What would a Mars colony have to offer in the way of goods and services?

[tater]

39 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Exactly. Which not only proves the complexity of such a task, but also how fragile such a closed loop environment would be. It's all so easy to claim that we have it all figured out in theory, but when it comes to engineering the actual systems, there are always things that you forgot to model or that weren't accounted for. Of course, the slightest imbalance can cause your a huge catastrophe, like runaway CO2 levels or losing your crops.

Yep. Also that the way to mitigate such complications is to go for an entirely controlled construction technique. Ie: like ISS, etc. That means that the "colonists" need to bring everything with them. Making a habitat out of martian concrete, or 3d printing with martian soils, etc, ad nauseum, is not impossible, but would need long-term testing while the people involved were actually safe in a plastic hab they bring with them from Earth.

I said it someplace, but Mars is only a "destination" to the extent that humans construct/bring-along a destination with them. Such an environment could just as well be placed on the Moon, or simply in orbit. About the only thing that you get "for free" on the Moon or Mars is the use of regolith for radiation shielding---assuming you design the habs you bring with you to support a couple meters of dirt on top of them.

[sevenperforce]

Simpler is better.

As the OP mentioned, colonization of virgin land has almost invariably been associated with the exploitation of a very small number of very valuable resources. Colonization of Mars will make sense when a sustainable market exists for such a resource.

As it turns out, there's a market already: fuel. Currently, space missions invariably drag all their fuel along with them because lifting fuel into LEO separately makes no sense. Low Martian orbit, on the other hand, requires only 4.1 km/s of delta-V, and so if you can manufacture fuel on the surface of Mars, you can get it into Martian orbit far more easily than you can get fuel from Earth's surface into LEO. Once the fuel is in orbit, high-efficiency ion thrusters can transfer lots of fuel to LEO at very low cost. An active fuel depot transfer network makes larger space stations and orbiting spaceports feasible, and missions which require high thrust (e.g., manned missions) can pick up fuel at an orbiting depot, vastly driving down the overhead for launch itself.

For example, if you want to plan a manned mission to virtually anywhere in the solar system, would you rather design and build a really, really, really ridiculously big rocket to carry all your fuel up at once, discarding entire stages as you go, or simply launch your crew and craft up to LEO and then purchase a couple of fuel tanks from a depot?

Of course, most of this process would be automated by robots (definitely the transfer from Martian orbit to LEO), but you'd probably need a human presence on Mars to assure reliability and fix the inevitable problems that would arise.

[fredinno]

26 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Simpler is better.

As the OP mentioned, colonization of virgin land has almost invariably been associated with the exploitation of a very small number of very valuable resources. Colonization of Mars will make sense when a sustainable market exists for such a resource.

As it turns out, there's a market already: fuel. Currently, space missions invariably drag all their fuel along with them because lifting fuel into LEO separately makes no sense. Low Martian orbit, on the other hand, requires only 4.1 km/s of delta-V, and so if you can manufacture fuel on the surface of Mars, you can get it into Martian orbit far more easily than you can get fuel from Earth's surface into LEO. Once the fuel is in orbit, high-efficiency ion thrusters can transfer lots of fuel to LEO at very low cost. An active fuel depot transfer network makes larger space stations and orbiting spaceports feasible, and missions which require high thrust (e.g., manned missions) can pick up fuel at an orbiting depot, vastly driving down the overhead for launch itself.

For example, if you want to plan a manned mission to virtually anywhere in the solar system, would you rather design and build a really, really, really ridiculously big rocket to carry all your fuel up at once, discarding entire stages as you go, or simply launch your crew and craft up to LEO and then purchase a couple of fuel tanks from a depot?

Of course, most of this process would be automated by robots (definitely the transfer from Martian orbit to LEO), but you'd probably need a human presence on Mars to assure reliability and fix the inevitable problems that would arise.

But why would you make it from Mars? LEO fuel would be better to get from the Moon (fast, consistent delivery), or NEOs (slower, but cheaper). If you needed fuel from near Mars, you would be better off getting it from its moons.

[sevenperforce]

7 minutes ago, fredinno said:

But why would you make it from Mars? LEO fuel would be better to get from the Moon (fast, consistent delivery), or NEOs (slower, but cheaper). If you needed fuel from near Mars, you would be better off getting it from its moons.

As I understand it, there is more readily accessible precursor material on Mars, and the atmospheric shielding and higher gravity make it more hospitable to major operations. If you're going to build a large fuel-mining operation, large enough to need manned support, Mars is a much easier and stabler place to live than trying to survive on the moon or in a space station.

