Human versus robotic spaceflight

The human versus robotic spaceflight debate (also described as manned versus unmanned or man versus machine) refers to disagreements over the status of human spaceflight (astronauts) and robotic spaceflight (satellites, probes). The debate is a recurring topic in news and opinion, especially after noteworthy space events. It is also an issue in space policy and politics.

Positions

The debate is often presented as a conflict with only two sides, but this is a false dichotomy. There are four possible positions in the debate:

Against both human and robotic spaceflight

The argument is that money spent on space is better spent on projects on Earth, such as eradicating disease, hunger, poverty and other causes of human suffering and death. Earth should be the number one priority.

The counterargument is that choosing between space and Earth is another false dichotomy; it is possible to spend money on both. Turning away from space is a form of Luddism that opposes technological progress and is ultimately harmful for humankind.

For robotic spaceflight, against human spaceflight

The argument is that robotic spacecraft are more durable, capable and cost-effective than their human counterparts, especially for scientific missions. Human spaceflight is expensive, dangerous and lacks a strong rationale.

A counterargument is that the goal of human spaceflight is to establish human life permanently outside Earth, initially in stations and bases, and later in colonies. Humankind should not be restricted to one planet, but should expand to other places.

For human spaceflight, against robotic spaceflight

This position is rarely taken. Human life in space is dependent on machines. Robotic spacecraft are arguably more relevant and important for people in space than for people on Earth.

For both human and robotic spaceflight

The argument is that allowing both humans and robots in space is the least restrictive option, and advances both colonization and science, as well as other fields. It also has historical precedent, with the robotic and human firsts of the Space Age.

A counterargument is that this is the most expensive and most demanding option. It uses the most Earth resources, although this can be offset by using space resources.

External links

* [http://www.eppc.org/conferences/eventID.70/conf_detail.asp 'Worlds Beyond Our Own' debate] ( [http://www.eppc.org/conferences/pubID.2029,eventID.70/transcript.asp transcript] ) between Robert Zubrin and Robert L. Park, held on February 5, 2004 at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.