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…
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
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.
Space, one of the great mysteries of the world. Many have dreamed of exploring the frontier that is space but only few have. It’s been 48 years since the last human set foot on another body in space, why would this be when it only took 8 years to send the first humans to the moon. Before we answer the question of why it’s been so long since the last time a human set foot on another planet we must answer the following: would it be more effective to send humans and robots to space or just robots? Sending humans and robots is inefficient because food and water must also be sent, which will take a great deal of weight, additionally humans are subject more directly to the dangerous frontier that is space. Sending just robots is the superior solution because of the following reasons: we can already send robots into space, robots can be controlled remotely by humans, robots can’t have their decisions influenced by emotions, and sending robots is much more cost effective.
The NASA Space Program should not be cut. However, there are those who don’t share the same viewpoint, or see the same value in NASA, as experts do. They believe that giving money to NASA is a waste. That the money would be better spent on keeping us safe, and fixing the deficit. This essay is going to bring to light why the NASA budget, instead of being cut, should be increased.
“Space, the final frontier….” These are the words that stirred the imaginations of millions of men, women and children with the debut of “Star Trek” in 1966. The show has arguably one of the most loyal followings of any production, and has inspired scores of people to consider the stars and wonder if we as a people will ever travel outside of our own solar system. The idea of space travel and exploration was not new when “Star Trek” hit the airwaves though. The United States was at odds with the Soviet Union, and both powers were locked in a battle that would come to be known as “The Space Race” during the height of the cold war. It was in 1961 that President John Kennedy made his famous appeal to the American people, challenging us as a nation to put a man on the moon before the decade was out. On July 20, 1969, that challenge was achieved when the astronauts of Apollo 11 made the first manned landing on the moon, and returned safely to earth. This, the highest achievement in the United States space program, will turn 45 years old this year. After 45 years, and a technological explosion over the past 25 years, the greatest achievement in the space program has been a manned lunar landing. Countless billions of American tax payer dollars have been spent on the space program over the decades, and there have been no achievements to match that of the moon landings. Though the budget for NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is but a tiny fraction of the entire annual budget for the country, many of those billions that are allotted in the NASA budget for space exploration would better serve the country if they were re-directed to other areas. De-funding the space exploration portion of the NASA programs could create a “...
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.
The United States of America currently faces a predicament. The country appears divided when it comes to the dispute over the continuation of the great space race. Ever since NASA began, the association has made tremendous strides in the exploration of space. Established on October 1, 1958 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration began operation. The administration is an executive branch agency responsible for the United States’ civilian space program and aeronautics and aerospace research. The mission statement of NASA is “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research” (NASA). President John F. Kennedy continued President Eisenhower’s
Michael Lind is an author, a columnist for Salon.com, and a policy director at the New America Foundation. In the article “Human Spaceflight Should End,” he favors unmanned spaceflights, arguing that robot space probes have been so successful in space exploration, that human lives should not be risked (Lind, Michael). In my opinion, robot space probes are better suited for space exploration because they do not require oxygen and if the probes get destroyed, there is no emotional attachment.
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.
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 over 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? When considering this topic, one might ask themselves, why explore space?
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.
Since the beginning of time, mankind has sought after learning about and exploring the universe. This yearning drove us to achieve such great things as the journey to the moon and the discovery of water on mars. Nowadays, several people argue as to whether or not space exploration is worth the effort. I believe that it is humanity’s instinctual nature to pursue a better understanding of ourselves, and our universe. Further understanding of our universe will lead to the discovery of new technologies and ways to secure humanity’s survivability. As such, this essay will argue that space exploration is a necessity to our kind and that NASA should be progressively more financed.