Hi Daniel

The burn-out aspect of Bell's writings tends to be glaringly obvious.

As for his arguments - well yes they're all problems, but they're otherwise bogus as showstoppers because they all have solutions.

I think the biggest problem with the left-overs of 1940s-50s space enthusiasms is they assumed semi-habitable planets as destinations, and that's not what we've got. Also they assume large workforces needed to maintain services, but now we have automation - thus no geosynch comm-stations or Venus Equilaterals.

So what's left? We have to figure out new reasons for humans in space - but Bell has given up and advocates robots alone - a sure way to bury space exploration for good.

Why? Because if humans don't go most of us don't care. Planetary science is an insufficient justification, and Uncle Ed's asteroid deflection isn't much better.

Adam