Engineering News

I'm sure a fleet of robots, squadrons of wheeled rovers, robotic airships and floating robot boats would be way cheaper and easier than sending 4 guys to Mars.

But somehow a string of data reporting on temperature, pressure, positioning and system status when a probe first touches Martian soil just isn't as satisfying as "That's one small step..."

Still, you're quite correct. Humans are too high-maintenance for such a trip, given our current technology.

Maybe we can at least program the little beasties to piece together some random but inspirational words and phrases.

I was being sarcastic - perhaps not enough.

Funny, I agree and here I GAed your first comment. Hmm, anyway to retract that now? With teleoperated workers we could get started on the business of building habitats and infrastructure that might make the difference between actually moving forward or mere grandstanding like we did in the Apollo days.

There's no doubt that with an army of robotic explorers we could do great things. My argument is simply that the cost of developing such an autonomous army is an order of magnitude greater than simply sending men. Mars is the limit for teleoperation - even at Mars distances only high level commands can be sent (the round trip radio delay is from 6 to 44 minutes, depending on where Mars is that day). Beyond Mars teleoperation is out of the question. You need intelligent autonomy, and we are decades from developing that.

I've nothing against teleoperation, I think that remote controlled robots, operated from Mars orbit, or a manned base on Phobos would be a great idea. But it's not human exploration unless humans are involved.

I would point out that we've sucessfully deployed teleoperation / semi-autonomous robots all over the solar system - and beyond - which have done and are doing a fine job right now.

Sure, humans are more autonomous. They're also much more fragile (physically and emotionally) and require far more support. I'm with you. I want to send people. Heck, I want to be one of those people. But when you consider what it takes not only to send somebody as comparably close as Mars but to also give them a fair chance at getting back alive, a one-way probe wins every time.

And that's just for the barely human-friendly environment of Mars. When you start thinking about all the extremely hostile but interesting places we need to explore, sending people is just out of the question entirely.

I "got it", and agree.

Google Earth has a facility where one might fly virtually through the thin Martian atmosphere. It is arguable, therefore, that they have already been.

Anyone for tennis terraforming?

Wasn't there an article a few days ago stating that less than 49% of (robot) trips to Mars were successful? They have to get the landing right before they can 'dream' this up.

I vote for manned volunteers/pioneers to go. There are those that are willing.

Are we starting down the path to machine dominance?

Definitely sounds like the guy who wrote this has been watching a lot of Battlestar Galactica.
(not that there's anything wrong with that, ha)

Wishful thinking, Lore?

LOL

P.S. I am not my brother!