There is a classic banger of a paper, "Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency" [1], which assembles evidence that human space exploration, while expensive, is more cost-effective than robotic. So when i saw Maciej write:
> Today’s automated spacecraft are not only strictly more capable[7] than human astronauts, but cost about a hundred times less [8]
I jumped straight to reference 7, and found:
> [7] I know, no robot can reflect on the nature of the Sublime while looking at sunbeams dancing on the limb of Deimos or whatever. But when it comes to tasks like “look under this rock on Mars” or “fly through this plume and sample it”, robots are awesome.
This is not exactly what i would call a well-researched statement.
In places.
There is a classic banger of a paper, "Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency" [1], which assembles evidence that human space exploration, while expensive, is more cost-effective than robotic. So when i saw Maciej write:
> Today’s automated spacecraft are not only strictly more capable[7] than human astronauts, but cost about a hundred times less [8]
I jumped straight to reference 7, and found:
> [7] I know, no robot can reflect on the nature of the Sublime while looking at sunbeams dancing on the limb of Deimos or whatever. But when it comes to tasks like “look under this rock on Mars” or “fly through this plume and sample it”, robots are awesome.
This is not exactly what i would call a well-researched statement.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.6250