Air Force mini-shuttle hits one year mark....

On 4/19/2012 6:05 AM, Vaughn wrote:
On 4/19/2012 5:15 AM, bob haller wrote:

because the robot can go places the human cant, costs a fractin
of the
cost of a human, cuts dramatically the costs of a entire
mission. when
the robot fails no one mourns the loss of life.

science return is less but the program can contiinue operating
near
forever.

Which can greatly increase the science gain over the human
mission which will be weeks at most.


beyond which the robot can be sterilized to prevent
contamination....

Part of the reason the robot mission is so cheap is that there is
no need to return the robot to earth. (One-way human missions are
physically possible, but culturally impossible.) This also neatly
solves any (albeit remote) concern of bringing some plague back
to earth.


You looked around you lately? We could use a good plague or two.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

In article 3dea1a50-fc1b-4542-a146-568e6955a778
@fo16g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 16, 11:23*pm, Daryl wrote:
On 4/16/2012 8:53 PM, bob haller wrote:





On Apr 16, 7:39 pm, *wrote:
On Apr 16, 9:13 am, bob *wrote:

On Apr 15, 7:02 am, "Brian *wrote:

as everyone now knows it exists, it seems a strange thing to do, to leave it
up there with no explanation. Was not the idea eventually to man one of
these drones?

not this version its too small. a later larger version perhaps

Interestingly the cargo bay of the X-37 is about the same size as the
payload bay of the X-20, and they considered the option of placing a
second man there.

its one thing to ad a man for a half day flight, but far harder to add
space& *consumablles for a manned flight of at least a month

One month is doable. *Try it for a year. *Even if the consumables
were to be provided, imagine the basket case (that's going to be
the mode of transportation for the Astronaut) that you will be
getting back.

--http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. *Tons of Military shows and
programs.

far better to send a robot.....a intelligent one

Too bad there is no such thing an an *intelligent* robot.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2012 5:15 AM, bob haller wrote:

because the robot can go places the human cant, costs a fractin of the
cost of a human, cuts dramatically the costs of a entire mission. when
the robot fails no one mourns the loss of life.

science return is less but the program can contiinue operating near
forever.

Which can greatly increase the science gain over the human mission which
will be weeks at most.

Only in some ways. Note that manned lunar missions returned *far* more
lunar samples to earth bound labs than unmanned lunar missions ever did
(i.e. the Soviet Union did an unmanned sample return from the moon).
Also note that when the US manned lunar program stopped, pretty much all
unmanned missions stopped as well. It wasn't until decades later that
new lunar orbiting missions were funded.

beyond which the robot can be sterilized to prevent contamination....

Part of the reason the robot mission is so cheap is that there is no
need to return the robot to earth. (One-way human missions are
physically possible, but culturally impossible.) This also neatly
solves any (albeit remote) concern of bringing some plague back to earth.

But not returning to earth means no samples for earth bound labs. Note
that earth bound labs will *always* be far better equipped than the
pitiful subset of instruments that will fit on an unmanned (or even
manned) probe.

Also note that a manned mission is necessarily a sample return mission,
unless the crew is expandable, which isn't going to happen. It's
politically unacceptable to plan on having an expendable crew.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On 4/19/2012 8:53 AM, Daryl wrote:
On 4/19/2012 6:05 AM, Vaughn wrote:
On 4/19/2012 5:15 AM, bob haller wrote:



beyond which the robot can be sterilized to prevent
contamination....

Part of the reason the robot mission is so cheap is that there is
no need to return the robot to earth. (One-way human missions are
physically possible, but culturally impossible.) This also neatly
solves any (albeit remote) concern of bringing some plague back
to earth.


You looked around you lately? We could use a good plague or two.


Are you volunteering?

Paul

On 4/19/2012 9:00 AM, Paul F Austin wrote:
On 4/19/2012 8:53 AM, Daryl wrote:
On 4/19/2012 6:05 AM, Vaughn wrote:
On 4/19/2012 5:15 AM, bob haller wrote:



beyond which the robot can be sterilized to prevent
contamination....

