Not only that, the effects of microgravity on humans for such a long time period would also have negative health implications, meaning there is a strong incentive to reduce Mars mission times.
Given human frailty, there is a really strong incentive not to send people at all.
Is there *anything* that humans could realistically achieve that robots could not at a fraction of the cost?
The only thing promoting a human mission at this time is bragging rights.
"Is there anything that humans could realistically achieve that robots could not at a fraction of the cost?"
Partly being funny, but:
* On-the-spot judgement calls to abort/rescope/redirect mission as is useful
* On-the-ground analysis (by experts in a given domain, e.g: Geologists)
* Just plain being a human on Mars to establish how it can be done
* International political capitol (this is often understated but is very relevant)
* Ability to brush off solar panels after dust storms(?)
* Disprove those doorway pictures with people for scale?
Regarding establishing how it can be done, if we elect to send robots because humans are too frail, at what point do we even leave Earth? The whole universe is one big deathtrap. Is the logical conclusion that we just stay home and never leave the (relative) comfort of our gravity well?
Given human frailty, there is a really strong incentive not to send people at all.
Is there *anything* that humans could realistically achieve that robots could not at a fraction of the cost?
The only thing promoting a human mission at this time is bragging rights.