> When curiosity landed on Mars, Time Square was paying attention.

And then they forgot. Seriously. That's our reality today.

I'll use my oldest kid as an example of this. He is a straight A (more like A+) student. So are all of his immediate friends. A perfect pack of nerds. I love them all. He is intensely interested in science. He loves it.

Do you know how much of his inspiration comes from the space program or the robots on Mars? Not much. Every so often we'll go to JPL for "ooh" and "ahh" moments. The problem is that these always seem like short hits of adrenaline rather than persistent boosts.

Where these kids get inspiration and constant drive at this point is at home and at school. We make it a point to take them to local (Los Angeles) and distant (San Jose) robotics events and other science-related activities. When he has a science project we dive right in. I've been teaching him how to approach such projects as a real engineer, doing research, modeling, estimating, constructing prototypes, testing, etc. We build and fly model airplanes and helicopters. We build giant soap bubble machines. We got rid of our dinning room table and built a (good looking) Lego FLL competition table right in the middle of our dinning room [1].

On top of that I am teaching him programming in various languages and generally exposing him to that world.

All of this takes time, dedication and, yes, some money. Without effort at this level the decay time of exciting events such as the Mars rover drilling into a rock is probably measured in minutes, if not seconds. These days kids have so many interesting and fun things competing for their attention that keeping them focused on what is really going to make a difference in their lives can be a full time job. Not easy.

That's why I am skeptical about this whole idea of a mission to Mars having any lasting inspirational value. It'll be an "Oh, wow! We did it!" moment for sure. Not certain that it will have mass value beyond a day or two, certainly not months later. Yes, a few people will be inspired. I think there are far cheaper ways to accomplish the same thing.

With regards to space colonization. I'm a Star Trek baby. Grew up watching the show. Love the idea. Also understand that it is as close to impossible as can be. Unless we make an absolutely astounding discovery on Mars the likelihood of finding a habitable planet within a distance measured in human lifetimes is very low. Mars might be the closest we can possibly consider for such an exercise. Even then, it is nearly an impossible task. Have you ever watched a show like Survivorman? Not so easy to survive and thrive with limited resources here on Earth. Exponentially more difficult on another planet.

This is why I think that developing and using a near-space spacecraft as I described would be worth it. We would learn a lot from this. It would be used to develop and test technology for far-space exploration. It would probably create long term financial benefits from near-space activities. And it could be a constant source of interesting activities for our short-attention span generation.

In another sense I am saying: Let's build a reusable no-reentry vehicle that can make regular trips to the Moon. Let's operate it and learn from it for a few years. Then, and only then, consider the idea of building a spacecraft that will take humans to far-space locations. For all we know our near-space ship could, over time, evolve into the far-space ship we would require. That would happen "organically", if you will, and over time.

[1] http://thenxtstep.blogspot.com/2006/06/fll-competition-table...