dtb said:

>If you're a scientist who thinks there is life on Mars, deep
>down you probably have an understanding that finding it
>will be really really hard (i.e., will take a long time), and of
>course if we *do* find it, that doing so will be a bonanza....
>...if you're a policy executive, the search for life may sound
>limited: all these scientists are implying that we might find
>it with just half a dozen missions or so, and after doing so,
>we'll have acheieved the goal! Program over! Compared to
>the project of acheiving a comprehensive understanding of
>Martian geology followed by human colonization, the
>astrobiology approach sounds downright speedy, cheap, and
>limited, in addition to its popular appeal.

The policy executive probably doesn't give a diddly damn if Mars has life on it or not. He's likely to be a lobbyist for Lockheed-Martin or recognizes that graduates from America's engineering schools are at historic lows. The exobiologist (if he is competent) knows the Martian surface is almost a perfect sterilizing environment. The exobiolotist simply hopes that he can find something on the Martian surface that will justify that next proposal for the bigger-and-better mission, e.g. MSL. It's a marriage of convience. In the mean time, the people who want Mars exploration based upon legitimate science followed by human settlement are getting pushed into the sidelines.

Gary