Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives)
Message-ID: <15025@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 19 Dec 89 18:57:59 GMT
References: <8911281928.AA16375@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <3240@ibmpa.UUCP> <11042@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <49444@bbn.COM> <1989Dec12.193633.28964@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Lines: 59

In article <1989Dec12.193633.28964@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The point is, people keep saying [that the Moon could have been explored
>more cheaply unmanned than manned] without proving it.  

Not much of a point; lots of unproven-in-detail assertions fly around
here on both sides of the issue, including from Henry.  On to something
more interesting.

>                                                         Apollo
>accomplished much more than some of its detractors admit, 

There's some fancy Latin name for this argumentative fallacy but I
forget what it is.  There are people who think Apollo was a fake;
Apollo sure accomplished more than THOSE detractors admit, dinnit?

>                                                           and it would
>have taken a very large and costly unmanned program to get similar
>results.  

This assumes that the exact laundry list of whatever finally happened to
get done on Apollo missions is actually what we needed to do.  But the
science Apollo did consisted of what could be shoehorned into the
incredible constraints of a manned mission profile.  It's to NASA's
great credit that they did as much as they did under the circumstances.
But science NEVER CAME FIRST as it can with an unmanned mission.

>           It *may* be true that it would have been cheaper to do things
>that way, but it is *not* a self-evident fact.  

Who decided that "self evident fact" was the operative standard here,
I wonder.  Pretty strong!  We must remember this phrase later Henry :-)

>                                                 Claims to that effect
>would be much more credible if they included numbers, e.g. volume of
>samples, number of missions involved, estimated cost based on existing
>missions, etc.

Worth working up.  One model to shoot for would be, "Surveyor with a
sample bucket and a return engine."  My claim is that if Earth scientists
had had the luxury of a few unmanned landings with good stereo photographic
site documentation and a bucket of *ANY* rocks and soil taken therefrom,
they'd have learned a hefty fraction of what we now know about the Moon's
origins and composition.  They'd certainly be in a good position to
suggest followup trips; and they might still/even be doing them now.

Question to ponder: Would you rather the Apollo 17 results were being
obtained RIGHT NOW?  It would mean it took many extra years to get them;
but it would also mean we were still at work today.

>It's interesting that some of the people who said that Apollo was a
>ridiculously expensive way to get minimal results are now the ones who
>are saying that Apollo completely explored the Moon, so we should forget
>the Moon and press on to Mars.

Bah.  Claims to this effect would be much more credible if they included
names and statements...
-- 
Annex Canada now!  We need the room,    \)      Tom Neff
    and who's going to stop us.         (\      tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET