[John H K]

Our Primitive "Robotics" are DECADES AWAY from a Viable, Comprehensive Exploration of our Solar System,--BUT our Capacity for "Manned Expeditions" to our Celestial Neighbors is CURRENT!!

Sorry, the reverse is true. It's an interesting insight into human psychology that people seem really personally threatened by robots. Yes, a couple of guys in Meridiani right now would be better than a rover, but it would cost hundreds of times more money to send them there. And the capabilities of robots are going to rise much faster than the cost of a manned mission goes down (IF it ever goes down.)

Given "X" amount of money, we'll do a lot more science with unmanned than manned missions. For the cost of 1 manned mission we could cover mars with hundreds of rovers.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Humans can provide a "multiplier" effect to robots. Given a base of 10 human operators on Mars, they could direct 100 or more robots (rovers, aircraft, etc.) )without the Earth to Mars lighttime lag getting in the way.

[Doc On The Bay]

I Guess we can (I Hope) to "Agree to Disagree!!"

We just CANNOT "Program" ENOUGH into a "Robot" to RECOGNISE what a Trained Human Explorer can see in an "Exploration Mission" to the Moon or Mars.

The Robots are, simply, "Not Up to It!!"

Once More, it will be a Century--or, even, a Millenium--before our Robots are capable of equalling a "Human Explorer" on the Moon or Mars.

Doc

[RightWhale]

Given "X" amount of money, we'll do a lot more science with unmanned than manned missions.

That goes double for private enterprise, commerce rather than research.