Manned vs. Unmanned Space Exploration
In a 2012 article written by Adam Mann, the argument is raised as to the validity of either human or non-human space exploration. The argument that has been raised by some is that anything a man can do a robot can do. I disagree with this argument. With today's current technology, robots can not complete the tasks required for space exploration in the same time frame as humans. You can twist it any way you want: robots can tie knots, humans can tie knots; robots can pick up a rock, humans can pick up a rock. This is not the context of this discussion. This discussion address the analytical advantage that humans have over robots and therefore in that case, robots can not take the place of humans in space exploration with current technology of 2015 (Mann, 2012).
All resent planetary exploration has been conducted by robots. So how does their work compare to that of past human exploration? The manned Apollo missions alone produced over 2000 papers over the last 40 years. In comparison, unmanned missions both from the Soviet robotic Luna explorers and NASA's Mars Exploration rover programs have each produced around 400 papers. It took the Apollo 17 astronauts three days to cover 22 miles on the moons surface, in comparison, it has taken the Mars Opportunity eight years to cover the same distance (Mann, 2012).
Humans have several advantages over robots. Humans can adapt to changing conditions and make quicker decisions than robots due to the time delay to send a command from Earth to Mars. Humans are more mobile than robots. Comparing all current rovers in use, humans can drill for samples and employ larger instruments (Mann, 2012).
Another argument is that the cost to send humans into space is far greater than sending robots. If we are comparing apples to apples this statement is not true when looking at it from an economic standpoint of output. All money spent needs a justification as to how well it was spent. It is believed that total money spent on the Apollo mission was $2.09 billion as compared to $2.5 billion on the Mars Science Laboratory. Therefore, comparing output from these two missions, 2000 papers vs. 400 papers, the manned Apollo missions were far more successful (Mann, 2012).
Today, the underlying issues with manned vs. unmanned space exploration are latency and travel time. Mars, being the closest planet to Earth, is on average 140 million miles from Earth. With today's technology, it would take a spacecraft 162 days to travel that distance. If we compare that with Pluto at its closet point to Earth, it is approximately 2 billion miles and would take a spacecraft today nearly 10 years to reach Pluto. As far a transmission latency, it takes commands sent to Mars between 5 to 15 minutes depending on the distance Mars is to Earth. The communication travel time to Pluto would be over 2 hours (Redd, 2014).
So why is time and latency an issue? For starters, the amount of time it would take a scientist to command a robot to tie a knot on the Moon would be ten minutes. The same knot would take a human seconds to complete. As for time, yes it would take a human the same amount of time to travel to Mars as would a robot. However, a human on mars would would generate far more data for research yielding a much higher return on the money spent for the endeavor. It is my belief that if we continue to utilize unmanned systems to explore our solar system, we will learn far less about it over the next hundred years.
References:
Mann, A. (2012). Humans vs. Robots: Who Should Dominate Space Exploration. Wired. Retrieved 13 September 2015 from http://www.wired.com/2012/04/space-humans-vs-robots/
Redd, N. (2014). How Long Does it Take to Get to Mars?. Space.com. Retrieved 13 September 2015 from http://www.space.com/24701-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars.html
No comments:
Post a Comment