RC: 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...

ME: Absolutely not for NEOs by your own statements. You claim no new technology is needed to get to NEOs. In that case your target must be justified based on its own value which you have not done. In my own view, there are potential common interests. I do believe a manned mission to the Moon or NEO's would require new technology and benefit potential missions to Mars. As for the Moon being a lot easier, that requires a return to flags a footprints type missions not extensive scientific research missions as proposed for Mars. You are promoting spending a significant fraction of a Mars mission in cost for far less return.

However, I don't believe the public would support such missions as well as one to Mars. My support for Mars is based on its long term potential as a stepping stone and it's near term public interest needed to get the ball rolling. Mars has both more long term value than any single NEO or the Moon and excites more public interest. I am all for anyone justifying missions to the Moon or NEOs based on their intrinsic values. What I disagree with is claims they are necessary prerequisites to going to Mars. I think that is the primary source of antagonism between Mars advocates and those for other approaches. The very fact that they try and tack on their program to getting to Mars indicates they know public interest lies outside their own project.

RC: 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).

ME: Many Mars supporters do denigrate other options and I am guilty of it too in a sense. The idea of the Moon as a way station to Mars is technically bogus except possibly as a short term technology test. The irritation many Mars supporters show is having to shoot down this false argument over and over. There are many active people in the Mars Society that are also supporting private initiatives to return to the Moon. The Mars Society uses some software developed by the Artemis Society. Hoewever, in a limited funding environment space advocates may have to make tough choices based on what is most likely to get funding and delaying projects they personally favor.

RC: 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....

ME: Fair enough. Common ground should take into account all interests. But it should be based on real plans and correct limits not bogus ones. Each side should honestly represent what the other proposes not distort it. We should all take the time to undertand the others plans better. So again, where are the details for the NEO plan you support?

Regards,
Mark Eby