I wonder how much further they could push these machines if they don't need to keep a squishy human alive inside.
The same could be said for space exploration. We spend a fortune accommodating humans.
The problem is that without embedded human smarts such exploration is very limited, novel / unexpected situations are hard to predict or react to, and the latency between earth-bound command posts and non-orbital remotes makes that unusable for anything beyond batch orders.
While hardly trivial, remote control within earth atmosphere has much more reasonable latency, and thus applicability.
Space exploration makes more sense because it's largely seen as a precursor to eventually establishing a colony in space, on the moon or on Mars. Whether that's actually viable is another discussion, but if NASA were to announce this is all just for the sake of curiosity and nobody's ever going to live in space then their funding will be gone in a week.
And also importantly don't risk pilots being captured. Self destruction on interception seems also desirable.
Or make it completely disposable. If you don't worry about recovering anything, the amount of fuel needed is less than 1/2. Heck, send 2 and get it in stereo.
Maybe with someone else's tax dollars.
"High resolution photographs in 30 minutes or your bird is free"
Not much, really. Reconnaissance airplanes don’t experience high g-forces. The loading you build the airframe for is well within what a human can handle. It’s more like an airliner than a fighter. You do have the benefit of not needing a cockpit, ejection seats, etc.
Yeah but you don't have to lug around life support systems and a fully kitted out control center in the cabin.
Most likely. Either that or some kind of hybrid OPV (optional pilot vehicle) system with a modular cockpit.