ME: Wow very long post. Try and isolate issues more. I doubt even I or Tom can keep up with that very long.

KM: Well, this has certainly been a lively debate. Nothing sets spacefolks more on edge, even moreso apparently than human vs. robot, than the merits of a Lunar return or Martian odyssey.

Honestly folks, some of the arguments being tossed around are pretty specious, and the insults, well, I guess there's no better way to convince the general public that space folks have their act together than to see these kinds of exchanges.

ME: BD and EP are single issue people with no apparent interest in broader space development issues. That makes it rather hard to find common ground with them. Everyone else should be able to find common ground IMO because we share at least some broad goals. The problem is many people are saying the same thing after 5 years of discussion without ever bothering to look up the details of delta V, ISRU, or any of the manned Mars mission plans. Far too much time is spent on repetition and re-explanation of clearly established fact and reasonable extrapolations to go on to more legitimate differences of opinion on priorities, paths of least resistance, and public support.

KM: In all honesty, the Moon probably isn't the best place to set up the first asteroid tracking base (I'm biased towards the EML-1 point for its long term utility, but that's another immensely long post), ….

ME: I see no evidence that anyone believes the Moon is the best place besides Grondine. Most who have bothered to comment agree that it is only under any consideration at NASA RASC is as a stretch objective to add to reasons for returning to the Moon or just plain bureaucratic life support.

KM: … but Mars certainly is no better, if not a whole lot worse.
As if the early Martians are really going to be at all concerned with any kind of astronomy! They'll all be looking down, trying to find that elusive trace of life other than of Earth. Personally, I'm waiting for the first pre-Solar System fossil, which is more likely, I feel, to be found in the asteroids or possibly the Moon. Now that's something to get excited about! Microbes on Mars, big whup - give me cometary microbes; that'll prove a whole heck of a lot of theories.

ME: See Busters post. I’d like to add that evidence of a second genesis on Mars as determined by a significant variation from Earth DNA or even just ribosomal structure would be just as significant as finding evidence of life in a comet. Either way indicates life is not unique to Earth and is most likely common. Since you can get the same result either way the appropriate method to answer the question is to search where you are most likely to find the answer.

KM: Now, as to the question of contamination. If, for some reason, there are signs of previous life, great, we'll figure out what it's about and will likely to be able to distinguish cross-contamination relatively effectively.

ME: I agree.

KM: Besides, any contamination vis-a-vis the Arean archaeobiosphere is likely to be fainter than the Moon's atmosphere, even with dust storm transportation to the nether corners of the planet. Then what? Come home because we've proven the point. Then what?

ME: I’m not sure what you mean by the first sentence or what your basis for what I think you mean. The then what is we study it. I’m pretty sure Alien life is of far more interest to the public than what scientists are doing in Antarctica.

KM: Of course, the Darwinists will argue that great, there was life, but nature is red of tooth and claw and ours is the dominant bioform - this planet's ours. That one will certainly be a fun debate.

ME: This is really a silly debate although it uspsets many to say it. Underground microbes are unlikely to be impacted by what we do with the surface other than gaining more habitat. We have not even known microbes existed until the last few centuries and many of them are little changed from billions of years ago despite major changes in Earths climate and geology so what we do has little impact on them. Microbes adapt far faster than multicelled creatures because they adapt primarily through enzymatic changes, gene transfer, and activating metabolic pathways rather than changing morphology. If we have any significant impact at all it will be more likely forcing evolution rather than extinction.

KM: If we find existing microbes, then what? Obviously the human presence will have to be kept to a minimum so the scientists can conduct their science. Hmmm, distant outpost studying arcane science - sounds like a recipe for underfunding to me (at least in Anarctica they can fly rescue missions). I say keep some around for study and take over.
I have no doubt whatsover that it is the secret fantasy of most Mars Society members to be the one discovering the fossil/microbe so that it can be named after them, say Areans JohnDoeus or whatnot. Either that or they'll name it after Zubrin and still get their names in the history books.

