POLL: Future Missions - Robots or Humans?

[Jerromy]

Lets expand this a little. Machines (robots included) are obviously a necessity to get off the ground in the first place. There are still humans controlling the machines (rovers included) so the debate has very little to do with reality. IMHO having humans land on an empty planet and setting up base with their own hands is ********. Advanced technology is required to have a base ready to land at. The debate over cost, risk and capabilities is just politics. With robots here to build and there to set up is simple technology and would promote HUMAN exploration most efficiently. Don't send a man to do a robot's job. Once the technology is practiced on the moon the Mars base would be a stone's throw away.

 

[Astronutwannabe]

I voted 50/50, but I feel its should be more like 90/10 robots/human

Let the robots do the initial check out and check out the environmental conditions to see if it would be worth the time and money to send humans to do a more thorough exploration.

Both types of missions have there own special points. Robots are cheaper, can be designed to work in extreme environments (ie Venus), can be sent on more distant mission (ie Voyager), can be sent on one way/suicide missions (ie Galileo Atmospheric probe). But robots can only do what they are initial designed to do, very little adaptability is build into them to save on cost. Humans are obiviously better working independently, making real time decisions, adapting to changing situations, and a human mission basically guaranttes that samples will be brought back to earth for more thorough analysis. But human missions are much more costly at every aspect.

 

[halman]

Wow! So many first time posters, some who have been members for months. Welcome to all of you! Obviously, this issue is important enough to get the lurkers to step forward.

As someone said, money is the problem. What we are spending on space exploration is mere pennies compared to what is spent on cosmetics in the United States every year. Cosmetics! Consider that the recent financial crisis saw over 1 TRILLION dollars disappear from the ledgers. The money is there, if we can find a justification for spending it.

Unfortunately, exploration is a poor investment, in the eyes of business investors, be it by robots or by humans. They want to see a return on their investment, something of value. This is why, in part, Mars is no nearer to having human visitors than it was 40 years ago. This is also why we have the International Space Station, in spite of the U. S. governments reluctance to fund it.

There is money to be made in space, lots of it. No one can say where, or how, but the ability to mix oil and water, to create metal foams, to grow huge crystals, these things promise that products will be identified which will have commercial value on Earth. THAT is what gets investors blood flowing faster, not pretty pictures of distant galaxies, or new data about black holes.

Somebody said that there is nothing of value on the Moon, because what is on the Moon is the same things that are on Earth. A recent issue of National Geographic described the mining of gold on Earth, at a pit mine in Indonesia. Extracting a single ounce of gold there requires removing 250 tons of rock and ore. This mine is expected to only last another 20 years before it is played out, while its operation is burying square miles of jungle under the waste materials.

We are in grave danger of extinction, but not by an incoming rock, but at our own hands. Only a small portion of the world’s population enjoys the standard of living the average American does, yet we already are dumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. What will the environmental consequences be of even one-half of the world’s population attaining the standard of living Americans take for granted?

Practically every one in this community of space advocates envisions traveling to other planets, colonizing the Moon, going SOMEWHERE. But space itself is likely to be our destination, for many years to come, because space, the weightless environment, is where the money is to be made. Raw materials from the Moon, asteroids, even Mercury will be needed, but those mines will be largely automated. Space stations in orbit around the Sun, enjoying uninterrupted power, will be where most humans are employed.

All of this development will necessarily require the creation of new space craft, launch vehicles, and other hardware, which will facilitate the exploration of our solar system. The huge cost of keeping humans alive in space will demand the creation of advanced robots, which will lead the way to Mars and other destinations.

 

[kelvinzero]

I couldnt choose any of those options.

I hate the way the budget is divided up between human and robotic, such that both sides are forced to slag off the other to the public in attempt to get funding for themselves.

Im not remotely interested in manned spaceflight. It serves no purpose in of it self except as an amusement, like shooting men out of a cannon. Im very interested in space colonization. In that context manned spaceflight definitely has a purpose but there are also other key problems that have to be solved, and involve both robots and things that can be 90% done right here on earth, such as ISRU and everything we need to know to live outside earth's biosphere indefinitely.