[fredinno]

33 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

As I understand it, there is more readily accessible precursor material on Mars, and the atmospheric shielding and higher gravity make it more hospitable to major operations. If you're going to build a large fuel-mining operation, large enough to need manned support, Mars is a much easier and stabler place to live than trying to survive on the moon or in a space station.

Does it matter when it's uneconomical to get stuff from Mars in the first place? Not to mention supplies back to Mars will take minimum 6 months. Yes, Mars is the most like Earth, but I doubt it will be colonized before even its moons.

[sevenperforce]

15 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Does it matter when it's uneconomical to get stuff from Mars in the first place? Not to mention supplies back to Mars will take minimum 6 months. Yes, Mars is the most like Earth, but I doubt it will be colonized before even its moons.

I'd guess...tentatively...that Mars can more readily support a large-scale operation to satisfy the market for orbital fuel depots than any moons. Though I could be wrong.

[fredinno]

38 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I'd guess...tentatively...that Mars can more readily support a large-scale operation to satisfy the market for orbital fuel depots than any moons. Though I could be wrong.

That would need a huge market though. Probably 100x larger than now.

[Thor Wotansen]

Mars will actually be very important to further exploitation of the solar system for resources.  As has been mentioned, fuel will be a large export, but I think life support supplies and food will be just as big as export to support asteroid mining and further exploration.  All the elements of food and fuel production are present on Mars an with the 24 hour (ish) day and stable gravity it would be perfect for growing plants and livestock for food.  One can hardly expect an asteroid mining vessel to grow all its own food while its out doing its thing.  Products like coffee and sugar will likely be Mars's most valuable exports once full scale mining of the asteroid belt starts.

[Finox]

On 1/26/2016 at 6:20 PM, HebaruSan said:

As was already pointed out, the old world is far less constraining. On Earth the ubiquitous biosphere offers the option to leave town, build a shack in the woods, and live off the land. On Mars you have no choice but to stay involved with and in the good graces of whomever controls the life support system of the habitation modules and the imports of essentials from Earth.

And either way, we still haven't identified a reason for any institution capable of paying the bills to do so. A Mars colony is not going to materialize out of thin air via the grit and gumption and stick-to-it-iveness of a few hundred volunteers, no matter how enthusiastic they may be.

I was thinking more in terms of social and economic constraints, particularly how established societies tend to concentrate power in the hands of a few entrenched groups at the expense of potential upstarts.   I really don't think you'd have as much of a problem living on Mars as you'd think, the techniques of living there would be different from the American frontier but its not like most people today know how to build a log cabin with an axe.   We really have a much better toolkit of technologies now to settle Mars then the pioneers had to settle America.

If you're looking for a reason to goto Mars then isn't science a good enough start?   The search for life and furthering our knowledge of geology are worthy endeavors. there will be enough infrastructure built in the course of exploring the planet to support a small town.   Given the travel times, NASA will have a strong incentive to keep people on Mars as long as possible and eventually, if for no other reason then to be the first, people will put down roots and stay on Mars.   The important thing is to get that first mission going, until we've done that nobody can really say for sure what Mars might truly have to offer.

[tater]

1 hour ago, Thor Wotansen said:

Mars will actually be very important to further exploitation of the solar system for resources.  As has been mentioned, fuel will be a large export, but I think life support supplies and food will be just as big as export to support asteroid mining and further exploration.  All the elements of food and fuel production are present on Mars an with the 24 hour (ish) day and stable gravity it would be perfect for growing plants and livestock for food.  One can hardly expect an asteroid mining vessel to grow all its own food while its out doing its thing.  Products like coffee and sugar will likely be Mars's most valuable exports once full scale mining of the asteroid belt starts.

Anything you could do on Mars, then have to lift to space you could also just do in space. A built environment is a built environment, it doesn't matter where it is. The day/night cycle is meaningless, as martians will need exactly as much radiation protection as they would on the Moon---about 2 meters of soil over their heads. At that point, you are artificially controlling the day/night cycle anyway.

[Finox]

On 1/26/2016 at 10:03 AM, Nibb31 said:

However, the only science that you'll get from having humans living on Mars is limited to studying how to get humans to live on Mars. It's circular and pointless unless you have another reason to have humans living on Mars, which we don't.
 

