Do we need manned space flights?

Probability of a space expedition failure is too high

Question: Do we need manned space flights?
Position‹3 of 3: No, space flights are too dangerous
Argument1 of 3›: Probability of a space expedition failure is too high

A vast number of drone expeditions failed with the destruction of the spacecraft

The argument

By considering the drone missions there have been quite a few failures which caused the destruction of the spacecraft. Even successful missions (such as Voyager) experienced some technical failures/issues which luckily still allows to accomplish most if not all mission objectives. However since failures n this case does not imply loss of human lives, the level of acceptable risks is higher. A human mission is more complex since it involves a life-maintain system that should ensure safety of the crew.Therefore the risks of a failure are higher. Also no human mission can be considered successful unless astronauta are able to successfully return to Earth; so far all drone missions have been one-way

Context

There have been already several failures on drone missions. A manned mission is way more complex and consequently the risks

Premises

[P1]Even unmanned space missions, with their lower complexity and lower stakes, frequently experience failures or significant technical problems. [P2] Manned missions are more complex because they require life-support systems and a safe return to Earth, raising the probability of mission failure. [P3] When failure means the loss of human lives, the acceptable level of risk is far lower than for drone missions. [C] Therefore, the failure risks of manned spaceflight are too high to justify sending humans into space.

Counter-arguments

High risks have already been taken in previous mission. It is estmated that Apollo missions had an estimate 50% of failure that might have resulted in fatalities. Even in past centuries explorers take even more risks; in expedition like Magellan's circum-navaigation only a small number of original crew survived the trip. Desire to explore make people accept enormous risks

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Uncrewed failure rates do not transfer. Those missions are deliberately flown to a higher accepted risk because no one is aboard, so their record understates what engineering to a crewed standard achieves. [Rejecting P2] Added complexity does not settle the probability. Crewed vehicles carry redundancy, abort systems and a crew able to intervene, none of which a probe has, and the requirement to return is a design constraint rather than a fixed increment of risk. [Rejecting P3] The premise sets the acceptable level of risk without argument. Astronauts are volunteers who accept the danger knowingly, as they did throughout Apollo, and societies routinely permit freely chosen hazardous work — so the question is who decides what risk is acceptable, not whether risk exists.