Moon is part of Mars

[Fake Messiah]

Humans could discover the source of the methane on Mars and discover who is farting on Mars.

Also robots are very limited, especially so far from Earth. Humans would be on Mars for 1,5 years and if they had vehicles they could cover hundreds of kilometers and could look for fossils - something that is very hard for robots.

There is some talk about it in this somewhat realistic documentary on human exploration of Mars at minute 57

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Humans could discover the source of the methane on Mars and discover who is farting on Mars.

Also robots are very limited,  especially so far from Earth. Humans would be on Mars for 1,5 years and if they had vehicles they could cover hundreds of kilometers and could look for fossils - something that is very hard for robots.

There is some talk about it in this somewhat realistic documentary on human exploration of Mars at minute 57

1.  You don't need humans to detect methane or find the source of methane.

2.  Why is it hard for robots to look for fossils?  They can take pictures (they would be easy to direct to probable fossil sites, based on where we find fossils on Earth) and send the pictures back for analysis.

3.  What is the cost of keeping a crew of humans alive on Mars for 1.5 years, vs the cost of robotic rovers?

4.  It shouldn't be at all difficult to design a rover that could cover 'hundreds of kilometers'.

(apos if any of these are addressed in the video)

As a bonus, we already know how to send robots to Mars (and, by extension, anywhere in the Solar System).  We don't have to entertain robots or keep them company or send thousands of pounds of supplies along with them.  Robots don't suffer from loneliness or cabin fever.  They don't miss their families and friends.  And - above all - we tend to value human lives more than machines.  Of the 50-odd missions to Mars, something more than half have ended in failure.  I'd sooner lose a space probe than a human crew.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

Why is it hard for robots to look for fossils?

Because for next few decades it will be practically impossible for robots to be trained to look for fossils. I mean even now they send pictures of strange rocks, but without anyone checking it out closely it remains a mystery.
Especially if you're looking for alien organisms. I mean sure they may stumble on something but when it comes to further digging it is almost impossible for now.

For instance in 2013 two Oxford researchers, Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, published ‘The Future of Employment’, in which they surveyed the likelihood of different professions being taken over by computer algorithms within the next twenty years.
They estimated that 47 % of US jobs are at high risk. For example, there is a 99% probability that by 2033 human telemarketers and insurance underwriters will lose their jobs to algorithms. There is a 98 % probability that the same will happen to sports referees, 97 % that it will happen to cashiers and 96 % to chefs. Waiters – 94 %. Paralegal assistants – 94 %. Tour guides – 91 %. Bakers – 89 %. Bus drivers – 89%. Construction laborers – 88 %. Veterinary assistants – 86 %. Security guards – 84 %. Sailors – 83 %. Bartenders – 77 %. Archivists – 76 %. Carpenters – 72 %. Lifeguards – 67 %. And so on.

BUT the likelihood that computer algorithms will displace archaeologists by 2033 is only 0.7%, because their job requires highly sophisticated types of pattern recognition, and doesn’t produce huge profits. Hence it is improbable that corporations or government will make the necessary investment to automate archaeology within the next twenty years.

https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downlo...oyment.pdf

Now, when that is being said, there really is no realistic reason to expect that humans will be going to Mars in the next few decades so it will be all left to robots.

Also the chances that some sort of elaborate fossils exist on Mars is probably very low, considering that Mars seemed to be habitable and Earth-like for one or two billions years, which is "short" compared how long it took for life to develop on Earth. But, then again, maybe it went differently there and maybe people are wrong about that assessment.

What is the cost of keeping a crew of humans alive on Mars for 1.5 years, vs the cost of robotic rovers?

Well, you could look at the documentary. It all kind of started back when Bush Sr. in the 80s ordered inspection in how much human mission to Mars would cost. And they got some astronomical numbers like $450 billion because they made it too complicated. But then that guy Zubrin and his team stepped in and they simplified it drastically but then NASA insisted they buff it somewhat more and they got the number of $55 billion over 10 years.
And this Zubrin gives good explanations of why people further still complicate human missions to Mars - because they want their pet projects to be involved. Like many people think that humans need to go on the Moon first, but if you want to go to Mars you just go there. There is no reason to stop on the Moon first, or build spaceship parts there, or train there.

But there are some problems, because radiation on the surface seems to be way too high. And I don't think there are yet rockets that could launch a human crew on Mars and also land it there.

It shouldn't be at all difficult to design a rover that could cover 'hundreds of kilometers'.

Sure. And NASA would send some robots to prepare for humans to land. I mean they could send a balloon to Mars instead of that helicopter.

Robots don't suffer from loneliness or cabin fever.  They don't miss their families and friends.

Sure, but people used to travel to secluded places for many years. Plus there are astronauts that would love to go there and they wouldn't be absent for that long, it would be 3 years.

Of the 50-odd missions to Mars, something more than half have ended in failure.  I'd sooner lose a space probe than a human crew.

Again, there are daring people that would take any risk to go there. For instance, this is what astronaut Mike Mullane wrote about his spaceflights on Space Shuttle to Earth's orbit:

I was as scared as I had ever been in my life. But at that moment, if God had appeared and told me there was a 90 percent probability I wasn’t going to return from this mission alive and had given me an opportunity to jump from that crew van, I would have shouted, “No!” For this rookie flight, I would take a one in ten chance. I had dreamed of this moment since childhood. I had to go. Even if God had given me a vision of what the other nine chances meant, a vision of my charred remains being zipped into one of those body bags, I still would have declined His offer to exit the van. I had to make this flight.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't see why it would be impossible to instruct robots on how to look for fossils.  Given the advances in camera technology, extremely high resolution photographs could be taken and transmitted. And most fossils aren't dug for (or at least not very deeply) - they are found at or near the surface, often having been exposed by erosion or land slippage. You also make the point that no humans will be going to Mars in the next few decades.  Who knows what the advances in computer tech will be by then?

$55 billion over 10 years sounds like a bargain.  But how much more could be done robotically for the same money over the same period?  My guess is 'quite a lot' (Opportunity's total cost was about $400 million over 15 years). If the $55 billion dollar figure is reasonable, that's the equivalent of just over two hundred Opportunity-type landers.

If we send robots to Mars in preparation for humans, why not just have the robots do what the humans would?

I don't doubt that there are daring and intrepid people who would want to make the trip, no matter the risk.  But given the cost factors and the abilities latent in remote robotic technology, there's no need for it.

The only reason to send human beings to Mars is to be able to boast that we sent human beings to Mars.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

You also make the point that no humans will be going to Mars in the next few decades.  Who knows what the advances in computer tech will be by then?

Humans already have all the computer tech they need to land on Mars, so the actual barrier is this kind of attitude people have: "The only reason to send human beings to Mars is to be able to boast that we sent human beings to Mars."

Given the advances in camera technology, extremely high resolution photographs could be taken and transmitted.

They already are sending all sorts of interesting pictures, like













But now what do you propose we do? Scratch our heads until the cows come home because there's nobody to pick it up, do the precise digging, try to puzzle it together.

Sure, you want to train the robots but as I tried to explain even that is at hefty price because these kind of algorithms don't return its investments, but it will come about eventually.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's a horse skull. Terrestrial horse skull.

[Gwaithmir]

Paranormal Crucible is a website specializing in hoaxes, conspiracy theories, fraud and pseudoscience. To wit:

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/04/2...st-a-rock/

[Fake Messiah]

Paranormal Crucible is a website specializing in hoaxes, conspiracy theories, fraud and pseudoscience. To wit:

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/04/2...st-a-rock/

Sure, I'm not making any claims myself but there are some interesting pictures from Mars, like that "crab" and without someone giving it closer examination all we can do is play "You're wrong" game. I mean what if some of those rover took a photo of an actual fossil - what would have to make us conclude it was an actual fossil and not pareidolia?
I myself am very skeptical of fossils on Mars because of the reasons mentioned in previous posts, but still this is all based on guesses, although pretty strong guesses but guesses nevertheless.

[Succubus]

Humans already have all the computer tech they need to land on Mars, so the actual barrier is this kind of attitude people have: "The only reason to send human beings to Mars is to be able to boast that we sent human beings to Mars."

Time for a dose of reality. We're not going to Mars, not in the foreseeable future. Why?

Nobody knows how to do it.

A really excellent article by Rob Manning, well worth a read. Yes it's 12 years old but very little has changed since then. Research into supersonic retro breaking has stalled and inflatable hypercone's are leaking badly.

We are not going to Mars.

[Fake Messiah]

Humans already have all the computer tech they need to land on Mars, so the actual barrier is this kind of attitude people have: "The only reason to send human beings to Mars is to be able to boast that we sent human beings to Mars."

Time for a dose of reality. We're not going to Mars, not in the foreseeable future. Why?

Nobody knows how to do it.

So where does it in that article mention that humans have too weak computers to go to Mars? The article mainly talks about how it is impossible today to land big payloads on Mars - something I already said in previous posts.