On 1/19/2011 7:59 PM, Jonathan wrote:

I see some NASA talking heads are out pushing a manned trip
to Mars yet again.

This debate isn't even close.

Loosely speaking, putting men on Mars is a Forty year long
$Trillion dollar (or)deal. And succeeds in putting a dozen
or so eyes on the surface for exploration.

Losely speaking, rovers take Four years or so, and cost a
$Billion dollars. And succeeds in putting ...how many eyes
on the surface of Mars?

"NASA recorded 109 million hits on its home page and related
Web sites during the 24-hour period coinciding with the late
Saturday landing of Spirit on Mars. Nearly 17 hours after the
successful landing, that figure had more than doubled.."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/4...w_web_traffic/


Rovers put ....MILLIONS of eyes on the planet for exploration
all sharing a /common experience/ and as if they were ...there.

If you want humanity to care, NASA needs to bring everyone
along for the ride. Not just six or so. A manned mission to Mars
only benefits Lockheed et all. Rovers benefit the ...public.

We can place the notion of a manned mission to Mars along with
the other Great Scientific Scams of all time.Scams like a super collider
or gravity wave detectors or neutrino tanks or fusion.

Scams which have as their sole purpose to create a project
that absolutely maximizes the amount of time and money
wasted. While absolutely minimizing the potential
accomplishments.

What a great (corrupt) business plan that would~

At least NASA still dares, daring to go for
the ultimate con-job.

Let's put all the trolls on Mars, with 1-way trips. Since they can suck
all the oxygen out of a room, there should be no need for life support,
either.

Now as to the manned/unmanned debate, meh. It's probably arguable either
way. Men cost more, but you get more. Robots cost less, but you get
less. Funny how that works. If you're really patient (think many
decades), robots are probably good enough.

Regards,
Jack Tingle