It could be that for the sort of work we want to do on the south pole a human in a jacket outperforms our current robots, but for the sort of work we want to do on the moon a robot, or our future robot, will outperform a human in a spacesuit.
Good thing the argument wasn't that this will necessarily happen, just that the case can be made that it could happen, and therefore human spacelight is not necessarily a bad idea.
Note that I'm not proposing abandoning robots in space. Your whataboutism assumes a symmetry that's not there.
> just that the case can be made that it could happen, and therefore human spacelight is not necessarily a bad idea
Nuclear war could happen, that doesn't make waging nuclear war a good idea.
> Your whataboutism
Please explain how advocating for useful allocation of resources within a reference topic, without ever leaving said topic, constitutes "whataboutism".
I want space exploration to happen. Right now, the most efficient, most promising, and most fruitful way, including in terms of developing future technology that can one day benefit human spaceflight, is to send robots.
Trying to send people to do a robots work in space exploration right now, is a waste of resources that will, long term, hinder our efforts of becoming a spacefaring species. It doesn't make sense for a tribe that just recently invented small canoues to try and send them across the ocean. It is possible to do so in theory, aka. "it could happen", that doesn't make it a good idea. And every tribe member who drowns during these efforts, is one person less who could father the future inventor of the Galleon.
