undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdwc9y ago0 comments

As someone who worked on a NASA Lunar mission (LROC), I can tell you that there are opinions both ways. With NASA on a shoestring budget, some scientists feel the best science return on investment is robots. But there are plans to put humans back on the moon that would not cost all that much more. If it weren't for the fixed budget, I'm sure almost all scientists would want manned missions.

Why? Go read some more about Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, who was on the Moon with Gene Cernan. Having a geologist on the moon enabled spotting things, making judgements, and then following up on the spot. Sending a scientist who can also pilot (and Schmitt was damned good) rather than only having military pilots changes the game as far as the science return.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

bbcbasic9y ago· 1 in thread

Thanks, you obviously know your stuff.

I wonder if with AI advances though, we can have robots that are 'damned good' pilots that can also spot things.

(The judgements would need to be made back on Earth though, admittedly, with speed of light lag as an annoying factor.)

dwcOP9y ago

I think the real answer is that there should be some balance of manned vs. robotic missions. Where that balance lies is a matter for debate. Having worked on a robotic mission I am very much in favor of doing more of that.

As for me knowing about this... I have more perspective than most people, but it all comes from listening to scientists, who are the ones with knowledge of the science gains. I wish they had a bit more voice than they do.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse