Telepresence: why not?

From technical perspective, telepresence provides ideal solution. It eliminates all human related risk associated associated with landing, ascent and on the surface risks (dust, contamination etc.). The development of telepresence experience shares much of the cost with terrestrial applications. So in many ways, telepresence is not a technical issue. Except (tolerable) variations on thermal and radiation environment, telepresence enables astronauts to stay in environment quite similar to ISS. Where human race has accumulated over a century of exposure to space environment through several hundred astronauts.

So why is telepresence pushed to the sidelines? Artemis does not mention it. Neither Lunar Gateway before it. Neither Asteroid Retrieval Mission before it. Neither NASA Designed Referenced Missions before it. Despite success of Lunokhod half a century ago. Despite all the Canadarms flown on ISS and many Space Shuttle missions. Despite orders of magnitude improvements in computing power, available bandwidth, graphical resolution, wireless networks, sensors and haptic devices, power consumption, PV efficiency.

An astronaut onsite can do in minutes what robot can take hours. Really? And the training time? Cost? Risk? We already have robotic enabled telepresence across the whole solar system. From Mercury to the edges of the interstellar space. Robotic crafts have been our ears, eyes and hands on the Moon before Apollo 11. They are the precursors on the Moon, Mars and around planetary bodies of the solar system. Real problem is not telepresence in itself - the real problem is long time delays which make direct operation and control of robotic devices impossible, as it was clearly indicated by Mars rovers.

Mars rover generations by NASA

Large investments into human spaceflight have been made in the name of science and exploration. But in reality, ISS most important contribution has been long term human exposure to zero gravity and radiation environment of space. Everything else could have been achieved through robotic spacecraft. For much lower cost. Lunar Gateway is essentially the same thing, just in more extreme radiation environment. But it does not look so sexy, and it has hard time getting funded. Astronauts are, in the most extreme case, guinea pigs. Lab rats. To cover that harsh reality, they are given various tasks. To conduct science experiments. To maintain equipment on-board. To assemble new things outside the station. Connect cables. All of this might get useful down the line. But all this can be achieved remotely, maybe even autonomously. But their main task is to stay alive for a long time on the spacecraft.

Taken to the extreme again, there is no need for astronauts on ISS for scientific exploration. Every (non-human) related science experiment could have been designed and executed without them on-board. Even EVAs could be easier and even more reliable using telepresence if needed. And although it is an enabler, it is consistently pushed to the sidelines. Because admitting that telepresence would work and work reliably or even better than direct human presence has big consequences. It is not inspirational. And it is not sexy. But more and more, it is there, on the sidelines, in the form of assistance. Or as an alternative. But all ISS experience really enables telepresence using orbital outposts without all the risks related to the "last step". For teleoperated robot, the distances below ten thousand kilometers are unnoticeable. 

When will space telepresence work really explode? Once working in space will have economic rationale. For example, when commercial lunar or asteroid mining will take place. Much like military UAV or remote call centers, once it becomes large scale effort, commercial/cost aspect will become more important than inspirational aspect. Since onsite "fixing" will be extremely costly, it is not likely it will be much used. Spacewalks will become more rare. On-surface presence also. But it will require improvements in virtual reality and design of robotic arms and tools suitable for haptic controls. It reduces risk related to onsite equipment. Such equipment will simply be replaced. Just like satellites are not fixed in space. Another replacement is launched. Unless a fix can be done through software update. Because sending photons is much cheaper then sending atoms.

Telepresence will be used to keep humans in the loop. Photons will most likely be used to address the "last mile" problem, just like Wi-Fi or mobile networks are used to address it. But astronauts will work near the site that require assistance. The problem with Mars rovers is not their robotic nature. The problem is round trip time for human in the loop. And the telepresence does not need to be limited to rovers or remote sensing devices. Telepresence robots like NASA Robonaut or DLR Justin (shown below) enable much safer preparation of the future surface outposts and bases

Also the problem for aircraft is not whether pilot is in the plane or not. UAVs have proven that pilots can be offsite and provide telepresence support for controlling the aircraft. But for human transportation, one issue is reliability - what happens if humans are onboard, and remote control breaks down? It would be easier and more cost effective to remotely fly all commercial airplanes. But passengers would not feel safer. Similar risk faces autonomous driving. It is already possible today to provide telepresence in driving cars and trucks. Or ships. But legal and perception aspects do bring problems. Only major cost savings or other aspects (like human casualties for military UAVs), major crisis (like COVID-19 pandemic) accelerate that change. The question is: what would accelerate that change for spacefaring?

Telepresence enables surface exploration of planetary bodies by human operators with the current technology. All of this was not available decades ago, but it available now. High resolution cameras enable better vision that human eyes. Haptic devices enable better "feel" then thick space gloves. Human senses of smell, sound, touch, pressure or gravity are nearly useless in the space suits. Instead, astronauts have to rely on array of external sensors anyway. Telepresence is far more cost effective and carries far less risk. But it reflects sad reality of human spaceflight: flags and footprints are still the major driver behind human voyage into the deep space. There is nothing wrong with that vision. Before it becomes true, many remotely operated robots will leave their "boots and flags" first. Future first astronauts on planetary bodies might not be professionals or scientists. Maybe they will be tourists. Or influencers. Adventurers. 

We can see that approach already present with Artemis. Supplies, rovers, base might be delivered to the surface before the astronauts landing. On Mars, return vehicle and base would be present before the first human boot touches Martian surface. That really leaves the question, what can astronauts explore that rovers and robots can not?