Buzz is one of the few astronauts from the Apollo program that has used his bully-pulpit to be a continual advocate for space exploration.  He even wrote a science fiction book.  Vulture, I envy you having met the man.  I am a space geek going to back to when I was a kid watching Apollo-Soyuz and the first shuttle flights.As to whether a permanent mission to Mars is survivable, of course it is.  It all depends on the amount of planning and foresight put into the mission.  We have the technological ability to send people to Mars.  What we, humans, lack is the political will and vision to make a go of it.  Mankind?s future is in the stars but at the rate we are going we may not get there.  I sincerely hope that private spaceflight takes off and have invested some of my own money in space companies.  I would love to see a permanent human presence on the moon and Mars before I die with plans for the first interstellar voyage well under way.

We have to be willing to accept risk.  Space travel is inherently risky.  The key is to calculate the risks versus the benefits.  In my opinion the risks of space travel or even extra-planetary colonization are far outweighed by the benefits.  There have been so many spin-offs from the space program that it has more than paid for itself.But if the risk of people possibly dying is too high now, what is an acceptable level of risk?  Realize that there is risk everywhere and we as individuals make countless risk decisions everyday without even realizing it.  The idea that we can send people to space or even Mars without some level of risk is absurd.  Of course we can achieve a lot with robotics but eventually we will have to send people out there because robots just cannot do it all.  It takes a person to look at something and bring all their skill and training as well as intuition to bear.  There is risk involved, yes.  The task of the space program is to make that risk as manageable as possible.

Yes, there are risks, and the possibility of people dying is there. That?s fine, I?m sure the people who are willing to go know they could face death. But, if people perish and the colony survives, we can say that the expedition is a success. The robots would not eliminate risk, they merely increase the chance of success. It?s basically like the old saying about Mickey Mousing a project and then having to go back again to do it better. I think we need to colonize Mars, but careful planning to ensure the best chance of success is imperative. As for the technology to control and use robots, I think we?re seeing it grow exponentially. People are now able to use a headband to control an avatar, and it?s only a matter of time until we adapt that to a robot. The last time I was in Japan I was amazed at the number of robots going around in malls to give directions, advertise, and even patrol. Schools are using robots in some classrooms as teacher assistants. These links are a little old, but you might find them interesting. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/040310-geminoid-f-hiroshi-ishiguro-unveils-new-smiling-female-androidhttp://www.livescience.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=LS_090309_03_EmoAlgo.flv

Yeah, I saw the report about the one way trip; a seed of humanity sent to Mars. Well, if we don?t send a robot team to make their arrival easier, what are the odds of survival? The solar panels would provide energy, but how difficult would it be to build the dome? We need to keep in mind that all the work would need to be done on oxygen tanks. There would be unforeseen problems, as there always are, and it would take years for a second ship to arrive.

Very true. People traveling to space could easily fall victims to depression or anxiety. Medication could prove hard to obtain.

Obviously, with our present economy, it's hard to justify such raising the level of NASA's budget

 Are you kidding me?  Nasa had a budget of $18.7 Bililon for 2010 compared to a combined total of $184.3 billion for the Departments of Education, HHS, Labor, Commerce, and HUD.  I would gladly cut the spending for all those departments in half to increase NASA's budget.  Despite all the negative press NASA consistently does more with less than any other government agency.  If there is an example of tax dollars well spent NASA is certainly at the top of that list.  NASA spending is less than 1/2 of 1% of the Federal budget compared to

I tell you what how about we just get rid of the worthless Department of Education and divert that $46.7 billion spending to NASA.  That would instantly quadruple the NASA budget and we would probably see way more value for our money in the bargain as well as seeing kids actually start to learn something useful instead of having to eliminate learning time to satisfy the requirments of various federal mandates in exchange for Federal dollars as if our school districts were a bunch of heroin junkies waiting for their next fix.Sorry, the very idea that somebody might think NASA is too lavishly funded sets me off.