What will be the main economic gains of colonies on Mars, or the Moon?

You don’t want me to answer this question. You are looking for a great, positive answer that will make the future look bright not only for colonies on these places, but an economic base for those colonies.

Meanwhile, I’m going to say I don’t think there’s much justification even for people walking on Mars when our robots can do it more safely and less expensively and achieve the same or better results…. what to speak of “colonies.” I think it’s almost laughable and mostly just science fiction dreaming.

People may or may not one day walk on Mars at great risk, and some will probably die in the attempt. There is little reason to go there from a scientific point of view other than to say we did, just like we walked on the moon and then went away.

In the meantime, a safer, cheaper way is send our machines to go.

You see, what this is all about is finding life. What scientists want to do is prove that life can evolve elsewhere than Earth – a so far unproven theory. We want there to be life elsewhere because we want to prove that life was not “created” on Earth alone, but life naturally develops from matter when conditions are ideal.

We don’t need “colonies” or economic bases in space to prove that. We just need to find some germs under some rocks or on some moon around some planet in our solar system. For that we just need space vehicles and robots like the Mars Rovers.

Whether we find life or not is anyone’s guess, but it is still science fiction thinking we will colonize anything off planet.

Why should we focus our “space efforts” on Venus, instead of Mars?

Well, in my opinion we should focus on the Moon.

As for Mars vs. Venus, both have unbreathable atmospheres. Mars is very cold, hundreds of degrees below zero cold. Venus is hot, melt stuff in a few minutes hot.

Mars doesn’t have rain or surface liquid water.

Venus also doesn’t have liquid water on the surface, but it does rain. The problem is it’s raining sulfuric acid.

Any probes we’ve tried sending to Venus have become dysfunctional within minutes.

Why does the moon revolve around the earth?

It just moves forward. The moon isn’t stationary. It has inertia and no atmosphere in space to slow it down. It just goes. As it moves forward, the gravity of Earth tugs on it and it falls, but because it’s moving forward it misses Earth as it falls and goes around, again and again. That’s called an orbit.

Simply said.

Did we “accidentally” bring new bacteria to the moon or Mars via our space exploration programs?

Probably, and that’s why terraforming is a bad idea. Inside the scientifically minded community, there are two distinct ideas.
  1. Don’t contaminate. Leave whatever planet it happens to be in the original pristine condition so we can study it. (This is the predominant, tree hugging concept.)
  2. Screw number 1. Terraform the planet. Make it livable for humans, existing organisms, if they exist at all, be damned.

That being said, we do try all we can not to contaminate planets we send probes to even though some microorganisms may have made it through.

At present, and probably rightly so, NASA does not want to introduce organisms to other planets – or visa versa – introduce to Earth organisms from other planets on Earth. We may have already failed, but we still try.

How many satellites are there, and which are there on each planet?

If you count all the little nuts, bolts, loose wrenches and pieces of demolished satellites as satellites, then there’s a whole lot of junk floating around Earth. Thousands of pieces that pose a hazard.

Around the moon we have about three functioning spacecraft but have launched far more than that that have, over time, gone dead – perhaps crashed to the surface of the moon. Then we have the odd Juno spacecraft around Jupiter, the voyagers I and II and so on. We’ve put more space junk up there then anything else. This is a fairly accurate artist’s rendition of space junk around Earth.

The Russians have put several probes on Venus, the Americans and Europeans put a probe on Titan, we have probes on Mars, we flew a probe by Pluto and orbited Saturn for a long while before crashing deliberately. We presently have, as mentioned, the Juno spacecraft around Jupiter. We have hundreds of functioning satellites in orbit around Earth.

Do you believe NASA when they state that they destroyed the technology to return to the moon?

NASA never said anything like that. What did happen was that when the Apollo program was shut down, the building that the Apollo’s were built in was retooled for newer technology. In the process, some parts were thrown away because they were outdated and better stuff was available.
The reason we stopped going to the moon, at the time, was the Vietnam War. Congress needed to cut NASA’s budget to finance the war. After the near disaster of Apollo 13 and waning public interest, the money wasn’t there for continuing along that line.
Times have changed. The moon is a target once again. In the meantime, we have placed quite a few satellites in orbit around the moon. Due to problems with gravity variances on the moon, most of them have fallen from orbit and crashed on the moon’s surface or have become dead because of loss of power. However, there are at least three satellites right now that are active and in orbit around the moon. They are the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), as well as the two ARTEMIS probes, which are functioning.
So not only did NASA not lose the technology, but we’ve been sending stuff to the moon for awhile. It’s just that we haven’t sent people in awhile.

What are the similarities and differences between planets and dwarf planets?

A dwarf planet is usually a spherical body resembling a small planet.

Objects in space are round because of their gravity. If they aren’t big enough, they don’t have enough gravity to crush them into ball shape. This asteroid, which came from outside our solar system system recently, looks like a big slab.

So both planets and dwarf planets are round. Asteroids not so much.

The difference is that planets clear the path around the sun, drawing in all nearby objects. Dwarf planets live their lives without clearing everything out of the way (they do clear some stuff, and that’s why there are craters on Pluto.) As such, dwarf planets tend to dwell in asteroid belts.

The thing about Pluto is that there are similar sized objects floating all around out there, so either you’re going to have to name hundreds of new planets or just have eight. All of the dwarf planets are smaller than our smallest planet, Mercury as the image below shows.

Eris is larger than Pluto. It’s part of the asteroid belt orbiting the sun. In fact, Pluto is so small, it is smaller than our moon as you can see below.

So the similarity of the planets and the dwarf planets are they are both mostly round because they have sufficient gravity to flatten their own surfaces into a sphere. The differences are that planets are big enough to clear the whole region of space where they orbit the sun whereas dwarf planets do not.

What would happen if NASA had the U.S. Military's budget?

We spend 600 billion dollars every year on the military. What would happen if NASA had that kind of money? Here’s a very cool YouTube video that I love to watch!
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chLOgj8xjx8&w=854&h=480]

Why has NASA never launched another mission to the moon?

NASA and other space agencies have launched missions to the moon, just not with astronauts. For example, the Japanese space agency once launched a satellite to completely map the surface of the moon in high definition detail.
The main reason (not sure why you don’t know this) we stopped sending men to the moon was that the Vietnam war was getting expensive and politicians decided to cut the space budget because we needed money.
Seems now like NASA is revising it’s scheme to return to the Moon within a few years time. Surely you’ve been following the news.