Greg Crinklaw wrote:

Spudge wrote:
I was not questioning the scientific specifics of where water could be
found, my point was more to do with the public and political enthusiasm
(money) that would be generated for the space race by the discovery of water
evidence on mars, and vice versa what damage to the future time line of
solar exploration a dry mars could cause?

Which I thought was an astute observation... Look at how long it took
NASA to go back to mars after Viking for instance.

No, I was just responding to the other guy who made the extreme claim
that there was "plenty of water" on Europa. That hasn't been
established yet.

I thought we knew the surface of Europa was covered in ice, and that
there is a high probability of liquid water below this ice crust. Along
with this water comes the possibility of life.

Sending people to Mars is politically motivated, whereas sending robots
to Europa would be science motivated. I can indeed see why the Mars
adventure would appeal to Bush, but is it money wisely spent?

I guess Europa doesn't strike a chord with the public, unlike Mars.

--

"The Other Guy."