>. The technology needed to make Mars missions feasible makes longer missions to NEOs and the Moon feasible as well in many cases which allows the high costs of such missions to be spread over more work.

The problem with this argument is that the reverse is also true (ie, developing technology to fly to the NEOs & the Moon makes getting to Mars easier); & because the technological demands of these missions are much less than for the Mars alternative, it makes more economic, technological & political sense to go for these other targets first... doing it the other way simply adds unecessary levels of budgetary, technology, political & human risk; & you're calling for it in an politically environment where many - not necessarily you, Mark - Mars advocates aggressively debase the case for noMartian targets in the hope that it makes their preferred option more attractive (so it's difficult for the uncommitted to believe that Mars will keep up its end of the bargain even if we were to passively accept it as an all encompassing goal).

More generally, it isn't enough to simply call for common ground behind a personally preferred option (the >if we spend all of our money going to Mars there's a small chance we might have some money left over to go somewhere else> approach, which is little more than a patronisation of competitive arguments), we have to seek a common ground based on the consensus drawn from utilising all opinions... especially including those we don't personally like. The Mars argument has always been partisan in that respect; & its advocates have traditionally been reluctant to consider any approach as worth doing which doesn't prioritise their preferred goal (& in worst case scenarios, will aggressively demonise such approaches). However politely you word it, you've just done the same parochial thing; & no matter which way you slice it, this is intellectual coercion rather than an objective search for common ground....

... which was my original point about this particular debate; but as this conversation has drifted a long way from the question of polite debate on space issues, i'll be backing out now.

Robert