Replies

The energy required to send a craft out in the solar system, the time required to get there,the time for the comet to get back to Mars, while hoping that an asteroid or some other unseen object does`nt interfere with the plan still loses on a cost benefit analysis.

I'm not really sure how you come to that conclusion. You could send a probe to a comet to alter its trajectory (assuming, as you and I both point out, that the difficult problem of calculating the change needed can be worked out) could probably be sent out for under a billion dollars (Rosetta, the ESA comet-probe, cost only US$344 million). And time is free; once you start the process, it doesn't cost any more if that process takes one year or ten. A billion dollars to bring 9 billion tons of water and 800 million tons of CO to help humans live on Mars? Sounds like a cost-benefit analysis winner to me.

(Unless you're of the opinion that any money spent on space exploration is a waste, in which case we're just going to have to end now and agree to disagree.)

No matter how you slice it,life on Earth can only be logically explained as the result of an intelligent design.

I disagree with you, naturally, but let's keep this discussion on the subject of Mars. I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to discuss evolution, ID, and Creationism in some other context.

We of course are going to have to agree to disagree but still enjoyable to have an intelligent debate.

Probably many viewing this are scratching their heads wondering "what the"
I do consider space exploration to be a waste if not done for military or for a practical, efficient energy source for life here on Earth.

Trying to find microbes on Mars really does`nt seem to have useful purpose.

Many of the same scientists that are behind this say we will destroy life here within the next century.This is no where near a time needed to solve all the problems of trying to populate any solar body.For this reason I think a lot of this is pushed in academia for the purpose of diverting resources that could be better spent on our current protection,missile defense etc.

I am in no way accusing you or any one here of espousing these ideas.I'm just skeptical of the agendas of some pushing this.