What?!   It's another planet, the study of its geology alone would be of interest to that field as a comparison with Earths.   Then there is the whole issue of whether there was life or conditions for life in the past, in other words more clues to some of the greatest scientific questions of all time.   How can you believe that the only area of scientific inquiry another planet offers is getting there and living on it?   That's like saying that the only reason for studying Antarctica is to see if we can live there.   I think the scientists at McMurdo station would disagree with you.   You are a very pessimistic person Nibb...

Why do you hang out in a forum for a space exploration game (much less post on it 4000 times)  if you don't believe there's anything worth exploring in space?

[Temstar]

1 hour ago, Finox said:

If you're looking for a reason to goto Mars then isn't science a good enough start?

It is a good reason, unfortunately science has never been conducted that way. When HMS Beagle took off it was to do a hydrographic survey for the navy and Darwin basically hitched a ride. Similarly we went to the moon mainly to score political points and the science was an after thought.

It's a bit unfortunate if you're the type that feel we should do science for its own sake. But I like to see it as an opportunity to continue to look for economic or political reason to go to Mars. If you can find such a reason then science will naturally follow in its wake.

[HebaruSan]

2 hours ago, Finox said:

I was thinking more in terms of social and economic constraints, particularly how established societies tend to concentrate power in the hands of a few entrenched groups at the expense of potential upstarts.

A Mars colony will start out with power as fully concentrated as it has ever been in any historical society on Earth---NASA (or whichever agency builds the colony) will have total control to say who goes to the colony, what their jobs are, how much of each resource they're permitted to consume, etc. Astronauts on the ISS have basically their entire waking time pre-planned and managed by ground crews 24/7. Scott Kelly cannot get up in the morning and say, gee, I feel like going for a spacewalk today to gaze at the moon for a few hours.

2 hours ago, Finox said:

I really don't think you'd have as much of a problem living on Mars as you'd think, the techniques of living there would be different from the American frontier but its not like most people today know how to build a log cabin with an axe.   We really have a much better toolkit of technologies now to settle Mars then the pioneers had to settle America.

It would probably be more convincing to give reasons to believe that rather than just stating your belief in it.

2 hours ago, Finox said:

If you're looking for a reason to goto Mars

I guess that's the point. Institutions with billion-dollar budgets aren't looking for reasons to go to Mars. They're looking for ways to make money, or to increase tax levies, or to do favors for their campaign donors, etc. They will go to Mars if (they believe) it allows them to do those things.

2 hours ago, Finox said:

then isn't science a good enough start?   The search for life and furthering our knowledge of geology are worthy endeavors. there will be enough infrastructure built in the course of exploring the planet to support a small town.   Given the travel times, NASA will have a strong incentive to keep people on Mars as long as possible and eventually, if for no other reason then to be the first, people will put down roots and stay on Mars.   The important thing is to get that first mission going, until we've done that nobody can really say for sure what Mars might truly have to offer.

Much like everyone else, I think it would be awesome cool to have a Mars colony. But the title of this thread is "What would a Mars colony have to offer in the way of goods and services?". That's why we keep coming back to the economics of it.

1 hour ago, Finox said:

What?!   It's another planet, the study of its geology alone would be of interest to that field as a comparison with Earths.   Then there is the whole issue of whether there was life or conditions for life in the past, in other words more clues to some of the greatest scientific questions of all time.   How can you believe that the only area of scientific inquiry another planet offers is getting there and living on it?

All of which could be done (and already is being done) more efficiently with robots.

[fredinno]

7 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said:

Mars will actually be very important to further exploitation of the solar system for resources.  As has been mentioned, fuel will be a large export, but I think life support supplies and food will be just as big as export to support asteroid mining and further exploration.  All the elements of food and fuel production are present on Mars an with the 24 hour (ish) day and stable gravity it would be perfect for growing plants and livestock for food.  One can hardly expect an asteroid mining vessel to grow all its own food while its out doing its thing.  Products like coffee and sugar will likely be Mars's most valuable exports once full scale mining of the asteroid belt starts.

Assuming we don't have GM crops that can be grown in zero-G by then- considering Zero-G crops are something researched on the ISS, and of significant interest to any person going deep into space, I doubt that situation will last long enough for Mars to have a colony.

Food from a planetary surface is invariably more expensive than that of a space station due to Delta V costs. Not to mention Mars has perclorate-laced soil- FUN!

6 hours ago, Finox said:

I was thinking more in terms of social and economic constraints, particularly how established societies tend to concentrate power in the hands of a few entrenched groups at the expense of potential upstarts.   I really don't think you'd have as much of a problem living on Mars as you'd think, the techniques of living there would be different from the American frontier but its not like most people today know how to build a log cabin with an axe.   We really have a much better toolkit of technologies now to settle Mars then the pioneers had to settle America.

