NASA should focus more on unmanned space exploration than manned space exploration

C1) Safety- Manned trips to Mars are not viable and may cause irreversible vision problems and exposure to radiation. We need to send robots to go out there and check what the problems are, how much radiation there is, and from what sources. Do we send Astronauts and let them get exposed, and have vision problems citing the fact that they took a risk when they signed up? Astronauts do not choose their mission, NASA does, and it has a responsibilty to send them on safe missions. - We had 6 moon landings. Why another similar landing? If we go again, we must go with different goals like permanent bases. Before that, we need robots to see if the conditions are viable, what mineral resources are available, radiation, and other dangers. - Experiments involving great expense and risk to human life must be done judiciously. It is not a fallacy. C2) Research A) MissionWhat NASA means by "inspire .." is [3]: - Motivate students to pursue math & science careers - unmanned discoveries do this- Improve scientific literacy - same - Engage public in shaping the experience of exploration and discovery - Lot more exploration of planets and scientific discoveries by unmanned. B) End GoalExtend that NASA explores the universe and searches for life by studying ocean under Europa etc. Con says "by focusing more on manned than unmanned, we do no get rid of unmanned " The resolution asks where should NASA put more time and resources? Extend C(iii) below. C) AchievementsCon gave the same rebuttals to many points in C2. I found it more efficient to address those rebuttals. C2 wasn't dropped. (i) Con concedes that newer telescopes need to be sent to space. Building and launching a 25,000lb+ telescope into space is not easy. NASA needs to spend time on it. (ii) Cost is a unique benefit for unmanned. Efficiency addressed in R1. (iii) "no need to focus on something that has already been established more than something that needs more research."We already landed on the moon, ISS and the Shuttle are draining the bank and NASA admits them to be mistakes. The only way to go with manned is Mars, or permanent moon bases. But that is not feasible due to technological and safety constraints. Yes, unmanned has been a tremendous success but it didn't directly study what dangers await on a trip to Mars or permanent bases. We should send robots to do that as we know that they will have a resounding success as always, and are cheap. C3) Cost - NASA admitted the Shuttle and the ISS were expensive and unproductive. NASA jumped the gun. We need to improve technology before we send humans into space again. - The budget for NASA is separate from the budget of the USFG. The resolution asks to divert money from manned exploration to unmanned. Muffins are irrelevant as is other wastage. Other government expenditure should not figure into this. - Con concedes that the constellation program was unfeasible and NASA decided that it didn't want to waste money on a manned mission. NASA finally saw sense. REBUTTALSR1) Human EfficiencyFirstly, extend that cost efficiency must be taken into consideration when evaluating efficiency.Con says humans are precise. Unmanned missions are actually more efficient than manned when presicion and cost are both considered together. As automation improves, unmanned missions can do more complex tasks [2]. Another reason why more research must be put into unmanned exploration. They are always successful and the precision is getting better.Extend that the Mars Exploration Rovers (MERs) discovered a lot more things than humans could have done because they were there for much longer. Manned missions cannot match the quantity of discoveries in the short time that they are there. Having a manned mission for a multiple year span would be too expensive and impossible with current technology. Manned missions cannot be extended beyond the specified time frame as life support would run out. MERs by contrast, ran longer than planned. R2) Benefits"These are all new arguments" They was a direct rebuttal. When Con said manned has practical benefits, I showed that unmanned also has them. The benefits I showed are due to unmanned exploration. Zero gravity was the only one Con mentioned for manned. But it could be performed under simulated conditions on Earth, in pools, and on aircraft. No experiments were performed on the Shuttle or ISS that can't be simulated on Earth. I have shown that not only did unmanned exploration result in more practical benefits like GPS, but it also advances scientific knowledge and discovery at a rate that leaves manned exploration in the dust. R3) DreamersI didn't say "it's expensive, forget about it". I said that we don't have the technology or knowledge to send humans to "fly through the stars." Con confuses it with my refutation for a different point about cost.Con says technology to "fly through the stars" is already there. There isn't. We don't know the conditions that exist beyond the Solar system. We don't know if a manned Spacecraft will be able to withstand radiation, comets, asteroids, and extreme temperatures. We don't know the optimum time it will take for a trip to outer space and back. We need robots to test it out first and voyager wasn't enough. Voyager never came back. It required assistance from planets to push it forward [1]. It wasn't even meant to return. Manned spacecraft absolutely need to return. They need to return at the right time when planet positioning can thrust it forward using gravity. More research and unmanned exploration needs to be done before this can happen. Conclusion We are at a stage where we did everything we could with manned, moon landing etc, nothing more can be done with current technology. NASA needs to reign in manned missions and increase research on unmanned for at least for the next 20 years to develop a new generation of technology which can make the next stage in manned exploration viable such as moon bases, trips to Mars and beyond. http://bit.ly...