Hypothetical massive spacecraft question

From: David Findlay (david_at_davsoft.com.au)
Date: 08/09/04 

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 13:59:08 +1000

Here's a hypothetical question. Assuming all the problems involved in
getting there were solved, could a team of 250+ scientists plus crew,
working in an artificial gravity environment on board a ship in orbit of an
interesting target(Jupiter, Saturn) do more/better/quicker science, than
what is currently done?

Provided they had appropiate resources, working in shifts 24/7, with probes
and shuttles that could be sent to interesting locations. The robot
exploration people always say that robotic missions can do better than
human manned missions. Maybe they're correct at the moment, but would such
a mission as describe above perform better? Thanks,

David

Relevant Pages

  • =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=22The_bottom_line=3A_science_a?= =?windows-1252?Q?t_NASA_is_disappea
    ... Some of the most highly promoted missions on NASA's scientific agenda would be postponed indefinitely or perhaps even canceled under the agency's new budget, despite its administrator's vow to Congress six months ago that not "one thin dime" would be taken from space science to pay for President Bush's plan to send astronauts to the Moon and Mars. ... Spaceships for interplanetary travel must have artificial gravity ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Hypothetical massive spacecraft question
    ... > getting there were solved, could a team of 250+ scientists plus crew, ... > working in an artificial gravity environment on board a ship in orbit ... > better than human manned missions. ... As long as the money is available, and assuming that your crew don't mind working in a risky environment, the science return from humans on the spot will always be better than that from robots. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast