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

Answer 1

First, the disadvantages:
It's more expensive and limits the scope of the exploration by about a factor of ten. (You can probably send out ten nice unmanned missions for the same cost as every manned one.) And, of course, there is the greater risk to the astronauts' lives, the farther out we reach. Finally, missions with remote probes can last so much longer than humans would be able to endure. Those are the disadvantages.

But there are two advantages of human exploration. First, humans are more versatile and can get things done faster. But most importantly is the thrill and pride that people can feel with such an achievement. It is moving, inspirational. People all over the world get involved. It represents our species at its very finest. The natural human fascination with exploration and discovery has so much more mass appeal when real people are involved. Sometimes this is necessary to keep the dreams alive from one generation to the next, and yes, to stimulate funding as well.

Once in awhile we need to have this kind of adventure.

Answer 2

There are major advantages. First of all a human being can fix things tha tgo wrong--robots usually can't. Most unmanned missions tha thave failed (about half the Mars missions) have been because o fminor glitches that a human could have fixed in minutes.

Second, people are better equipped to doexploring, fo rtwo reasons. First, a robot cn only investigate what it's designed to study. There are a number o fthings we know of on Mars--but can't study for years until a whole new system to study that particular thing is designed, built, and sent.

Also, people can simply do more. Take the Spirit and Opportunity probes on Mars--they have done a fantastic job--they are still going after more than 4 years--more than 10 times as long as they were designed to do.

But a single human being could have covered the ground and taken the samples they have in about a week--and no, I'm not exaggerating.

Finally--and in the long run most important--it is simply impractical to rely only on robots. Why? Well, one of the things we get from space operations--exploratory and otherwise--is knowledge. I won't go over the reasons why that justifies the cost--except that centuries of exxperience wwith science shows basic research ALWAYS has rel payoffs in the long run. But the real potential of space is in access to resources--there is far mmore available up tere than we could ever use on earth in tens of thousands of years--and we only know of a tiny part of what's out there.

But to access those resources takes more than a few small robots--it will take people--going out and building bases, opening up mines and extraction plants, and so on. Space exploration is th e first step , not an end in itself. But until we actually do it--we won't learn HOW to do it--how to travel inspace, how to do it safely and cost-effectively.

Robots can get us a limited amount of scientific information--and they are a valuable tool for that. And that's all. The rest--the bulk of the knowledge to be gained, the methods and experience of living and workin g and travelling in space that are the sine qua non of getting at the really big benefits of space--that requires people. robots simply are not good enough.

Answer 3

There are a couple of advantages:

1. People can respond to unexpected events in a more rational manner. Communications to Earth may take several minutes each way - sometimes you have to decide more quickly, and if the robot is not programmed to respond to a given incident, you may lose the mission unnecessarily. Robots can be programmed to handle ALMOST anything.

2. It is reasonably certain that manned missions will eventually occur - due to the nature of the human spirit. Therefore, it is prudent to prepare for those missions now.

Answer 4

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 5

Yes, a human brain is most powerful than the most powerful of the computers. But the human body is weak and must be protected to a very high cost. So it is worth to send humans to Mars, for example? Or should we send an army of robots although with a limited and artificial intelligence but cheaper than humans who need life support systems. Many scientists think sending robots is better, because we don´t risk human lives.

Answer 6

Hmm.. we can get a subjective response from the person?