Another asteroid sampling mission, and yet NONE to Mars yet?

So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second mission is
planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars. Why?

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:13:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second mission
is
planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars. Why?

Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.

RichA wrote in news:fc4b9d27-82b8-4f42-a74f-
:

So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second mission is
planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars. Why?

It is cheaper and more reliable to drop your labratory on Mars,
and send back only pictures/electronic sensor data.
Which is what they did.

On Jan 4, 1:42*am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:13:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second mission
is
planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars. *Why?

Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.

It isn't so much that an actual launch from Mars would be so difficult
(1/3 Earth gravity,) but rather that landing the launch equipment and
fuel could be problematic and expensive.

Funding would have to compete with the pork found in the Hurricane
Sandy relief bill. However, given the Congress's spending habits,
maybe not.

RichA:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second mission
is planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars. Why?

Paul Schlyter:
Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.

IMO, neither mission makes sense. You can buy a piece of an asteroid on
Astromart for $100. A piece of Mars costs a bit more, but we have them.
The latest figures I recall showed that there are 100 pieces of Mars in
scientists' hands, with more waiting to be discovered.

$ Billions saved! Cancel the manned Disney-science missions and launch
more robots. Mankind has no future on Mars, and realistically, except
possibly as seed fragments of DNA, he doesn't have a future on the
other side of the Milky Way or in M31. Launch more space telescopes,
build more powerful accelerators to determine whether there are
fundamental truths and to learn them if they exist.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:13:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second mission is
planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars. Why?

Mars is one of the most technically difficult planets to land on. And
returned samples are problematic: imagine you were trying to
understand the geology of the Earth, and you could only do it from a
few kilos of samples collected in a small area. Asteroidal material is
MUCH more useful scientifically, because asteroids provide information
critical to understanding the details of how the Solar System formed
in the first place.

It's likely that a Martian exploration mission that involves a sample
return will occur in the next few decades. In the meantime, asteroid
sample return missions are of great value, and are a fraction of the
cost. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 02:44:52 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:42*am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:13:17 -0800 (PST), RichA

wrote:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second
mission
is
planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars.
*Why?


Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.

It isn't so much that an actual launch from Mars would be so
difficult
(1/3 Earth gravity,) but rather that landing the launch equipment
and
fuel could be problematic and expensive.

Of course! That too will be essier on a body with very low gravity,
such as an asteroid.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:20:30 -0500, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second
mission
is planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars.
Why?
Paul Schlyter:
Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.

IMO, neither mission makes sense. You can buy a piece of an
asteroid on
Astromart for $100. A piece of Mars costs a bit more, but we have
them.

Nobody knows from where on Mars these pieces came. On pieces obtained
from a sample return mission, one would know that

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:54:52 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Nobody knows from where on Mars these pieces came. On pieces obtained
from a sample return mission, one would know that

Also, meteorites have been altered by the time spent in space, by
their passage through the atmosphere, and by weathering on Earth's
surface. They're tremendously valuable for science, but are no
substitute for pristine samples from their parent bodies.

On Jan 4, 5:44*am, wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:42*am, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:13:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second mission
is
planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars. *Why?

Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.

It isn't so much that an actual launch from Mars would be so difficult
(1/3 Earth gravity,) but rather that landing the launch equipment and
fuel could be problematic and expensive.

Funding would have to compete with the pork found in the Hurricane
Sandy relief bill. However, given the Congress's spending habits,
maybe not.

The Sandy damage claim level is pure fraud and should be dispensed
with. I challenge anybody to innumerate on the $60 billion damages
claimed.
Meanwhile, I hope recent Mars probes "on-board labs" do a better job
at finding conclusive results than previous ones. Remember Viking's
search for life?