If you're looking for a reason to goto Mars then isn't science a good enough start?   The search for life and furthering our knowledge of geology are worthy endeavors. there will be enough infrastructure built in the course of exploring the planet to support a small town.   Given the travel times, NASA will have a strong incentive to keep people on Mars as long as possible and eventually, if for no other reason then to be the first, people will put down roots and stay on Mars.   The important thing is to get that first mission going, until we've done that nobody can really say for sure what Mars might truly have to offer.

Science doesn't pay the bills like minerals. It's ultimately not enough, or else we'd already have a moon base.

4 hours ago, Finox said:

What?!   It's another planet, the study of its geology alone would be of interest to that field as a comparison with Earths.   Then there is the whole issue of whether there was life or conditions for life in the past, in other words more clues to some of the greatest scientific questions of all time.   How can you believe that the only area of scientific inquiry another planet offers is getting there and living on it?   That's like saying that the only reason for studying Antarctica is to see if we can live there.   I think the scientists at McMurdo station would disagree with you.   You are a very pessimistic person Nibb...

Why do you hang out in a forum for a space exploration game (much less post on it 4000 times)  if you don't believe there's anything worth exploring in space?

He's saying it's better for robots, not humans, which are more expensive (hence human missions being "super-flagship" missions.

[Nibb31]

4 hours ago, Finox said:

What?!   It's another planet, the study of its geology alone would be of interest to that field as a comparison with Earths.   Then there is the whole issue of whether there was life or conditions for life in the past, in other words more clues to some of the greatest scientific questions of all time.  

None of that requires human presence. Telepresence studies are good enough, are cheaper, and can last for years.

4 hours ago, Finox said:

How can you believe that the only area of scientific inquiry another planet offers is getting there and living on it?   That's like saying that the only reason for studying Antarctica is to see if we can live there.   I think the scientists at McMurdo station would disagree with you.   

That's not what I said. I said that the only reason to send humans is to study how to send humans. All other research can be done orders of magnitude cheaper with robots. There is not a single science experiment (other than human biology study) that can't be done cheaper and easier with an unmanned mission.

It will take us at least 20 years to get a boots on Mars mission. Such a mission would only last a couple of months. EVAs will be limited to a couple of hours, and the area of exploration will be limited to a safe radius around the MAV. Humans will have to concentrate primarily spend time on staying alive, not falling over, watching their supply levels, maintaining equipment, eating, sleeping, etc... Science objectives will come second. 

In that time, we can send multiple robotic expeditions that cover the entire planet for years on stretch, we could send multiple sample return missions all over the planet that would return more science than the samples brought back from a single spot. Robots can keep exploring 24/7 for several years with teams of experts monitoring every sensor for a much more thorough study of the area. And all of that can be done for a fraction of the price of a Mars mission.

 

 

[Finox]

20 hours ago, Temstar said:

It is a good reason, unfortunately science has never been conducted that way. When HMS Beagle took off it was to do a hydrographic survey for the navy and Darwin basically hitched a ride. Similarly we went to the moon mainly to score political points and the science was an after thought.

It's a bit unfortunate if you're the type that feel we should do science for its own sake. But I like to see it as an opportunity to continue to look for economic or political reason to go to Mars. If you can find such a reason then science will naturally follow in its wake.

You can't go out mining without studying the geology first, otherwise how would you know where to mine?   I was in that business once, the geology is very important, if a geologist hadn't certified a piece of land had minerals then I wouldn't be called to do my part (land title research).   I see the the colonization of Mars (and space in general for that matter) as starting with scientific exploration, it doesn't end there, but how else will you know whats there?   We can make some good guesses here but until we start sending in the field geologists nobody will put up the money.

[Bill Phil]

The best I can think of is tourism, and accomplishments.

For example, climbing Olympus Mons. Like Everest, but much more expensive, and much more difficult, on orders of magnitude.

[tater]

Tourism requires really large numbers of people visiting someplace that requires that they take off a few years from work to do. It's not even remotely plausible as an economic driver.

[Finox]

16 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

None of that requires human presence. Telepresence studies are good enough, are cheaper, and can last for years.

That's not what I said. I said that the only reason to send humans is to study how to send humans. All other research can be done orders of magnitude cheaper with robots. There is not a single science experiment (other than human biology study) that can't be done cheaper and easier with an unmanned mission.

