Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives)
Message-ID: <1989Dec18.234704.16742@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <8911281928.AA16375@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <3240@ibmpa.UUCP> <11042@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <49444@bbn.COM> <1989Dec12.193633.28964@utzoo.uucp> <129351@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 23:47:04 GMT

In article <129351@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> jmck@sun.UUCP (John McKernan) writes:
>>  Apollo
>>accomplished much more than some of its detractors admit, and it would
>>have taken a very large and costly unmanned program to get similar
>>results.  It *may* be true that it would have been cheaper to do things
>>that way, but it is *not* a self-evident fact.
>
>Our experience in space makes it empirically evident that unmanned space can 
>currently achieve as much or more than manned space for orders of magnitude
>less. Everything that Apollo accomplished (sample returns, pictures, etc)
>could have been done for less with unmanned technology...

Uh, John, did you *read* what I wrote?  If so, might I ask for the details
and numbers behind your assertion that this is "empirically evident"?
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 would be interested in seeing cost estimates for an unmanned
Apollo equivalent, and I don't know exactly what the bottom line would be,
but I know one thing:  when you start comparing apples to apples, instead
of apples to oranges, unmanned isn't so cheap any more.

>...If we really
>want to explore the moon, we need a base were at least a couple of
>dozen people can live for a long time. They need the ability to
>travel over the entire surface of the moon. The base needs to be self-
>sustaining and self-expanding with no or low mass supplies from Earth.
>All of this needs to be done for a maximum of roughly 200 billion
>dollars. We don't have the technology to do this now and we need a
>diverse R&D effort to get there.

Sorry, I simply don't believe this.  Ever looked at some of the plans for
extended Apollo operations, and the bases that were expected to follow?
We had the technology to explore the Moon at affordable cost twenty years
ago.  The people claiming we need oodles of new technology and a decade
of R&D and vast sums of money are the empire builders and contractors,
who care about the process and not the result.
-- 
1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972:  human |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
