In this lecture, Mr. Launius enlightened us with pros and cons about humans in space traveling. In many ways, robots/machines are better space travelers than human beings: they are perfect for suicidal missions while it’s immoral to send humans to do so; they can survive under harsh conditions with low-oxygen, no food, and no companion while humans are incapable of doing so. Therefore, naturally manned missions are more demanding and expensive. One might think that those qualities make manned missions less desirable, but the reality is the opposite: manned missions share the biggest chunk of the budget of NASA. The rationale behind this might be that manned missions appeal more attention, and, therefore, more money. However, humans face a lot of obstacles when it comes to space traveling: first, humans are unable to carry out an interstellar travel mission. Popular tentative solutions include multi-generation spaceship and freeze-revitalize protocol, both of which are unrealistic at this point. On the multi-generation spaceship, the information, genetic diversity and human interactions available for the habitants are extremely limited, resulting in developmental issues. Plus, it’s virtually impossible to build a self-sustained habitat and Habitat II exemplified it. Freezing and revitalizing humans merely exists in sci-fi films—we can’t even do it on a cellular level, not to mention applying it on the entire human body. At least so far, space traveling seems to be working against humans. The ultimate solution might be turning us all into cyborgs: a radical procedure that probably wouldn’t be executed in generations.