You were suggesting that 99% of their time was spent on surviving and this is simply BS.
Machines produce results we anticipate men can redesigns the experiment on the fly.
I see you made no comment about Steve Squyres' claim of 45 days of rover exploration equals about 30 second of manned exploration (this quote was in my reply to Bowser).
Right now we have about a two orders of magnitude different in costs between manned and robotic missions.
With development of CEV related hardware the cost will go down (I hope) for manned missions. As machines become more advanced they also seem to be requiring more survival maintenance so they will go up in cost or down in abilities. Smart machines need cooled and shielded "brains".
Space/Science » in reply to Total up development costs for all manned space programs and then get back to me on science return for same
re:Do the same for all robots including the costs of WW II... that makes as much sense.
The whole thread (29 posts)
- Is man in space scientifically useless?
- "Yield to the logic of the situation"--LCDR Spock (UFP-SF)
- There is more to life than Science.
- There's not much of a story if there's no one to peer and twiddle. (n/t)
- Currently 99% of effort with manned space is on survival not science
- re: Is man in space scientifically useless?
- re: Is man in space scientifically useless?
- Ask the people studying the hundreds of pounds of Moon rocks brought back by Apollo
