Robots vs Astronauts

In the article Robots vs Astronauts, Dr. Joshua Colwell and Dr. Daniel Britt take two sides of the debate on manned vs unmanned exploration, but come to similar conclusions.

Dr. Britt conveys that in terms of deep space exploration, there is really only one option that we as humans have right now, and that is unmanned systems utilization (Colwell & Britt, 2017). As we are limited in our technology, our reach to explore space with manned operations is also limited. We are susceptible to factors in the space environment such as extreme heat and cold, a need for consumables (water, air, food), as well as several redundant engineered systems required only to sustain life of the manned crew. The high energy radiation exposure during longer manned space exploration trips such as to Venus, Mercury or Jupiter would be deadly, and there are no current workable solutions for preventing the bone loss and muscle atrophy that would be encountered by the astronauts. Additionally, manned missions could present a situation whereas foreign matter and contaminating substances are introduced into these new worlds, potentially contaminating these environments.

All the above being considered, Dr. Britt points out that manned missions do bring about a great deal of “flexibility inspiration and native intelligence” (Colwell & Britt, 2017). In conjunction with this statement, I found another article that expands upon some of these key characteristics by explaining some of the roles that manned crew have played in support of continued mission/operational success. In one example, astronauts repaired the initially flawed Hubble Space Telescope, and have continued to perform routine maintenance to ensure its continued successful operation (Slakey & Spudis, 2008). Several instances have arisen over the years, where astronauts were able to repair hardware in space, preserving valuable missions. Another factor to consider, elaborate robotics are being developed that may someday deploy highly sensitive instruments, however at this time robotic deployment is rough, so we may experience lower sensitivity and capability than the instruments humans could deploy.

One of the most interesting points that this article discusses, as from the perspective of Dr. Colwell, is how manned space exploration isn’t so much about the scientific breakthroughs or advancement of technology and ideas as it is about preserving a much needed component of space exploration as a whole- curiosity and an inspiration to pursue our lofty goals (Colwell & Britt, 2017). Unmanned operations are decisively the most cost effective method to explore space, however manned operations satisfy some of our most basic desires in wanting to excel and explore what is over the horizon. In fact, the initial drive behind the space program was a desire to excel above our Russian counterparts.  NASA has recognized the need for publicity, and has done a good job of highlighting missions with exciting visuals and entertaining characters. One such example is John Glenn’s return to space at the age of 77 to enable various “medical experiments” (Slakey & Spudis, 2008). The real winner in this mission was NASA, as it became the most actively followed mission since the Apollo moon landing. In justifying a need for $16 billion dollars annually, manned missions do provide the excitement and garner the attention needed to keep the space mission relevant in the public eye. Dr. Colwell points out that it would be naïve to expect that politicians would spend the same sums of money on purely “scientific exploration”, and I agree. He continues to speculate that if the manned program was cancelled today, its budget would disappear, and not be spent on any other space exploration endeavors (Colwell & Britt, 2017).

Dr. Colwell provides great insight with the statement “We need to move past the debate of manned versus unmanned programs and recognize that they serve different yet complementary roles, and that each endeavor ultimately strengthens the other” (Colwell & Britt, 2017). I agree with this, as well as the argument from both Dr. Britt and Dr. Colwell that manned and unmanned space exploration may be synergistic and mutually dependent. Even prior to the moon landings, unmanned platforms were used to gather the necessary data to determine atmospheric conditions and where the best landing site would be. Unmanned exploration in advance of manned operations is necessary, to reduce the risk of loss of life, provide valuable context and provide necessary information. 

I do agree with both Dr. Britt and Dr. Colwell that current limitations of technology will limit our ability to pursue manned space operations, and that until the technology that will allow support is available, we should focus on sticking to unmanned exploration of space. As they mentions, all the data that is garnered in the meantime can only help us when we get to a point of potentially seeking to again pursue manned exploration in the future.

References

Colwell, J., & Britt, D. (2017). Are robots or astronauts the future of space exploration? Retrieved from https://www.ucf.edu/pegasus/opinion/

Slakey, F., & Spudis, P. (2008, February 1). Robots vs. Humans: Who Should Explore Space? Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robots-vs-humans-who-should-explore/