Finding opinions on the topic of human versus robotic space flight was very easy. It seems almost everyone has an opinion and many seem to be very adamant about their position. However their seems to be one major difference between arguments I have seen between the different sides. The arguments on the human space flight side all seem to agree robotic space flight has a place in our space program where robotic space flight arguments all seem to say human space flight should be removed immediately and possibly permanently to allow maximum fruition of robotic space flight.
For example, Paul Damphousse, the newly appointed executive director of the National Space Society in early 2012, stated the he would be having the NSS to provide political push for human space flight with a focus toward commercial based crew transportation to get the United States "off from relying on foreign providers to access the International Space Station."[1] But, at the same time he made clear they would also work to keep the commercial and programs of record (the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch Systems) from having overruns to purposely inhibit the programs from "siphon[ing] funds away from other programs.”[2] It can be safely assumed at least some, if not all, of the other programs he refers to are robotic
…show more content…
space flight programs showing they have a place within the overarching structure of the US space program. On the other hand, Martin Rees, a Cambridge professor, a prior president of the Royal Society, and an accomplished Astronomer, stated that for him it is "hard to see any particular reason or purpose in going back to the moon or indeed sending people into space at all."[3] Although Martin Rees acknowledges the importance of past human space flight, it is obvious he would rather see only robotic space flight in our future. These two statements do have some similarities in that they acknowledge the importance of the type of space flight they do not argue for.
Where they seem to differ is the importance of continuing the other type and the reasons for their opinions. Paul Damphousse indicates the importance of continuing both types of space flight, but stresses the importance of human space flight because of the realities beyond the scientific community (the political aspects of indecent space access by the United States). Whereas, Martin Rees is concerned about robotic space flight because it can provide more diverse missions within the same timeframe and budget as human space
flight. Given the structure and tone of Martin Rees' statement, I believe he would agree with most of Chapter 1's progression in Robots In Space as it is leading to robotics eventually eliminating the human aspect of space flight beyond the initial launch. However, I think he would be skeptical of the possible "cyborg" future of space travel. On the other hand, Paul Damphousse would probably be more open to the entire progression while continuing to encourage a blended approach to space flight.
In this article, Lind devotes most of his time arguing of why human spaceflight should end. He provides very little evidence for any benefits of using robotic probes. He does describe a few examples of where they are going, but he doesn’t give any information on what the advantage is of using robotic probes rather than humans. Lind has a very sarcastic tone in this argument, and he doesn’t give enough credit to the astronauts. In conclusion, I believe that this article is not written well, and has minuscule evidence to why spaceflight should end, which ironically is the title of the article.
Uncrewed exploration is seen as less expensive, more efficient, and more productive than crewed spaceflight. This is due to a number of factors, the most important of which is the concept of “man-rating” a spacecraft. A man-rating is a certification that the entire vehicle is capable of sustaining life with a reasonable degree of reliability. This certification requires much more testing and therefore more money to reach. Astronauts must also be trained, maintained, and supported. Proponents of crewed spaceflight say that robotic missions lack the judgement of astronauts when selecting scientific samples. They also state that the astronaut themselves could be seen as a scientific instrument, a biological payload in another sense. Microgravity (“zero-g”) and higher or lower gravities than Earth must be adequately explored, and practical data is the most rewarding
Space exploration has changed and developed since the first man was sent into space. Advanced rockets, new computer technology, and remote controlled robots are only a few of the things that made space travel possible. Even though this technology was efficient, it was not cheap. When a rocket was sent into space, only the capsule holding the astronauts returned to space. This expensive way of space travel was forever changed with the creation of the space shuttle. The Columbia space shuttle was important to space exploration because it used new technology that changed space travel, completed missions that other spacecraft could not, and brought new people into space.
...to, the likelihood of private space flight and exploration companies rushing to fill a void created by the defunding of the space exploration division of NASA is almost a guarantee. If, with a budget only a small fraction that of the NASA space exploration budget, and a few great minds, private companies like SpaceX, Cygnus, and Virgin Atlantic can make such huge advances in space flight and research; how much more could they accomplish if they were not forced to compete with an over bloated, non-essential, and stagnant government bureaucracy. Though I may never reach the stars, it is my hope that one day my children or grand children will realize that dream, and if we as a people and as a nation set our priorities straight and put the focus on our youth who will one day lead us, that dream that has eluded all but a select few can and will become a reality for all.
These are the reasons why I believe there should be more investment in space research and technology. It would be a time consuming and financially draining quest, but the pay off in new technology, applications, resources, and expansion opportunities make it a goal to strive for. As our rate of consumption of Earth’s natural resources continues to increase, it is imperative that we invest in the research of outer space as a possible solution to sustaining the human race.
It is within man’s blood and nature to explore, and space is our next New World. Man’s first achievement in space travel was the launch of the Sputnik on October 4, 1957. For the next decades, space travel was roaring like a rocket, fueled by man’s desire to explore, man’s desire for knowledge, and man’s desire to beat his enemies. However, these impulses have died out as the well of government funding has been diverted to wars and debts, and the interest of the American people has been diverted to wars and debts. Amidst all these issues it is debated as to whether or not space travel is worth the money and the attention of scientists, particularly since humanity faces so many issues on earth currently. However, because of the past inventions, current services, and future benefits, space travel is indeed worth the money and attention of governments and people. It is within our hands to control man’s advancement, and space travel is the next venue to do so.
