Again, clearly not true. Crewed implies habitable implies need for O2 implies more complexity. This complexity could not be carried on the budget, schedule, and risk allocated for this asteroid lander.
You could say the same thing about safety, and the need for return.
But use of such a system requires development, testing, and flight qualification, affecting cost, schedule, and risk. It will also affect other variables, like volume.
Focusing on a point solution like "propulsion" is not even the right kind of question to answer "why not solve this problem with humans?".
> development, testing, and flight qualification, affecting cost, schedule, and risk
These are all a lot easier if you are not worried about mass anymore. Just give all your structures a 3x safety factor like a bridge, and bring extras of anything complicated. Heck bring a mechanic and tools, too.
Of course this is all fantasy, which was the point of this subthread under kordless, in the first place.
EDIT
> Focusing on a point solution like "propulsion" is not even the right kind of question to answer "why not solve this problem with humans?".
To be more clear: I agree with you. I'm just playing the idea of "what if we had much better propulsion." But of course we don't, so in real life, we do need to carefully consider the factors you mention.
That's a fair point. That's like saying "we have the best medical facilities in the world for any treatment imaginable, but the hospital is five miles away. How will we carry you there in time to be treated?"
You could say the same thing about safety, and the need for return.