In that time, we can send multiple robotic expeditions that cover the entire planet for years on stretch, we could send multiple sample return missions all over the planet that would return more science than the samples brought back from a single spot. Robots can keep exploring 24/7 for several years with teams of experts monitoring every sensor for a much more thorough study of the area. And all of that can be done for a fraction of the price of a Mars mission.

Ok, THAT, seems to be where we differ the most.   I can't believe that robots are ever going to be better at field geology then humans.   I'd wager that the first human geologist on Mars will discover more in their first week then all the probes to date combined.   I know this because I've seen geologists work, a simple task for them, like sorting through some interesting looking rocks for which are truly important, can be done in minutes.   A robot will always have to deal with the time lag of a signal coming and going from Earth as well as their own limited toolkit.   We learned more about the Moon by going there, why wouldn't that also be true of Mars?

Quote

It will take us at least 20 years to get a boots on Mars mission. Such a mission would only last a couple of months. EVAs will be limited to a couple of hours, and the area of exploration will be limited to a safe radius around the MAV. Humans will have to concentrate primarily spend time on staying alive, not falling over, watching their supply levels, maintaining equipment, eating, sleeping, etc... Science objectives will come second. 

Another point we differ on, what you describe is the old NASA plan from the early 90's for a short duration trip to Mars.   That was a horrible plan, it makes no sense to spend over a year in space for a month on the surface.   Since a Mars direct style mission is the cheapest and easiest my assumption is we would use that mission architecture.   In which case the astronauts would have almost 2 years on the surface with enough mobility to do a proper survey.   I recommend "The case for Mars" again, it really does have some good ideas.

[Guest]

On January 16, 2016 at 1:09 AM, SargeRho said:

That would require relocating Phobos though, you can also use a mass driver to shoot things most of the way to orbit.

Poor Phobos.  You know, a stranded astronaut might need to use it for navigation.  Do you want Mr. Watney to be unable to get to the MAV?

[adsii1970]

Ok... Couldn't resist... Mars candy bars!

 

 

[Bill Phil]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Tourism requires really large numbers of people visiting someplace that requires that they take off a few years from work to do. It's not even remotely plausible as an economic driver.

And it's still the best it has to offer. Anything will take decades before providing any revenue, perhaps longer. Let alone making profit.

[tater]

A business making money on it is one thing, I think the OP point is the whole economy. If you can buy a private island in the South Pacific for the price of a trip to Mars... most people will buy the Island.

[Nibb31]

4 hours ago, Finox said:

Ok, THAT, seems to be where we differ the most.   I can't believe that robots are ever going to be better at field geology then humans.   I'd wager that the first human geologist on Mars will discover more in their first week then all the probes to date combined.   I know this because I've seen geologists work, a simple task for them, like sorting through some interesting looking rocks for which are truly important, can be done in minutes.   A robot will always have to deal with the time lag of a signal coming and going from Earth as well as their own limited toolkit.   We learned more about the Moon by going there, why wouldn't that also be true of Mars?

You shouldn't oppose robotic exploration vs manned exploration. In the end, all exploration is driven by humans. We just use the proper tools for the job. Some jobs allow boots on the ground, but human exploration with tools such as telescopes, sensors and robots is just as valid.

First, Martian rocks aren't going anywhere, so the latency is no big deal. Actually, since a robot moves rather slowly over the terrain with a whole array of sensors followed by a whole team of geologists, there are actually less chances that it will miss something than if you have a single human geologist with a single set of eyes, who also has to handle the task of navigating, watching his O2 supply, and not falling over.

Second, there is no reason that by the time we get the technology required to build an outpost on Mars, we won't also have the technology for better AI and VR to both make the robot autonomous and to provide a shared experience close to actually being there. Surgeons in hospitals already use teleoperation for remote surgical operations. There is a slight latency, but it can be handled by the system and by the surgeon. In the future, a robot could record and extrapolate a 3D map of its environment that an operator could explore in VR and decide what is worth taking a closer look at. We use robots on Earth as tools for exploring extreme environments all the time, because it makes sense to preserve human life rather than to go to the expense of putting it in danger. You can argue that a manned lab would be more versatile, but there is really nothing preventing you from designing a teleoperated lab with the exact same versatility as a manned one. You could have something like a teleoperated Robonaut running the lab and fixing the fleet of rovers and sweeping solar panels, without all the pesky life support and the heavy launcher to bring everything back.

On Earth, we use robots as tools to work in extreme environments. I'm aware that it's not as inspiring or romantic, but sending robots to Mars is just using the proper tool for the job.

