As cool as those missions would be, we can go to the moon or Mars anytime. We only have until the end of the ISS' life to park it into a safe orbit, and doing so means one of the most significant pieces of early spaceflight technology is preserved for future generations to put into a museum. In 3000 years, future generations will care more about being able to see the earliest preserved space station than the first mission to Mars being in 2043 instead of 2037

[–] Dead_or_Alive 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I respectfully disagree, no one outside of the space flight community remembers the names of the Astronauts on Apollo 10. Everyone knows who Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are, few have seen or care to see the Apollo 11 capsule . Most of the public knows who Christopher Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Sir Frances Drake, Ferdinand Magellan. No one outside of a few historians and history buffs care about the Vasa.

I’d rather invest money in expanding the human experience rather than sacrifice it for an altar full of relics.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’re welcome to your opinion, though I think it’s extremely shortsighted. It also strips down the value of historic artifacts to merely their tourist appeal. You say “altar full of relics” seemingly to dismiss the notion, but literal relics are a crucial reason why we know anything about our history at all. I’d like to think that historians of the future, at a minimum, would appreciate it if the ISS was boosted to a stable orbit instead of burning up.

[–] Dead_or_Alive 1 points 1 year ago

Historian: Looks at dusty broken space station through a telescope as he listens to the radio carrying the words of the first Chinese man to walk on mars.

Yeah we made the right call saving that station.