Moon is part of Mars

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think the spin-off technology argument is spurious.

  
You'd be wrong.  It's a rare research programme that doesn't generate spinoff technology.

  

If the spun off technology was worth the cost of going to mars, then even more spun off technology can be realized for the same cost by doing the same R&D as before, but then dispensing with the cost of actually going to mars and devoting the funds freed up to do further R&D.   In that case the technology to investment ratio would be even more favorable.

Which is what I said - you start a let's-go-to-Mars programme, but you don't actually go to Mars.

Going to mars can only be soundly justified if going to mars is a sufficiently desirable goal in itself to justify the investment.

No argument.

The spin off technology argument was used to justify Apollo landing.  But the real justification for the cost was really a way to do more R&D for the defense department without any apparent and prohibitive increase in the defense budget.

So what?  The Apollo programme would have been a bargain at ten times the price.  I agree that the Apollo landing wasn't much more than a look-how-much-smarter-we-are-than-the-Russians PR stunt.

Boru