"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article 261623a9-8af7-4b17-adc1-b74b634f1c85
@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...

On Feb 1, 12:58 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

Jeff, the bobbert, in his enthuasism for rovers, continously ignores
the
fact that each rover is hand-made, and that things like booster
avability,
range issues, and launch manifests, get in the way of his pipe dream.
Not to
mention his hostility towars any kind of human spaceflight. He's not
quite
the lunatic the guthlessball is, but he's at least good for some
laughs.

rovers need not be made in small numbers, economy of scale could
produce a hundred, and falcon versions send them on their way for a
fraction of the cost of the original spirit and opportunity..

You keep asserting this, without any proof. Who, besides you, thinks
that Mars rovers, including all of the necessary hardware to actually
land the thing on Mars, can be made this way? It just might be
possible, but what type of investment would we be talking about here?

These things aren't going to be made at a rate that would necessitate a
production line, like you see in the automobile industry. Production
would be more in line with typical aerospace endeavors like fighter
aircraft (which aren't cheap). In that sort of production environment,
there is some automation, but there is also a lot of hands on assembly.

future versions of these robust rovers could collect samples, placing
them in central locations for travel back to earth..

Sample return from Mars has not yet been done. This isn't going to be
inexpensive, even if the "toaster rovers" are "free".

while it might be nice to send astronauts there are problems.

Nice doesn't begin to describe how flexible humans are at solving
problems. Humans are close to invaluable in unexpected situations.

humans will contaminate mars,

There are engineering solution to this. It's not like humans can live
on Mars without pressure suits, which means there is already a barrier
between people and the surface of Mars. Keeping the outside of suits
decontaminated before exiting an airlock is a problem which can be
solved.

we cant afford it,

Yet you think we can afford multiple copies of rovers all doing sample
return missions. You have a strange idea of what is "affordable".

travel times are fr
too long untill a nuke rocket is built,

This is b.s.

radiation of deep space is a
big issue.

Easily solved by using water to shield sleeping areas which double as a
radiation storm shelter.

theres probably a million problems sending astronauts that
arent a issue for robotic missions....

Just as there are a million problems which are common to both.

and so what if the rovers are slow? we can replace them when they
break and length of exploration really doesnt matter.....

Only if you want your data to come back as a tiny trickle spread out
over a very long time. Making multiple copies of rovers doesn't help as
much as you think it would.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

I agree, Jeff. However, to the bobbert, these are merely, "details, details"
that get in the way of his fantasy world. Anything we tell him that
contradicts that is either ignored outright, or is spun to fit his dream
world. And if we dare disagree with him, we're all mentally off somehow.
Because "he" knows the way and everyone else doesn't.