The Cost Of Space Exploration
Space travel has always been an exciting adventure for people. For centuries people have looked at the stars and wondered what else was out there. Then we started studying it and as technology and human knowledge advanced people started getting more curious. Now in the 21st century people wonder if it is really worth it to fund a mission to space that is hugely expensive, time consuming and difficult to generate public support for. The United States does not have a space exploration program anymore, and for astronauts to get to the International Space Station we have to ride with a host nation, meaning we have to utilize other nations’ (such as Russia’s) space technology. However, these seemingly insurmountable challenges become achievable
…show more content…
goals when we put a face to space travel- by sending humans into space instead of robots. Many will argue that because it is economically more suitable to send robots then it is to send people that we should exclusively send robots to space. And while it is true that people are expensive to feed and to keep alive, this one setback does not outweigh the benefits of sending humans to space. For one, having a robot explore takes away the excitement from the venture and takes away much vital public support for space travel, which in turn generates tax revenue for space programs. As a race, we should make a conscious effort to get humans missions with robot support. One of the arguments by people on why we should have exclusively robotic mission is the cost.
You do not have to feed robots or worry as much about losing one like a human. They go to places where people can’t go. You do not have to worry about keeping it full of oxygen and any other life support while wondering the terrain. But robots come with some down sides. The time it takes for a signal to reach it, depending on how far it is could take a while. Adam Mann, in his “Humans vs Robots” article, makes a point about how people can make split second choices on how to react to a situation. Humans are more mobile compared to our latest robot technology. Neil DeGrasse Tyson in his TAM conference makes a good point on how human exploration is crucial to funding. No really cares if a robot discovers something on a different planet. Tyson argues that's how agencies get funding is because people care. Neil DeGrasse Tyson said in a conference were gonna be listening reports of the astronauts and not of robots. Congress is not giving money to the exploration program because they see the money being spent else where and that's a product of low interest. And that interest would be rediscovered in “human” exploration. Neil DeGrasse Tyson at the TAM conference also makes the point that NASA was formed based on political concern during the Cold War and people were all for the space travel so we can beat the Soviets. You have to think of it in a sense of supply and demand, people have to demand it for there to be a
supply. Due to the signal speed, its hard to get information from and to get information to robots. It takes time and it will be difficult to control robots and with our current technology. Humans are very adaptable compared to robots. If something were to go wrong, robots might be able to react due to their physical and programing limitations. Even if a robot is manned by a human, there maybe certain thing the robot physically cannot due in a crisis that human in the same situation can improvise in. We do not have technology yet where robots motor skills are as good as humans. Moving over complex terrain would be a challenge or even impossible for a robot to do. Being able to adjust footing appropriately and being able to balance on uneven platforms is still a challenge for robots to do, and this only applies to bipedal robots, if you take a robot and put it on wheels like one of the versions of Robonaut 2 created by NASA, it creates a whole new list of mobility issues. Off the topic of mobility, robots could have a hard time doing complex experiments. People in the International Space Station do experiments and conduct research which a robot find difficult since you need good motor skills and be able to think and make choices at a moment's notice. I propose that instead of having exclusively humans or robots going to space, that having robots working with humans would be a much more productive endeavor. Robots would probably act as more of the muscle and operator of simple task when the astronaut could be focused on carrying out measurements, assessments, and collecting data that requires critical thinking. For example, with NASA robonaut 2,stated on the NASA website it has a humanoid design (meaning that it has the physical appearance of a human body) and can perform easy, repetitive, and risky tasks. It can bring tools and help staff with other tasks that could require more human ability, therefore freeing up the human astronauts to perform other tasks. Conversely, a space mission without humans lacks expertise that astronauts bring. Astronauts typically hold degrees in various sciences and are often engineers with excellent critical thinking skills, as well as have experience working in multiple types of labs, experiments and other settings that would give them a level of knowledge that no astronaut, no matter how well designed, could bring. Taking this into account, it makes the most sense to combine the strength of robots and the skill of human astronauts to have the most productive and efficient mission possible. No matter how complex or well-designed a robot is, it will never be able to fully replace the capability of a trained human astronaut. While both robots and humans have unique strengths that can contribute to a successful space mission, it would be dangerous and inefficient to send a robot into space on its own. Human astronauts are absolutely integral to the progression of space travel in the way that they are able to generate public support (which increases tax revenue for NASA), bring irreplaceable skills and knowledge to space missions, and have the ability to adjust to situations by using critical thinking skills. These factors make it clear that it is the more valuable to send humans on space missions instead of exclusively sending robots.
