...Robotic vs. Manned Space Flight? It's a Tie!

A Royal Astronomical Society study concludes....

"We find that profound scientific questions relating to the
history of the solar system and the existence of life
beyond Earth can best - perhaps only - be achieved
by human exploration on the Moon or Mars, supported
by appropriate automated systems"


This debate always seems to come down to which is better
at ...exploring...space. But that's the wrong question.

The question should be which is better at exploring, and
which is better at ...exploiting...space.

If we wish to explore the surface of Venus, the clouds of
Jupiter or the buried oceans of Europa, will it be robots
or humans doing the exploring? Is anyone planning a
manned mission to Pluto?

If manned missions are better at analyzing, but take
up to /50 years/ longer to get people 'there', as with
Mars, which is better? The one that has the greater
potential, or the one that is more practical?

If life is on Mars to be discovered, is there any
doubt it'll be robots that make the discovery?

Manned flight is so much more expensive, it'll be only
for-profit and military operations that can afford it.
Building and supporting commercial and military
space activities will be where manned flight
finds it's place.

Robots are far better for exploring space.
Manned flights are far better for exploiting space.

If we wish to support the idea of manned flight, we
should at least use the right reasons.



s