(Putting this in Moon, as his main comparison point is Apollo, but also applies to Mars)http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.6250
The paper often expresses efficiency in terms of science per unit mission time. It mentions, for example, Steve Squyres' observation that the MERs do in a sol what a geologist could do in less than a minute. Another example is Figure 3, which shows separately the cumulative number of publications per day of field work for both Apollo and for the Lunokhods. The trouble is, the limiting resource is not mission time, but money. By itself, efficiency expressed as scientific output per unit mission time is completely irrelevant.
The paper also inflates Apollo costs to the present with an irrelevant inflation index: the inflation rate relevant to the space sector has been quite a bit higher than indicated by any broad-economy index. The cost of Apollo is thus underestimated.
To some extent, the paper also compares robotic martian exploration with manned lunar exploration (e.g., MERs vs. Apollo). Well, human exploration of Mars would be quite a bit more expensive than that of the moon.
The title claims that "human space exploration will tell us more about the Solar System than will robotic exploration alone." That may well be true, but I suspect it will be in large part because people will be willing to spend far more money on human exploration than on robotic exploration.
Artificial intelligence, image recognition and robotics have had a tremendous development in the past 10 years. If man is not in the way, it will be in a couple of years.I sure hope manned exploration proceeds, cause there is nothing exciting with robots. But soon there won't be a thing that can't be done by a robot instead of a man.
That presupposes that space is on the forefront of technology.. it isn't. Although it is quite possible to send a fully automated robot to Mars that can do good science, that isn't what is done and won't be, so long as the motivation for sending these probes is the careers of scientific researchers here on Earth.
Good luck putting a human geologist on mars who would observe local weather patterns for 8 years without any resupplies.( there is an obvious point to this post, i'd rather not state it )
Quote from: Proponent on 03/31/2012 03:49 pmThe paper often expresses efficiency in terms of science per unit mission time. It mentions, for example, Steve Squyres' observation that the MERs do in a sol what a geologist could do in less than a minute. Another example is Figure 3, which shows separately the cumulative number of publications per day of field work for both Apollo and for the Lunokhods. The trouble is, the limiting resource is not mission time, but money. By itself, efficiency expressed as scientific output per unit mission time is completely irrelevant. What efficiency indices would you suggest?
QuoteThe paper also inflates Apollo costs to the present with an irrelevant inflation index: the inflation rate relevant to the space sector has been quite a bit higher than indicated by any broad-economy index. The cost of Apollo is thus underestimated.All missions examined (which include unmanned missions) use the same index, so whether or not this is the best index is a secondary issue. What matters is the proportional costs.
Please recall, everybody, that one of the most astounding discoveries about the Moon, namely the presence of polar volatiles, has come entirely from robotic exploration.
Please recall, everybody, that one of the most astounding discoveries about the moon, namely the presence of polar volatiles, has come entirely from robotic exploration.
If you just want basic met data, use a an automated station.
There are some things that automation is very good at, others that ity is not.
I would suggest that it's up to the Crawford to define what kind of efficiency he's talking about, since he states that robotic probes are less efficient. He doesn't do that but rather throws around various ideas of efficiency without examining whether they're relevant. I suggest that output per dollar spent is the relevant criterion, since money is almost always the limiting factor. Crawford doesn't seem much interested in this measure.
I suggest that output per dollar spent is the relevant criterion, since money is almost always the limiting factor. Crawford doesn't seem much interested in this measure.
The paper also inflates Apollo costs to the present with an irrelevant inflation index: the inflation rate relevant to the space sector has been quite a bit higher than indicated by any broad-economy index. The cost of Apollo is thus underestimated.The point of inflating costs to the present is to allow apples-to-apples comparisons of costs incurred at different times. Granted, a comparison of the cost of Surveyor to that of Apollo is relatively insensitive to the inflation index used, since both programs occurred at about the same time. If, however, we're comparing Apollo with LRO, then the inflation index used makes a difference. Between 1966 and 2010, the CPI (used by Crawford) rose by a factor of about 6.7. The more appropriate NASA New-Start Index rose by a factor of 8.9. (Now that I've calculated those ratios, I admit the difference isn't as large as I expected it to be, somewhat blunting my criticism.)
Again, my point is that Crawford never adopts a definition of efficiency and presents various measures that might be regarded as efficiencies but aren't really relevant.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 04/01/2012 05:08 amIf you just want basic met data, use a an automated station.You mean, a robot ? : )
There are some things that automation is very good at, others that it is not.
Thanks for stating the obvious.