Opponents claim that “the Hinode mission best represents the greatest investment mankind can make. In the Hinode mission, the cost of human life is not at stake…” However, it has already been stated that the Hinode poses a risk of plummeting into Earth’s atmosphere as a projectile. If this happens there is a significant chance of human endangerment depending on from where it descends.

Opponents conclude that “the Hinode mission would be able to collect data from the sun, its sunspots, solar flare, and CME’s and then be able to help us calculate how it affects the climate on earth.” In recent studies it has been determined that while such solar activity as sunspots and solar flares do increase the amounts of radiation given off by the …show more content…
In addition, technology to prevent acid corrosion is already fully developed. However, colonisation on Mars would require shields whose components have yet to be determined by scientists, as polyethylene and carbon composite shielding has shown to be ineffective against radiation concerning human life; aluminum shielding does provide some risk-reduction, however not enough to protect humans from the grim effects of radiation. Our knowledge of space radiobiology would have to significantly improve before shields could be made to protect humans on Mars’ surface. In addition, scientist would need to determine the costs and risk of constructing underground sanctuaries for humans, as this is the only way to properly protect them from the intense levels of radiation. This would expend time and resources that would not only be detrimental to the economy, but also would prevent time and resources from being spent on projects that would prove to be more beneficial in a shorter