How Artemis Moon missions NASA’s last for astronauts ‘due to the rise of robots’

Prof Rees added: “Astronauts simply also need far more ‘maintenance’ than robots — their journeys and surface operations require air, water, food, living space and protection against harmful radiation, especially from solar storms.”

This means that there are cost differences between robotic and crewed missions, such which grow only larger the further out into the solar system we explore and the longer missions are expected to last.

As Prof. Rees notes, “A voyage to Mars, hundreds of times further than the Moon, would not only expose astronauts to far greater risks, but also make emergency support far less feasible. There will certainly be thrill-seekers and adventurers who would willingly accept far higher risks — some have even signed up for a proposed one-way trip in the past.”

That trip, which never went ahead, was proposed to launch this year by Mars One, a private space company. Such firms, Prof. Rees thinks, are the future of human spaceflight.

He explained: “Private-sector companies are now competitive with NASA, so high-risk, cut-price trips to Mars, bankrolled by billionaires and private sponsors, could be crewed by willing volunteers. Ultimately, the public could cheer these brave adventurers without paying for them.

“Given that human spaceflight beyond low orbit is highly likely to entirely transfer to privately-funded missions prepared to accept high risks, it is questionable whether Nasa’s multi-billion-dollar Artemis project is a good way to spend the government’s money.”

Prof Rees concluded: “Artemis is ultimately more likely to be a swansong than the launch of a new Apollo era.”

Article source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1703165/artemis-programme-last-nasa-astronauts-robotic-exploration-martin-rees