Automation is good for rote tasks. People are good at improvising.
During the mission to correct Hubble's lens problem, the supplied tools and procedure failed. The mission specialist utilized scissors and a plastic cover from a log book to correct the problem.
Without that improvisation, the mission to fix Hubble's lens would have been a loss.
What we gain from having people in space depends on what you want to _do_ in space.
If it's all just drones mapping planets and space telescopes then investing in automation makes sense.
If it's manufacturing, settlement, getting some of our eggs out of this basket, then we need people out there, learning how to live off-planet.
The expense in either case, might possibly be the same.
Automation isn't cheap, missions that have to be redone because the automation fails are costly.
I think the example of Hubble actually works in my favor on this point. Hubble is a relic of an old technological age. Earth-based telescopes surpassed Hubble's capabilities not too long after it was launched, and have now pretty much left it in the dust. At a fraction of the cost.
Hubble's replacement (James Webb) is quite a leap ahead, and as an IR scope it really does need to be in space, unlike Hubble. But you'll note that its location will be off-limits to humans, and it is accordingly designed to be remotely maintained.
In short, the age of low-earth-orbit, high-maintenance space telescopes is, and should be, over. I argue that other space-based platforms that require human intervention should likewise be curtailed for similar reasons.
>"Automation isn't cheap, missions that have to be redone because the automation fails are costly."
It is still orders of magnitude cheaper than sending people, and the cost of a "failed" space endeavour with people on board is infinitely greater. In cases where it's not currently feasible to use robots, it would be worth our while to wait until it is, instead of trying to use humans now.
I feel that Mars is another example in my favor. Cost estimates for sending humans to Mars are so high and so speculative that they're essentially useless outside of the insight that we cannot afford it. Compare that with the cost of robotic exploration, which is both quite affordable and spectacularly successful so far.
As far as I am concerned, I want human uploads in space. Durr.
Philosophy and art do indeed require lots of human intervention. Thankfully, they are cheap, as is much of the basic science research that we should be prioritizing ahead of, say, super sexy space stations.
Kidney dialysis machines for example. And basic research on bone loss which has been a huge help for Osteoperosis patients.
I think the issue here isn't that we know that putting humans in space is expensive, it is, in time as well as resources. I think the issue is that if we don't put humans in space we'll never know what advances we could have made by doing it.
