> which I assume is much harder and more expensive Manned space missions are significantly more expensive (and complicated) than robotic missions. (Otherwise,

> which I assume is much harder and more expensive Manned space missions are significantly more expensive (and complicated) than robotic missions. (Otherwise, we'd be sending a lot more people into space.) Let's do a little bit of back-of-the-envelope Googling: From https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo > The United States spent $25.8 billion on Project Apollo between 1960 and 1973, or approximately $257 billion when adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars. From https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-the-mars-exploration-rovers#:~:text=The%20Mars%20Exploration%20Rover%20(MER,15%20years%20of%20mission%20operations https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-the-mars-expl.... > The Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission cost $1.08 billion. Of that amount, $744 million was spent on spacecraft development and launch; $335.8 million was spent on 15 years of mission operations. So it looks like "manned" space missions cost at least 100x the cost of sending a robot.