E.P. Grondine wrote: The advantages of Moon based facilities for impactor detection have been analyzed by Dr. Mazanek of NASA Langley.

Chris writes: Which means nothing. The total costs out weight the advantages. You didn't answer my concern that you throw all the money at a stupid way to detect incoming and have no plans to study them and stop them.

E.P. Grondine wrote: (By the way, Larry, this is not finding tanks in the desert, and yes he is qualified and spent his full time on the problem. I'd like to get you reassigned to work on this professionally, rather than have you firing off from the hip on that which you do not know.)

Chris writes: What a load of BS. If he spends his full time on the "problem" there would be far more paper to show and much more support for the plan.

E.P. Grondine wrote: The plan is currently supported by several senior engineers at NASA Marshall and NASA Houston, as well as at NASA Goddard.

Chris writes: As we don't know why these folks support a nutty plan we can't say with how much vigor or how fully they do support it. They probably just want a return to the Moon badly and figure this has some possibility to do that. How many other possibly contrary plans do they also support?

E.P. Grondine wrote: As for the public sentiment, only about 20% favor manned Mars flight. About 70% would prefer that NASA do something useful with their money, like finding the next one before it hits.

Chris writes: You're so delusional that you just dump 70% of the public into your Dreamland. Sorry, most people want ISS completed and maybe Space Tourism in some order or another. And this all cycles around depending on how you ask the questions and what is happening with Mars' surface rovers...

You have no evidence that impactors are a high priority for the public even with the number of close approaches that happen every year. Till one smacks a city and shows the actual destructive force possible it will be a side issue with them and congress.

--Chris Vancil