One of the most insidious attacks against America's space program is being waged by a small group of respectable scientists who routinely capture headlines with suggestions that human spaceflight should be completely replaced by robotic exploration. They argue that robots can do the same exploration as humans at a fraction of the cost. On the surface, their position almost sounds reasonable. After all, during these times of US government budget deficits, who wouldn't want to save some taxpayer dollars?
Ironically, this line of reasoning has already done substantial damage to the very people who espouse it. By turning their backs upon the best reasons that so many taxpayers are passionate about the space program (i.e. the promise of unlimited resources and potential that a future human presence in space assumes, the motivational power for kids who want to "grow up to be an astronaut," and economic spin-offs from getting the commercial sector involved in space), the robots-only pundits seem far too willing to risk decimating their own research funding.
NASA is currently fighting for the small budget increases necessary to keep the manned and robotic space space exploration programs both staffed. Negative, robots-only PR (or BS) has damaged their prospects... leading to some well-publicized cuts in the science budgets. That's what happens when you try to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Duh.
An obvious counter-argument to the "robots-only" proposition is simply that robotics and AI research are still in their infancy. As an AI researcher who works closely with the machine-learning group at NASA-JPL, I can personally vouch for the fact that we aren't even close to developing a robot that can approach the flexibility, mobility, and accountability of a human being. We can't even get a robot to drive itself autonomously across a few miles of rugged desert on the Earth! The needed capabilities are truly in the realm of science fiction - right out of Star Trek. Basing the critically-important space program on such a flight of fancy would be totally irresponsible.
The usual counter-counter-argument to the above truth is the following claim: If America or any other nation invested as much into robotics research as they do into manned spaceflight, we would all have our Star Trek future, complete with Commander Data, Nomad (oops), M5 (oops), and HAL-9000 (oops). The counter-cubed-argument is: Most nations already do. In the United States, for example, the amount of money allocated for human spaceflight by NASA is at least an order-of-magnitude less than the amount of money invested by NASA, DARPA, and private industry to develop ever-more-intelligent computer systems, networks, and weapon systems.
On and on we bicker... and our divided community accomplishes nothing.
Another serious counter-argument is that robots in space, without humans, is pointless. Why bother? Robotic probes currently explore the solar system and cosmos because the humans behind the machines are curious. Human curiosity cannot be imprisoned. To claim that human curiosity must be limited to merely the equivalent of watching television (images captured by a robot/camera elsewhere) is to deny a fundamental facet of nature and humanity. It's the same as saying that all domestic and international travel should be done in front of a computer screen. People want to see, feel, and smell new places for themselves. A picture is worth a thousand words, but a thousand pictures still can't compare to actually being there.
The opposite of an all-robotic space program would be an all-human space program - a program with no machines at all!! I don't recall ever hearing anyone seriously propose such an approach, yet it makes just as much (non)sense as an all-robotic program.
If all-robotic and all-human space programs are equally crazy, what about having no humans or machines? The no-space-program-at-all option is advocated by a very small number of people, too. In my experience, these people usually formulate their opinion based upon some common misperception, like the infamous trillion-dollar myth or the mistaken belief that the space program somehow diverts funds away from environmental or social programs. Present these people with facts, and they usually will see reason.
There's only one other option left: Tele-Robotics. Fortunately, it's a very good option. A tele-robotic space program contains a mix of human and robotic exploration. An important, underlying assumption with this type of program is the ability to overlay the strengths of each cog with the weaknesses of the other.
Notice the deliberate use of the word overlay in the paragraph above. In a tele-robotic future, humans are still humans and machines are still machines. Each simply works together to accomplish more than the other could alone.
In particular, humans respond better to unexpected stimuli, while machines excell at mundane (but critical) maintenance tasks. In a well-balanced space program, humans are the brains, and machines are the braun.
The robots-only pundits claim that machines also excell at living in hostile environments, whereas humans need to be pampered within a tightly-controlled biosphere envelope. This claim is mostly true today, but the prospects for the future are murky. As machines become more advanced - more human - their environmental needs increase. Robonauts provide a perfect example. One of the lead Robonaut designers recently told me of his concerns that the robot might not function well in the dusty environment of Mars - leading to the prospect that each Robonaut might need to wear a simple space suit!
Fortunately, the robots-only option (and I suppose the humans-only option) doesn't seem to resonate very well with the American public. Surveys have repeatedly shown that at least two-thirds of the American public endorses the tele-robotics option, no doubt due to Hollywood's inclusion of this option in nearly every space-sci-fi epic (they don't make many good movies purely about robots). Another factor might be the fear, whether founded or not, that rampant robotics will take jobs away from American workers. Still others might be afraid of machines someday turning upon their human masters... or more philosophically, whether humans have the ethical right to subjugate intelligent robots.
The public attitude seems to be similar in other space-faring nations, except in Britain, where an influential science minister likes to evangelize a robots-only future.
Back to INDEX OF SCIENCE TOPICS
"Ugh. I'll have to work up to that more slowly. I'm not spending six months in space without enjoying the awesome view outside! "
Chapter 1