Chris wrote: "Polls don't support your contentions about manned Mars missions."

EP wrote: You view the poll responses as indicating some kind of intense interest by the general public.
No such interest exists, or else we would already have landed men on Mars.

Chris writes: No. This not my view on polls. An intense interest isn't felt by the general public it isn't necessary. At this juncture I would mention he didn't deal with my point about a National Referendum... Ask yourself why? 49% for manned exploration of Mars and 43 against...Hum...

Chris wrote: "Because we seriously were sending people to the Moon."

EP wrote: No. You do not understand. The moon was seen merely a stepping stone at the time - Mars was believed to be Earth-like, and it was the ultimate goal. Major programs were underway to proceed there after the Moon, but in the US these were ended after Mariner probes showed that Mars was not Earth-like.

Chris writes: You don't know your history and I'm not spending the time to reeducate you. You are wrong!

EP wrote: Exactly - but in a democratic country "political will" generally expresses the views of the people. My point is that when Mars was believed to be Earth-like, that "political will" existed, but after the Mariner series of probes showed Mars was not Earth-like, the public's "will" changed.

Chris writes: Prove it! I asked for your proof of this and have yet to see anything but your opinion.

Chris wrote: "You argued that Dan Goldin being a extreme Mars fan should have been able to push thru a manned mission. Clue, check what the Clinton Administration's views were on manned missions to Mars, during 8 of Dan's 10 years. Without political will no government run manned mission will be run."

EP wrote: There was no overwhelming popular support for manned Mars flight. None.

Chris writes: And were did anyone say there was! Your above statement has nothing to do with the Clinton Administration's lack of interest in Mars. You really need to learn some history (again)!

EP wrote: Political support already exists for dealing with the impact hazard, and as Dr Mazanek's team has shown, the best way of doing that is with man tended Moon based facilities.

Chris writes: You're a sad sort of delusional person aren't you! NO! There is no political or popular support for a Moonbase or we would already have one... Your own argument against Mars Bases applies here...

Chris wrote: "Bush could give a rats ass for Space Exploration or moving this economy anywhere unless it keeps him in office."

EP wrote: I think that you might be surprised by the President's views on ensuring the safety and well being of the American people.

Chris writes: God you're clueless!

Chris wrote: "You go ahead and take your poll. As I've said before I have done exactly what you suggest and it doesn't support you in the least. People say, "Oh, the dinosaurs dead thousands of years ago! That wont to happen to us today, we have the military to protect us!"

"Impact harzards are not high on the government's list of things to protect us against, get over it and move on!

EP wrote: Dealing with the impact hazard is not high on Ed Weiler's or David Morrison's list of things to protect us against, but their views do not reflect that of the general populace.

Chris writes: So far you have shown no proof of anything you say being true. I have gone out of my way to provide polls as support to my contentions. Show us your polling of the public and then I will reply to your blather otherwise go away!