Counter Arguments

People are fragile. They need food, water, and air. They can exist in only a narrow range of temperatures and find inhospitable both vacuums and a radioactive environment.

Proponents of the astronaut-preferred camp point, quite rightfully, at the versatility and independence of humans. Fans of human spaceflight are certainly correct when they remind us that humans are highly versatile. People observe the conditions around them and can react to circumstances as needed.

Possible manned missions to Mars are imagined to cost about $1 trillion, with the outcome being limited exploration of the Red Planet by about 2030 (with some estimates saying 2050). And a mission with that price tag would hamstring the rest of the space program.

There are three important goals we need to achieve from our space program. The first is monitoring our own world, resulting in storm warnings and help in understanding our complex planet, which can best be done by tireless satellites orbiting the Earth. The second is to learn more about our solar system and the more distant universe. On this, the case is also clear: robotic exploration, through either space probes or telescopes, provides a much better yield for much lower money.

Manned missions help the U.S. keep its status as a global superpower.

Manned missons lead to innovations that make money for the U.S. economy

Manned missions inspire people to join the sciences

Machine missions are less expensive.

Manned space travel inspires people

Humans are versitile.

Manned space travel helps the U.S. stay a global super power.

Innovations to get people in space help the economy