Posted on 09/24/2007 10:41:14 AM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
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.
The international space station being built in orbit and targeted for completion by 2010 would provide a "toehold in space" from where humanity can travel first to the moon and then to Mars, Griffin said.
"We are looking at the moon and Mars to build a civilisation for tomorrow and after that," Griffin added in his remarks at a conference session attended by heads of the world's space agencies.
President George W. Bush in 2004 announced an ambitious plan for the US to return to the moon by 2020 and use it as a stepping stone for manned missions to Mars and beyond.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
He3 is a myth. Even if it were feasible it wouldn’t be a minor operation.
“At some point, shouldnt we explore other locations to settle off this rock?”
Just as people left their home continents to settle on others. It is the same. Different challenges, same pressures, same human drive. And why we are so sucessful as a species today, over 6 billion strong.
It cannot be suppressed, it is what we are to do these things.
There’s no air. It’s cold and dark. While we could populate the entire galaxy in a million years, we won’t.
Complete scam, and waste of taxpayer’s money. Nothing can live
there.
NASA is the Fed. gov’ts folly just like light rail is to the
cities that don’t need it.
Yes, exactly.
I am one who believes that it’s rather unlikely we’ll ever find intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
The intelligent life on other planets will be US. We may find that most solar systems outside our own have one or two planets that, with a little push and some techonology, could be mostly self-sustaining livable planets with our help.
Alpha Centauri system for example - if it has planets, both the A and B stars are of the right temperature and output range to possibly support a habitable planet.
we need to do things like this for the sake of pure research. we easily obtained 10 times the cost of the moon project in side-benefits and offshoots.
saying you don’t see why we have to do something is like saying we already know everything we ever will
Why? Do you have any idea of how much this will cost or who will pay for it or how useless it is from a scientific viewpoint?
What a joke. It took us less than a decade to get to the moon with technology that’s over forty years old. If NASA is saying it will take thirty years to get to mars, you can count on it taking at least sixty, and costing ten times more than what they say.
Pilots just wanna have fun. Or watch other pilots having fun. Pay up.
Those are valid points. Private industry could do what needs to be in outer space in resource development. This ‘pure science’ thing is a scam: there is no science being done in space. If our Global Masters wanted us in outer space they would repeal the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and allow private property rights.
I’ll be 82. Saw Neil Armstrong plant his 9 1/2 double E on the moon. Might be around to see someone else do the same thing on Mars.
Then I guess it’s a really good thing you’re not in such a decision making position to prevent it, isn’t it? Yep. Manned space flight is the next step the HUMAN race should be taking. People with short sight and narrow minds are the bane of making progress.
I was a swinging 22... when we landed on the moon--
Gadzooks! Now, I have to wait until I'm frigging 90... for us to get to Mars!
Guess I picked the wrong day... to give up beer drinking!
When our sun burns out it will do no good to hide on Mars or the moon.
Pure research is great... but the people pushing for a manned mission to Mars are not interested in pure research. You get far more research for far less money from unmanned probes. NASA, for example, has two probes which have spent the last four years exploring the planet, has a high resolution satellite taking pictures of every inch of the surface, and has another probe, the Phoenix Lander, en route. There is no research that humans can do that probes can't do better and for less money, and lots of research that humans can't do that probes can do.
we easily obtained 10 times the cost of the moon project in side-benefits and offshoots.
The enormous value of orange-flavored Tang aside, I don't agree with your assessment. If there was any scientific benefit at all from Apollo, it was likely negligible.
They are not doing science in space. At first it seemed like they were, but they have sent probes to most of the planets and moons already and where are the results of science aside from some pictures to look at and forget? They are doing engineering, but why if we are not going out there ourselves?
You should probably give this comment a bit of thought before you call it "a joke."
Getting to people into orbit is a couple of orders of magnitude more difficult than launching a suborbital mission. Getting them to the moon for a couple of weeks is a couple of orders of magnitude beyond getting to orbit.
Getting people to Mars for a couple of years is more than a couple of orders of magnitude more difficult than getting to the moon in Apollo style.
The distances, times, and required infrastructure to do it are significantly greater than anything we've done before.
That's nice. He'll be able to take a tour of the 15-year-old Chinese base. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.