Carl Sagan once said “every planetary civilization will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring--not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive... If our long-term survival is at stake, we have a basic responsibility to our species to venture to other worlds.” The National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA, is executing Sagan’s words every day. President Dwight D. Eisenhower created NASA in 1958 with the purpose of peaceful rather than military space exploration and research to contribute to society. Just 11 years after the creation, NASA put Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon, the first humans to accomplish this feat. NASA’s research and innovation looked promising but it came at a cost. Money, resources, and spacecraft accidents most famously Apollo 13 all hindered NASA’s research. In the 21st century the debate between funding for NASA is at its peak since the birth of the organization in 1958 especially when there are numerous problems throughout the world. Is the money spent on space exploration worth the advantages and advances it contributes to society?
The main argument against space travel says that the money used could be better put on other matters. This is in fact very untrue. Looking at NASA’s 2015 budget of 17.5 billion, it may seem like a lot, until you realize that the US military budget for 2014 was 581 billion dollars (5). Furthermore, it was estimated that each dollar in NASA’s budget was equivalent to 8 – 10 dollars of economic benefit (6). If an organization can bring about economic value at 10 folds the original budget, it would be logical to continue funding it, if not increasing the funds. Even if we disregard the economic value of the space program, the achievements of NASA speak for themselves. The ability to send humans onto the moon, survey the surface of Mars using the Curiosity rover, and even finding water on a foreign planet is astounding. Even looking at the International Space Station, it seems abundantly clear that the space program brings more unanimity between nations than the military will ever hope to achieve, while the military has a budget 33 times that of the space program. Hence, blaming the costs of the space program is an absurd argument, as the budget that is put into the program is used very
The recent events regarding the NASA Mars probes have renewed the debate of reinstalling manned space missions with the objectives of exploring and landing on foreign worlds such as the moon and the red planet Mars, rather than the use of solely robotic craft and machines. It is my belief that we should return to the days of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, those of manned lunar landings and manned space exploration. Robots simply cannot and should not be allowed to be the sole means of visiting these worlds, nor should humans only be able to witness new findings second hand through the use of computers and machines. It is human nature to be normally curious of one’s surroundings, and it is important that we send one of our own to new worlds. The effects that past missions have had on the world’s people, as well as our political and cultural climates are another valid reason for flesh instead of metal to lay claim to space. Also, the limitless applications and new education that manned flights can bring to us from on site human interactions could lead to another technological and industrial revolution like the original lunar programs had done for us during the Gemini and Apollo programs.
Detractors of public sector space agencies like NASA frequently argue that expending money and resources on sending humans into space is wasteful and irresponsible during shaky economic times. After all, in 2010 the U.S. Census Bureau in recorded 46.2 million people in poverty, the largest number in the 52 years the figure has been published. Putting tax dollars into a shuttle and sending it on an extraplanetary voyage is uneconomical in the eyes of many. However, beneficial developments of the space program can be found in airports, hospitals, laboratories, and homes around the world. Foam created for protecting the outside of a shuttle passing through the harsh atmosphere has found use as a durable, light-weight molding material for artificial limbs. Research and development for NASA'S programs has parented a network of hundreds of communication satellites used around the world on a daily basis and monitored by NASA. Robotic arms used for repairs, maintenance, and hazardous labor in sp...
Robots have done most of exploring in space. The moon and also the earth are the only planets that humans can get to. On the other hand, robots can get to locations in outer space such as the Moon, Venus, Mars, Titan, including Jupiter, and also a few comets and asteroids. Robots can travel further and faster, as well as returning more scientific data than missions that include humans. Robots, definitely, have and will continue to contribute to our understanding of the Universe today. Space robots can be divided into two types: ROV and RMS, ROV is (Remotely Operated Vehicle) and the other is the RMS (Remote Manipulator System). According to Robots in Space by Nicholos Wethington “, the most famous robots in space have to be the series of orbiters, rovers and landers that have been sent to Mars.” After all, robots are very helpful in the space exploration, and they will be more helpful in the future.
Mankind has always been fascinated with exploring the unknown. From sailing to distant lands to someday setting foot on other planets, the spirit of exploration is the same. Bur now with the current economic situation and the high cost of sending people to space, NASA is being looked at as a way to free up some much needed funds. Although, there is many problems here on planet Earth that need addressing, the benefits of space exploration far out weight the disadvantages. Space exploration has given us more advanced technology, advances in the medical field, and a boost to the economy and these facts cannot be disputed.
The 1960's brought new advancements for all of Earth. Machines and men were sent into space, and this sparked a new government agency, called NASA. Space was a new frontier, and virtually everyone was interested in exploring it. Over the years, the interest in space exploration has weakened, and NASA was almost terminated from existence, although there have been many advancements in it over that time. Space exploration should continue because it could help solve many problems on Earth, such as overpopulation and lack of resources. Exploration of the final frontier must continue in order for human life to continue.
“Sheltered as we are by Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field, which deflect lethal radiation from space, we are like coddled children who have never ventured into a tough neighborhood” (Folger 2). Humans have been fascinated with space since the beginning of our time. Just like children and rough neighborhoods, we have tackled obstacle over obstacle to make it home again. In the end, we have a better knowledge and strength than before. The future of space exploration can assist us in answering the everlasting question of how the universe came to be. The more we explore the infinite galaxies, the more we can scientifically discover and create new technologies as science advances. As we continue to discover, we can create new fields and occupations for aspiring young students like myself.
Space has always been a pivotal and utmost important subject for many years. In the past, scientists have made monumental advances in this field such as sending people into orbit and landing a man on the moon. Of course, this has only barely been explored and we still have a lot more to see of the ever-vast outer space. One of the most significant topics of all of science has only been touched and there’s still more to come.