I saw two panel political cartoon once I've never forgotten. First panel showed a very busy industrial plant with robots looking like they were rushing all over the place among a plethora of other automation. The facility had a fence all around it and a sign, "Fully automated facility. No humans needed."
The second panel showed the same facilities some years or decades later. No movement inside, the facility falling apart, robots and automations generally in pieces, the fence and place in shambles. The same sign is still on the fence: "Fully automated facility. No humans needed" (too expensive).
I don't see that as relevant; sending things that don't last and need ongoing maintenance (then not provide it) would be foolish, but that need for equipment reliability would be even greater to keep crew alive and safe - which would become the primary focus of mission planning in place of the mission goal the moment the decision to include them was made.
We've had probes do close fly-bys of every planet, including
almost-planet Pluto, visit Titan, plus multiple lander visits to Moon and Mars and Venus and a couple of asteroids as well. Apart from the Moon,
none of those could even be reached by a crewed mission.
Doing exploration with drones, rovers, robots doesn't exclude humans, rather it makes the very best use of humans - working on Earth with all the resources needed at hand, where they are most productive. The people who designed them will be fully involved. Machines go further, last longer and do it on a budget.
Don't diss the machines - or the people who have made them work so extraordinarily well.