CV: "Anyone reading this board knows that the media has been less supportive of NASA of late and thus the public have been less supportive."

EP:We agree here - carefully consider the attacks by some for the last 5 years or so on the most pro-manned Mars Adminstrator that NASA has had in a long time - also you may want to carefully consider both Tumlinson and Cowing's roles in these attacks, along with the actions of some elected public officials -

CV:"NASA's poll ratings have been down, up and down again, your point is? "

EP: Very simple, Mr Vanicl, though your perceptual problems seem to be interfering once again:

The more people see of Mars, the less interested they are in sending men there.

CV:"This in fact isn't proof of a reduced interest in a manned mission to Mars only maybe a government run manned mission to Mars."

EP: Once again, the escape menchanisms kick in - "If only the government was not running things, it would be cheap eneough so that people would want it."

First off, whiel NASA engages in some limited manufacturin, it does not build most things, it hires firms in the industry to build things for them.

Second, very very few who actually work in the industry feel that a manned Mars mission could be adone any cheaper by the "private sector", once again very ambiguously defined you - who exactly is this "private secto" you posit?.

Those in the industry trust neither the engineering nor the dollar numbers of the Mars Nuts.

But that is almost irrelevant. My point, Mr Vancil, is that it does not matter how "cheap" manned flight to Mars could be done for, the majority of the public does not want to pay for it. If you know of anyone else interested in paying for manned flight to Mars, please do tell -

CV: "We will see how people respond to MER and Beagle II's images. If they are uninterested it would be sad, but not improbably."

EP: There we can agree - it is almost certain that public support for manned Mars flight will decrease once agian after the MERs and the Beagle land, if they are successful.

Any finds may lead to increased support for unmanned probles; and indeed, I believe that Mars rovers could be succesffully operated by the private sector on a profit basis. NASA management should be forced to auction one day exclusive media rights to the images returned by MER-A and MER-B.

Or are you against the private sector?

CV: "Popular interest in Mars historically falls and rises and falls and rises again. Usually interest is greatest at it's closest approach, but not always."

EP: It rises when people forget what a worthless rock Mars is, and falls when new probes to Mars show exactly that.

CV: "This doesn't mean they have suddenly realized impactors are a threat."

EP: I invite you perfrom the experiment I suggest below to Mr Eby. Ask people uninterested in spce in general about their concerns about impact.

CV:" If you think so you are truly clueless! I've asked you where is the proof that the congress folks from Illinois "got" the threat from impactors by living in a State that recently had a rain of iron? Still waiting! No bills no legislation...hum...sure seem unimpressed by natures close calls..."

EP: Okay, to prove that I am not clueless, let me give you clue. Once again, when logic fails, we have an appeal to insults.

I don't know if it has occured to you yet that the Columbia disaster may have delayed both hearings and legislation -

ep