Shuttle launch seen from the ISS.
Posted on 09/19/2007 1:41:51 PM PDT by Paul Ross
Nobel-winning boffin slams ISS, manned spaceflight
'Infantile fixation on putting people into space'
By Lewis Page, The Register, Wednesday 19th September 2007
A Nobel laureate physicist has poured scorn on human space exploration, saying "the whole manned spaceflight programme, which is so enormously expensive, has produced nothing of scientific value".
Professor Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas at Austin, co-recipient of the 1979 Nobel Prize for Physics, was speaking at a workshop in Baltimore. His remarks were reported by Space.com.
Weinberg had especially harsh words for the International Space Station (ISS), saying that it was "an orbital turkey... No important science has come out of it. I could almost say no science has come out of it".
The irascible particle physicist went on to slam astronauts in general.
"Human beings don't serve any useful function in space," he said. "They radiate heat, they're very expensive to keep alive, and unlike robotic missions they have a natural desire to come back, so that anything involving human beings is enormously expensive."
He criticised astronauts for mindlessly playing golf in space while hardworking, relatively cheap robot Mars rovers brought home the scientific bacon.
Unsurprisingly for a particles boffin, the testy prof felt that the billions poured into manned orbiting turkeys would have been better spent on a really big atom-smasher.
According to Space.com, Weinberg is still cheesed off about the 1993 cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider, a monstrous particle-punishing magnetic carousel which was to have been built in his own Texas backyard. Apparently, Congress decided to spend the cash on the ISS instead.
"Coming from Texas, that memory is really a burning one," said the embittered scientist. He added that NASA should prioritise unmanned scientific missions such as those listed under the agency's "Beyond Einstein" push rather than funnelling cash into an Apollo-style crash effort to put astronaut boots on Mars.
"NASA's budget is increasing," said Weinberg grimly, "with the increase being driven by what I see on the part of the president and the administrators of NASA as an infantile fixation on putting people into space, which has little or no scientific value".
Even as he spoke, NASA confirmed his worst fears by announcing that applications are now being taken for a new intake of astronauts, to commence training in 2009. The agency has not run a space-ace intake class since 2004, when it signed on 11 astro-rookies.
Wannabe astronauts who are undeterred by Weinberg's scorn will need a bachelor's degree in engineering, science, or maths and at least three years' experience. Historically, this has usually meant a career as a military fast-jet test pilot or an academic scientist or engineer; but nowadays NASA wants to recruit teacher astronauts too, and classroom coalface time can count.
Here at the Reg, we don't quite know what to think. The idea of manned spaceflight is frankly more appealing than just sitting here on Earth looking at the rest of the universe until the end of the world, maybe sending out robots now and again. On the other hand we're not terribly impressed with the idea of chemical rockets as the only propulsion technology for the foreseeable future, which is mainly what NASA plans on.
Maybe if the boffins got loads of cash for atom-smashers, deep space Einsteinian-physics-bender probes, etc, they might finally come up with hyperspace drives or antigravity or something. Then there could be a proper space exploration effort. It could be worth playing the long game.
Still, we here at Vulture Central come from a country that hardly puts any money at all into space projects, scientifically valuable or not. So we probably don't get a vote.
Reminds me of a quote about asymptotic limits whereby a specialist keeps specializing until he knows everything about nothing while a generalist keeps generalizing until he knows nothing about everything.
__________________________________
I also think there is the tendency for the specialist to make category errors. Basically, they think that “since this method of analyzing a problem works in my specialty, if I apply it in this other area, it will also work.” Since we are almost all specialists in some area (even if the area is being a housewife, or a writer, or whatever it is that we do to make our way in the world) category errors abound. Empirical evidence to test a hypothesis is not as available in the social “sciences” as it is in the physical sciences for example. Reasoning a priori, by analogy, historically, and within a conservative framework given unintended consequences and the difficulty of isolating variables would not do a research scientist much good in their profession; but for a legal scholar, a historian, a voter, a politician, there is much more value to a different style of reasoning. Similarly, the housewife that reasons that because familial love and family harmony is worth a sacrifice on the part of the family members, sacrificing a principle to maintain political harmony may also be worth it may be applying their “specialized” knowledge in the wrong way or in the wrong category. Reading my last sentence I realize that I’m babbling now . . . : )
This guy sounds like a turd, and just might be jealous he can’t go up in space. If he had his chance, there might be one or two “small errors.”
The second photo is my laptop’s wallpaper. Thanks for the beautiful images.
This article is about the British slang word for scientist. For other uses of the word, see boffin (disambiguation).
In the slang of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, boffins are scientists, engineers, and other people who are stereotypically seen as engaged in technical or scientific research. The word conjures up a stereotype of mature men in thick spectacles and white lab coats, obsessively working with complicated apparatus. Alongside eccentric genius, portrayals of boffins usually highlight a naive ineptitude in social interaction. A classic English version of an eccentric and obsessed boffin is portrayed by Alec Guinness in the film The Man in the White Suit (1951).
I prefer “propeller heads”. ;’) Thanks.
I agree. We also have to stop giving away our technology advantage as if it is our duty to "mankind".
The Red Chinese will take all we give freely, steal the rest, and destroy us with it without ever saying "thank you."
Thanks for the launch photo...
Comes from posting too darn early in the A.M.!
It's come a long way.
Too bad it will never be like THIS:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.