To cut the signal delays, have on the moon or Mars, right where the data is collected, robots, not humans. Humans in big, heavy, clumsy space suits -- not very

To cut the signal delays, have on the moon or Mars, right where the data is collected, robots, not humans. Humans in big, heavy, clumsy space suits -- not very productive. Such science is not just aimlessly fooling around, guessing, exploring, trying this and that, assembling experimental equipment with duct tape and bailing wire, adjusting a laser on an optical bench, boiling up something on a Bunsen burner, or anything like that. There's no room for anything ad hoc. Instead, each experiment is planned for, with the instruments designed, built, and tested, and everything done very carefully all in advance. The cost of sending 1 kilogram to the moon or Mars motivates really good planning. A robot? Maybe replace the batteries in a rover, knock the dust of some solar panels (a current need), unpack a supply drop, etc. Uh, we would design the supply drop and the robot so that the robot could easily unpack the supply drop. Construct a shelter, for whatever reason to have a shelter. Load samples onto a rocket returning to earth. Uh, humans in heavy space suits can't do much, and we should be able to build robots that can do as well, usually better, a lot better, for the experiments we plan. Low gravity doesn't hurt robots at all. Robots can be designed nearly immune to high energy cosmic rays. For colonizing outside of earth, f'get about it: Anything like that is way over the horizon. Energy to get there, way too high. Speed of light, way too low. Low gravity, high energy cosmic rays -- too dangerous. Right, we'd have some 1950s popular science style big, circular, rotating space city and use the centrifugal force of the rotating to provide artificial gravity. And the space city would be so big and have such thick walls that we could block the cosmic rays. Soooo, we're talking big as in a huge circular thing. Then that thing, to what end? To go to another planet would first have to go to another star, and that is, as I recall, 3+ light years away, that is, too darned far. The planet hunters might advise us that we should plan for 100+ light years away. Here's something much easier: Do well here on earth. There're lots of empty square kilometers in Alaska, Canada, South America, Australia, Russia, and Antarctica. Living even in Antarctica would be easy as pie compared with anything available out in space. First rule for the future of humanity: Stay on dry land, or solid ice, nearly at sea level. I'm not buying the claims that humans are so foolish, evil, destructive, etc. that they have to plan a future on other planets. Also I'm not talking some science fiction ideas that are way over the horizon. Gee, I too really like Forbidden Planet -- Ann Francis was a dream, sweetheart! And the Krell library and power plant, terrific. But all that for now is at least way over the horizon. Instead I'm talking current NASA, etc. policy, objectives, planning, etc. Sorry, within the current horizon, there's just no serious role for humans beyond low earth orbit -- the low gravity, high energy cosmic rays, etc. are just too dangerous. If we send a lot of humans out there, they will quickly die, and we will have a collection of frozen bodies that will last 1000+ years, all for next to nothing. Big embarrassment.