Yes and no. If they are experts in their field, they may make many "on the spot" autonomous decisions. Also several times they have made autonomous life saving decisions in an emergency with only seconds to react.
A good case here is Harrison Schmitt
During Apollo 17 he was the first ever geologist sent to the Moon. They had only low res video transmission back to Earth. As a trained geologist, on the spot, then he was in a better position to make decisions than anyone else.
He made many decisions about which rocks to bring back, what outcrops to visit and so on during his expedition. He acted like a field geologist would do on an expedition on Earth.
Also Mission Control often had to remind him that his time was up and that he had to start going back to the landing site - as he found more and more interesting things to do. At his final point on the last day - he was tremendously keen to examine just one more deposit he could see a few hundred meters away - but they said it was too late, and he had to go back.
As a result his expedition brought back some of the most interesting specimens ever brought back from the Moon.
Including this one
dubbed "the most interesting rock brought back from the Moon"
Here he is on the Moon collecting rocks.
Apollo Rock Reveals Moon Had Molten Core
Sadly that was the first as well as last mission to the Moon by scientists.
But if we sent more scientists into space, for sure they would make many "on the spot" executive decisions.
If we send humans to explore Mars via telepresence, then just because of the communications delay from Earth, they will be even more autonomous.
I would expect any scientists exploring Mars via telepresence to work in as autonomous a way as they would on a field expedition in Antarctica. Of course with lots of consultation and discussion with Earth. But it's often nearly an hour later (up to 48 minutes) before anyone on Earth will see what they did and then be able to communicate their thoughts back to Mars.
So, if we have scientists in orbit around Mars - no way that they are gong to be continuously communicating with Earth about every little detail of what they do. I expect them to be more autonomous even than Harrison Schmidt on the Moon. Same also for any astronauts there even if just driving rovers around on the surface and following instructions from Earth - they will have to make many on the spot creative decisions about how to accomplish their tasks.
In a minor way many of the Apollo astronauts, being only human, did unexpected things. Including swearing on prime time TV in the Apollo 10 crisis, and including a concealed ham sandwich in a spacesuit as a "surprise"
Also, Wally Schirra smuggled a harmonica on board for this Christmas prank on Gemini 6.
In the case of Apollo 13, Jack Swigert's presence probably saved the mission.
He was fitter and better adjusted to cold conditions than most astronauts.
But also
In case of Apollo 13 they were much more than just people following orders. They were a vital part of its success with their own ideas and solutions and better able to see what happened than anyone on the ground.
Also in several emergencies - astronauts have solved problems on the spot within seconds - which they could never have communicated to Earth in time.
Particularly - I think of Apollo 10 where by quick thinking, they managed to pull out of the fast rotation that nearly killed them all. Similarly also with Gemini 8.
Also with Apollo 11, when Neil Armstrong guided the lander to a safe landing spot - that depended entirely on his expertise - and his cool head to keep calm in a crisis. No way could mission control have controlled a robot to do that or instructed someone less able than him to land Apollo 11 succeessfully.
The Hubble example in Cem Onur's answer is a good example also of on the spot problem solving.
But - you don't have to have humans physically on the spot to do this.
With telerobots controlled by telepresence, then you can make the same exectuive decisions controlling a telerobot - so long as it is close enough to control it in near to real time. Could even pilot a landing via telerobotics also.
With modern technology (not available then of course), Neil Armstrong could have done the same thing, land Apollo 11, via close up telepresence operation of the lunar module (say, from lunar orbit) given a good enough connection, high bandwidth, haptic feedback, binocular vision etc.
Similarly - Harrison Schmidt could have done his expedition as well, quite possibly better with telerobotics - not needing to use a clumsy spacesuit so far easier to pick up rocks and manipulate them.
They'd have wide field, high resolution vision like the Occular Rift, haptic feedback so you feel things that you touch - and probably eventually just walk around on the surface in real time using omni-directional platforms like the Virtuiz Omni.
It could be "more real" than actually being there in a spacesuit - especially if the operator is under lunar "artificial gravity" so in the same gravity environment (e.g. elsewhere on the Moon or in artificial g spinning tethered habitats in L1 or L2).
For that reason, and because it is safer for the astronauts - and does not expose them to cosmic radiation so much - and they don't have the danger of living in a fragile easily damaged mini spaceship - that's basically what a spacesuit is - then - I expect in the future we will use telerobotics for just about everything in space. Maybe quite near future like within a decade from now.
That + improving autonomy of our landers and rovers - at least for things like getting around on rough terrain. So you just point it and say "go there" - and then switch control to another rover that is already somewhere interesting - and then "telerobotically" jump back to the one you were controlling before when it gets where you wanted it to go.
So - I actually expect us to use robots more and more in space - for this reason - combining the best of human autonomy - and the space robustness - no need for oxygen or food - ability to just sit for days on end at a single spot in a vacuum no problems etc - and if it is damaged - just replace the part or get another robot, no big deal except expense - of a robot.
