Bloomfield 1

Drew Bloomfield

Prof. Monroe

English 1101

November 30, 2021

Space Exploration: Humans vs. Robots

Many people believe that space travel should be done predominantly or

exclusively by robots. Others argue that humans in space are essential for successful

missions. There are advantages and disadvantages of using artificial intelligence,

instead of people, in space exploration. Does the risk of using humans outweigh what

we gain? Which scenario gives the best overall results in space exploration? Robots

are safer and less expensive than people when it comes to space travel, however they

are not an effective substitute for human ingenuity when it comes to space exploration.

Robots have a significant disadvantage in that they can only do what they are

programed to do. “Robots will always perform very well in controllable, predictable

environments and tasks, but ‘what they can’t do today is accommodate unexpected

events’. For example, a robot explorer is likely to walk right past a dinosaur bone on

Mars if it is looking for rocks; a human would know to forget about the rocks and look at

the bone” (Robots versus Humans). Humans are capable of prioritizing the importance

of their mission while a robot will only stick to what it is programmed to do. This will limit

what we learn from robot only missions. As we try to gather information about other

planets, humans will be necessary in order to provide flexibility in the types of intel they

can gather. “Moreover, while comparisons based on the relative time taken to perform
 Bloomfield 2

certain tasks do indeed show humans to be more efficient than robots, they

nevertheless grossly underestimate the added scientific value of having humans on

planetary surfaces” (Crawford). Essentially, it is necessary that humans remain present

to accompany the robots. This is important for a variety of reasons, from organizing the

robot’s priorities based on the information given and their task, to smaller things such as

doing repairs. This could be necessary on other celestial bodies in our solar system, as

well as for surveying planets in other star systems in the (somewhat distant) future.

While robots are great for doing basic missions, it is not ideal that they be used alone.

What is ideal on the other hand is the use of robots for “scouting” missions, to give a

basic idea of the conditions, allowing the human crews to prepare for their expedition.

In addition, humans have the ability to be much more productive and efficient

with time. “The unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol (a

Martian day) a human explorer could do in less than a minute” (Crawford). Humans

overall can accomplish more in a given amount of time than robots can. Another

example would be when a rover took 12 hours to free itself from the airbag from its

lander, whereas a human could have cleared it in seconds (Orzel). Additional studies

revealed that, “…the results of a NASA survey of several dozen planetary scientists and

engineers on the relative efficiency of human and robotic capabilities in 18 different skill

sets relevant to planetary exploration… show a clear balance in favor of human

capabilities (with the implicit recognition that the most efficient exploration strategies of

all will be those consisting of human-robotic partnerships where each complements the

other)” (Crawford). This confirms that not only are humans able to do more complex
 Bloomfield 3

tasks in a variety of environments, but with our current technology humans can still do

work far faster as well.

Despite the advantages of human exploration, there are counter-arguments as to

why humans should not be used for space travel. Robotic missions insure that no

human lives are senselessly lost in space travel. “For the foreseeable future space

exploration will be undertaken mainly by machines that don’t horrify a watching world

when they die slowly, with no hope of rescue” (Lind). If robots were the only ones to go

into space we would not have to worry about the event of humans being killed, and it

would save the lives of astronauts and scientists. In addition to saving lives, it could

also save money. “A robot doesn’t have to worry about maintaining a pressurized

breathable atmosphere, or securing supplies of food and water, or a comfortable

temperature, or adequate radiation shielding, or waste disposal, or any of the host of

other problems that preserving human scientists on Mars and returning them to earth

would entail” (Orzel). Orzel makes a good point when considering how it is more

difficult to send a human verses a robot to Mars. It is also more cost effective to send a

robot since it will not need life support systems. A big reason why people say we need

to colonize space is to keep our species alive, if the Earth were to become

uninhabitable. However, “In the event of some other natural catastrophe—a

supervolcano, a nearby supernova—rendered the surface of the Earth temporarily

uninhabitable, it would be cheaper and easier to build and maintain underground

bunkers than to use the same technology to do the same thing at vastly greater cost on

the moon, on other planets, or in space stations. By the same token, if humanity had

the technology to ‘terraform’ the surface of Mars, it would have the power to make the
 Bloomfield 4

