EP wrote: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 -

Chris writes: I must be wrong if you agree with something I wrote! You're just to weird with this conspiracy BS for me!

EP wrote: 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.

Chris writes: And this is supported by what your dreams or voices? Pathfinder/Sojourner seems to have contradicted your theory and what will you do if the opposite is true with these Rovers and Lander? Eat a bug? I've been a live during the times Landers touched down on Mars and interest in Mars increased with every lander not decreased! When the images stopped coming people went off about their lives.

EP wrote: 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."

Chris writes: Do put words in my mouth! People when asked if they would support a NASA run manned Mars Mission replied with less confidence in NASA. Not the idea of a manned Mars mission. People see NASA as unable to do the mission. Rightly or wrongly I don't know. It has nothing to do with cheap or cheaper!

Ep wrote further: 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?.

Chris writes: I happen to know lots of people in the aerospace Industry and what you write here is a load of Bull Excrement in doubles! Everyone I'veever talked to, about this subject, believes they personally could mount a mission to almost anywhere cheaper than NASA. They are probably correct due to the nature of how NASA runs it's contracts normally.

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

Chris writes: When the dollar amounts where figure by those "Mars Nuts" they worked at Martin Marionette one of those companies... I know you don't see the absurdity of what you write or presumably you wouldn't write it... But there are some people who don't like Mars Direct's and the NASA Reference Mission's numbers and some of them do work in the industry. A small set inside a larger set. This is not unusual in the scheme of things...I'm sorry I don't see your point. Are you trying to say all engineers must agree or we won't build stuff?

Ep wrote: 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 -

Chris writes: I'm sure I would agree it is irrelevant. A lot of what you write is. See this is where you are losing everyone. Unless you have a poll that say the majority of the public aren't interested in funding a manned Mars mission no matter at what the price. You are just shooting gas out your ass. I'm sure you think that. But, I actually talk to a lot of people at malls, etc... about this very subject in a year and the trend I see is not that strong either way. At one time I took polls about interest in space in malls, but don't have as much time now to do that. My polls reflected those of Gallup anyway...

EP wrote: 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.

Chris writes: (An aside. He really doesn't see the logical flaws folks I'm sure of it.)

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

Chris writes: You do know what you state here is the opposite of what happens don't you? The Mariner 4 showed a Moon like Mars and then we sent two more probes (Mariner 6-7) and they again showed a Moon like Mars and then we sent an orbiter (Mariner 9) and it showed all these channels and volcanos and more craters and then we sent two landers and two orbiters (Viking) all within twelve years from 4 to the Vikings... During this time period dozens of plans were drafted for manned mission to Mars. Yep, Mars is just another worthless old rock like the Moon. I'm sure everyone here agrees with you.

Anyway, are you trying to suggest because we haven't done any of these manned mission there is no interest in send humans to Mars?

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

Chris writes: I do and don't get the results you get. People seem unimpressed by impactors in general.

EP wrote: 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 -

Chris writes: Sure! Yeah, they all would be doing something far more important than saving humanity from extinction. Yes! That's it I'm sure all these folks are on the few subcommittees dealing with the Columbia Accident and non of their dozens of staffers can draft a bill.

Illinois' US Senators

Senator Peter Fitzgerald
Senator Richard J. Durbin

IL US House Members

1st - Bobby L. Rush
2nd - Jesse L. Jackson Jr.
3rd - William O. Lipinski
4th - Luis V. Gutierrez
5th - Rod R. Blagojevich
6th - Henry J. Hyde
7th - Danny K. Davis
8th - Philip M. Crane
9th - Janice Schakowsky
10th - John Edward Porter
11th - Jerry Weller
12th - Jerry F. Costello
13th - Judy Biggert
14th - J. Dennis Hastert
15th - Timothy Johnson
16th - Donald A. Manzullo
17th - Lane Evans
18th - Ray LaHood
19th - David Phelps
20th - John Shimkus

I've got a clue for you Ed. You vastly over rate the interest people have in a major impact event killing them. Non of these congress folks will draft a bill of any kind dealing with impactor discovery or protection.

But people will talk about how they saw rocks from the sky hit the neighors car for years after the event, what can I say it's sad!

--Chris Vancil