If given the choice between manned or robotic space exploration which would you choose and why?

Answer 1

I think both are vitally important to our survival and advancement overall. However, given the choice of only one or the other, robotic missions give us more bang for the buck.

We can operate lots of robotic missions at once, and at a much lower cost than manned missions. Furthermore, if we're patient enough, we could even launch interstellar robotic missions - we'd just have to wait for a few generations to get returns on those investments, but with today's propulsion technology, we have no other choice to leave the solar system.

But in the end, mankind isn't happy unless we actually go there (just like if they tore down the Eiffel Tower, but kept video tours and photos of it. It would never be the same as going there).

Answer 2

Robotic. It takes too much time and life support to efficiently explore the unknown with manned missions. If the 'bots report back with something interesting, a decision can then be made to follow up with more robots, or a manned investigation, or both.

This does not apply to local colonization adventures, for example a Moon base or a Mars base, mining in the asteroid belt, or harvesting hydrogen and other valuable gasses from the gas giant planets . These we should do for the pride and glory of the human race and just because it would be interesting.

Answer 3

Robots should be the first there - to let men know what to expect.

Robots return exactly what they're designed for; if you encounter conditions that you weren't expecting, then what you've sent is useless, and you can't improvise the mission nearly as well as if men were there, able to think, to manipulate the machines they have, and to adapt.

Man was meant to explore; if we just make ourselves comfortable here, then eventually we're going to be extinct. It's likely to happen anyway... but I'd like to think we have a fighting chance. And that chance is through exploration.

Answer 4

For me, I actually think manned would be better.

An easy way of thinking about is this. We send space rovers to Mars. Yet many people still want us to land a person on Mars like we did for the moon.

What it comes down to is that when a robot does a test, it can make mistakes without knowing to fix them. They continue to make the same mistake until something goes terribly wrong.

Humans can realize the mistake and fix it first hand, rather then getting commands from a computer that is looking at the situation back on earth.

Answer 5

Robotic:

1) Less expensive overall;
2) Does not need food, water, air, or gravity to survive;
3) Needs less heat to survive (so less power needed);
4) Can withstand more radiation;
5) Can be sent on a one way trip, so only half the fuel is needed;

and, finally, and perhaps the most important reason:

6) No one cares if something goes wrong, and a robot dies.

Answer 6

This is a no-brainer. Robotics would be the preferred way. Even the scientists would like to see robotics. The problem is all space flight requires funding. No Buck Rogers, no bucks.

Answer 7

If it was like star trek, I'd be on the ship. In reality, robotic, cuz it takes too long.

Answer 8

Robotic.

You gain much more scientific knowledge per dollar spent.