Moon-Ra

> In order to survive without oxygen while traveling outer space, oxygen storers, or oxygen makers would have to be made. Also, heaters that don't need batteries but uses solar energy so that people do not freeze to death. A rocket big enough to hold many people would also be needed. Also, the rocket would need an engine strong enough to go for years. > People would have fears about aliens, comets that might crash into the rocket, asteroids, no oxygen, lack of sustenance, or even afraid of the people who go together. I would tell the people that it is unlikely for comets or asteroids to crash into a rocket because in order to crash into a comet or an asteroid, we would need to be able to know when the comet or asteroid is coming. Also, oxygen will be provided with enough food and water that lasts for many years. Aliens would be a fear for some people, but we would be aliens to those who we think are aliens. Therefore, the aliens would be afraid of us, too. > I would ask companies such as Samsung or Microsoft to fund my exploration. I would make a deal that one-fourth of the new planet would be given to the company. And when I do not succeed, mostly when I am dead, I would have nothing to worry about because I would be dead. The company could ask my family to pay for the damage of their company, but it would be illegal to ask or do so because there would be no deal about paying back.
 * The invention of maritime technologies that allowed sailors to master treacherous and unfamiliar ocean environments is what really allowed for the Age of Exploration to occur. If you wanted to extend the Age of Exploration into outer space, what new space technology would need to be invented so that human beings could travel to other planets and solar systems?
 * Think of some of the fears that existed amongst people during the 15 & 16th century when it came to sailing the open seas (monsters, boiling waters, falling off the edge of the Earth). Identify some of the fears that other people might have today if you had to convince them of traveling into the far reaches of outer space. What would you have to say or do to convince people that their fears are unwarranted and that they will be safe?
 * Both Columbus and Magellan had a hard time finding someone to pay for their trips. If it wasn't for the Spanish monarchy, these men would never have been able to afford the financial cost of their adventures on their own. Finding someone to pay for your space expedition is going to be tricky too. Where would you go to gain the funding you need to pay for your space exploration trip? What would you say to the leaders of that nation to convince them of the benefits your expedition would have for their country

Life On Mars 1. No, because I know that it will take long and I will miss my parents a lot. Also, I might lose my life by going and I am scared that I will die. 2. I suppose astronauts or scientists would volunteer. 3. They would gain a lot of information about the planet and learn how humans can live on their. They would also learn about the aliens there if they can meet them. 4. If anything goes wrong, they would die or get killed. They might get lost and go to a different place than Mars. However, if something goes wrong, nobody would be able to save them because making rockets take time. 5. Humans would have to know how to communicate with the Aliens. We would need devices that tell us how we are going to adapt and we would need things that let us adapt to the planet's environment.

The freedom of speech in Korea is similar to the rule in the US. People cannot spread untrue rumors or information about the government. In addition, people cannot speak in favor of North Korea nor can they support communism. Three months before election dates, people cannot significantly support or criticize a specific party or a candidate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#South_Korea http://wilderside.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/freedom-of-speech-issue-south-korean-blogger-arrested/ **Viewpoints of Gun Control Against Gun Control: John C. Moorhouse and Brent Wanner believe that gun control laws are ineffective. They support the argument by including the following reasons. First, they believe that the laws made will only support people to buy guns. As rumors tell people that the government will ban guns, they will start to buy guns before the law is at hand. Second, they believe that people always go against the law and violate it. For example, drugs are forbidden by the law. However, people still buy it at black markets- another place to buy guns. Guns can be bought illegally after the law is made and the law will become useless because people will not not have guns. Third, they believe that guns cannot be taken away although gun controls can. After making laws controlling the buying and selling of guns, it will or might only affect "new" guns bought after the law is obtained. However, people who already bought guns or was passed down with a gun, will not have it taken away unless another law is made containing that part of handling guns.
 * Research what the rules of speech are for South Korea

http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/retrieve.do?subjectParam=Locale%2528en%252C%252C%2529%253AFQE%253D%2528su%252CNone%252C13%2529%2522Gun%2Bcontrol%2522%2524&contentSet=GSRC&sort=Relevance&tabID=T010&sgCurrentPosition=0&subjectAction=DISPLAY_SUBJECTS&prodId=OVRC&searchId=R4&currentPosition=1&userGroupName=krkis&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&sgHitCountType=None&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28SU%2CNone%2C13%29%22Gun+control%22%24&inPS=true&searchType=BasicSearchForm&displaySubject=&docId=EJ3010171250&docType=GSRC

For Gun Control: Jeff Kirvin believes that strict gun control laws are needed. He believes that guns only cause more violence and because of no gun control in the United States, he states that there have been a gun-related massacre every 18 months for the past 30 years. First, he states that ordinary people do not need guns although people defend that fact as "self-defense." In addition, he includes the fact that the Bill of Rights does not state that citizens can handle guns. He adds that the Bill of Rights states "A Well Regulated Militia" which he believes that it does not relate to "ordinary people." He also indicates that the Bill of Rights were written when there was no standing militia to protect the country. The government believed that the people would stand up and volunteer to protect the country. However, in current circumstances, the US has a standing army, sufficiently protecting the nation. Therefore, the right to handle a gun is out of date according to the fact that the circumstances has changed which affects the need for people to own a gun including the reason of 'self-defense.'

http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/retrieve.do?subjectParam=Locale%2528en%252C%252C%2529%253AFQE%253D%2528su%252CNone%252C13%2529%2522Gun%2Bcontrol%2522%2524&contentSet=GSRC&sort=Relevance&tabID=T010&sgCurrentPosition=0&subjectAction=DISPLAY_SUBJECTS&prodId=OVRC&searchId=R2&currentPosition=30&userGroupName=krkis&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&sgHitCountType=None&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28SU%2CNone%2C13%29%22Gun+control%22%24&inPS=true&searchType=BasicSearchForm&displaySubject=&docId=EJ3010049272&docType=GSRC