Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!ames!ncar!groucho!steve
From: steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives)
Message-ID: <5729@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 89 16:26:43 GMT
References: <1989Dec18.234704.16742@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu
Lines: 24

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes [referring to John McKernan's 
assertion that it is "empirically evident" that the unmanned program 
is more cost-effective than the manned program]:

>My point is precisely that it's not.  Remember, I am talking about getting
>the *same* results -- volume and diversity of samples, surface experiments
>emplaced, cores drilled, precision landings at pre-chosen sites, etc. --
>not the far smaller and simpler missions undertaken by all unmanned landers
>to date.

I believe one should keep in mind that different tools often entail
different methodologies.  I believe it would be a mistake to attempt to
compare (assuming for the moment that one could ;-) manned and unmanned
exploration using as the judgement criteria the detailed and immediate
goals and results of the manned activities.  It would be better, in my
opinion, to refer to a higher level of endevour, such as the quantity
and quality of the increase in our knowledge, or the potential for
further advancement in this area.

Of course, this, in itself, is frought with the potential for subjective 
disagreements -- as well as being currently impossible (at least for the
Apollo program).  Nevertheless, it is, IMHO, good to keep in mind.

--Steve Emmerson	steve@unidata.ucar.edu