4 hours ago, Finox said:

Another point we differ on, what you describe is the old NASA plan from the early 90's for a short duration trip to Mars.   That was a horrible plan, it makes no sense to spend over a year in space for a month on the surface.   Since a Mars direct style mission is the cheapest and easiest my assumption is we would use that mission architecture.   In which case the astronauts would have almost 2 years on the surface with enough mobility to do a proper survey.   I recommend "The case for Mars" again, it really does have some good ideas.

Yes, an outpost and two rovers, like the Ares missions in The Martian. 100 tons on the ground. I get it. It is still limited to a small area and a short period. The rover will always have a limited safety range and the humans will always have a limited supply. If one of your rovers becomes inoperable, that range means walking distance. And you can't grow potatos in Martian regolith.

The cost of such an expedition would still be orders of magnitude higher than a fleet of telepresence robots that could cover the entire surface for well over 2 years. There is simply no science that can be done with a human that couldn't also be done by a properly designed teleoperated system.

[fredinno]

9 hours ago, Finox said:

You can't go out mining without studying the geology first, otherwise how would you know where to mine?   I was in that business once, the geology is very important, if a geologist hadn't certified a piece of land had minerals then I wouldn't be called to do my part (land title research).   I see the the colonization of Mars (and space in general for that matter) as starting with scientific exploration, it doesn't end there, but how else will you know whats there?   We can make some good guesses here but until we start sending in the field geologists nobody will put up the money.

The thing is, that kind of science has much more immediate financial returns, NASA science does not- making it much harder to financially justify.

5 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Ok... Couldn't resist... Mars candy bars!

 

 

You can make them from Earth too.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

You shouldn't oppose robotic exploration vs manned exploration. In the end, all exploration is driven by humans. We just use the proper tools for the job. Some jobs allow boots on the ground, but human exploration with tools such as telescopes, sensors and robots is just as valid.

First, Martian rocks aren't going anywhere, so the latency is no big deal. Actually, since a robot moves rather slowly over the terrain with a whole array of sensors followed by a whole team of geologists, there are actually less chances that it will miss something than if you have a single human geologist with a single set of eyes, who also has to handle the task of navigating, watching his O2 supply, and not falling over.

Second, there is no reason that by the time we get the technology required to build an outpost on Mars, we won't also have the technology for better AI and VR to both make the robot autonomous and to provide a shared experience close to actually being there. Surgeons in hospitals already use teleoperation for remote surgical operations. There is a slight latency, but it can be handled by the system and by the surgeon. In the future, a robot could record and extrapolate a 3D map of its environment that an operator could explore in VR and decide what is worth taking a closer look at. We use robots on Earth as tools for exploring extreme environments all the time, because it makes sense to preserve human life rather than to go to the expense of putting it in danger. You can argue that a manned lab would be more versatile, but there is really nothing preventing you from designing a teleoperated lab with the exact same versatility as a manned one. You could have something like a teleoperated Robonaut running the lab and fixing the fleet of rovers and sweeping solar panels, without all the pesky life support and the heavy launcher to bring everything back.

On Earth, we use robots as tools to work in extreme environments. I'm aware that it's not as inspiring or romantic, but sending robots to Mars is just using the proper tool for the job.

Yes, an outpost and two rovers, like the Ares missions in The Martian. 100 tons on the ground. I get it. It is still limited to a small area and a short period. The rover will always have a limited safety range and the humans will always have a limited supply. If one of your rovers becomes inoperable, that range means walking distance. And you can't grow potatos in Martian regolith.

The cost of such an expedition would still be orders of magnitude higher than a fleet of telepresence robots that could cover the entire surface for well over 2 years. There is simply no science that can be done with a human that couldn't also be done by a properly designed teleoperated system.

A manned mission has better public stigma, and is more likely to be funded. And flagship robotic missions are not as good as you make them out to be. You might be able to make a hopper covering the entire Marian surface for less than a manned mission, (as risky as that would be) but robotic rovers are VERY slow. They can go faster, but that means a larger, more expensive rover. And even then you would need numerous missions to cover all of Mars.

 

The only problem with teleoperation is that Mars has a time delay of at least thirteen minutes, and spacecraft have a limited lifetime too. Oppurtunity is likely the exception of Mars rover endurance, not the norm. Latency is a big deal when every major command takes thirteen minutes to get to the craft, then another thirteen coming back. You can bypass this by teleoperating from a Mars Moon, but at that point, it's probably not worth it.