No, you’re not arguing that. You’re just saying that. Big difference. I’m waiting to hear about specific things that a suited human in situ could do that could NOT be done by that same human telerobotically from a real-time distance. I’m listening.

“why is it that we always design our rovers to find out if there were conditions that might have supported life, rather than to find life?”

Well, that’s trivial. In fact, MSL and MERs are certainly capable of seeing fossils, even on very small scales, and you can bet that each and every image is examined closely to look for them. But what you need, to look for a needle in a haystack, is LOTS of pixels per unit time. MSL and MERs, in communicating with Earth at low bandwidth, with long delays, don’t allow that.

You put humans in orbit around Mars, sitting in comfortable chairs looking at high resolution display screens, coupled to the surface with nonstop megabit connections, and those astronauts will be absolutely combing the surface, looking for fossils. Much better than if the same suited astronauts were crawling on their knees looking for those fossils.

Yes, we “always” design our rovers that way, because all the rovers we’ve ever designed are intended to be run by people on Earth. If we designed them to be run by people close by, we’d design them much differently.

“I believe we don’t do that because the scientists designing these things know that it cannot be done, certainly not at reasonable cost.”

You’re wrong, for exactly the reason I gave. It’s because you’re still assuming those robots are either autonomous or separated from humans by a long time delay and inferior data rate.

“we might find indications of the current presence of life with automated missions ”

See? You’re just not getting it. I’m not talking about “automated missions”! I’m talking about missions where astronauts are operating high precision and high resolution equipment in real time. Nothing “automated” about that. What I’m talking about are tools that give humans a high degree of situation awareness, without actually being there.

So I guess when your mission is to travel from here to there, and you’re driving a car, you’re using an “automated mission” to get there. Right? Yep, it’s a robot that you’re controlling (though you happen to be sitting on it). Maybe it’s even all electronic. That mode of transportation simply can’t be as good as humans moving their feet, no?

If you’re using an electron microscope, again you’re using an “automated mission”, I guess. Good luck trying to see that kind of detail without one. By “automated mission” you mean something that uses electricity?? That makes no sense at all.

“We won’t ever achieve it if we give up the idea of going there and try to do these things exclusively with remote observations or teleoperations.”

Why not? Those remote operations doing teleoperations could now give us vastly higher resolution than with the naked eye, in many wavelengths and on many scales (microscopes, telescopes). What’s more, our field time won’t be limited by an EVA suit. A few decades ago, that was simply impossible. Welcome to the future.

But you’re right. Time will tell. Let’s hope we don’t waste it.

I think putting humans on Mars is a wonderful idea, at least in the interest of colonization and perhaps species insurance. You can’t do that species preservation electronically (though I guess you can sure put a lot of genomes on a memory stick!) But putting humans on the surface of Mars to look for fossils? Nope. That’s archaic.

Hiram: Yes, it’s really hard to twist yourself out of what I call historical exploration. But we now have technological tools to help us do that, and we need to do some growing up to free ourselves from the archaic models of exploration.

I do not disagree that a telephone call can let me communicate with a friend, but most of us still fly to visit our friends. I am not arguing that we cannot do good science remotely. What I am arguing is that there are some sciences that cannot be done well remotely, and that these are the sciences whose results are likely to be of most interest, and that remote science is not always the most efficient way to proceed even in the presence of very high transportation costs.

I’d be interested in your answer to the following question. If I am wrong, why is it that we always design our rovers to find out if there were conditions that might have supported life, rather than to find life? Ever since the Viking failures, we do not send missions to find life, or even past life. If it’s so easy to automate this stuff, why don’t we just send a rover to find a fossil, find one, and declare success?

I believe we don’t do that because the scientists designing these things know that it cannot be done, certainly not at reasonable cost.

I stand by my prediction: while it is just possible we might find indications of the current presence of life with automated missions (most likely indirectly, e.g., by finding chemical products that are likely to have been produced by life), we will almost certainly not prove that life existed in the past, or that it hasn’t ever existed, without an extensive human presence able to explore significant areas of Mars’ surface. In other words, we aren’t going to achieve this soon. We won’t ever achieve it if we give up the idea of going there and try to do these things exclusively with remote observations or teleoperations.

Time will tell. . . .

— Donald

That is precisely what I stated.

“But, wait a minute, we’re going to put an asteroid in orbit around Earth’s moon, and we’re going to send an Orion into a similar orbit, but we’re not going to visit the asteroid because it would cost “a bundle of money?”

