Well the biggest problem i can see with this is actually getting to mars in the first place. Once you are on mars you would just return the way you got there.
The problem is largely logistical. Solutions have, for the most part, been worked out on paper,but the problem is only half getting a manned crew there - the other half is getting them back (it takes six months each way). The expense would be, by several orders of magnitude, beyond anything NASA has ever attempted. This answer just hits the high points of "why it hasn't been done yet" - there are many more reasons.
There are many reasons such as how to get it there and the main problem is the pressure of the air on mars, if it did land then the lense would crack within seconds and a cracked microscope is no good
The amount of fuel needed to travel to Mars and back depends on various factors such as the spacecraft design, propulsion system, payload weight, and trajectory. For a mission like NASA's Mars Rover, Curiosity, it required around 2000 pounds (900 kg) of fuel for the journey to Mars. The return trip would require a similar amount of fuel.
It would be ideal to bring scientists, engineers, doctors, and other experts in relevant fields to Mars to ensure the success of the mission and the safety of the crew. Additionally, individuals with strong teamwork and problem-solving skills would be essential for thriving in the challenging and isolated environment of Mars.
On Mars you would weigh pi pounds.
the problem is getting home
getting eaten by aliens or getting burnt alive seeing as Mars is extremely hot, too hot to farm on anyway!
totally Taylor swift we are never ever getting back together!
If humans went to Mars, they would face numerous challenges such as radiation exposure, lack of access to resources like water and food, and potential psychological effects from long-term isolation. They would also have the opportunity to conduct groundbreaking scientific research, explore the planet's geology and potential for sustaining life, and advance our understanding of space exploration.
254 days (approx.) to get to Mars, but a bit faster coming back to Earth as a spacecraft would be travelling into the gravitational pull of the Sun
Phobias is closest to mars
1,000,0000 miles an hour
Yes. While we can land things on Mars we currently do not have the ability of getting them off of Mars.
The problem is largely logistical. Solutions have, for the most part, been worked out on paper,but the problem is only half getting a manned crew there - the other half is getting them back (it takes six months each way). The expense would be, by several orders of magnitude, beyond anything NASA has ever attempted. This answer just hits the high points of "why it hasn't been done yet" - there are many more reasons.
One of the main reasons is because the trip would cost billions of dollars. There is also a lot of radiation between Earth and Mars, that we are unsure of how our bodies would react to. But we know that the risk of developing cancer after visiting Mars would sky-rocket. There is also the "Mars is really far away" problem too. It would just take to long and we don't have the tecnology to ensure the safety of our astronauts.
you would get to mars by buying a spaceship and hiring someone to fly you to mars.
'Mars' is an ancient British name which comes from the same root word as 'marsh'. You can trace back your ancestry online to help answer your question of where did YOU get the last name of Mars.