It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Moon, Space Station, Mars, or Asteroids?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:10 PM
So we have to choose. Nasa has to choose. The government has to choose. There apparently isn't enough money to do everything and scanning for asteroids is being chopped, unless some miracle source of money appears.

We learned this week also that they face a tough choice. A space station or a trip to the moon. Have they given up on Mars?

My question for you folks is: If you had to choose, between funding only ONE of these, which would it be and why?

1. A new space station orbiting Earth

2. Another manned trip to the moon with an extended stay for research

3. A short trip to Mars, just to land and come back

4. continued and more extensive scanning for potentially threatening objects

I don't feel that I am quite the scientist yet, so I pick number 4. I suppose I'm a bit of a chicken little. Do you think mine would be a common choice? I'm really interested in hearing what some of you sharper folks think and where your priorities would lie, if the decision were yours.

Why would we need another space station? What would be the purpose of another trip to the moon? Would all we get from a trip to Mars be bragging rights? How do you feel the costs of each compare?

I guess I wish we didn't have to have someone making that decision for us, and maybe if we had been more careful with spending, or had different priorities, we could have done them all. Perhaps someday we can look back amazed at having accomplished them all.

I realize this is all uneducated, useless conjecture, but you guys really help me grow.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by KSPigpen

I would say number four, but it is not going to come down to having to choose b/w one of those. The NEO (Near Earth Objects) scanning should take precedence but after that I am saying a Moon base should be number two, we can only learn so much from orbit, plus if we are to go to Mars or anywhere else we need to learn how to survive on extraterrestrial bodies for long periods of time.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 07:01 PM
I would go with number 4 as a priority. Since we already know of a couple that have good odds of hitting in a couple of hundred years. Although I would add an extra part to that project. We can just scan for potential threats but we need to develop ways and tech to deal with them (which we don't have atm). Whats the point of knowing when your going to die when you can't do anything about it.

Though Mars would be a close second, in hopes that it would reinvigorate the public's desire to spend money on space (although it could have the opposite effect lol)

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:44 PM
Forget the moon. The space station is nice but we can do without it if we have to. I really don't give a damn about a knowing a big rock that we can't do anything about is on the way.

I kind of like Buzz's plan (sorry but it's sort of, but not exactly, none of the above). Work on a step by step process to get to Mars, but not a just short visit. Go with the goal of establishing a viable colony. It's much easier to do it on Mars than the Moon (let the "other guys" work out the bugs on the Moon while we're on our way). The sooner we get our eggs out of this basket the better.

top topics

log in