It's only a choice in terms of the length of a human lifetime. What are our immediate goals vs. our long-term goals? There is a good argument for just deferring much of the science for a generation or so, until a more permanent manned presence on the moon, earth-orbit, and possibly Mars, is established. Much of the actual construction and launching of science probes could then be transferred to lunar facilities, where much smaller, cheaper boosters could be used to get larger, more sophisticated probes on their way. Technological advances by then would also mean more capable probes or remotely-operated telescopes. It's not as if we have to explore the solar system right now, or we lose the chance forever. It's been there a LONG time and another 50 years wouldn't make much difference except to a cadre of current planetary scientists and engineers invested in projects already in the pipeline. The whole timeline of space exploration has been stretched far beyond original estimates; from the time of my youth, anyway. The high cost of space exploration and relatively slow pace of commercialization is a good argument for a more drawn-out process of purely scientific exploration. As much as that sticks in my craw, I have a hard time refuting it from a practical standpoint. --- diveboss@xmission.com wrote:

...

How about if we fund both, and pay for it by eliminating Congressional pay & pensions? ;o)

Good idea!

____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com