NASA aims to put a man on Mars by 2037, the administrator of the US space agency indicated here Monday.
This year marks the half-century of the space age ushered in by the October 1957 launch of the Sputnik-1 by the then Soviet Union, NASA administrator Michael Griffin noted.
In 2057, the centenary of the space era, "we should be celebrating 20 years of man on Mars," Griffin told an international astronautics congress in this southern Indian city where he outlined NASA's future goals.
2037 is ridiculously far-flung. Take away ten years to make it 2027 and I'll (reluctantly) cease complaining. In the meantime, perhaps it's time to re-read Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars."
12 comments:
Wow. 2037? Rather than being exciting, that's actually depressing. That's like telling your 3 year old who wants to drive that you'll get him a car when he's 16 and then hoping he'll forget along the way...
the singularity should be in full swing by that time, i wonder if it has to be fleshy humans or can they be uploaded?
We should have this new photon thrust technology figured and applied within the next 10 years. Then its only a week's ride to Mars. I expect Mars to half-terraformed by 2037.
Actually, I think that is an excellent date for Mars.
Before we can go skipping off to the Red Planet, we have to test our hardware on the Moon first.
Reason: Despite several trials, we have been unable to successfully build a self sustainable biosphere.
Before we can go to Mars, that needs to happen, and a fatality on Mars could delay our whole race from colonizing the rest of the solar system.
@ Dan: Are you kidding me? We don't even have the technology (yet) to land on the red planet, let alone terraform half of it by 2037. Even a 1,000 years sounds a bit optimistic.
First of all; space is dangerous, there WILL be fatalities on Mars. Unless we figure out how to get beyond death before we get to Mars.
Second of all; tell me about this photonic drive, i need to know more!
3rd; we don't need a completely enclosed system on mars because we can use many of the resources in situ... Mars, unlike the moon has some good stuff to work with.
i'll be 57 in 2037, i will have had rheumatoid arthritis for 52 years, by then Earth G is not going to be any fun for me at all... looking forward to lower G retirement
I say we stop trusting our governments and start privitizing
im available for space travel now
I agree with most of the above, the US has had the tech for 27 years, just not the political will nor do we have the ambition.
China or India will get there before us. Maybe a private company or two.
The Singularity hitting before then is a possibility. Though I'm a little hesitent about uploading.
Good ol' fashion cyborgization for me thanks!
2037? I'm with Mac that it could and probably should be 2027. Tech is there, interest is there, moon and Mars are now NASA priorities, so what's missing? Funding.
Of course when you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on a misbegotten war, and the country is $10 trillion in debt, it skews your financial capability.
Shit, I'll be in my mid-80's by 2037, assuming I even live that long. I wanted to see the discovery of Martian life and related artifacts, damn it!
That's strange -- I thought Percival Lowell died a *long* time ago! ;-)
That's right! I'm Perceival, not Percival. Heh. Maybe I was reincarnated within some canal on Mars. Ya never know! 8^}
WOW 2037! I'm so excited that...cough...not so excited about that actually.
I'm seriously, get off the pot already. What a freaking embarrassment. My prediction; private enterprise beats NASA to Mars by 2020. And good riddance.
I am opposed to putting resources into sending humans to Mars. At this point, far more can be accomplished for the same price with rovers.
Stan
At this point, far more can be accomplished for the same price with rovers.
This is an inherently dangerous position to take, as rovers will very likely *always* be cheaper than crewed missions. Ultimately, one must send people; otherwise, what's the point?
Post a Comment