[mikestew]

TFA concluded no such thing from my reading:

“As far as human space travel goes, it’s probably best that it stays in the realm of science fiction, at least for the foreseeable future.”

And no arguments for that conclusion? C’mon: radiation, the effects of microgravity on human bodies, none of which we have good solutions for…yet. The author argues that we don’t have good solutions, and probably won’t within their lifetime. If you’ve got counter-arguments, let’s hear them, but calling the TFA’s sound arguments “pearl clutching” isn’t productive.

[nick49488171]

The counter argument is this: if the chance of dying is 2% to make a historic mission, then people should be able to make that choice. What's your counterargument to this statement?

As for your hazards Microgravity can be counteracted with a centrifugal living environment.

Radiation can not be mitigated effectively yet other than throwing mass at the problem. But if someone wants to launch enough mass that's on them.

[mikestew]

What's your counterargument to this statement?

Don’t need one, it’s an opinion piece, with plenty of facts to back it up. You’ve proposed solutions that don’t yet exist. When those solutions are viable, maybe it’s not such a bad idea. But at the moment it would appear that such a journey has low odds of ending well. If Musk wants to burn cash, and has willing participants, go for it. But with my tax dollars? Yeah, you’re going to have to do better than a lick, prayer, and a hearty “good luck!”

[sgt]

You could literally have made exactly the same argument about the moon landing in 1969! And people actually did, some were truly against it. Way too expensive, near impossible, lethal, pointless, all the arguments were used.

[bdangubic]

all true, too expensive and near impossible and pointless and…

[nick49488171]

I would make the same argument about bicycles then. What is the point of spending taxpayer money providing services for such a dangerous activity?