Thus The Guardian today. “The success of the Orion spacecraft has paved the way for America to carry humans to Mars and beyond,” elaborates the newspaper. “Yet many scientists say that manned missions are expensive and unnecessary, and that robot probes are the future.” Apparently, quite a few scientists are distinctly unhappy about the Orion launch. Putting humans into space is futile, expensive, and ultimately harmful to real science, they argue. They are dismayed by the American commitment to manned missions. A Nobel laureate is quoted in the article as disappointed with Obama, who should have scrapped the extravagance. It is the bang for the buck argument, which undoubtedly holds for science as such. Manned space flight crowds out real science, the Nobel laureate claims. Amazingly, the article does not mention space colonization even once, for it would explain manned missions in a jiffy. If only the good scientists had a scientific argument against it, such as that it was too costly for the human race or even impossible on account of unfriendly conditions or excessive distance. Or perhaps that it was too late for it in view of the upcoming climate change catastrophe, as I would argue. For the poor scientists, space equal science. Period. I bet that the inane article will outrage many a space cadet, like myself. Screw science—let us go all the way to the end of the universe!