No it's not trolling. I just want to see if a human's workload on space missions can be replaced by a set of sensors and robots.
> Primarily, the reason to send humans is because we have to in order to ensure the continued survival of (known) life in the universe.
Sure, but why not send multiple robots and a bunch of sensors? Humans need food and water to live (don't know how much of the payload will be a year's worth of food/water), and are generally inefficient at converting food sources to energy.
> Humans have collectively agreed that it's worth 10,000+ annual deaths in the USA in exchange for the convenience of cars.
Wrong. This is why we need autonomous cars. Driving is best done by computers, and humans will agree that it is NOT worth 10k+ annual deaths a year just to give humans "the pleasure of driving".
Thanks for your reply. I'll address some concerns, but I think we're closer to agreement than earlier actually.
> Sure, but why not send multiple robots and a bunch of sensors?
Well, yes, we absolutely should. We've got a long history of doing this, so we know what their strengths and weaknesses are. We should keep doing this, I think the vast majority of 'things' that we send to Mars for the next 10-20 years should be robots, not people.
> Humans need food and water to live (don't know how much of the payload will be a year's worth of food/water), and are generally inefficient at converting food sources to energy.
This is exactly the reason we need to send them. Since the eventual goal is (or should be, anyway) permanent colonization, it makes sense to send people right away so that they learn how to make food and where to find water. Robots won't be so concerned with this - and frankly, human ingenuity to find ways of making food is probably better done by humans than it is by robots.
> Wrong. This is why we need autonomous cars. Driving is best done by computers, and humans will agree that it is NOT worth 10k+ annual deaths a year just to give humans "the pleasure of driving".
I would agree with you if this had always been the case. But road deaths have persisted for decades without even the promise or idea that we're working towards a real solution. It's just been accepted by people. I agree that this attitude will change we when demonstrate that it doesn't have to be this way anymore.
But for the last ~100 years, humanity has definitely been quite relaxed at risking death just so we can drive cars (or, walk around nearby others who are driving cars).
> Primarily, the reason to send humans is because we have to in order to ensure the continued survival of (known) life in the universe.
Sure, but why not send multiple robots and a bunch of sensors? Humans need food and water to live (don't know how much of the payload will be a year's worth of food/water), and are generally inefficient at converting food sources to energy.
> Humans have collectively agreed that it's worth 10,000+ annual deaths in the USA in exchange for the convenience of cars.
Wrong. This is why we need autonomous cars. Driving is best done by computers, and humans will agree that it is NOT worth 10k+ annual deaths a year just to give humans "the pleasure of driving".