And these things go unquestioned...

I watched NBC Nightly News tonight, it was on the tube when I got up and I was still in that semi-catatonic state that you fall into after rolling out of bed. (I'm surprised drool wasn't running down my chin.) Anyways, Tom Brokaw was kawing and then they ran a story about the Hubble Telescope and whether or not it should be salvaged, since it can work for quite a while as long as it's serviced. Given that the Hubble gives us really cool pictures of things deep in space and I like viewing shiny things, I'd like to see it stay. Then there's that whole scientific aspect to it, how it helps us explore and understand the universe, etc. But since Bush wants to go back to Mars, there may not be funding to service the poor Hubble.

Uhm, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we get to the moon in the 60's? What scientific purpose for understanding the universe does Bush have that would necessitate a trip back to the moon that would trump what we get, for cheaper, from the Hubble Telescope? If this is about mining helium-3 for energy, why aren't we going the cheap route and exploring alternative energies so this aren't so alternative once we run out of things like oil? (In all fairness, there's a wire story yesterday saying Bush wants more research money for Hydrogen cars in the 2005 budget. This being an election year, I'll believe it when I see it.) What possible purposecould we have for going back to the moon? Been there, done that, created the technology 35 years ago. Why go again? What's the point?