...Robotic vs. Manned Space Flight? It's a Tie!

A Royal Astronomical Society study concludes....

"We find that profound scientific questions relating to the
history of the solar system and the existence of life
beyond Earth can best - perhaps only - be achieved
by human exploration on the Moon or Mars, supported
by appropriate automated systems"


This debate always seems to come down to which is better
at ...exploring...space. But that's the wrong question.

The question should be which is better at exploring, and
which is better at ...exploiting...space.

If we wish to explore the surface of Venus, the clouds of
Jupiter or the buried oceans of Europa, will it be robots
or humans doing the exploring? Is anyone planning a
manned mission to Pluto?

If manned missions are better at analyzing, but take
up to /50 years/ longer to get people 'there', as with
Mars, which is better? The one that has the greater
potential, or the one that is more practical?

If life is on Mars to be discovered, is there any
doubt it'll be robots that make the discovery?

Manned flight is so much more expensive, it'll be only
for-profit and military operations that can afford it.
Building and supporting commercial and military
space activities will be where manned flight
finds it's place.

Robots are far better for exploring space.
Manned flights are far better for exploiting space.

If we wish to support the idea of manned flight, we
should at least use the right reasons.



s

On Jun 21, 1:46*am, "jonathan" wrote:
A Royal Astronomical Society study concludes....

"We find that profound scientific questions relating to the
history of the solar system and the existence *of life
beyond Earth can best - perhaps only - be achieved
by human exploration on the Moon or Mars, supported
by appropriate automated systems"

What reasons did the RAS give for this? Do you have a link to the
study?

This debate always seems to come down to which is better
at ...exploring...space. But that's the wrong question.

The question should be which is better at exploring, and
which is better at ...exploiting...space.

Why? (And what exactly do you mean by "exploiting"? Is there an off-
Earth resource that can't be extracted by automated, or remotely
controlled, systems?)

"Damien Valentine" wrote in message
...

What reasons did the RAS give for this? Do you have a link to the
study?


Can't find it now.


The question should be which is better at exploring, and
which is better at ...exploiting...space.

Why? (And what exactly do you mean by "exploiting"? Is there an off-
Earth resource that can't be extracted by automated, or remotely
controlled, systems?)

I think the reason is that manned flight is so expensive it'll
end up being mostly used in either commercial or military
space activities. Exploration and pure science is a luxury
requiring cheaper missions.

Damien Valentine wrote:

And what exactly do you mean by "exploiting"? Is there an off-
Earth resource that can't be extracted by automated, or remotely
controlled, systems?

Assuming you mean current or reasonably extrapolated technology - not
one.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

In article ,
says...
Damien Valentine wrote:
And what exactly do you mean by "exploiting"? Is there an off-
Earth resource that can't be extracted by automated, or remotely
controlled, systems?

Assuming you mean current or reasonably extrapolated technology - not
one.

Counterexample: The USSR did a sample-return lunar mission back in the
Apollo era.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Kansas City, this was Air Force One. Will you change
our call sign to SAM 27000? -- Col. Ralph Albertazzie

Kevin Willoughby wrote:
In article ,
says...
Damien Valentine wrote:
And what exactly do you mean by "exploiting"? Is there an off-
Earth resource that can't be extracted by automated, or remotely
controlled, systems?
Assuming you mean current or reasonably extrapolated technology - not
one.

Counterexample: The USSR did a sample-return lunar mission back in the
Apollo era.

I'm pretty sure it was limited to quantities too small to be considered
"exploiting", at least in any useful economic sense of the term.

Kevin Willoughby wrote:

In article ,
says...
Damien Valentine wrote:
And what exactly do you mean by "exploiting"? Is there an off-
Earth resource that can't be extracted by automated, or remotely
controlled, systems?

Assuming you mean current or reasonably extrapolated technology - not
one.

Counterexample: The USSR did a sample-return lunar mission back in the
Apollo era.

Apples and oranges, not only in scale but in kind.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Jun 22, 11:06*pm, Damien Valentine wrote:
Is there an off-
Earth resource that can't be extracted by automated, or remotely
controlled, systems?


Yep - Jupiter's metallic hydrogen.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I'm pretty sure it was limited to quantities too small to be
considered "exploiting", at least in any useful economic sense of the
term.

You could sell them to rock collectors at a pretty high price though.
There are still lots of rumors of Apollo Moonrocks being sold at very
high prices on the black market.

Pat

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:27:23 -0700 (PDT), Neil Gerace
wrote:

On Jun 22, 11:06*pm, Damien Valentine wrote:
Is there an off-
Earth resource that can't be extracted by automated, or remotely
controlled, systems?

Yep - Jupiter's metallic hydrogen.

....In theory you *could* hit Jupiter with something big enough to
whack off a piece that would survive the exit through the gasses at
high velocity, but then again if you could move something that big and
that fast, you've probably got the technology to metallicize your own
hydrogen in bulk, not to mention in your grandma's bathtub.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[