[Alberta's Child]

That was one of the author's points -- 99% of the "research" that is done in space can be done just as easily without humans. In fact, I believe the only research that requires humans is the research on the effects of space travel on humans.

[Frank_Discussion]

OK, let me put it another way: The SpaceLab module contains experimentation that primarily requires at least human tending, and usually active participation to complete. This was a SpaceLab mission. Some of NASA's most intense and valuable data and discovery has come from SpaceLab missions. A bioreactor was flying on STS-107, growing cells. Big deal, right? Yes, it is a big deal - in microgravity, cells grow much faster, and when properly cultivated start to build internal structures, such as blood vessels. Imagine growing new patient-specific replicas of failed organs, to facilitate transplants. It's not pie-in-the-sky stuff, speculation, it is real.

Don't get me wrong: I certainly don't want to keep running laps around our beautiful ball of dirt. Hopefully, this will energize NASA to go exploring again.

Understand this, however: There is a general feeling among a lot of people (especially the media know-nothings) that all can be performed via robots. Human intuition and adaptability simply doesn't exist robotically, and despite rosy optimism for the future, it isn't a development you can bank on when planning space missions. Physically, the robots can't compete, the human form is too flexible and natually useful for the task of material collection and other acts of dexterity.

Beyond all of that, a lot of people want to BE in space, to work and live. Robots can't tell us very much at all about how to do that, but human experience can teach us what we need to know. Did you learn to ride a bike by reading about it, or did you just get on one and skin your knees a few times? I bet you did the latter.