Part of the reason the robot mission is so cheap is that there is
no need to return the robot to earth. (One-way human missions are
physically possible, but culturally impossible.) This also neatly
solves any (albeit remote) concern of bringing some plague back
to earth.


You looked around you lately? We could use a good plague or two.


Are you volunteering?

Paul

I have been called many things but a Plague, never.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

On 4/19/2012 9:15 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:


Only in some ways. Note that manned lunar missions returned *far* more
lunar samples to earth bound labs than unmanned lunar missions ever did
(i.e. the Soviet Union did an unmanned sample return from the moon).

True.

Also note that when the US manned lunar program stopped, pretty much all
unmanned missions stopped as well. It wasn't until decades later that
new lunar orbiting missions were funded.

Your point?


But not returning to earth means no samples for earth bound labs.

True, but returning a capsule of samples to earth, (difficult as it may
be) is far simpler that returning an entire spaceship complete with
human life support back to earth. With rovers, samples could be
intelligently collected over a long period of time, and from a wide
area. Our Mars rovers found many wonders over their years of operation
that scientists would love to lay hands on.

Note
that earth bound labs will *always* be far better equipped than the
pitiful subset of instruments that will fit on an unmanned (or even
manned) probe.

No doubt.


Also note that a manned mission is necessarily a sample return mission,

Agreed.

unless the crew is expandable, which isn't going to happen. It's
politically unacceptable to plan on having an expendable crew.

I already made that point, only my words were "culturally impossible".

Vaughn

On 4/20/2012 12:34 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
bob haller wrote:
when
the robot fails no one mourns the loss of life.

But when there are humans, they can often fix problems or get around
them to continue the mission.

True, but sometimes it is cheaper to accept the loss than it would be
to provide life support for a human. This would be especially true for
interplanetary missions.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2012 9:15 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Also note that when the US manned lunar program stopped, pretty much
all
unmanned missions stopped as well. It wasn't until decades later that
new lunar orbiting missions were funded.

Your point?

Preparation for manned lunar landings was the primary driver for US
unmanned lunar missions. Once the manned missions stopped, the unmanned
missions did as well.

No Buck Rogers, no bucks.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Apr 20, 9:55*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



On 4/19/2012 9:15 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Also note that when the US manned lunar program stopped, pretty much
all
unmanned missions stopped as well. *It wasn't until decades later that
new lunar orbiting missions were funded.

Your point?

Preparation for manned lunar landings was the primary driver for US
unmanned lunar missions. *Once the manned missions stopped, the unmanned
missions did as well.

No Buck Rogers, no bucks.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

I don't necessarily think unmanned moon missions stopped because
manned ones did. They stopped because NASA was diverting resources to
the shuttle outer planets exploration programs. Only so much money
was available and at the time NASA seemed to think they had worn out
moon exploration.

"Dean" wrote in message
...

On Apr 20, 9:55 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



On 4/19/2012 9:15 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Also note that when the US manned lunar program stopped, pretty much
all
unmanned missions stopped as well. It wasn't until decades later
that
new lunar orbiting missions were funded.

Your point?

Preparation for manned lunar landings was the primary driver for US
unmanned lunar missions. Once the manned missions stopped, the unmanned
missions did as well.

No Buck Rogers, no bucks.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

I don't necessarily think unmanned moon missions stopped because
manned ones did. They stopped because NASA was diverting resources to
the shuttle outer planets exploration programs. Only so much money
was available and at the time NASA seemed to think they had worn out
moon exploration.


The unmanned lunar missions pretty much had one purpose, "survey the moon so
we can safely land".

Note that in fact all the US ones stopped prior to the first manned landing,
since they had collected the necessary data.

And even then, cuts in the manned program impact the outer planets missions.

Consider the original Grand Tour missions and others were planning on using
Saturn Vs from the second batch that was never ordered. What we got was a
scaled down mission.

No Bucks Rogers, No bucks.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net