<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"  As humanity&amp;#039;s reach extends into the universe, there&amp;#039;s an ongoing argument among space exploration buffs: Should humans, or robots, explore the solar system and beyond? At the recent SETIcon II science and sci-fi conference, planetary scientists, a commercial space entrepreneur, and a veteran astronaut tackled the question. Surprisingly, they agreed that the best possible option is one that will never be a reality: sending humans to explore planets like Mars but not letting them put their feet on the ground. The Case for Robots Robots clearly rule the day. For now, the only carbon-based life-forms in space are the handful of astronauts who man the International Space Station in shifts, while robots rove all over the surface of Mars, zip around Saturn and its moons, and are on their way out of our solar system. &amp;quot;Most of what we do in space could be done better with robots,&amp;quot; says Cynthia Phillips, a planetary geologist at the SETI Institute. &amp;quot;There are things humans can do more quickly, but there are funding constraints to keep humans alive.&amp;quot; Humans need to eat, to sleep, to breathe, and to come home at the end of the mission. They also don&amp;#039;t respond well to extended periods of weightlessness, or away from Earth&amp;#039;s protective magnetic field.  Robots, Phillips says, are just better at doing science in space. They work day and night and can travel to faraway places because they won&amp;#039;t get homesick. &amp;quot;If you took those dollars [from researching manned spaceflight] and spent them on a fleet of robots, sure they&amp;#039;d be slower, but they&amp;#039;d do more science.&amp;quot; And they&amp;#039;ll get better. Bob Richards, co-founder of Google Lunar X Prize teams Odyssey Moon and Moon Express, says: &amp;quot;There&amp;#039;s a danger of thinking linearly and applying what we understand about robots now to the future. The computational capacity of the human race in the future is going to be astounding. The types of robotics we&amp;#039;ll have in the next several years will be indistinguishable from magic.&amp;quot; The Case for Humans Tom Jones, a planetary scientist, veteran astronaut, and PM contributor, says there will always be a case for humans in space. &amp;quot;Science is one of the great results of exploring the cosmos, but it&amp;#039;s not the only reason we go to space. We send humans as an expression of national will and the superiority of our form of government,&amp;quot; he says. &amp;quot;Robots are great proxies for us in initial reconnaissance. With the current level of intelligence they can&amp;#039;t really return results of the depth of human explorers. Humans cost more, but they deliver more.&amp;quot; While humans are not ideal for doing science in zero gravity, he argues that robots can&amp;#039;t hold a candle to people when it comes to marketing, public relations, and politics. Phillips says that the public perception of space travel seems to be that humanity hasn&amp;#039;t truly gone somewhere until humans land and leave their footprints in the dust. &amp;quot;You can&amp;#039;t underestimate the political value of boots on the ground,&amp;quot; she says. &amp;quot;There&amp;#039;s a place for sending humans, but don&amp;#039;t call it science. It doesn&amp;#039;t make sense in a science argument. But it does make sense in the exploration and inspiration side of things.&amp;quot; The Case for Everyone The humans versus robots debate will go on indefinitely; undoubtedly the future of spaceflight will contain both. But the SETIcon panelists proposed a sort of strange hybrid mission: Send humans to get the public excited, but have those astronauts bring along robots to do the actual science once they arrive. Imagine a crew undertaking the voyage to Mars in the next decade or so. When they reached the Red Planet, they would remain in orbit while deploying bots down to the surface.  Why do this? The most expensive and dangerous aspect of space travel is takeoff and landing. Remove that from the mix and you have a much higher likelihood getting a human crew to Mars and back\u2014a huge accomplishment on its own regardless of whether they land. In addition, the Mars surface itself is highly toxic. Perchlorate, basically a form of highly chlorinated salt, is prevalent in Mars dust and not safe for humans to interact with for extended periods.  Eliminating the need to work around the toxicity may be safer and smarter then sending them to the surface, the panelists say, and keeping humans off the surface is the best way to protect the red planet from human contamination. Finally, it&amp;#039;s cheaper and easier to control robots on the surface from orbit rather then all the way from Earth. Jones says there&amp;#039;s precedent for this kind of mission. &amp;quot;I&amp;#039;ve operated the robot arm on the space shuttle. There&amp;#039;s a place where you pick humans that have the skills and then you let the robot do its job. On the current space station there&amp;#039;s a Robonaut 2 that can relieve the crew so the humans can get on with doing research. Human explorers have their limitations. There&amp;#039;s a great synergy between humans and machines and it&amp;#039;s an artificial construct to separate them.&amp;quot; Of course, there&amp;#039;s one big problem: The public would never accept the idea of going to all the trouble to send humans all the way to Mars and not see them touch the surface\u2014it kills the whole adventure/national pride rationale. Which is why this ideal mission, they panelists agreed, will never be a reality. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a7837/we-should-send-humans-to-mars-but-not-let-them-land-10588563/>