>that is an organization problem, but anyway I disagree with
How so? I guess I misunderstand what is meant by "organizational problem". For me it's "we want to do X but due to bureaucratic inertia and lack of organization it's impractical to do it". Like "we need to buy a new blackboard but in order to do it we have to go through a 29step process and 5 commissions so nobody bothers".
My point is that we're lacking the 'X' to begin with for space exploration. What's the big end goal currently? Putting humans on Mars? Some talk about it but nobody seems to be in a hurry and it seems more about propaganda and boasting rights than hard science.
>The rate at which humans on site would accomplish things is not to be scoffed at. Whether it's worth the other costs getting them there is still up for debate. But robots are not hands down better.
There's a trade-off of course but I would be very surprised if it wasn't in the robot's favor. For one thing to this day it's still unclear how we could send humans to Mars while maintaining them in good health. What do we do with them after the mission? They settle on an inhospitable planet or we find a way to retrieve them back to Earth?
Curiosity weighs 899kg, I doubt that humans + habitat + supplies + power + experiments + all the safety-related overhead of having live humans involved will probably amount to several time that mass (which as we know is a big problem with rockets, since more mass means more fuel which means more mass which means more fuel...). Let's not even talk about the trip back.
Sure Curiosity is slow, but once it's landed I suspect that the ongoing operating costs aren't insanely high.
That's all back-of-the-enveloppe calculations of course but I would be very surprised if sending humans to do Curiosity's work wasn't at least an order of magnitude more expensive, even if you factor the shorter total mission time.