Is there an advantage in sending people to explore space rather than robots?

Answer 1

It is strictly a PR advantage. They all look so brave and daring and can give interviews on TV when the next NASA budget hearings come up. Robots are not as attractive and no one believes they are really talking.

Answer 2

Yes. The vast majority of space exploration to date has been by man made machines. Even these don't survive all that well.

There is a total lack of what space is by most people. Space is a totally hostile place. We have nothing that can stop some forms of radiation. Humans just can not survive in space.

If you'll pay attention you'll notice that the "space" station in not really in space. It is well within the protective shield of Earth. Even where it is, people are limited to the amount of time they can stay there. You'll notice that moon flights are short. We just cant ask people to be exposed to that kinda of radiation and expect to live very long once they get back on Earth.

It is a totally fantasy to think that a human can get in a space craft and start a journey toward Mars. They would be dead within two weeks.

Answer 3

Depends on what you go for. If you just want facts, then machines will be fine. If you want the EXPERIENCE, send people. The advantage of sending people is the savings in time. With a brain on-site, a mission can be ordered and redirected as soon as a radio signal reaches the astronauts.

Look at the Mars probes, Spirit & Opportunity.... they've been on the surface of Mars for 10 years - and have gone about 10 miles, collectively. The Apollo Astronauts were on the moon for three days on the longest mission - and traveled 17 miles in that time.

Answer 4

Because people can do things robots can't. When was the last time you saw a robot make the bed or repair a leaking roof? There is more to space exploration that taking interesting pictures with a remote controlled camera.

Answer 5

Despiet the loose use of terminology, no robot has ever been launched into space. Robots are pre-programmed and then operate independently. Even the two rovers currently operating on Mars are instructed each day what to do. A true robot would be programmed before launch, and then operate on those instructions indefinitely. Humans are more flexible in responding to problems. One of the Martian rovers has a stuck rear wheel. A human on board a jeep or whatever would simply fix it, which the rover cannot. Humans also are more apt to spot things of interest and respond to them. And face it, wasn't Michael Rennie more interesting than Gort?

Answer 6

The only advantage I can see would be that from a point of reasoning out a given situation, man would have the distinct advantage to be able to comprehend a given problem that was faced an come to a reasonable solution, while a robot would have to respond to its programing, which may or may not cover all variables.

Answer 7

In some cases yes, in others no.

For routine exploration such composition of the moon or planets, i.e. Mars especially, robots are more efficient. For more in depth exploration such as, are there resources on the moon to speed a manned trip to Mars humans are needed.

Below is a NASA link with some additional information.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/main/index.html

Answer 8

people feel