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!!