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

I used my opening round to establish NASA's unmanned achivements. I will now show why it is important for NASA to spend more effort in unmanned space exploration.There is nothing in my arguments that my opponent denies, so I will assume them all to be true as I provide my argument.C1) Astronaut Safety- My oppponent says that Astronauts put their life at risk to fulfill their dreams. I agree with that. However, these astronauts work for NASA and NASA has a responsibility to ensure the safety of these astronauts as much as it possibly can.- What really are the benefits of putting the lives of Astronauts at risk at this time in 2011? People have already gone to space and landed on the moon, effects of space travel on humans is now known. Before taking the next step and creating long term bases on the moon or travelling to Mars, it is far more important for NASA to pursue a policy of gaining more knowledge about space and the solar system in a manner that is hundreds of times cheaper than sending astronauts into space and risking their lives. Manned missions should be kept at a minimum with time and resources put into unmanned missions at the expense of manned.C2) Scientific ResearchSPA) Mission of NASAFirst, consider the purpose of NASA. NASA's mission is:To understand and protect our home planet,to explore the Universe and search for life,and to inspire the next generation of explorers... as only NASA can.SPB) End goalThe end goal is not to put humans into space as my opponent claims I said. I only said that manned exploration is a possible next step. Knowledge and understanding of the Universe is far more important. Unmanned exploration is the first step. Manned exploration comes later. True, NASA successfully landed on the moon, but there is not much more to do with manned exploration at this point before better technology is built and a better understanding of the Solar System is gained. It currently takes 18 months to go to Mars [2] and a NASA study has shown that a trip to Mars would cause irreversible blurry vision to astronauts [3][4]. Manned exploration at this point isn't safe.The second line of NASA's mission is "To explore the Universe and search for life"Con says "While cool, these discoveries (Great Red Spot, Volcanoes on Io, Frozen ocean under Europa)have no practical value; thus they aren't very beneficial."These discoveries are what NASA is made for. To discover these things. To help us understand the Solar system and the Universe, to search for possible life. What else does Con want NASA to do?Since these discoveries are to fulfill the purpose of NASA, extend every one of my arguments since my opponent does not refute them (that would be impossible) but merely questions their purpose. SPC) Unmanned Achievements(i) We have had the Hubble Space Telescope for over 20 years. Telescope technology has improved since the time Hubble was launched. NASA should focus on launching bigger and better telescopes into orbit. It is undisputable that Hubble has discovered incredible things and new telescopes will be able to take it further giving us better understanding of distant galaxies, black holes and supernovas.(ii) Con says "There is no unique to this argument exclusive to unmanned space vessels."If there is nothing unique, then we should go the unmanned route as opposed to manned. Does Con really think humans landing on Venus and discovering the same things would be equally desirable in terms of cost efficiency? The nothing unique argument strengthens my case more than Con's. In effect, he says it is the same whether the mission is manned or unmanned.(iii) Status quoThere is a lot more that can be done with unmanned missions. The Mars rover Spirit continued to send useful information to Earth for 7 years until it finally lost contact. More advanced vehicles will give us even more valuable information about Mars. Humans are not needed for this. C3) Cost EffectivenessI have shown that NASA has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the Space Shuttle and the ISS and that NASA even admitted them to be mistakes. Con's take on this is that money saved from them will be used by the government to buy muffins! (or wasted anyways). Should we not find ways to save money? Should we just assume that all money given to the government will be wasted?Con says that I am biased by showing the benefits of unmanned and the downfalls of manned exploration. That's becase I'm aguing Pro for unmanned. It is Con's responsibility, not mine to argue the Con position and show that manned exploration is beneficial in the short term and so far Con hasn't shown any benefits at all of manned exploration.The constellation program was unfeasible and NASA decided that it didn't want to waste money on a manned mission. Good decision! Con is free to argue against it.REBUTTALSR1) Human EfficiencyCost efficiency must be taken into consideration when evaluating efficiency. My opponent says that humans are precise. However, if it costs 100 times more to send humans into space than robotic probes as well as more time due to safety requirements, that efficiency is entirely negated. R2) Practical Benefits1) GPS and weather forecast2) Minerals buried deep under the Earth's surface can be located using satellites. 3) Medical benefits I will expand later due to lack of character space. Con however mentioned no benefits for manned exploration. R3) For the dreamersCon says that manned exploration is a motivation. Even if this were true, it should be in the future when enough technology has been developed to "fly through the stars". ConclusionPutting more time and money could yield benfits far more than manned space exploration. Instead of spending $100 billion on a manned mission, $1 billion could be spent on 100 unmanned missions gaining a vast understanding of space. This will fulfill the mission of NASA far more effectively.Sources[1] http://1.usa.gov...[2] http://bit.ly...[3] http://read.bi...[4] http://lat.ms...