"David Findlay" wrote in message ...
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,

Interesting question. I can imagine three ways in which human investigators
might outperform robotic missions.

1. In rapidly crafting and deploying modified scientific instruments to
ask unanticipated "follow-up questions". So, I have to ask, is the ship
assumed to be equipped with machine shops, optics labs, and electronic
workshops?
2. In using non-specific tools for the collection of interesting geological
and perhaps biological samples from the surface of a moon, and possibly
also for moving around on a moon. So, I have to ask, in fairness to the
robots: Having placed a few scientists on the surface of a moon, can the
"mother ship" just leave them there and proceed to another moon? Or do
the scientists have to somehow be returned to Earth?
3. In "noticing" a phenomenon that would not show itself in a robotic
data-stream sent to Earth. So, I have to ask: Are you assuming equal
time-on-site for robots and humans or equal cost of mission for robots
and humans?

Of course, your question was whether the humans would do better than
"what is currently done". Well, of course they would! But I doubt,
by the time we are sending missions of this size to the gas giants, that
robotics won't have advanced to the point where the robots would clearly
win the competition.