While I strongly disagree with Gary on exobiology I agree that focusing on the Moon as opposed to using the Moon as a testing ground is a big mistake. I do not think coming up empty looking for life on Mars will kill the program as Gary does. That's the way science works sometimes you find what you are looking for sometimes you don't. You don't avoid tackling key questions just because you might fail. I have to agree that the odds for life on Mars seem to be dropping some, but I'm still far more optimistic than Gary. I also think you have to combine the interest in exobiology and the interest in colonization to make a convincing case that Mars should be the top priority because there are many interested in space out of scientific curiosity such as Raoul who don't give a damn about colonization. In addition colonization requires lower launch costs and there is no garauntee we will ever get there. The search for life is of immense scientific and public interest despite the fact that some seem oblivious to this fact (not Gary he just disagrees) and technology of use for colonization (ISRU, life support, etc) can be developed in support of scientific missions while CATS is being developed in parallel.

I think the points Larry tried to make against focusing on Mars ignore the loss of efficiency in not keeping your eyes on the long term goal and that having a long term goal does not preclude testing equipment on shorter and or closer missions. I would be happy to see a HLV and life support systems designed for Mars tested with NEA and Lunar missions if those missions were designed to be more than just tests that could be done in LEO. Looking for Lunar ice and getting knowledge about NEAs of use in designing diversion techniques or commercial use are both valuable goals as add-ons to Mars technology testing. An NEA mission should be a top priority in its own right if any NEA were identified as being on a collision course in the near future and is something we should do within 20 years in any event IMO.

NASA needs to keep a focus on CATS too so that commercial utilization of space becomes more practical allowing space tourism, and NEA mining as well as broad scientific use of the Moon and possibly colonization of Mars.

NASAwatch has an article on this issue as well as several links to articles and reports on how poor a return on investment the ISS is likely to be. The surest way to kill our chances of ever getting to Mars are to take yet another poorly conceived and tangential approach.

Presidential review on space policy heading to closure

Internal Report Paints Bleak Picture of Human Life Science Research at NASA

the actual report (slow &big)

Report for NASA assails 'voodoo science' of space station's medical research

This is what happens when you don't have a clear goal guys. It will happen with a lunar base as well because it is not needed to go to Mars. Since it is not needed for Mars, all kinds of other stuff will have to be added in in an attempt to justify it resulting in far more cost than anything of remote use in going to Mars. The Moon can only be justified as a government project based on science and the science available there is not likely to hold public interest and support IMO despite EP's exaggerated claims debunked a hundred times over. It didn't before, how can anyone expect anything different now?

A note for Larry. The closed loop life support system requirement is bogus. Chemical separations is my field. The higher degree of separation you require the more costly and complicated the system becomes. You will eventually reach a point where the equipment and power requirements cost you more fuel than simply loading more consumables on board. A 100% closed loop system is both impractical and nearly impossible. Zubrin assumed daily recycling efficiencies of 80% for O2 and potable water, 90% for wash water, and 0% for food for a total mass recycle rate of 87% per day. These don't sound like technologically challenging levels to me. These are in ranges typical of many recycling systems. The challenge will probably be mostly in equipment size rather than in chemical processing. I don't remember what the NASA reference mission required. Anyone know what efficiency current systems have or what the reference mission recycle numbers were?

Failure to commit to a goal because it is risky is a recipe for mediocrity. Apollo was a technological triumph precisley because it was risky. It seems to me we have far more general ideas of technology and issues we need to address to reach Mars than we had about going to the Moon when Kennedy shot for the Moon. The technological risk is not as big as commiting to the Moon especially if you break it down and test critical steps so the technological payoff will be less. The total payoff is far higher, however, as Mars is far more valuable a target than the Moon for the future of humanity.

Regards,
Mark