ME: Same answer as above. What’s your basis for the secret fantasy claim? I think it’s a safe bet that a large portion’s fantasy is finding life on Mars, but that is based on a sense of curiosity and wonder not vanity. Again you wonder into some far fetched speculation with no rationale to back it up. The Mars Society is composed mostly of scientists, engineers, and educators who are keen to search for life on Mars and/or strongly believe that it is the clear first choice for colonizing space based on its abundance in resources compared to other near term alternatives. It is not a group of hollywood or music industry stars (or even your typical joe blo these days) fixated on fame.

KM: Face it, y'all are arguing agendas, and you're heavily obscuring it with vague engineering and science and faux-economics.

ME: Really? I thought you claimed to be able to do delta V calculations on your own. I’ve never been taught how, but the delta V values are well documented in various sources despite the number of people here who wish to ignore them. Is there some other much bandied about engineering issue you consider vague? What are the economic issues you consider questionable? Again rather strong statements with absolutely no support. They didn’t teach me to make conclusions that way in my science and engineering classes.

KM: Once that fact is acknowledged, you can then argue whether it's more important in a broader context to search for asteroids from an offworld platform or to search for life on Mars.

ME: First off when you can present data to support your conclusions your opinions will carry more weight. Secondly we do both already so why is there a need to make a Grondine style choice. A space based NEO platform is no more expensive than most space missions and NASA tackles many of those in addition to its manned space program. A manned Mars program could be funded from the human portion of the budget and an NEO search from the robotic portion. We are currently spending enough to do both. If these are the top two choices other things should be shouldered aside not either one of these.

I would cast my vote in favor of planetary protection.

ME: Be careful there. I think your meaning is different than how it is most often used here. Most here are in favor of both types despite some extremists’ attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with them as being against it.

KM: Whether it's done from LEO, from GEO, from EML-1, or from the Moon (what's that faint chorus? Oh yes, or from the asteroids), or some combination of the above, it's far better to do so from above the Earth's atmosphere. We can get a broader-wavelength spectral analysis and we can look sunward. Neither of those points can be denied or trumped from a terrestrial standpoint, even with massive hidden investment in adaptive optics or other more esoteric advances (or from a Martian base, snicker).

ME: You are stating the obvious that no one has argued against as far as I know in terms of ability. However better depends on whether you base better on cost or speed or a combination of the two. What fraction of the average expected impact interval do you think a search should be completed in? Paying for a faster search than that can be considered cost ineffective. Is ASAP your requirement? It does not appear that the asteroid search impacts think so because they have generated a wide range of possibilities for Congress to consider including ground based programs.

KM: From a comparative planetology science standpoint I'd have to go with a South Pole Lunar base. Ya gotta love the fact that the Moon is in all probability OF the Earth, …

ME: Correct

KM: ….and therefore the best sample for comparative planetology in the Solar System,…

ME: Incorrect. The Moon is not a planet. It has 1% the mass of the Earth and has been almost geologicaly dead since shortly after its formations. To compare planetary processes they have to exist. Mars and Venus have far more to tell us because they have or had active surfaces and evolving atmospheres over long periods of time. Looking at these differences will tell us far more about the Earth than looking at a dried piece of our own mantle.

KM: … and the ONLY known example with a hole through the crust and into the mantle (and recognized therefor by the NSF Decadal Survey, which also recommended an all-sky synoptic survey). Plus, with crater counting and dating you get the bonus of a meteroid record for cis-Lunar space for almost four billion years, a much better record of Earth's meteroritic past I would say than Mars.

ME: Agreed on the crust if that’s true. I hadn’t heard that. Would that require a robotic or manned mission? A manned mission won’t do crater counts. That’s a clearly a robotic orbiter mission that could be combined with other studies.

KM: So really the arguments for Mars are easier large-scale (? or only the chosen few?) colonization, potential for previous or existing life, and water.

