Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!Conde.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA From: Conde.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #141 Message-ID: <17618@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Mar-84 13:32:20 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.17618 Posted: Fri Mar 16 13:32:20 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Mar-84 07:53:10 EST Lines: 14 In regards to hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax's fallacy #1. Although I would like to see a space station, I must admit that I, along with some people in the astronomy department at my old school believe that unmanned missions are as effective in getting MUCH (but ofcourse not ALL) of the job done. And they are terribly expensive things to do when the budget is tight. The message mentioned that lunar soil was returned by manned missions. Unmanned vehicles did return lunar soil. However, an astronaut is able to identify more interesting samples. Better robot technology may help that, however. Don't get me wrong, I'm for the space station all the way!!