[deerpig]

So you would prefer JFK to have said: "We choose to send robots to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, because they are easy and cheaper and faster..."

It's worth reading the whole speech: https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

It ends with:

"Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked."

There will as many robots as you want in space, but man will be out there right along with them, no matter how difficult or dangerous or expensive it is.

[melling]

Let me blog it. I get tired of answering this question. The short answer is if we had built robots and sent hundreds into space, we'd have more humans in space now because it would be safer and cheaper. We'd also learn more quickly. We'd also have more advanced robots because of the investment.

We reached the moon, spent a few years, then gave up because of cost.

Would you rather have a new robotic explorer, or two or three, queued for Mars, Titan, etc every year or a few people on Mars by 2040?

[cevn]

Totally agreed. We could have an army of terraforming robots establish a space on Mars, for instance, then send humans there when we're sure it's hospitable. Or send drones throughout the galaxy with human embryos to potential habitable planets. An ethics nightmare, to be sure, but interesting to consider the implications nonetheless.