ME: What do you mean by easier large scale? The last three are correct although water enables the other two. I don’t think it’s key by itself unless you want to use Mars as a jumping off point elsewhere. I wouldn’t make that case because an ease of access to technical and people resources on Earth would balance the ease of access to the outer solar system from Mars for a long time.

KM: Well, I think colonization is a bit premature at this point in the evolution of our human society, so let's put that one aside as lacking near-term direct relevance.

ME: That’s a bad assumption considering the goal of many is establishing a space fairing civilization and we have no idea how long a window we have to do that before resource constraints or disaster eliminate the possibility.

KM: Potential for previous or existing life. Compelling, certainly, but in all honesty do we really need to know that fact Right Now?

ME: That argument applies to any pure science including any other form of space research other than possibly NEO protection so it is of no help in chosing a space goal. It is far more suitable for those arguing against space exploration all together.

KM: What will we do with such pre- or existing life? Will we design new medicines or pharmaceuticals with what we learn? I'd put my investment dollars in studying undiscovered plants as a better way to go. Much greater likelihood of near-term and relevant results.

ME: Your way off base there. The more we understand life the better our medicical capabilities become. Having another form of life to study would be very valuable to advancing biological science. Think about what just discovering microbes did for preventive measures. Plants may have more near term use, but they have far less quantum leap potential. Your argument also is irrelevant to the space choice issue because no other destination has that much potential in the biological arena.

KM: Water? I'm not even going to go there. At least the Moon offers a water-free environment for comparative chemicalology.

ME: I’m a chemical engineer. That sounds like pure BS. You can do water free chemistry on earth. Did you mean comparative planetary geochemistry? Again you need active geology to have anything to study.

KM: ReAL glass may offer the potential for tunable lasers? Gee, Rare Earth elements happen to be all over the Moon, and a happy byproduct of any processing of regolith, and anhydrous glass made on the Moon can offer superior optical quality by virtue of the vacuum and low gravity.

ME: We have real glass on Earth. Is ReAL glass something else? Low water you can do on Earth. 0 water and 0 g you can do in LEO. How low do you need to go? A process that can pay for itself can be done privately and I agree the Moon is a more likely place for private enterprise near term than Mars. You need CATS though because every few things even presious metals would be economical at today’s Launch costs.

KM: So in the end I really don't see any compelling reason why a trip to Mars has to be the sole, or even primary goal of our space program. The more I read and see the discussions that occur here and elsewhere, the more I become convinced that the Martian Emporer Has No Clothes.

ME: You haven’t presented any compelling argument for any human destination, and you’ve hand waved off two items of high value to most interested in space. That’s hardly a convincing case.

KM: And before everyone goes flying off half-cocked, I do know a thing or two about Mars, having worked on a Mars Sample Return RFP during my internship at ISU. Heck, I'm the one that digested the priorities of the Mars scientific community down into Powerpoint slides for the proposal. Trying to get the scientist we were working with to do so was like pulling hens' teeth.

ME: Kind of surprising then that your comments are so short on data to back them up.

KM: Uh, sir, for the MSR, how would you prioritize the list y'all have developed?
They're all priorities!
But sir, the MSR can't perform all of the 40+ science objectives y'all have developed. Within the context of an MSR, which would be the ones you'd most want addressed?
All of them!

ME: And from this you concluded that Mars has no significant science interest? You have an interesting basis for reaching such a conclusion.

KM: Y'all just need to start compromising. There are things that will get everyone what they want in good order; there's room enough in space for everyone. Building those compromises is what really needs to be discussed, not the savaging of each others posts.

