It would be nice to see things stay the way they are, with groups traditionally going / staying at the location
The RiB folks have not been shy about talking about why they did it.
The Baker expedition rehearsed about half of it. And, anyone who knows much about remote operation will know that these days, they aren't that hard to do. A 900 MHz link, a little extra gear and -- bam -- you are operating from the RiB platform as if you are there.
In fact, the only thing that isn't there is
your butt if you work it right. With any sort of remote terminal support (e.g. VNC) the
computer and the
radio have no idea there isn't a human next to them. They can't tell the difference whatsoever.
But, those environmental pooh bahs that are increasingly finding reasons to say "no" have at least a few more reasons to say "yes".
1. No human habitation. No waste disposal, no litter, no latrines of any kind -- even ones you take back to the ship.
2. Much smaller radio footprint. The RiB fits in special rack mounted boxes with a few wires coming out of them. Once you get the antennas set up and the coax attached, all you have to do is refuel the setup once in a while.
3. Far less gear to bring ashore. No food, no water, no bedrolls, no kitchenware, no stoves; a lot of stuff associated with humans camping out. It just isn't there. Just the radio, the antenna, and the gasoline to fuel the generator.
All the way around, there's less environmental impact. And, for a lot of these places, these nature reserves we struggle to get permission for now, the smaller footprint, that demonstrated minimal impact, can be the difference between "yes" and "no".
I seem to recall the Baker team having to convince the authorities that even a few verticals was OK and that there would be minimal to no bird kill by deploying them.
It is really getting that hard.