To me the choice is not between sending men or robotics, but whether we are now ready to begin the long road towards colonization. Once we make this decision then we decide what we need.

 

[dragon04]

I voted for the "Go Robot" option, but as with others, I didn't see a choice that I really liked.

Among other things, I think we have to identify why we would find it imperative to continue to demand or expect Manned Spaceflight by a Government Agency when private enterprise is now so close. To me, this is a natural evolution in manned spaceflight.

When our space program started, I think it's fair to say that the overwhelming impetus was to not allow the USSR exclusive possession of the "High Ground". That evolved into a marvelous propaganda tool and source of national pride via the Apollo Program. Then the world moved on.

I suppose some could argue that for the sake of redundancy, that NASA should stay in the business of building rockets and lunching astronauts on them. I see a less robust role for NASA in Manned Spaceflight. They have the facilities and the people to operate Astronaut U. where Government and civilian astronauts learn their trade, and private enterprise provides the rides.

IMO, NASA really is at its best and most cost-effective when it does robotic science missions, and I believe that this should be their primary role as Space heads towards commercialization.

 

[davcbow]

We need both robotic missions and human missions but not quite 50-50. Sure send up the robotic missions to figure out the right place to go and a safe place to land but then more human flights to explore the solar system. Its pointless to send just robotic missions to these places. A human can do more research hands on than with a robot. Take the 2 Mer robots that are on Mars. What they have both learned a human could have done in a tenth of the time even less.

 

[tanstaafl76]

Interplanetary human missions are going to be few and far between for costs reasons alone. The tolerance for loss of crew life is very low, and the result is that "safe" space missions (as oxymoronic as it sounds) are very expensive. This is not likely to change any time soon, and if anything may become more exaggerated. Because of this, when we do get a chance to do a manned mission, we have to make it count; we have to make sure humans are getting sent somewhere worthwhile to do something worthwhile. For that, we need robots to find the best places to go.

I used to think we should skip the moon and go directly back to Mars. But the more I think about it, the less realistic I think that is in order to have any type of presence there that is more than a few footprints. There is no point in going to Mars if we are going to just turn around and come back, it's too expensive. We need to have some sort of self-sustaining habitat there that can last a bit longer, has a high degree of survivability, and give us a lasting outpost on the planet.

But we simply are not prepared to do that today, we do not have enough real-world experience in long-term living in such an environment. That is where the moon comes in to provide a closer, cheaper option for us to learn valuable lessons necessary for having a long-term presence on another planet. In the meantime the people spending time on the moon can be concentrating on finding valuable contributions our lunar presence can make for the rest of us back home, whether it is massive solar farms beaming microwave energy back to the planet, or the mining of rare elements that are more scarce on earth, etc.

So in short, our human missions should be to the moon to learn how to have a self-sustaining colony (or as self-sustaining as possible), while robots scour Mars to find the best place for us to eventually set up a habitat.

 

[DatSpaceMan]

Damn...I was gonna pick 50/50 but my brain made me pick robots! :shock: I would say both, since we need the human race to accomplish it but also a companion to help the astronauts. Robots may hold the key to exploration, at least part of it.

 

[Booban]

Robots first! Or a human from a 3rd world country, they are cheaper than robots!

Just kidding. Almost. In many cases this is how it is calculated. In industrialised countries robots replace the expensive human, in undeveloped countries a robot/machine is far too expensive, better to hire 20 humans instead.

Just pretend that a human is a robot. If you were to make a robot as good as a human, its would be very expensive and advanced, the envy of all robots. Use this only when the missions call for it. And then recognize many of your regular robots are crappy and can't even do the simplest things, like putting some dirt in an oven.

But investment in robot technology can actually generate a return of investment, as robots have applications here on earth too. Investing in humans in space, well, thats only useful in space, its not like you get a better human in the end.

Edit: This means that you may actually be getting a cheap deal by using humans. Imagine the most perfect robot and what it would cost, then consider humans are still better. How much would it cost to make a robot do all the things a human can do? Therefore it is cheaper to send the human.