ME: I agree. The atmosphere here would be far better if certain people weren’t allowed to post outrageous slanders on a routine basis, but I and most others feel there is a free speech principle to uphold and occasional value from those posters. It would also help if everyone bothered to get the facts straight from reliable sources rather than repeating the same ad-hoc arguments over and over. Frustration as well as irritation leads to a combative atmosphere. I think the forces at work here exist in the space interested community at large as well for the most part. There are several well known figures (who shall remain nameless lest they erupt spewing on this board again) in the space community that like to make a fuss over any failureby othe rleaders in the space advocacy community just as EP and BD do here and many of us do to a lesser degree

KM: Sure the space industry's in bad shape. Poor management, poor strategy, and a whole heck of a lot of other issues as well. And the kinds of discussions I see here surely can't good for consumption by the general public. These are, after all, the folks y'all need to convince that support for space on their part is a good thing. It's kind of tough to do that when it's all acrimony over robots vs. humans and Moon vs. Mars. They've got lives, they don't need to be trying to resolve that debate so things can move forward.
It's not just about these things, or delta-V, or 16% vs. 38% g, or dust on Mars vs. dust on Moon, or forward/cross/back contamination.

ME: I think discussions are good, but the acrimony is bad. The discussions in the space community at large do need to move forward however to be convincing to the public.

KM: It's about a comprehensive, realistic strategy for advancing our presence into space, one that adds value (and NOT necessarily just $ value) at each step of the way.

ME: You really should have opened this can of worms long ago and skipped all the poorly supported commentary. These are the key issues.

KM: I think that planetary protection addresses that in a far more relevant way for your average Joe than does a voyage to Mars. Does that mean a Lunar base is necessarily the next step? No, I don't think so. Some kind of space-based system does need to be developed muy pronto, because a lot of the close fly-bys seem to be blindsiders, coming out of the Sun, so they're tough for ground-based systems to find. A Moonbase does give you broader spectrum, but you're fixed and limited in where you can see at any point in time. A space based system offers the spectrum (look at all the great stuff coming out of SIRTF), plus much greater flexibility as to view at any moment in time.

ME: Again you are buying a false argument. Have you not looked at NASA’s budget in all your studies?

KM: Does that mean there's no reason to have a Moon base? No, because there's also going to be things like radio telescopes in interferometric configurations, cold scopes in polar craters, and much more wonderful stuff for the astronomical community. Does that mean we shouldn't go to Mars to look for life?

ME: No and No. A pure science objective’s priority should be determined by a combination of public and scientific interest. Please indicate what conclusive evidence you have that the objectives you list trump the overall interest in life on Mars.

KM: Where's a good place to start? The ISS would probably be a good spot to do some preliminary work, GEO is a little crowded, I'd propose EML-1 as the place to go to set up an initial fully-functioning, regularly upgraded and serviced asteroid survey facility, aka SpaceWatch, aka SpaceGuard, aka All-Sky Synoptic Survey. Not crewed at first, but growing over time to the point where you need a regular presence to keep things going. Fixing them is why machines keep humans around.

ME: When it comes to making recommendations on asteroid search programs I’m not real interested in “Net Experts”. There are people who have been doing this for years that have come up with a lot of options. I kind of think we should let them decide what the best program is and demand that Congress pay for it.

KM: Once at EML-1, 4km/s delta-V gets you to Mars, anywhere on the Lunar surface, GEO and back, down to ISS, or back to Earth. In terrestrial terms I guess we'd call it a transit node.

ME: By EML-1, you mean Earth Moon LaGrange point 1 right? This is the objective I am most strongly opposed to in terms of manned missions. There are no resources there beyond sunlight and positional stability. Great for a robotic probe, but I see no great value in that for manned missions.

KM: There are a lot of possibilities out there, with room enough for everyone. Do y'all think you can play nice for the benefit of the space advocacy community?

ME: Sure if vigorous debate constitutes playing nice. Does the use of BS to denote vigorous disagreement offend you? I will try to tone down any time of phrasing that you find offensive or think is offensive to the public in general. I welcome your input even if I strongly disagree with some of your comments. You appear to have a technical if inexperienced background and more of those in the debate may dilute some of the long term hostility built up here.