🚀 go-pugleaf

I have avoided the manned vs unmanned debate now for a long time, but
I've decided to get my two cents in since it looks like this thread is
never EVER going to die.  In my opinion neither one is better than the
other because they both have their good and bad points.  There are
situations in which manned is better and situations in which unmanned
is better.  If the mission matches the approach used everything is
great.  The problem arises when the wrong approach is used.  Examples
of where I feel each approach is appropriate follow:

     Unmanned: Survey/Photographic Mission
               Simple sampling missions (this could include returns)
       Manned: Complex sampling missions
             
With advanced enough robotics and AI, everything could be done with
unmanned missions.  However, I feel that there is a fundamental problem
with this.  Scientific knowledge gained through space exploration is
extremely important.  However, I believe that we need to develop a
permanent manned presence in space.  The earth is simply too small a
basket to keep all our fragile eggs in.  Therefore, we need missions
with a manned component to develop these capabilities.  Besides, 
the life-science researchers I'm sure would like to have data on how
humans and other organisms live/function in space, and this data could
be just as important to us as the composition of Mars rock etc.

      Flame me if you want, but this is my position on the matter.

            Keith Amidon -- kamidon@caen.engin.umich.edu