goals when we put a face to space travel- by sending humans into space instead of robots. Many will argue that because it is economically more suitable to send robots then it is to send people that we should exclusively send robots to space. And while it is true that people are expensive to feed and to keep alive, this one setback does not outweigh the benefits of sending humans to space. For one, having a robot explore takes away the excitement from the venture and takes away much vital public support for space travel, which in turn generates tax revenue for space programs. As a race, we should make a conscious effort to get humans missions with robot support. One of the arguments by people on why we should have exclusively robotic mission is the cost.
You do not have to feed robots or worry as much about losing one like a human. They go to places where people can’t go. You do not have to worry about keeping it full of oxygen and any other life support while wondering the terrain. But robots come with some down sides. The time it takes for a signal to reach it, depending on how far it is could take a while. Adam Mann, in his “Humans vs Robots” article, makes a point about how people can make split second choices on how to react to a situation. Humans are more mobile compared to our latest robot technology. Neil DeGrasse Tyson in his TAM conference makes a good point on how human exploration is crucial to funding. No really cares if a robot discovers something on a different planet. Tyson argues that's how agencies get funding is because people care. Neil DeGrasse Tyson said in a conference were gonna be listening reports of the astronauts and not of robots. Congress is not giving money to the exploration program because they see the money being spent else where and that's a product of low interest. And that interest would be rediscovered in “human” exploration. Neil DeGrasse Tyson at the TAM conference also makes the point that NASA was formed based on political concern during the Cold War and people were all for the space travel so we can beat the Soviets. You have to think of it in a sense of supply and demand, people have to demand it for there to be a
supply. Due to the signal speed, its hard to get information from and to get information to robots. It takes time and it will be difficult to control robots and with our current technology. Humans are very adaptable compared to robots. If something were to go wrong, robots might be able to react due to their physical and programing limitations. Even if a robot is manned by a human, there maybe certain thing the robot physically cannot due in a crisis that human in the same situation can improvise in. We do not have technology yet where robots motor skills are as good as humans. Moving over complex terrain would be a challenge or even impossible for a robot to do. Being able to adjust footing appropriately and being able to balance on uneven platforms is still a challenge for robots to do, and this only applies to bipedal robots, if you take a robot and put it on wheels like one of the versions of Robonaut 2 created by NASA, it creates a whole new list of mobility issues. Off the topic of mobility, robots could have a hard time doing complex experiments. People in the International Space Station do experiments and conduct research which a robot find difficult since you need good motor skills and be able to think and make choices at a moment's notice. I propose that instead of having exclusively humans or robots going to space, that having robots working with humans would be a much more productive endeavor. Robots would probably act as more of the muscle and operator of simple task when the astronaut could be focused on carrying out measurements, assessments, and collecting data that requires critical thinking. For example, with NASA robonaut 2,stated on the NASA website it has a humanoid design (meaning that it has the physical appearance of a human body) and can perform easy, repetitive, and risky tasks. It can bring tools and help staff with other tasks that could require more human ability, therefore freeing up the human astronauts to perform other tasks. Conversely, a space mission without humans lacks expertise that astronauts bring. Astronauts typically hold degrees in various sciences and are often engineers with excellent critical thinking skills, as well as have experience working in multiple types of labs, experiments and other settings that would give them a level of knowledge that no astronaut, no matter how well designed, could bring. Taking this into account, it makes the most sense to combine the strength of robots and the skill of human astronauts to have the most productive and efficient mission possible. No matter how complex or well-designed a robot is, it will never be able to fully replace the capability of a trained human astronaut. While both robots and humans have unique strengths that can contribute to a successful space mission, it would be dangerous and inefficient to send a robot into space on its own. Human astronauts are absolutely integral to the progression of space travel in the way that they are able to generate public support (which increases tax revenue for NASA), bring irreplaceable skills and knowledge to space missions, and have the ability to adjust to situations by using critical thinking skills. These factors make it clear that it is the more valuable to send humans on space missions instead of exclusively sending robots.