She's the type of person you want to send to Mars.
No chance to survive, hard radiation, rescue would need at least a year.
She can still be the kind of person you want to send to Mars.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/apr/12/nasa-texas-h...
For better or worse we're seeing a resurgence in privately funded space exploration which may be the key to making it happen this time.
Private companies can also go bust or be bought up by competitors only to be shutdown.
Just recently Virgin space (or whatever it was called) closed its doors. There wasn't a public debate beforehand, it was just announced. Sure insiders knew about it but not the broader public.
I'm not implying that spaceX is going shut its doors but it even less incentive to be transparent than a governmental organisation.
They flew something like a handful of missions in 20 years with an unscalable platform and to my knowledge they never once received money to put a payload into orbit.
They are totally incomparable to SpaceX, the company that is putting more tonnage into orbit than any other entity, corporate or governmental.
What they are doing now is cool but they are still a business which offers a launch services at a competitive price and a satellite internet provider themselves. How does an exceptionally expensive (especially in this financial environment) Mars mission fit into that.
I highly doubt Space X could ever realistically get to Mars before NASA. Artemis seems way more promising than SpaceX as far as manned space flight is concerned.