Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency: why human space exploration will tell us more about the Solar System than will robotic exploration alone

TL;DR

This paper challenges the common belief that robotic space exploration is more efficient than human exploration, arguing that human missions provide more valuable insights into the Solar System based on historical and recent evidence.

Contribution

It presents a critical analysis of assumptions about robotic versus human exploration, highlighting the greater scientific value of human space missions.

Findings

Historical human exploration yielded significant scientific insights.

Recent analogue studies support the value of human exploration.

Robotic exploration may not be as cost-effective or capable as often assumed.

Abstract

There is a widely held view in the astronomical community that unmanned robotic space vehicles are, and will always be, more efficient explorers of planetary surfaces than astronauts (e.g. Coates, 2001; Clements 2009; Rees 2011). Partly this is due to a common assumption that robotic exploration is cheaper than human exploration (although, as we shall see, this isn't necessarily true if like is compared with like), and partly from the expectation that continued developments in technology will relentlessly increase the capability, and reduce the size and cost, of robotic missions to the point that human exploration will not be able to compete. I will argue below that the experience of human exploration during the Apollo missions, more recent field analogue studies, and trends in robotic space exploration actually all point to exactly the opposite conclusion.