[X] My Assistant

[dilo]

This mosaic of 4 Panoramic frames from Sol442 show a strong increase in density of rocks, even big ones! Don't know if could be an issue for further movements toward the hill top?

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

"About EVA activity, it seems to me foolish to send humans onto Mars' surface and then use robots... Using this philosophy, in order to reduce risk, it's even better to remote-control a robot from Mars orbit!"

I agree enthusiastically with Dilo. In fact, that possibility has been repeatedly discussed, and it too was mentioned by some of the members of the Roadmap Committee. According to an Op-Ed that Donald Robertson wrote in "Space News" several years ago, it's the position toward which a rapidly growing segment of the planetary science community is also leaning. If the US insists on actually landing humans on Mars just for PR purposes even though that act will run a serious risk of biocontaminating the planet, it's likely to run into very serious opposition from the science community.

I think of this as the "Martian Catch-22": the only scientific discovery which could justify something as expensive as a manned expedition to Mars is the discovery of evidence of present or past life, but manned landings will disastrously contaminate the very thing they were sent there to study!

[Buck Galaxy]

"About EVA activity, it seems to me foolish to send humans onto Mars' surface and then use robots... Using this philosophy, in order to reduce risk, it's even better to remote-control a robot from Mars orbit!"

I agree enthusiastically with Dilo.  In fact, that possibility has been repeatedly discussed, and it too was mentioned by some of the members of the Roadmap Committee.  According to an Op-Ed that Donald Robertson wrote in "Space News" several years ago, it's the position toward which a rapidly growing segment of the planetary science community is also leaning.  If the US insists on actually landing humans on Mars just for PR purposes even though that act will run a serious risk of biocontaminating the planet, it's likely to run into very serious opposition from the science community. 

I think of this as the "Martian Catch-22": the only scientific discovery which could justify something as expensive as a manned expedition to Mars is the discovery of evidence of present or past life, but manned landings will disastrously contaminate the very thing they were sent there to study!

So why not set aside 99% of Mars for robotic-only exploration but build a few bases in one small section of Mars? Surely a base or two won't contaminate an entire planet? Especially if they are very careful not to contaminate.

An aside, I HATE the word "contaminate" when refering to bring life to other worlds.
I can see the point when there is a question if there is life somewhere or not and the need to study some alien microbes without any earth bugs getting in the mix etc etc, but I think it is ultimately humanity's responsiblility and calling to spread life throughout the Solar System and Galaxy. Not just microbes but advanced life.
What greater purpose could our existence serve?