Has R2D2 replaced Major Tom for good?

As Imperial College London counts down to a debate on the pros and cons of human space flight, the two panellists write exclusively for Physics World, presenting their arguments for and against manned or robotic space missions.

Championing robotic missions is David Clements, a lecturer in astrophysics from Imperial. Making the case for human space flight is Ian Crawford, a reader in planetary science and astrobiology from Birkbeck College, London.

While both speakers in the debate tackle the cost-effectiveness of preparing humans for voyages beyond low Earth orbit, they come to very different conclusions.

Clements outlines the scientific success of much cheaper robotic space adventures since the Apollo missions and explains why science can never be the priority when humans are being sent into space.

"Crew safety has to be paramount, so science can never be the priority of a manned mission," writes Clements. "Science is always scaled back when cutbacks are needed, well before anything that might affect the safety of the crew." And as Clements points out, "for the cost of a human mission to Mars, we could send about 600 rovers".

Crawford, meanwhile, outlines how manned flights present unique opportunities for research in a wide range of areas, from life sciences to materials science, and fundamental physics. Only humans, he writes, can bring the required agility, versatility and intelligence to make the most of space exploration. Crawford also argues that manned spaceflight benefits scientific education, hi-tech jobs and innovation, and also encourages friendly international cooperation.

"Human spaceflight," argues Crawford, "should be seen as an investment in the future of humanity and it deserves the full support of the scientific community, and indeed of all citizens of our planet."

The debate, entitled "Human spaceflight: science or spectacle?", takes place at Imperial on 12 November as part of its "The Big Questions" series.

Provided by Institute of Physics