I know. I was noting that there was in principle a different method of making fusion bombs.
Surely you’re not serious?!
Bell is not the only critic of manned space flight. Another big critic is physicist Bob Park.
In fact, I think there is no credible debate about whether manned space flight is the most cost-effective way to do science. It very clearly is not. Unmanned space flight can do just about as much or more at a tiny fraction of the price. Comparing the science that has come out of the space shuttle program to that which has come out of the Mars Rover and other unmanned programs demonstrates that. And, they are really reaching to come up with any real science to do on the international space station.
The only real arguments for manned space flight are the ones based on inspiration and PR and so forth.
I’d say he’s a heaping helping of both, but essentially correct where it counts.
The fact remains: We’re less sanguine about immolating astronauts than we used to be, and bully for that. For those who will blithely spend human lives for what often amounts to extravagant daredevilry, I might remind them that the training and spacecraft are outrageously expensive next to what you can get ouf of the robotic variety of explorer. We really don’t want to go through all the trouble of sending astronauts to Mars, say, only to render them a tacky-coloured smear in the Martian soil once they try to touch down. Thing is, to do the necessary work to give the mission a reasonable chance for sucess requires extensive exploration of the landing site with robotic craft. Once you’ve done that, why bother with the human equivalent?
It just doesn’t add up. Robotic craft are improving in capability exponentially, while human beings aren’t evolving anywhere nearly so. Sending humans to Mars will be an incredibly daunting task, and I think the politicians grossly distort the feasibility of such a goal. We certainly could rocket folks there easily enough with today’s technology, but that won’t cut it. The trip needs to be faster than any propulsion available in the forseeable future can manage, and the crew vessel extremely well-shielded; or else, even if they survive the return, the explorers are virtually guaranteed an untimely and unpleasant death due to the cumulative effects of cosmic radiation. If the landing and soujourn on the surface doesn’t kill the astronauts, the transit most certainly will, and I don’t think anyone has a really viable solution for that problem, presently. The craft must be both speedy, and relatively massive compared to any manned craft designed thus far, and the two requirements are mutually exclusive.
We need to go to the Moon to go to Mars; yet going to Mars is really quite an absurd objective, in our lifetimes, at least. So why bother sending Men to the Moon again? Can somebody tell me what the ISS has accomplished up to now (besides burning money) of worth besides providing us with some modest data about the physiological effects of long-term space flight that makes no sense to try anyway?
There’s really no practical utility in sending humans into space for science any longer, if there ever was; and there’s little worthwhile to be gained from nationalistic showmanship that costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Why do we have this idea that not behaving like profligate fools somehow endangers our national prestige? Who cares if China wants to waste precious funds doing what we already did a few times in the early 1970’s?
Oh, a note: I wouldn’t use Orion drives for anything short of orbit-to-Mars or Mars-to-Earth travel. And I’d expect a bit more infrastructure up there before we use them, too. By the time Orion drives are useful, we should be mining the asteroids.
There is currently no practical utility for humans in space. Excepting, of course, colonization. Which I feel is important, long-term. However, as we industrialize space, and we will in time, the lag-time in telepresence bots will become painful, unless we move people close enough to control them. They may not need to be on the same planet, but in orbit of it is probably a good idea.
Umm, it’s a quote, from Airplane (the movie). A brief Pointless-Counterpointless parody of a segment popular at the time on 60 Minutes. The SNL analog was “Jane, you ignorant slut.” That said, Mr E may be suggesting that, in the scenario being discussed, life is imitating art and, if the astronauts DO know what they’re getting into, maybe it’s okay to let 'em take the risk.
I think he knows that.
And stop calling him Shirley.
Indeed I did, and what a mind-bending little whooshie that was…