"Too bad my history of cosmonautics never saw print..."
Could it be because it contained so many errors of the following type:
"Little doubt the illusion of an easily habitable Mars drove the space race, and this was an illusion which was widely held at those times."
The cold war drove the space race and anyone who lived during the Apollo era would instantly be able to spot errors of that magnitude.
Percival's notions about a "habitable" Mars were long descredited prior to the space race. Even Percivals misconceptions could hardly be considered "easily habitable". He postulated an advanced civilization struggling to survive on a habitable world which was hardly easy.
What he did not envision is the paths and pace at which our own technology would advance. Most supporters of Martian colonization I know of do not consider Mars easily habitable. It is however the easiest world to inhabit in our solar system besides Earth. Exploring it is within reach with minor advances in technology compared to the advances made in the last century, and while colonizing it would require more significant advances, they are also within the magnitude of the advances made last century. I think there is a big difference between that stance and the the comments you made. The fact that colonizing Mars does require stretching our technology is part of its appeal to many people interested in exploring and/or colonizing Mars.
Exploring/colonizing Mars is far more a question of will than it is a question of technological capability.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to Re: Hype or reality
Probably for good reason