Which brings up a (seriously non-LOS) topic. Sort of a pet peeve of mine if one must know.
To wit,
this article, by Professor Steven Weinberg, a
Nobel laureate in Physics (1979), asks the very reasonable question: "What is the value of sending human beings into space?"
Dr. Weinberg points out, clearly, that manned exploration is a total, absolute, monetary black hole. There are essentially zero benefits derived from such missions... with
Tang perhaps the only exception.
Travel to the planets-- Mars and the Moon, presumably-- is complex beyond imagination. The trip to Mars takes nine months cooped up in a tiny spacecraft. Then what? No way to sustain life once there, aside from what was packed along. A self-supporting group of "space colonists" (to use a Soviet phrase before they got smart and exited the Space Race) must somehow manufacture oxygen and water THEN worry about food. Their only mission could be to set up some robotic experiments then come back. See the problem? Why not just send robots in the first place?
As far as "travel to the stars" that is pure science fiction. For one thing, we can never even know if the stars are still THERE... since the light we are seeing is thousands or millions of years old. What are they like now, or is there anything out there? (Note: The speed of light is the absolute limit as to how fast anything can move.)
We are stuck-- for all time-- on this planet. The sooner the average voter realizes this the sooner we can make the hard "where do we spend our money" decisions. Robotic exploration of space is smart and cost-effective.
But I could be wrong. The science fiction reader in me hopes so.
My .75 baht.