"Thoughts, anyone? Astronauts are horribly expensive, but should they be sent to Mars? Or is that just an irrational desire fostered in many of us by visions painted for us by science fiction? We want Buck Rogers and Forbidden Planet and Flash Gordon, but does it make sense?"

Suppose NASA spends 100 billion lands several crew on Mars and within a week they find evidence of life. What then?
Or what happens if after say 3 years they don't find any evidence of life. What then?
What happens to the 100 billion mission to find life on Mars, if before the crew are launched, life is already discovered on Mars?

I think sending crew to Mars should be about establishing a outpost on Mars which leads to a larger colony. The emphasis should be on sending crew to Mars and having them stay on Mars for long periods- since it takes such a long time to get to Mars- it's more economical for NASA and personally for the researcher/scientist.

Now, as I've said zillion times, NASA should first return to the Moon.
Returning to the Moon, should NOT be about establishing a outpost or base, it should be about a specific task: finding water. Water is important because it COULD be mined and used as rocket propellent [but we don't want NASA becoming a Lunar mining company]. So NASA goes to Moon to find any usable water. Picks best crater, lands, finds water, mines some water, and NASA's job is done. This could be all done in less than 4 years. Starting this now would be good. Starting it 2 years from now would be ok, starting it 10 years from now would be piss poor. Doing it after sending crew to Mars would be ass backward.
-gb