Moon is part of Mars

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

  

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


No argument.


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

I didn’t say the research program would not generate spin off technologies.   I say going to mars is highly inefficient way to invest in the hopes of a spin off technological windfall.

Whether Apollo program is worth half its price, much less ten times its price, for the spin off technology it generated is debatable.   What made it look like a bargain was the perception that going to the moon by itself more than justified its price, so the spin off technology, or any other ancillary benefit, was pure bonus.   That perception if subjected to rigorous examination would likely lose most of It’s adherents.

And I said it isn't necessary to actually go to Mars to generate the spinoffs.

The Apollo programme was a bargain, full stop.  USians spent more on cosmetics over the same period. The cost per day in then-dollars was about .05 for every person in the US - one could argue that the US got to the moon on a cup of coffee.  The resulting spinoff technologies in insulating materials, industrial monitoring systems, remote health sensors, microminiaturization, lubricants, anti-corrosion surfactants, flame retarding textiles, improved dialysis, athletic wear, medical devices, and too many more to mention - have generated far more economic activity than the money spent getting to the moon.  That being said, I don't disagree with you that it wasn't necessary to actually get to the moon for these benefits to accrue.

Scientific research is, by its very nature, serendipitous.

Boru