On Jan 2, 2008 2:28 PM, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
Also bear in mind that the cost of the two rovers is (in constant dollars) a fraction of what we spent landing the two Vikings on Mars in 1976.
Only because earlier missions developed the technology, techniques, procedures. Spirit and Opportunity "stand on the shoulders of giants". No modern missions can be looked at as existing in a vacuum (pun intended). What colors this whole debate is that all of want to see something tangible happen while we are still alive to see it. I doubt that happening for all but the youngest among us. A ten-year-old will surely live to see some remarkable manned scientific voyages in his or her lifetime, but not Seth, Kim, Joe, or Chuck. We did get to see some cool robotic missions and that's a remarkable thing in itself, not a consolation prize at all. But the best things are yet to come, however far distant. Yes, Seth, I surely do remember the promise of "2001: A Space Odyssey". I don't attribute the lack of progress since then to primarily a change in the national social complexion, but as you indicated, the vast, unanticipated costs of a large-scale space presence, including research and engineering. This is only a hindrance when we realize the truths of Kim's argument- that the costs of manned space missions to either Mars, the moon, or both- absolutely pale in comparison to military budgets. Take just 25% of the military budgets of the USA, China, Russia, and the next half-dozen big spenders worldwide- and there's your missions all bought and paid-for, in spades, repeatedly. We need world vision, world goals. Maybe a "killer asteroid" is just the ticket to get us to stop killing each other and working together toward something constructive and meaningful? Personally, I don't hold-out much hope on that score. As a species we seem to be much better at killing than exploring the universe around us. We certainly spend A LOT more time, money, and energy on it, don't we?