On December 14th, 1972, Apollo 17, the last Apollo mission to the moon, blasted off from the lunar surface to join the command module in lunar orbit to return to Earth. It marked the end of a golden era of space exploration, when humans walked on our nearest neighbor. To those who lived in the time, it seemed that a manned mission to Mars was soon to come, with further and further destinations following. This turned out to be the near opposite of the truth. Soon after the Apollo program, NASA’s budget dropped and with it manned exploration goals dropped, with little hope for recovery. Since Apollo, no human-rated space craft have left low Earth orbit, and the United States currently has no domestic means for launching humans into space. However, this is not to say that there have been no accomplishments. Every planet of the solar system has had at least one probe fly by, and several have been thoroughly studied more than once by unmanned spacecraft. Our knowledge of the solar system, and the Universe, has been tremendously expanded through the many unmanned spacecraft that have been sent in nearly every direction. Yet a physical human presence has yet to be extended beyond the tiny Earth-Moon system, and it seems unlikely for decades to come. Most would blame this on the extreme costs of human exploration and the relative cheapness of robotic exploration, however this argument does not always hold true. Robotic exploration is certainly less expensive, and the technology of such probes is advancing at a very rapid rate. But, while the costs of human exploration are truly higher, the benefits are also significantly higher, especially in areas where robots cannot surpass humans. In reality, though many argue that human exploration of space is overly expensive in terms of both money and potentially lives, due to the versatility of human capabilities, and more importantly the cultural benefits of higher levels of motivation provided by both the greater challenge and the thrill of human spaceflight, and the long-term inspiration given to future generations, human space exploration should play a more important part of mankind’s exploration of the solar system.
To best understand the importance of manned spaceflight, the arguments against such must be explored, and the most significant argument against manned space exploration is that due to the extreme difference in monetary costs between human and robotic space exploration, as well as the human life cost of human exploration, space programs should be limited to robotic space exploration, though this argument tends to ignore the cultural aspects of human space exploration. In an article titled “Risk robots, not lives,” published soon after the Columbia Shuttle tragedy, in The Engineer, Rob Coppinger argues that space exploration should no longer be carried out by manned missions. At one point, he says “[R]obots can explore the solar system adequately. Humans do not need to go into orbit anymore. To justify going there, there must be a reason to go beyond it. But there isn’t.” (Coppinger) He continues by arguing that there are decades worth of data of the human body in microgravity, and that the cost in lives and money of continuing beyond Earth orbit is much too high to be worth the effort. The issues Coppinger addresses are very important without a doubt. Just from the space shuttle program alone, 14 lives were lost in accidents that might have been prevented, and the cost and risk of manned missions beyond Earth orbit is certainly extremely high, especially when considering only the most obvious scientific benefits that come from such missions. However, several different issues are ignored by Coppinger that must be addressed in order to arrive at the correct conclusion in this ongoing debate. There are certain less-obvious scientific benefits, as well as widespread technological “spinoffs” that come from manned space exploration. However, these still would not be enough to justify the high costs of manned space exploration without consideration of the cultural benefits that come from manned space exploration and have profound, hard-to-measure effects on all of the human race.
Before the aforementioned cultural benefits can be considered, it is important to note that there is evidence to suggest that in the end, humans are extremely versatile in the ability to change and improvise, which can be an invaluable skill while exploring space and can lead to greater scientific benefits than robotic explorers would be capable of. In an article titled “Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency” published in the Astronomy and Geophysics scientific journal, planetary scientist I. A. Crawford argues against the idea that robots are vastly superior to humans in space exploration, specifically in scientific benefits. Specifically, he argues that humans are superior in “On-the-spot decision making and flexibility…Greatly enhanced mobility and attendant opportunities for geological exploration and instrument deployment…Greatly increased efficiency in sample collection and sample return capacity…Increased potential for large-scale exploratory activities and the deployment and maintenance of complex equipment… [And t]he development of a space based infrastructure to support space-based astronomy and other scientific applications.” Overall, he argues that humans are more capable to bring in large amounts of data and scientifically significant discoveries, while robots are only capable of small amounts of data and smaller discoveries, due to their many limitations. In the end, the cost of a manned mission is higher when compared directly to the cost of a robotic mission, however, when the scientific benefits are taken into account, the costs are comparable, if not more in favor of manned exploration. Humans are simply more capable to do more complex tasks with much less supervision and control, which allows for much more useful information collection.
The argument that robotic exploration is the way that space exploration should be executed is thrown into question with these considerations, and is further questioned when considering cultural benefits, one of which is the motivation and an overall lack of fear, which comes from the perceived risk of human space exploration, which can also lead to discoveries that would otherwise not be made. In an article titled “The Overprotected Kid” published in the magazine The Atlantic, American writer Hanna Rosin discusses the need for risk-taking in children during play, and its importance in the developmental stages of childhood. In one portion of the article, she says that “[b]y engaging in risky play, children are effectively subjecting themselves to a form of exposure therapy, in which they force themselves to do the thing they’re afraid of in order to overcome the fear. But if they never go through that process, the fear can turn into a phobia” (Rosin 176). Children must take risks and do the things they are afraid of in order to be able to overcome fears, and we as a nation and as a species have a similar need. If we continually take the easy way, and never take risks, we risk developing irrational fears of that which is dangerous, leading to a paralysis of our abilities to move forward in certain areas. Manned space exploration is a form in which we as a species take enormous risks, and we overcome fears in doing so. When the first man was sent into space, it was still debated whether humans could survive in microgravity, however all were proved wrong when the man returned safely to Earth. We had to take the risk, and not delay until it was absolute fact that space exploration was indeed possible for humans. Doing so could have delayed the exploration of space indefinitely, and would have certainly delayed the development of discoveries and technologies that continue to benefit our lives here on Earth. However, since that time we have not done much more than normalize space travel to low Earth orbit, but no one seems capable of accepting the risk of going further. The monetary and life risks seem too high, and in our current culture of avoidance of all things dangerous, these risks are unacceptable. Not accepting these risks, however, only cause our phobias to become more and more extreme, paralyzing us further in other areas. Our inability to accept risk makes us unable to try potential solutions to large issues from economic instability to military conflicts around the globe. Manned space exploration, if executed frequently and if taken to farther and farther lengths, has the capability to begin the change of this culture to one more willing and motivated to take risks and find actual solutions to problems.
