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.