Thomas James has found another way for NASA to get around the Congressional prohibition on human Mars exploration, as a result of the blinkered mentality of the people who wrote the language. As he says, though, it's unlikely that NASA would use it.

I suspect the Chinese will take little or no notice.

My preference is that government money not be needed to do great things.

Indeed.

My fear is that in today's world I see the prohibition as the first step in a march toward a self-induced total ban because Mars (hmmm, the solar system in general) is to precious to allow humans despoil by their presence.

It's pretty weak as far as prohibitions go. You already can get around it by making sure your project is dual use (has a second goal that isn't specifically men on Mars) or wait till next fiscal year to fund it. I doubt it would have any impact on NASA's activities. And that's probably the point. Certain congresspeople wanted to repremand NASA (or maybe Bush's administration collectively) and a spending bill does sound more impressive than an even more toothless resolution of displeasure.

Karl

I agree with you on every point.

However, while I concede that the subjects are not exactly the same, I'm 'membered of the first time I heard of term "man-made global warming".

Give the time it will take to seriously mount a manned mission to Mars and the now well established ability to indoctrinate our children from a very young age (I see it in my 3 year old niece) is not clear how long something like this point may remain a "toothless resolution of displeasure".

Some years ago the thought regarding the exploration and eventual colonization of Mars suddenly raced thru my mind: "they won't let us". I never mentioned it to anyone lest I scotch the thing (kind of like talking about wind while camping). Well, here it is writ plain.

As far as the US is concerned I would not at all be surprised if this concern will not, in the end, transform itself into a race condition.