The specific benefit of being more motivated is also developed simply due to the challenge presented by manned space exploration, which is simply not as present in robotic space exploration, due to the human element involved. The movie recently released, based on a book, called The Martian demonstrates this very well. The movie was widely accepted as an accurate portrayal of a potential manned mission to Mars, and presents interesting benefits that can come from the motivation provided by manned space exploration. The main character, Mark Watney, is stranded on the planet alone as the rest of the exploration crew aborts without him, assuming him dead. The rest of the movie is devoted entirely to how such a situation could be resolved. Several issues arise and are resolved painstakingly, and after discovering the capability of growing plants on Mars, developing a new orbital maneuver, the use of two rockets, and otherwise-unlikely international cooperation between the U.S. and China, the astronaut is rescued and returns to Earth. It can be compared to the Apollo 13 near-tragedy, which had similar results. Incredible ingenuity is motivated by challenge, and the challenge of manned space exploration is very clear, and very motivating. It is also capable of crossing what would otherwise be insurmountable barriers, such as those between countries. Manned space exploration inspires people to do more, and it generates widespread attention, which can be shown simply by the widespread success of the movie. According to a website, the film grossed more than six hundred million dollars around the world, making it one of the most successful movies of the year 2015. People are attracted to manned space exploration in a way that robotic exploration simply cannot compete with. There will never be a movie near as successful about the Curiosity rover on Mars, though it has overcome huge issues and difficulties, has lasted years longer than expected and has made very significant discoveries along the way.
In a similar manner, the inspiration that human space exploration gives to future generations will prolong the benefits beyond the relatively small moments of success in exploration, allowing the continuation of the progress to be made over generations to come. In an article titled “Launching the right stuff” in the Natural History magazine, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses manned space exploration and its importance. In one portion, he discusses his colleagues in the study of space and how many of them argue that science can be done without putting humans in space, but he asserts that “if they are between forty and sixty years old, and you ask what inspired them to become scientists, nearly every one (at least in my experience) will cite the high-profile Apollo program” (Tyson 17). He continues by explaining that the Apollo program was underway when they were young and it excited them. Later in the article, Tyson argues that “when you organize extraordinary mission, you attract people of extraordinary talent who might not have been inspired by or attracted to the goal of saving the world from cancer or hunger or pestilence” (Tyson, 18). The inspiration of manned space exploration comes because it is manned. The younger generation is inspired and excited by great challenges and risk, and such inspiration lasts for a very long time. If we continue to explore space with our current strategy of avoidance of leaving Earth orbit, it will be very difficult to inspire the next generation to continue even the robotic exploration of space, risking the overall exploration of space. In addition to this, we also risk losing significant advances in other fields that so often come from space exploration. As Tyson stated, many people are simply more inspired to help in space exploration, and their talents can extend to a wide array of problems as they have in the past. Huge advancements in the medical, environmental, and physical sciences have been made through space exploration. Computers have been vastly improved and robotics have been greatly advanced through space exploration, by people who are not necessarily inspired by computers or robotics, but by space exploration. But if we limit manned spaceflight to Earth orbit, we limit the future generation to the same ideal or less, and we lose the idea of continuing beyond the limits. The inspiration is lost, and the next generation will not continue what we never demonstrated was important, namely space exploration.
In the end, it is clear that due to the versatility of human capabilities, higher levels of motivation provided by both the greater challenge and the thrill of human spaceflight, and the long-term inspiration given to future generations, those who argue that human space exploration is too costly in lives and money are shown to be in error. Manned space exploration must continue, not in the current manner, but much more expanded. We must test the limits of our capabilities for our own good and for the good of space exploration in any form. There are times when robots are the better way to explore, however, manned exploration of further and further destinations is extremely important, and must be done for us to be able to receive the full cultural, technological, and scientific benefits that we can have from space exploration. Space is the final and eternal frontier, and like all the previously explored frontiers, the exploration thereof will prove to be of great profit and benefit to mankind.
Works Cited.
Coppinger, Rob. “Risk Robots, not Lives.” The Engineer 29 Aug. 2003: 5. Print.
Crawford, I. A. “Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency.” Astronomy and Geophysics 53.2 (2012): 2.22-2.26. Print.
Rosin, Hannah. “The Overprotected Kid.” Connections in Context. Ed. Sheridan, Mary P., Fisher, Rick, and Stewart, Joyce. United States of America: Fountainhead Press, 2015. 169-186. Print.
The Martian. Dir. Ridley Scott. Perf. Matt Damon. 20th Century Fox, 2015. DVD.
Tyson, Neil deGrasse. “Launching the right stuff: who will make the better space explorer: robot or human being?” Natural History Apr. 2004: 16. Print.
Image credit: NASA, http://www.nasa.gov
One of the coolest things I have done in my life is spend two years in southern Brazil. It was really interesting and one of the things I most value from doing it is having learned Portuguese. It is interesting to note that there are approximately three quarters of a million people in the US that speak Portuguese as their native language, and probably over a million that speak it fluently. But compared to the total population of the US, that is actually tiny. So why would knowing Portuguese be that cool or valuable? And really, why would knowing any other language be particularly valuable?
College Student View 