Exploration mission designers and planners have costing models used to assess the affordability of given missions – but very little data exists on the relative science return produced by different1 ways of exploring a given region. Performing cost-benefit analyses for future missions requires a way to compare the relative field science productivity of spacesuited humans vs. a virtual presence/ teleoperated robot or rover from a nearby habitat or orbital station, vs. traditional terrestrial-controlled rover operations. The goal of this study was to define science-return metrics for comparing human and robotic fieldwork, and then obtain quantifiable science-return performance comparisons between teleoperated rovers and spacesuited humans. Test runs with a simulated 2015-class rover and with spacesuited geologists were conducted at Haughton Crater in the Canadian Arctic in July 2002. Early results imply that humans will be 1-2 orders of magnitude more productive per unit time in exploration than future terrestrially-controlled robots.