3 ms·
The general claim is that your argument is flawed in "this accomplishes all of your objectives". I don't claim to be an expert in the field, but I've heard peop
by smeyer 11y ago
The general claim is that your argument is flawed in "this accomplishes all of your objectives". I don't claim to be an expert in the field, but I've heard people who do care about and practice planetary and martian science that a manned mission could accomplish more than all the previous unmanned missions combined.
- nabla9 11y agoThat could be true and manned mission can still be irrational choice. All manned missions arguments I have seen are somewhat coy in this respect. Yes, geologist can make better choices on spot and take better samples than current drones, but that's not real comparison. We should compare alternative strategies using opportunity cost. The money used for manned mission could be used for massive fleet of of drones, satellites and technical development. Missions could be more incremental and cover more areas. Self driving cars are just taking off on earth. How does advance fleet of Mars robocars and satellites mapping Mars compare to manned mission?
- mapt 11y agoSome of the lectures I've seen actually peg this as true, but for the wrong reason. It is possible to put together automated missions at-scale. But not likely. Because auditors can trim back an automated mission's scope smoothly, no matter how expansive it is, in order to save money. A slightly lighter, cheaper camera, gives way to an even more slightly lighter, cheaper camera, ad infinitum. A hundred units give way to 99 units give way to 30 units give way to 1 unit. But if you try to do that with a manned mission, you start to jeopardize the public heroes you have sensationalized in order to fund the mission. You don't get to send half a human being to Mars.