technological advances that could allow us to do this safely and, perhaps, to put in place some kind of regulation in the future. not so far away. . Former astronaut Chris Hadfield, a visitor to the International Space Station and one of the most prominent faces among space travelers, shocked the scientific community by claiming that NASA would have probably been able to land astronauts on Mars as early as the 1960s if they really wanted it.
This statement comes with a huge asterisk. Hadfield, who claimed Business Insider claims that if the old NASA spacecraft would have flown to Mars and landed there, the prospects for long-term survival were essentially nil. 19659003] "The technology that led us to the moon and to the time I was a kid – this technology can take us to Mars," said Hadfield, explaining that rocket technology that will take us to Mars is not so different as the vehicles that sent astronauts to the moon. However, "the majority of astronauts we send to these missions would not do it," he added.
There are a number of big problems with sending humans on Mars today, much less in the 1960s. The journey is incredibly long, and the archaic technology of the The Apollo era would not bring travelers to the planet fast enough for it to make sense to send them. It all comes down to keeping astronauts alive and healthy to keep doing their job, and a slow ship on its way to Mars is a recipe for disaster.
Many different things could end the mission prematurely, including the disease in space. The radiation of deep space is a real concern for space agencies who dream of a mission on inhabited Mars, and the spaceship of the past was simply not equipped with the type of equipment needed to mitigate it. A 1960s Mars mission could have badembled the crew in one piece, but they would not have lasted long, and their return to Earth in a healthy state would have been virtually impossible.
Source link
