In reply to: http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/286945.html

EP wrote: Despite Chris's statement, both poll numbers and government funding levels indicate exactly the relationship which I noted.

Chris writes: Yes, you say this but without proof. Funding numbers and actual poll numbers would help provide this proof. You're suggesting there is a chronological relationship between NASA funding levels and polls that suggest a public interest in manned missions to Mars and the perception of Mars' worth. Shouldn't be impossible to provide proof. I just don't think you have done this research already. I think you are in fact BSing us again.

I wrote: 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 1964 to the Vikings...

EP wrote: ....and then we entirely stopped sending probes to Mars for more than twol decades, until people forgot what a worthless rock Mars really is.

Chris writes: Try 16 years between launches and about 10 years between ends and beginnings Mars Observer launched September 1992 You have a very low opinion of your fellow humans and their ability to remember and think.

EP wrote: It was Dan Goldin's leadership, and nothing else, which set all of the current Mars probes in motion, the very same man who Cowing hysterically attacked for several years...

Chris writes: All this tells me is your lack of knowledge of history and how NASA works. Viking's lack of clear findings concerning life had a profound chilling effect on Mars projects funding. Mars Observer was designed and built before Goldin took his post. It's loss strongly influenced his view of NASA. He found himself under the gun for a failure he had nothing to do with. Thus, Faster, Better and Cheaper came in to being. Mars became one of his focuses not the only focus. I don't care what Cowing did and it isn't germane to the topic.

I wrote: "During this time period dozens of plans were drafted for manned mission to Mars"

EP wrote: ... at ever decreasing dollar amounts, and all of them less fully engineered than the earlier plans had been.

Chris writes: What a load of BS! Do some researched you dipstick before shoveling this crap my way! These plans where all over the place in costs and some earlier plans were extremely vague about all kinds of system requirements simple because they didn't have a clue how much stuff they would need. The most expensive plan is one of the most recent ones and the most detailed plan is the current NASA Reference mission. I've studied them you obviously have not! Look you are uninformed and stupid go away!

EP wrote: What one needs to appreciate when dealing with the Mars Nuts is that they are so obsessed with manned Mars flight that their perception is hopelessly warped. Thus the "facts" which they base any logical argument on may bear little relationship to reality, and any argument which proceeds from a "real" basis will make little sense to them.

Chris writes: Gees, what an arrogant nut you are! Right, put some numbers to your claims about funding and polls, then come back. All people have to do is read the text I link to or read NASA's history if they care to check my facts. As for your "reality" I'm pretty sure most people here know when a guy is dodging and weaving, Ed! You don't answer half the question I ask. Mister Expert Ed: How much weight should a ideal Mars Suit be?

--Chris Vancil