In the letter addressed to the the editor of the national aeronautics magazine, it was argued that resources should be invested in sending unmmaned probes and satellite into space, and that these unmanned space probes can generate information without the costs and risks associated with manned space flight. This argument was based on the fact that manned space flight is costly and dangerous, as well as the recent success of unmanned space probes and satellite. This argument is, at best, considerably flawed, as it relies on several unwarranted assumptions that can seriously weaken it, if proven false.
First, the argument relies on the assumption that the definition of success for unmanned space flights involves the gathering of useful information. Perhaps, unmanned space flight is an emerging field, and this is the first series of unmanned flight sent to space. Therefore, success for these unmanned flights might have been defined as successfully landing and/or positioning these satellites and probes in its intended location in space. It is possible that unmanned space flight has not advanced to such a point that it is expected to gather useful information. It may just be early stages. If this scenario proves to be the case, and corollarily, the assumption turns out to the false, then the argument would not hold water.
Secondly, the argument assumes that unmanned space flight is not equally, or even more costly and dangerous than manned space travel. The arguments provides no fact or information regarding the safety or cost of unmanned space flight. It is possible that, due to the fact that there is no human to establish control and take hold of the flight as it travels in space, sophisticated intelligent systems were needed to be installed to ensure safe travel and landing for these flights. These sophisticated systems might have cost even more than the systems existing in manned space flights. Also, it is a possibility that unmanned space flights can lead to release of undesirable substances in the atmosphere, due to the kind of fuel it requires. Negatively alterinig the condition of the earth's atmosphere can lead to safety issues for the human population. If the safety and cost of unmanned space flights then prove not to be better than that of manned space flights,a dn the scenario above proves valid, the argument would then have no legs to stand on.
Also, information about the existing budget dedicated to unmanned space travel is not presented. The argument assumes, therefore, that there is insufficient investment into unmanned space travel. Maybe the government have invested as much as is practicably possible into unmanned space travel, with very little results and/or minor success. If this is the case, the argument and recommendation becomes irrelevant.
Summarily, the arguments presented possesses several loopholes and is severely lacking, as it strongly depends on several unproven assumptions. In order to properly determine the validity and viability of the argument, the scenarios above need to be proven false, and additional information needs to be presented about the circumstances surrounding manned and unmanned space flights.