Humans and Robots . . again

> Please note that in both cases the problems were in life support
> subsystems. No air locks, no toilets, no carbon dioxide removers,
no
> buttons and dials, no haptic control systems, no space suits, no
> complicated life support systems are required for robotic
activity.
> Think how much lighter and therefore how much more payload could
be
> lifted if the shuttle was not designed for humans.
>
> Mitchell James
>

Your observations are noted. I'll agree with you that if there were
no life support systems on board the shuttle or ISS, then the number
of sub-systems would decline as would the number of trouble points,
but surely you're not saying that mechanical glitches occur only in
life support systems. What of the systems that would have to be
added to replace human functionality?

My question still remains, what happens to a mission, a probe, a
component that fails and there is no one near by to give it a
jiggle, turn a screw, or perform some other mundane but vital task.
As Mike Combs pointed out with Galileo, do we just abandon the
mission, probe, etc. If I could presume to ask, I'd be keen on
reading your rebuttal to his comments.

I can't decide from what you've written thus far if you hold the
opinion that even with abandonment and subsequent launch of a
replacement, that the cost would still be less than designing
engineering for life support into the mission. If this is so then
I'd be interested in reading your rationale for that position.

TangoMan