Nope. Because there is no good reason to do it. It’s a rationale-free endeavor, which isn’t what federal funding should be for.

“Allow me to rephrase your statement: “That it costs so much to send astronauts to Mars is simply technological immaturity.”

Bad rephrasing. My point is that humans in this day and age who aren’t willing to trust transporting their senses and awareness via electronic means are suffering from technological immaturity.

“Sure, we can send Curiosity to Mars for less than any likely human mission, but if you want to understand even a few hundred kilometers of Mars, you’d have to send hundreds of rovers and wait thousands of rover years to get results.”

As I said, the issue with Mars is time delay. Not robots versus humans. You put humans in orbit around Mars and they will, for a fraction of the cost of putting them at one site on the surface, be able to extend their awareness to many sites on the planet, in real time.

“Well, yes and no. They see a lot more wavelengths, so yes, they collect more data. But human eyes convert raw data to what the military calls actionable information far more efficiently than anything yet approached in any camera.”

Please don’t be clueless. You’re missing the point entirely, and wallowing in the old humans versus robots argument. I’m talking about human eyes exploring Mars, but doing so without being there physically.

“A human hand, even in a glove, can minipulate faster and with far greater efficiency, albeit with less precision.”

It is generally agreed by space teleroboticists that this is no longer necessarily the case. Be technologically mature. Again, if you mitigate time delays by getting people close, your “faster” argument carries no weight.

“Apollo astronauts (with 1960s technology) did in a day what it takes even the latest of our rovers more than a year to do. They handled steeper slopes, rougher terrain, and gathered more samples that were in some ways more intelligently gathered.”

Bonk. Again, our Mars rovers take a year to do what humans can do in a day because of the time delay. But putting people safely and relatively inexpensively in orbit over Mars, those time delays disappear. As to steeper slopes and rougher terrain, you’d be surprised what our military telerobots are able to do. The rock fine samples that MSL gathers are very intelligently gathered. Drill here, and analyze. Did Apollo astronauts do on-site crystallography of drill samples?

“Read up on what late Apollo missions actually achieved on the surface.”

I’m very aware of what they achieved on the surface, and it was marvelous. But you should read up on contemporary telerobotics, which are VASTLY more sophisticated than what we’ve sent to Mars.

“I do agree with you we need those tools, but in the hands of geologists. It’s barely possible to immagine a robot finding direct evidence of past life on Mars …”

Bonk. We’re not talking about what a robot can find. We’re talking about what a human can find by extending his or her awareness though a robot. Given the multiscale and multiwavelength power that the robot allows a human to see with, and the high degree of mobility and dexterity it offers that human, a human in orbit around Mars, and perhaps around the Moon can exceed in performance what human eyes, legs, arms, and hands on site can accomplish.

Again, you have to get away from thinking of this as what “robots can do”. It’s about what suitably instrumented humans can do. And you got to get away from this idea that these robots must be operated from Earth. Not so. Operating from orbit, those astronauts can investigate many different sites, and do so without the expense and risk of a dusty gravity well to human travel. This isn’t about robots versus astronauts. It’s about astronauts using robots to extend their awareness.

Achieving human situation awareness without actually having humans on site is deeply offensive to many people. It’s just not “right”! But being so offended is an unfortunate mark of technological immaturity.

So climb on your horse and ride to the next town. Nope. You aren’t exercising your mobility. You’re using a tool to give it to you. So pick up the phone and call your friend. Nope, you aren’t using just sound waves to communicate with that friend. You’re using an electronic tool (ooh, robot??) to have a real-time conversation with someone far away. We’ve long ago accepted, and achieved technological maturity, that real conversation can be had without being next to the person you’re conversing with.

Yes, it’s really hard to twist yourself out of what I call historical exploration. But we now have technological tools to help us do that, and we need to do some growing up to free ourselves from the archaic models of exploration.

Since these things hit only rarely, your background in archaeology gives you a view of long periods of time which many do not understand and/or are not aware of.

The world view of many extends back to the last TV season, or back to their childhoods. US history extends only 500 years; the rest of it is Native American history.

You don’t seem to understand the problem here.

A 150 meter NEO would be enough to take out the US, and a 70 meter one would be enough to take out many of our allies.

That’s not to mention the nasty side effects…

Okay, I can see your points. I guess I would be more interested in icy moons because of the chance of life there. But I see your points.