Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!shadooby!umich!dip.eecs.umich.edu!kamidon From: kamidon@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Keith Amidon) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Scientific value of Apollo Summary: Manned vs UnManned, my opinion........ Message-ID: <1149@zip.eecs.umich.edu> Date: 20 Dec 89 21:04:16 GMT References: <1989Dec18.234704.16742@utzoo.uucp> <5729@ncar.ucar.edu> <1989Dec20.154407.15068@utzoo.uucp> Sender: news@zippy.eecs.umich.edu Reply-To: kamidon@dip.eecs.umich.edu.UUCP (Keith Amidon) Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI Lines: 28 I have avoided the manned vs unmanned debate now for a long time, but I've decided to get my two cents in since it looks like this thread is never EVER going to die. In my opinion neither one is better than the other because they both have their good and bad points. There are situations in which manned is better and situations in which unmanned is better. If the mission matches the approach used everything is great. The problem arises when the wrong approach is used. Examples of where I feel each approach is appropriate follow: Unmanned: Survey/Photographic Mission Simple sampling missions (this could include returns) Manned: Complex sampling missions With advanced enough robotics and AI, everything could be done with unmanned missions. However, I feel that there is a fundamental problem with this. Scientific knowledge gained through space exploration is extremely important. However, I believe that we need to develop a permanent manned presence in space. The earth is simply too small a basket to keep all our fragile eggs in. Therefore, we need missions with a manned component to develop these capabilities. Besides, the life-science researchers I'm sure would like to have data on how humans and other organisms live/function in space, and this data could be just as important to us as the composition of Mars rock etc. Flame me if you want, but this is my position on the matter. Keith Amidon -- kamidon@caen.engin.umich.edu