Mark does not disappoint - confronted with the facts, his usual escape mechanisms reliably kick in. These include the usual "attack" on me for copyright infringement - though the post here constitues fair use.

About the only thing that would encourage public support of manned flight to Mars would be the discovery there of artifacts of intelligent manufacure.

The confirmation of water or fossils on Mars will simply raise the probablitiy of back-contamination, and thus serve as an even greater disincentive for manned flight to Mars.

Here is a little experiment for our sicentist Mark: He should pretend that he's me for a day. He shoudl tell people about his interest in impacts, and then tell them that NASA is spending only $3.8 million per year on finding these things, and even less on figuring out how often they hit. Mark could then see how many respondents immeidately ask if somebody should be fired, and he could tally up the results.

My own results have been that what people want is to not go the way of the dinosaurs, and they expect NASA to spend what it takes in order to make sure that they don't.

ep