On Feb 3, 12:09*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:43*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 2, 11:58*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Time for you to cut back on the drugs. *You're starting to mistake
your hallucinations for reality.

bogus talking points since *opportunity has operated for 9 years and
22 miles without any on site maintence...

Which is a great description of your position; "bogus talking points".

ISS originally had 3 astronauts when it was brand new, and it took
nearly all of those 3 just to do maintence. Obviously a human rated
station will need lots more service and be far more complex than a
rover.

Because it was UNDER CONSTRUCTION. *As I said earlier, comparing that
to a Mars mission is comparing apples to aardvarks.

Fred your slipping........

Not hardly....

first fred talks of the stations age, now its under construction .....

Bobbert obviously can't even follow his own ramblings. *ISS *is* old.
When it "originally had 3 astronauts when it was brand new" it was
still under construction.



opportunity has traveled 22 miles in 9 years, without any on site
service.

And let's look at this record that Bobbert is touting for his
favourite toaster. *That 22 miles in 9 years amounts to a rate of
advance of a whopping .00028 miles per hour. *A man in a Mars car
could more thoroughly explore that 22 miles in a single day than
Bobbert's toaster has managed in 9 years. *That's a 3285:1 advantage
to man. *NOW run your cost comparisons! *Assume men will have 6 months
on the ground and figure out how many rovers for how many years you
would need to even come close to what they could do.



humans will reqiuire systems under constant repairs and rebuilding.

Why is that? *We can build rovers that require no maintenance for 9
years but the instant people are around everything breaks down all the
time? *You honestly believe that? *REALLY???

Even if you assume a preposterous maintenance burden, there is STILL
that 3285:1 advantage to man. *On a 6 man mission, you could dedicate
2/3 of the available hours to maintenance and STILL get that advantage
over a toaster.



fred maybe the earths nations should cut miitary spending to zero, and
use a fraction of the saved money for space exploration. whats your
thoughts on this

Other than that it's a stupidly unrealistic question, you mean? *If it
was possible I think it would be a wonderful thing. *However, since it
isn't, I think we need to be by far the biggest dog in the forest. *If
we're not, we'll likely get new rulers who won't let idiots like you
bleat about everything. *Then what would you do?

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

ahh while opportunity took 9 years to travel 9 miles it wasnt just
looking at things, it was doing real science, grinding and sampling
rocks as it went along.

no doubt a rover could be built to travel the same route fast but then
you lose all the detail work.

if you believe its easy to build human rated equiptement that requires
near no service you should be working for nasa designing ISS systems.
The ONLY human rated system in existence today require constant
maintence.'
While opportunity and the other rovers require no on site maintence at
all, over many years.

While it would be great to have humans on mars for hopefully more
than flags and footprints......

Theres no money, theres little or no public support, theres no real
political support, we lack some necessary equiptement, like nuclear
booster to cut travel time, like radiation protection for crews in
deep space....

basically we lack the basic building blocks to send humans While we
definetely have a great start on robotic planetary exploration....