Should the U.S. halt human space flight? The Columbia accident has revived the debate on whether the rewards of human space exploration are worth the risks.

• Author: Roland, Alex
• Position: Debate

YES Anything we want to do in space we can do more efficiently, more economically, and more safely with automated spacecraft than with astronauts. It is now impractical and unsafe to send humans into space.

The space shuttle is the world's most sophisticated launch vehicle, but also the most expensive, the most fragile, and the most unreliable. Seven astronauts died in the Columbia accident and another seven died when the Challenger exploded in 1986. The shuttle will never achieve the vision of sending humans to Mars.

Whatever we are trying to do in space costs 10 times as much if we send astronauts along for the ride. The primary mission of all human space flight is getting the crew back alive, and so we burden the spacecraft with life-support equipment and we limit where it can go. Nothing that astronauts contribute can compensate for the weight and safety penalties imposed as a result.

For the past 25 years, NASA has been trying to re-create the golden age of the Apollo program, which aimed to send a man to the moon--and did so six times between 1969 and 1972.

Since then, the world has undergone a computer revolution.

Technology has taken over many human activities on Earth, from manufacturing to surgery. Only the space program--supposedly the center of our most visionary science and technology--remains wedded to the idea of keeping people in jobs that machines do better. NASA should turn its considerable talents to developing a safer and more reliable launch vehicle. Until then, we should stop risking people's lives by sending them into space.

NO I was a teacher when men first landed on the moon in 1969, and I remember how it moved my students and this country. It is now more than 30...