[Cincinatus' Wife]

***"But Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, cringes at the thought of putting the moon first and settling for a robot's exploration of the red planet instead of humans. "For the president to go to Kitty Hawk and stand in the footsteps of the Wright brothers on the 100th anniversary of their flight and the 200th anniversary of Lewis and Clark's expedition and proclaim humans to the moon in 20 years is farcical," Zubrin said. "Really, how do you inspire the youth of today with a challenge repeating feats their grandparents did?" Whatever Bush decides, if anything, and whether he announces it at Kitty Hawk or later, one thing is certain: It won't be the last word on the subject, Zubrin said, laughing hard."*** AP Source

nasawatch:Editor's note: How Mars Society President Bob Zubrin expects that such repeated hostile remarks will affect White House decision makers in anything other than a negative way utterly escapes me. A rational person would embrace this (potential) renewed attempt at rejoining a program of exploration as a first step towards other destinations - such as Mars. They would then work to help make that effort as productive as possible such that Mars becomes a real option. Alas, that is not Zubrin's style. In my opinion, the best thing Bob Zubrin can do to advance the prospects of a human mission to Mars right now is to sit down and shut up.

__________________________________________________________

space.com: 10 Reasons to Put Humans Back on the Moon (And it isn't about "searching for diversity of life.") A lunar return strengthens national security, and economic and commercial development. Science, education and national pride are nice side benefits.

[GeronL]

If its not for a step towards Mars and then farther, then its pointless.

[Moonman62]

A lunar return strengthens national security,

How so? It only takes up half a degree in the sky, it isn't maneuverable or stealthy, difficult to defend, and weapons would take days to arrive on earth.

and economic and commercial development.

The first moon program didn't do much for either. Why would this be any different?

Science, education and national pride are nice side benefits.

One has to wonder how Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, and others ever became educated scientists without a taxpayer financed moon program. Ben Franklin did it with only one year of formal schooling.

[samtheman]

Not only are robot vehicles are cheaper way to bring back life-evidence from Mars, but they are safer. Less chance of contaminating the planet with our own microbes before we determine what's there now.

[Smokin' Joe]

We made this mistake in the moon race. Instead of building a Space Station first (as Von Braun suggested), then constructing exploration vehicles in space, we went with the other route and launched directly from Earth. We could have had Earth-orbit rendezvous of lunar and other exploration craft. After the Moon, we would have still had a foothold in space to continue to explore, and possibly colonize. Instead, we got some data, some nice pictures, some rocks, and memories.

IMHO, if we intend to have a presence elsewhere in our solar system, we should act like it. Establish and expand. A solid moon base would allow asteroid exploration for raw materials (manned or otherwise) and manufacturing in low g utilizing those materials, without EPA regs. That alone has merit.