A good case here is Harrison Schmitt
During Apollo 17 he was the first ever geologist sent to the Moon. They had only low res video transmission back to Earth. As a trained geologist, on the spot, then he was in a better position to make decisions than anyone else.
He made many decisions about which rocks to bring back, what outcrops to visit and so on during his expedition. He acted like a field geologist would do on an expedition on Earth.
Also Mission Control often had to remind him that his time was up and that he had to start going back to the landing site - as he found more and more interesting things to do. At his final point on the last day - he was tremendously keen to examine just one more deposit he could see a few hundred meters away - but they said it was too late, and he had to go back.
As a result his expedition brought back some of the most interesting specimens ever brought back from the Moon.
Including this one
Here he is on the Moon collecting rocks.
Apollo Rock Reveals Moon Had Molten Core
Sadly that was the first as well as last mission to the Moon by scientists.
But if we sent more scientists into space, for sure they would make many "on the spot" executive decisions.
If we send humans to explore Mars via telepresence, then just because of the communications delay from Earth, they will be even more autonomous.
I would expect any scientists exploring Mars via telepresence to work in as autonomous a way as they would on a field expedition in Antarctica. Of course with lots of consultation and discussion with Earth. But it's often nearly an hour later (up to 48 minutes) before anyone on Earth will see what they did and then be able to communicate their thoughts back to Mars.
So, if we have scientists in orbit around Mars - no way that they are gong to be continuously communicating with Earth about every little detail of what they do. I expect them to be more autonomous even than Harrison Schmidt on the Moon. Same also for any astronauts there even if just driving rovers around on the surface and following instructions from Earth - they will have to make many on the spot creative decisions about how to accomplish their tasks.
In a minor way many of the Apollo astronauts, being only human, did unexpected things. Including swearing on prime time TV in the Apollo 10 crisis, and including a concealed ham sandwich in a spacesuit as a "surprise"
Also, Wally Schirra smuggled a harmonica on board for this Christmas prank on Gemini 6.
In the case of Apollo 13, Jack Swigert's presence probably saved the mission.
But also
“Among the nearly thirty Apollo astronauts, Jack Swigert had the best knowledge of Command Module malfunction procedures,” said Woodfill. “Some have said that Jack had practically written the malfunction procedures for the Command Module. So, he was the most conversant astronaut for any malfunction that occurred in the CSM.”
13 Things That Saved Apollo 13, Part 3: Charlie Duke’s Measles
In case of Apollo 13 they were much more than just people following orders. They were a vital part of its success with their own ideas and solutions and better able to see what happened than anyone on the ground.
Also in several emergencies - astronauts have solved problems on the spot within seconds - which they could never have communicated to Earth in time.
Particularly - I think of Apollo 10 where by quick thinking, they managed to pull out of the fast rotation that nearly killed them all. Similarly also with Gemini 8.
Also with Apollo 11, when Neil Armstrong guided the lander to a safe landing spot - that depended entirely on his expertise - and his cool head to keep calm in a crisis. No way could mission control have controlled a robot to do that or instructed someone less able than him to land Apollo 11 succeessfully.
The Hubble example in Cem Onur's answer is a good example also of on the spot problem solving.
But - you don't have to have humans physically on the spot to do this.
With telerobots controlled by telepresence, then you can make the same exectuive decisions controlling a telerobot - so long as it is close enough to control it in near to real time. Could even pilot a landing via telerobotics also.
With modern technology (not available then of course), Neil Armstrong could have done the same thing, land Apollo 11, via close up telepresence operation of the lunar module (say, from lunar orbit) given a good enough connection, high bandwidth, haptic feedback, binocular vision etc.
Similarly - Harrison Schmidt could have done his expedition as well, quite possibly better with telerobotics - not needing to use a clumsy spacesuit so far easier to pick up rocks and manipulate them.
They'd have wide field, high resolution vision like the Occular Rift, haptic feedback so you feel things that you touch - and probably eventually just walk around on the surface in real time using omni-directional platforms like the Virtuiz Omni.
It could be "more real" than actually being there in a spacesuit - especially if the operator is under lunar "artificial gravity" so in the same gravity environment (e.g. elsewhere on the Moon or in artificial g spinning tethered habitats in L1 or L2).
For that reason, and because it is safer for the astronauts - and does not expose them to cosmic radiation so much - and they don't have the danger of living in a fragile easily damaged mini spaceship - that's basically what a spacesuit is - then - I expect in the future we will use telerobotics for just about everything in space. Maybe quite near future like within a decade from now.
That + improving autonomy of our landers and rovers - at least for things like getting around on rough terrain. So you just point it and say "go there" - and then switch control to another rover that is already somewhere interesting - and then "telerobotically" jump back to the one you were controlling before when it gets where you wanted it to go.
So - I actually expect us to use robots more and more in space - for this reason - combining the best of human autonomy - and the space robustness - no need for oxygen or food - ability to just sit for days on end at a single spot in a vacuum no problems etc - and if it is damaged - just replace the part or get another robot, no big deal except expense - of a robot.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0