5 ms·

I almost down voted you in a knee jerk reaction. I believe that manned space exploration serves a very important purpose in advancing humanity . . . however, fr

I almost down voted you in a knee jerk reaction. I believe that manned space exploration serves a very important purpose in advancing humanity . . . however, from the typical Congress critter's point of view, I suspect you're right.

avmich 7y ago
I suspect GP underestimates the scientific value of Apollo missions. It's so much difference to e.g. study samples brought from the Moon (and taken with reasonable care) in Earth labs than to send robots to do the same. There is a POV that robots are good for scientific missions up to certain price point. After that manned missions become more cost effective.
- smaddox 7y ago
  I don't see how it would be cheaper to send a human to the Moon to retrieve samples than it would be to send a robot.
  - ticmasta 7y ago
    and that's really just the cost the actual mission. Consider the impact of having to prepare a program that meets acceptable risk levels for humans vs. machines. This is a huge consideration. I'm not suggesting unmanned exploration can take a trial and error approach, but losing a robot is sad & expensive while losing a human astronaut can terminate the entire program.
  - avmich 7y ago
    Some arguments are here: https://phys.org/news/2005-11-unmanned-space-exploration_1.html https://phys.org/news/2005-11-unmanned-space-exploration_1.h... Retrieving a sample is cheaper with a robot - Luna-24 costed a fraction of Apollo. Knowing what to retrieve while having flexibility of choosing surface regolith, separate rock, samples dug out from a better place or else - that's where humans win.
    - mopsi 7y ago
      Indeed. Apollo 17 even flew an actual geologist to the surface of the Moon and gave him 20 hours to explore it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- greglindahl 7y ago
  The money spent on Apollo would support a large number of robotic missions, including sample return. And they could visit a bunch of different areas. If we were trying to maximize science per dollar, every manned program would have a lot of robotic preparation. Are we doing that? No. We've spent almost nothing on the Moon and only a tiny, tiny fraction of the manned budget on robots to Mars.
- checktheorder 7y ago
  I would bet good money that when Starship makes its first safe return to Earth after a manned lunar landing mission, there's going to be some serious-as-a-heart-attack talk within the worlds' universities about pooling cash for manned missions.

avmich 7y ago

I suspect GP underestimates the scientific value of Apollo missions. It's so much difference to e.g. study samples brought from the Moon (and taken with reasonable care) in Earth labs than to send robots to do the same. There is a POV that robots are good for scientific missions up to certain price point. After that manned missions become more cost effective.

smaddox 7y ago
I don't see how it would be cheaper to send a human to the Moon to retrieve samples than it would be to send a robot.
- ticmasta 7y ago
  and that's really just the cost the actual mission. Consider the impact of having to prepare a program that meets acceptable risk levels for humans vs. machines. This is a huge consideration. I'm not suggesting unmanned exploration can take a trial and error approach, but losing a robot is sad & expensive while losing a human astronaut can terminate the entire program.
- avmich 7y ago
  Some arguments are here: https://phys.org/news/2005-11-unmanned-space-exploration_1.html https://phys.org/news/2005-11-unmanned-space-exploration_1.h... Retrieving a sample is cheaper with a robot - Luna-24 costed a fraction of Apollo. Knowing what to retrieve while having flexibility of choosing surface regolith, separate rock, samples dug out from a better place or else - that's where humans win.
  - mopsi 7y ago
    Indeed. Apollo 17 even flew an actual geologist to the surface of the Moon and gave him 20 hours to explore it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
greglindahl 7y ago
The money spent on Apollo would support a large number of robotic missions, including sample return. And they could visit a bunch of different areas. If we were trying to maximize science per dollar, every manned program would have a lot of robotic preparation. Are we doing that? No. We've spent almost nothing on the Moon and only a tiny, tiny fraction of the manned budget on robots to Mars.
checktheorder 7y ago
I would bet good money that when Starship makes its first safe return to Earth after a manned lunar landing mission, there's going to be some serious-as-a-heart-attack talk within the worlds' universities about pooling cash for manned missions.