POLL: Future Missions - Robots or Humans?

[doublehelix]

Forty years after Apollo, human spaceflight is somewhat stalled, yet even many robotics geeks think we need to do better at sending humans beyond Earth orbit. See our special report, THE MOON: Then, Now, Next.

[docm]

Option 4: humans where appropriate and real-time decision making and dexterity are needed, robots where all you need are sensors and claws.

[MeteorWayne]

I picked 50/50 because like most polls, the real options aren't listed. I figure about 80% robotic/20% manned would accomplish exploration the best.

[adbasmith]

k

The point to exploration is too go there. If human exploration was all done by robotics I can't decide if we would still be in caves or trees. Sending a robot for recon is fine, but its not explored until there are boots on the ground.

Besides, getting humans off the planet should be a goal.

And I mean colonization of the Solar System and beyond.

adba

[PresidenToor]

Splitting it 50/50 IS the definition of stupid.

It wastes resources and creates entitlements towards spending more to complete robotic missions. We can't just say lets stop this 500 million dollar robo-thing, when we've already spent 250 on it. Another illustration: if you spend 100 million on a Mars Rover mission, guess what? You're gonna spend another 300 million on another Mars Rover mission! And so on it goes. It lacks focus, and what lacks focus - lacks interest.

Furthermore, human missions encompass a greater number of industries utilized in their completion. Benefits we see today from the Apollo missions come from the fact that they were developed during the Apollo Era for humans, so naturally they are able to help humans today. Whereas technologies developed for robots have little use in helping humans.

[boba_fett138]

Manned missions will get more of the public interested in space exploration, which will create more funding from the government/commercial world.the general public is bored with robots and probes, but everyone would be watching if we sent a human to Mars.

[Safir]

The only reason robotic probes are used because human travel to that particular object is not possible. Of course human space travel is equally important. It provides motivation, confidence & creativity for the current & the upcoming generations. Human space exploration will encourage more kids to study science or at least understand the scientific method. The whole world needs more science graduates than business or law students!

[MeteorWayne]

"The only reason robotic probes are used because human travel to that particular object is not possible. "

I don't believe that is true. Certainly for some locations (the outer solar system, it is at that time) but the function of the current lunar robotic missions (yes really, even orbiters are robotic) is to research the safety and targets for future human exploration. In fact that is the primary (first year) mission of the LRO and LCROSS.

In a sense, the Mars landers are perfoming the same missions, investigation the future potential targets for human missions.

[grb_fanboy]

I agree with DOCM. I think NASA should focus more on manned missions and let smaller entities and partners cover the robotic missions. NASA needs to be on the forefront, robotics have been proven and need to be passed on to the private sector.

[Aerospace_Cadet]

Lets not forget why we need manned space missions and why we need to establish colonies on other worlds. It is to preserve our specis. It is not wise to put all you eggs in one basket. One large asteroid or comet and it's game over for the Earth. Unless you can incorporate human DNA in robots the only possible solution is manned (and womened!) exploration/colonization.

[Safir]

My point was that we'd go everywhere possible ourselves. If we can't, for financial or practical reasons, then we send probes! The primary objective is to gather information about the object, not just only for us to travel there.

[SpeedRunner]

I think for manned missions, with should stick with LEO, the Moon, Mars, and maybe a Venus fly-by. When we get that mastered down (which probably won't be in any of our lifetimes) then we should try a manned mission to the asteroids and possibly the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

As for robotic missions, those are useful as well. We certainly wouldn't want to send a manned craft as far out as the Voyager probe. We wouldn't be able to bring them back. Use robots for everything we are not willing to use manned missions for.

[MasterSith]

I picked 50/50 because like most polls, the real options aren't listed. I figure about 80% robotic/20% manned would accomplish exploration the best.

I was thinking 60/40 or 70/30, with the larger portion going to manned, because manned costs more, but is more beneficial, as far as I'm concerned anyway.

Douglas
http://thespaceadvocate.blogspot.com/

[trailrider]

If Man (and I definitely include the female of the species!) is NOT to "boldly go", then what is the point of sending robotic probes on ahead? Obviously, there are places that robot probes can go that Man can't go...at least at present...or may never be able to go due to conditions (the "surface" of Jupiter, for example). But what is the point of spending the money to send robots to places where Man him/herself can go eventually, if not to show the way?

The question often asked is should we go to Earth's Moon, OR Mars, OR the asteroids, etc. That, IMHO, is the WRONG question. It is not whether, but how soon? What should our ultimate objective be? THE UNIVERSE! The Moon, Mars, the asteroids, the Jovian and Saturnian moons are but waystations to the stars!

And WE MUST go out there..."thataway"...if we are to be true to our own human nature...to advance beyond our present state of being; to improve our lives; to satisfy the curiosity about what is "over the next hill", which is what makes us Human!

I can't say what proportion of available money we should devote to each, but we definitely need to proceed beyond Low Earth Orbit. And, if we Americans don't, believe me, the Chinese, Japanese and Indians will, not to mention the Russians!

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

[badpoet]

I didn't know the site was so full of space cadets. Regarding the thrill of it, can anyone please name a human mission more thrilling than Cassini, in the past, let's say 25 years. Unfortunately, you cannot, and you still won't be able to, even in 2015, when New Horizons meets Pluto and you will be celebrating some nonsense like the 700th or 800th human into space.

[MeteorWayne]

In about 10 minutes the 500th human will be launched into space

[docm]

Robots can be the scouts, but there are things we do better - witness Harrison Schmitt's performance during Apollo, both in training others to perform well and during Apollo 17.

It takes a sharp, well trained eye to do geology well. While the robots on Mars have done an admirable job, humans on a rover could have done a better and faster job of discriminating what to look at.

[Mr_RSeay]

Robots are lab rats minus PETA and ACLU. They should prove the basics of planets and asteroids viability for exploration by humans. As with say Spirit on Mars, it can't yet get out of a sand pit. Humans at JPL are working on that. I love what that rover and Opportunity have done. But on the Moon during Apollo, those guys in a similar situation would use know how to get out of a problem like that.

If say Columbus could of sent a few rovers west, he might of chosen Florida or New York.

[Jacksle]

More funding in general, just a bad question. We need the probes to remain our main means of scouting, but it is just it looking where we are going to be. Because of the length of many of these probes journeys it is important that we continue to develop and launch probes. Ideally at an even higher rate than now, our rate of discovery in the years to come depends on it.

Being flooded with date for the next 20 years as our manned space program, getting the funding and interest it deserves, continues to push the human aspect. There are plenty of manned mission that are doable if they had the funding, Mars is on this list as well as a long term settlement on the Moon, and as they are doing them our wonderful little eyes in the sky continue to get closer to the next destination of our race.

[geofbrewer]

I voted for human exploration. Yes, exploration is dangerous. Is the debate stupid? Not by any means. Fifty-fifty? Robotic missions can be done cheaper and more frequently. Robots can go first. Humans can follow. We still have to get back to the moon, Luna, or whatever name one wishes. Mars, mine the asteroid belt, then check out Titan and Jupiter's moons as well. The big, gas planets are just as dangerous. We need to be considering long term trips and stays on these sites. One needs to consider the death of Earth and the potential for survival elsewhere.