Re: Human Exploration of Mars

Paul F. Dietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Van Allen had the following to say (in 1986) about the Columbus analogy:
> [....]
>   There, of course, remain many matters of deep scientific interest on Mars
>   but these matters can be addressed ... by automated ... missions."

His judgement that matters of interest can be addressed by automated
missions flies in the face of the primary scientific motivations
for a manned Mars mission today; Exobiology, looking for either
subsurface life, or fossil evidence thereof, on the Martian surface.
The scale of the problem of doing that fieldwork is now well argued
to be something requiring something like a major manned program.

Not absolutely requiring a manned program; the specific tasks
and such are extremely difficult for automated missions,
and to some degree we do not know if it is possible to do
them in an automated fashion, much less 30 light minutes
away in an automated fashion.  It is possible that the
state of the art of robotic exploration will advance
significantly, but the tasks are clearly beyond what we
know how to do remotely right now.  And it's not like
people haven't looked at doing them remotely...

Note that we didn't really understand that question well in 1986,
which is when he wrote that. 


-george william herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]