I guess with all the gaining of knowlegde about Mars though these probes, with the many follow up probes to be launched every two years or so until a decision is made to send a Man to Mars will fill the scientific gap for those of you that do not want man space exploration. But for Myself I feel that designing probes as we go without logical step for the information that we wish to learn or with no real adgenda other than to investigate does not do it for me. Taking the next 30 years or so to decide if man should go to Mars is way to long in order to answer the questions that we have before us.

If there is life on Mars, we have no moral right to change the planet to suit our wants if that will result in the elimination of indigenous life forms, This is especially true if--as I intuit, and have believed for a long time--that there are life forms there of a higher order than microbial. I'm not talking about little green men--but even indigenous life on the order of insects should be carefully preserved.

This does not preclude colonization if such life forms can be preerved in an altered ecosystem. But we must NOT, in my opinion, play God and make arbitrary decisions based in our own selfish wants to the detriment of unique indigenous Martian species.

I think what ever God wants to happen will happen. even though it could work dosent mean its right to do that sort of thing. If our lord wants it to happen he will; but remember this with GOD ANY THING IS POSSIBLE.

Yeah Lets go back to the stone age! Who cares if Billions die of starvation, disease, pollution and ultimately warfare over whats left. At least Mars will be clean and untainted with human filth!

I fear soon this type of thought will kill billions here on Earth through starvation and polution. It is the net result of when we allow certain industries that claim to be environmentally freindly to gain control of our education system and government.
What! heresy! How can I equate enviromental organizations on par with their mortal enemies the Evil polluting corporations...
Its quite simple! A few examples.
We will never develop or implement solutions to destroy things that we rightfully wish we could uninvent like nerve gas. Instead, Eco friendly organizations make a few million bucks trying to stop disposal. They make even more bucks when Eastern Oregon dies and the Columbia River is clogged with dead fish and then they stand in front of the cameras and say Tsk! Tsk! We told you so!
Another:
Lots of bucks in demonizing nuclear power! With a cool "WIND"fall like an evermore polluted atmosphere to rally the donation machine! Who cares that more people die horrid cancer ridden deaths every day than have EVER died from even adirect hit by a nuclear bomb, or will have to worry from a few acres of radioctive glass buried under a mile or two of rock. We cant even clean up the messes we have made with the "You cant store it here-You cant move move it-You cant even convert it into a harmless state here" mentality
So if we stand in the way of the technology and implementation to clean our messes we can therefore be sure of a steady flow of cash for centuries to come.
Where am I going with all of this? Two things.

1. Merely burying our heads in the sand and hoping that "we" will go away isnt helpfull since unless you kill off people, they will always reproduce and will still dream of wide open spaces and homes and lives. Overcrowding happens.

2. We may learn a great deal more about how to live with our selves and our planet by going to Mars and the rest of the Solar System. More importantly we will have the means to do so by developing technologies and infrastructure rather than pretending that we do not need it. This will NOT happen if we just wring our hands and say we
should have stayed in caves.

I have nothing against the nukes--properly controlled and maintained, they are the safest and most environment-friendly kind of energy.

I also think that nuclear-powered propulsion systems are the only practical answer to getting around the Solar System in reason periods of time. We should pursue practical applications as soon as possible.

My concern--as I stated above--is that we honor an expanded Star Trek prime directive--that even when we colonize, we respect unique ecosystems and make every effort to see that they remain viable.

I see this first and foremost as a moral imperative, but also as a practical one. As here on Earth, how many beneficial applications for human progress may be lost forever as species become extinct?

That is why we will be sending probes every 2 years for the next 20 to 30 before man even will say he is going. Also the Nuclear engines where electric ION style last I knew not exhaust bomb explosive style.

Independently voting for D. radiodurans in all elections hence forth; until it evolves into a higher intelligence life form.

For a case where intelligent or even semi intelligent life exists the "Prime directive" approach is an absolute must. However when one tries to extend that to include the full evolutionary potential of say...bacteria, you might lose most people, me included. Now on the other hand, if there was a vast ecology on Mars, we had better find out what killed it if anything and make sure it does not happen to us. We should be well advised that we are not immune to extinction events. In this case its worth the wait to study before colonization. But we should not be too timid even with our advantages of adaptability, mobility, the ability to change the environment around us as well as exploit the strengths and weaknesses of the ecology. And yes that includes some measure of forethought, creativity, preservation and conservation. As a species we cannot afford to rely on any one or two of our gifts.