All three advocated are going to be infinitely expensive cheapo dead-end cul-de-sacs because not a one of them is gravity orientated pointing toward being micro-Earth-like stations (cloud-city like station buildings in orbit) that would begin opening the space frontier to life from Earth (that would progressively begin opening the space frontier to hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, and more humans from Earth).
Gravity is essential to long term occupation of the space frontier, and nothing being done, nothing money is being tossed toward has anything to do with the long term in space. The three advocated will help keep mankind out of the space frontier. The Moon isn't big enough to even start mankind toward breaking out: it is in the wrong place as a potential colony, a massive rock cave inside a gravity well. Mars, too, is far too small and far too insular to provide any dreams for millions and billions of humans. All of them are just wastes of time and energy (of which money is just a token of) that is now far too valuable to waste.
If governments are going to spend money encouraging manned private enterprise expansion and growth into the space frontier it should be spent on long-term tooling (not more time and energy -- money -- wasting short terms idiocies) in space; '2001: A Space Odyssey' and 'Voyager Station', type facilities in Earth orbit; mining stations (doubling as science stations) on the Moon; and construction facilitation in L-point orbital space.
No more thought, and no more tax currency, should be wasted on the past sixty years of sameness that will leave us in sixty more years in exactly the same rut-tyranny we are buried in now regarding that next great frontier. We've produced no artificial gravity stations and facilities in space in the last sixty years. Therefore, we've produced no natural energy toward space in the last sixty years.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram