The next giant leap: humans or robots?

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 11 years ago

The next giant leap: humans or robots?

By Peter Spinks

He inspired the dreams of at least a generation of people. Former test pilot and engineer Neil Armstrong, the first person to set foot on the rocky, powdery surface of an alien world, became a symbol for humankind's quest to explore space — and, one day perhaps, to colonise moons and planets way beyond our own.

A dozen American astronauts, including Armstrong, walked on the moon between Apollo 11's historic eight-day mission in 1969 and NASA's last lunar landing, Apollo 17, in 1972. Astronauts, ever since, have been confined to low-Earth orbit — boldly going nowhere very special.

''The human exploration of space has literally been going around in circles since Apollo days,'' says Murdoch University robotics researcher Graham Mann. ''Robotic probes, on the other hand, have travelled to almost every corner of the solar system.''

For gathering data from deep space, robot craft are hard to beat, Dr Mann explains. ''Robots can survive accelerations, decelerations and extremes of heat and cold beyond the endurance of human astronauts. They don't require food, water, air or pay checks. They don't get sick, bored or distracted. They can have sensory capabilities and data recording functions far beyond human reach.''

This artist's concept depicts the rover Curiosity, of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory mission, as it uses its Chemistry and Camera (ChemCam) instrument to investigate the composition of a rock surface.

This artist's concept depicts the rover Curiosity, of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory mission, as it uses its Chemistry and Camera (ChemCam) instrument to investigate the composition of a rock surface.

Monash University electrical engineer Ray Jarvis shares this view. ''Unlike humans, robots need no life-support systems and can be packed to unfold on landing,'' he says. ''They function for years without the concerns one has for people working in hostile environments for lengthy periods.''

In addition, greater risks can be taken with robots than would be acceptable for humans, Professor Jarvis adds. ''Finally, being expendable, robots need not be returned to Earth.''

Many scientists believe there is little sustained interest any more in manned space missions. There are reasons aplenty for this, says Curtin University astrophysicist Rob Soria. ''Most unexplored bodies of the solar system have no hard surface or the surface is unsuitable for human landings and takeoffs — or it takes too long to get there and back,'' he says. Sending humans back to the moon, he adds, would have no scientific purpose — only symbolic meaning.

The fourth rock from the sun, Mars, Dr Soria says, is really the only object within human reach — even though it takes 260 days for a human crew to reach, against a trifling three days to the moon. ''It's still too expensive to get an astronaut to Mars and will remain the case for decades.''

Advertisement

Professor Jarvis raises another concern: if micro-organisms were active on Mars, cross-contamination from astronauts arriving there, and from material brought back to Earth, might have negative consequences for both planets. ''This would be yet another reason to use robots and to leave them on Mars,'' he says.

In the balance

The robots versus astronauts question is complex, says Australian National University physicist Charley Lineweaver. ''As Moore's law makes robots more capable, flexible and talkable, they will become more valuable and soon may have rights as well as responsibilities,'' he explains.

Scientists care most about the science and, for most space missions, carefully designed radiation-hardened instruments are the way to go, Dr Lineweaver says. ''But government budgets are not based primarily on a science/dollar computation.''

Exploring planets and the rest of the universe will not be a job for robots alone — so as long as the main motivations for exploration are human emotions, he says. ''On the other hand, my increasingly sophisticated laptops are starting to develop personalities of their own. Apparently, NASA's Curiosity rover on Mars is starting to have a personality on Twitter.''

Canberra-based Jon Clarke of Geoscience Australia agrees. ''Unmanned spacecraft and planetary rovers are very useful, and are superior to direct human presence for several tasks, such as for orbital imagery or acting as ground stations,'' Dr Clarke explains. ''But as the complexity of a mission increases, the difficulty of achieving it with an unmanned system goes up exponentially.''

Scientific exploration of planetary surfaces is one of the most difficult tasks imaginable, he says. ''While specific tasks can be automated, the integrated replacement of the entire human being is very difficult, and perhaps impossible.''

International dimension

Irrespective of whether or not the next giant leap is human or robotic, the huge costs involved mean that collaboration rather than rivalry is called for.

''The expense of establishing a moon base or a manned mission to Mars can only be realistically undertaken as a major international mission, where the majority of spacefaring nations combine resources,'' says CSIRO physicist Kurt Liffman, who once worked at the Johnson Space Centre in Houston and has twice met the second man to set foot on the moon, Buzz Aldrin.

''The public may be interested in manned missions, but are probably unwilling to finance such undertakings unless there are major benefits such as improved international co-operation and long-term technological spin-offs, Dr Liffman says.

Humans have it

Human exploration is far more efficient than robotics, both in terms of the collection of data and the volume of results produced, argues space engineer Jason Held, the director of Saber Astronautics in Sydney.

This view, Dr Held says, is backed by peer-reviewed research on the quantity of science produced from rovers and probes compared with the Apollo missions. ''The number of papers produced by Apollo dwarfs that of all the rover missions combined — and is still increasing.''

Steven Squyres, the principal investigator for the twin Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, says: ''The unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol [Martian day] a human explorer could do in less than a minute.''

Even with the advances in robotics since 2005, and the ability to send the 900-kilogram Curiosity rover to Mars, robots still fall short of humans when it comes to exploring alien surfaces, Dr Held says. ''We are curious, our processing speed is better and we can make rapid assessments of terrain that robots cannot.''

Who is right?

When astronomers and astrophysicists say ''robots do it better'' they are not referring to performance, Dr Held says. ''What they usually mean is that robots are cheaper and safer.''

In reality, he explains, astronomers and space engineers compete keenly for the same funds. ''So, even those scientists in favour of astronauts over robots still defer to an argument that keeps food on their table.''

The last word

Allen Sirota, a group supervisor at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, is well acquainted with both robotic and manned missions.

''My feelings on this have changed over the years,'' says Mr Sirota, whose father worked in the US space program. Having been brought up with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo ventures, he originally wanted to be an astronaut.

''When I came to JPL in 1983, I still had aspirations to join the astronaut program,'' Mr Sirota recalls. ''I worked on several scientific instruments that flew on space shuttle missions and had exposure to NASA astronauts. I also had the opportunity of flying on NASA's zero-G aircraft to test some of the technology involved.''

US astrophysicist and science populariser Carl Sagan, he recalls, often visited JPL in those days. ''During a speech here, he said manned missions were the cornerstone of NASA's space strategy and that robotic missions would always take a back seat to them.''

So where are we now? Robotics technology has matured so much that incredible robot ventures are now feasible, Mr Sirota says. ''Manned and robotic missions each have advantages and disadvantages. From a purely scientific standpoint, it would be preferable to have human scientists there exploring and interacting with the environment. But, as technology becomes more advanced, robots can do more and more of what humans can.''

Mars-bound

A manned mission to Mars would be very demanding. ''To keep humans alive and healthy in an isolated spacecraft for two years would be a monumental task,'' Mr Sirota says.

Having said that, sending astronauts to Mars would capture the human imagination better than robots would, he says. ''Ultimately, a permanent manned presence in space might be needed to ensure long-term human survivability, such as dealing with asteroids that might hit the Earth.''

Such a space presence may also assist with mining asteroids for resources and in preserving life in space colonies in the event of natural disasters on Earth — as well as being an important goal in its own right.

''For now, we have a balance of both manned and robotic missions, each addressing different priorities of the space program,'' Mr Sirota says.

Links

• Check out the comparative stats on robotic versus human science here

• Read about NASA's robotic crew member designed to move and work like a human in space here

VCAA links

• VELS: Science Levels 5 and 6: vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vels/science.html

• Communication Levels 5 and 6: vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vels/communication.html

Loading

• Thinking Processes Levels 5 and 6: vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vels/thinking.html

Please send bright ideas for new topics to pspinks@theage.com.au

Most Viewed in Technology

Loading