ruined surface of a dead Earth habitable again, making the colonization of Mars

unnecessary” (Lind). These are all understandable criticisms, although they do not

entirely discredit human space flight. Robot space travel may seem to be less

expensive, however, you are paying less but getting less. “Although it is generally taken

for granted that human exploration is more expensive than robotic exploration, and this

is certainly true if the aggregate costs are the only ones being considered, the situation

is not as clear cut as it sometimes made out to be. For one things, the ratio of costs

between human and robotic missions, while large, may nevertheless be smaller than

the corresponding ratio in scientific productivity” (Crawford). The cost is less, but what

we gain from a scientific perspective is also less. Crawford goes on to say, “It is

interesting to compare this with the cost of a modern state-of-the-art robotic mission

such as the Mars Science Laboratory. MSL, has cost an estimated $2.5bn. Thus, in

real time, Apollo cost 70 times as much as MSL. However, Apollo visited six sites,

whereas MSL will visit one. In terms of cost-per-site, Apollo was only 12 times dearer

than MSL, yet each Apollo mission was vastly more capable” (Crawford). Although on

the surface it seems like robot missions are safer and more cost effective, in reality they

are not as effective.

Lastly, and the most important reason why humans must be a key component in

space travel is for non-science oriented, commercial travel and tourism. “The fact is

that while robotic planetary missions are science-focused, and essentially their whole

costs are therefore borne by scientific budgets, human spaceflight is not wholly, or even

mainly, science-driven. Rather, the ultimate drivers of human spaceflight tend to be

geopolitical concerns, industrial development and innovation, and employment in key

 Bloomfield 5

industries. Thus, science can be a beneficiary of human missions instituted and

(largely) paid for by other constituencies” (Crawford). Privatization of space travel is

inevitable, and we are already seeing it happen now. It is very likely that in the near

future space tourism is going to become a reality, and of course, space tourism requires

humans to be involved. Also, it is likely that the United States of America and People’s

Republic of China will eventually get into a space race. That, of course, will require real

people to go to space. Millions of people watched the astronauts take the first step on

the moon, and the entire world was astonished. The USA had a huge boost in morale,

yet it was a crushing defeat for the USSR. The extent of such an event’s cultural

influence would be severely limited, or even non-existent, if a robot were to accomplish

said leap. It would still allow for the opposing country to land a person on a celestial

body, and claim that accomplishment. Just look at what happened with the USSR

during the space race. They launched the first satellite and put the first man, dog and

woman into space. Yet the USA still won because we landed the first human beings on

the moon.

Overall, the best option for space travel includes human and robot teams working

together. Usually with a precursor mission of robots to give basic intel on the

conditions. Robots are limited to what they are programed to do, and although they are

more cost effective, they are not as efficient as humans in space. In addition, space

tourism will never be accomplished if we stop sending humans on missions. Although

robotics are likely to continue improving for the foreseeable future, it will be necessary

for humans to continue traveling in space, and exploring the new frontier.
 Bloomfield 6

Works Cited

Crawford, Ian A. "Humans Are More Productive than Robots for Space

Exploration." Robotic Technology, edited by Louise Gerdes, Greenhaven Press,

2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010899210/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=boo

kmark-OVIC&xid=6af71305. Accessed 2 Nov. 2021. Originally published as

"Dispelling the Myth of Robotic Efficiency," Astronomy and Geophysics, vol. 53,

no. 2, Apr. 2012.

Lind, Michael. "Human Spaceflight Should End." NASA, edited by Margaret Haerens,

Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010811209/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=boo

kmark-OVIC&xid=67fd2bd8. Accessed 2 Nov. 2021. Originally published as

"Why We Should Embrace the End of Human Spaceflight," salon.com, 12 Apr.

2011.

Orzel, Chad. "Robots Are as Effective as Humans for Space Exploration." Robotic

Technology, edited by Louise Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing

Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010899211/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=a480a423. Accessed 2 Nov. 2021. Originally published as "Exploring

Space: Don't Sell Robots Short," ScienceBlogs.com, 9 May 2012.

 Bloomfield 7

"Robots versus humans: the new testing grounds." Age [Melbourne, Australia], 26

Feb.2002, p. 3. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A286868384/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=8fcfd468. Accessed 2 Nov. 2021. Gale Document Number:

GALE|A286868384