KnifeMissile

You know, there are those that would consider reconnaissance "producing tangible results". In fact, the last mars mission was criticised for not bringing back enough reconnaissance. It was merely an excercise in new landing technologies. We proved that rovers like Spirit and Opportunity can work.

It all depends on what you consider to be worth time and money. The only thing your mission to send bacteria and algae will accomplish is tainting our investigation of the planet. The truth is that the technology to terraform is so far away it's not funny. Here's the first problem. Mars has a very thin atmosphere--about 1/20'th of that on Earth. So, even if we were to make the air more like Earth's in composition, we'd still need to add more air for it to be useful. Plus, the gravity on Mars is only half that of Earth's, so we'd actually need even more than what I was just suggesting. This is when conservation of mass works against us. Where the hell are we going to get this stuff? We can't use the air on Earth 'cause... well, we're using it!

So, we're back to asking the question, "How will these answers help us?" I think we do these things for the same reason we study astronomy and comsmology. I think it's also the reason a lot of people practice religion. We all have a driving need to answer questions about the universe that we live in. The question we hope to answer, here, is whether life had existed on Mars. If it did, what was that life like? Is it anything like life here? Did we come from Mars? Did life there come from here? If life existed on Mars then, perhaps, it exists on another planet, too. Perhaps outside our solour system?

Perhaps the answers to these questions will put to rest all the fighting over inane religious dogma. Think of the lives that will be saved, then. Would you consider that "helping us?" Is that worth the time and money?