A Dumb MER question

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:53:58 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

In article ,
.spade. wrote:
A windscreen wiper?

Could be a really bad idea if the Martian dust is as abrasive as lunar dust.

....It might not be, considering that it does get blown around by the
Martian air, unlike the soil on the airless Moon. Then again, how
difficult would it have been to have brought along an air compressor
to blow the dust off?

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

OM wrote:

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:53:58 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

In article ,
.spade. wrote:
A windscreen wiper?

Could be a really bad idea if the Martian dust is as abrasive as lunar dust.

...It might not be, considering that it does get blown around by the
Martian air, unlike the soil on the airless Moon. Then again, how
difficult would it have been to have brought along an air compressor
to blow the dust off?

Oh, come now. You've read Dietz... we don't have that kind of
technology.

;P

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Scott Lowther wrote:

Oh, come now. You've read Dietz... we don't have that kind of
technology.

Ah, your wit continues to inform us of the quality of both
your arguments and your character.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

Oh, come now. You've read Dietz... we don't have that kind of
technology.

Ah, your wit continues to inform us of the quality of both
your arguments and your character.

Oh boo-hoo. So which is it: do we have the technology to put an air
compressor on a Mars over, or not? We have not done this yet, so your
arguement, based on recent posts by *you*, would be that we do not have
that technology. Thus my previous post would be in complete agreement
with your position on this matter.

So, you don't like it when people disagree with you, and you don't like
it when people *do* agree with you.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Scott Lowther wrote:

Oh boo-hoo. So which is it: do we have the technology to put an air
compressor on a Mars over, or not? We have not done this yet, so your
arguement, based on recent posts by *you*, would be that we do not have
that technology. Thus my previous post would be in complete agreement
with your position on this matter.

We haven't demonstrated that we do, but I'd expect it wouldn't
be that hard. Some development would be required. I would be
concerned about filtering dust, the lifetime of the air filters,
the lubricants used in the compressor, cooling the motor, and operating
the unit in extreme cold.

I would not be willing to say we had this technology until
it had been demonstrated.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

I would not be willing to say we had this technology until
it had been demonstrated.

Then you DO agree with the following:
---
Then again, how
difficult would it have been to have brought along an air compressor
to blow the dust off?

Oh, come now. You've read Dietz... we don't have that kind of
technology.
---

Since you agreed with me... "your wit continues to inform us of the
quality of both your arguments and your character" would thus imply that
you either think very highly of my arguement/character, or very
poorly... and thus you think very poorly of your *own* character.

Do not accuse someone else of having poor arguements or character when
they espouse YOUR arguements.



--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Scott Lowther wrote:
Paul F. Dietz wrote:


I would not be willing to say we had this technology until
it had been demonstrated.


Then you DO agree with the following:
---

Then again, how
difficult would it have been to have brought along an air compressor
to blow the dust off?


Oh, come now. You've read Dietz... we don't have that kind of
technology.
---

Since you agreed with me... "your wit continues to inform us of the
quality of both your arguments and your character" would thus imply that
you either think very highly of my arguement/character, or very
poorly... and thus you think very poorly of your *own* character.

Do not accuse someone else of having poor arguements or character when
they espouse YOUR arguements.


You wrote (with great implied sarcasm) the 'Oh, come now...'
statement.

I *agree* with that statement. The wit I was criticizing was
your sarcasm.

And, in fact, we don't have that technology in a form that
the rover designers were willing to use. Maybe it was mass
budget, maybe it was safety concerns (unwillingness to store
too much compressed gas) or maybe it was one of the several
issues I mentioned. Spacecraft designers don't like to pioneer
too many new things.

Paul

Scott Lowther wrote:

We HAVE the technology to do a great many things in space. But, they
cost too much, weigh too much, scare the wrong set of protestors. But
that is NOT the same thing as "We don't have it."

The fact remains that the technology that is available did not satisfy
the needs of the customer. If one is willing to drop that constraint,
then many supposed technologies become available. They don't even have
to be reliable, or even workable.

Paul

In article ,
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote:
A windscreen wiper?
Could be a really bad idea if the Martian dust is as abrasive as lunar dust.

...It might not be, considering that it does get blown around by the
Martian air, unlike the soil on the airless Moon.

Possibly not, but nobody's sure. There is also thought to be a strong
possibility that the particles are small and the adhesion to the surface
fairly strong, in which case a wiper just won't work (although a brush
might perhaps do better).

Then again, how
difficult would it have been to have brought along an air compressor
to blow the dust off?

In the thin air, it probably requires fairly high gas velocities, not
trivial to achieve.

Last I heard (a paper by Geoff Landis, I think), electrostatic dust
removal was considered probably the best bet.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

You wrote (with great implied sarcasm)

You choose to read what you choose to read.

And, in fact, we don't have that technology in a form that
the rover designers were willing to use.

HA! There, now THAT is a reasonable statement, much more so than your
previous blanket statements. The world ISN'T as black-white, is-ain't as
your "We don't" nonsense.

We HAVE the technology to do a great many things in space. But, they
cost too much, weigh too much, scare the wrong set of protestors. But
that is NOT the same thing as "We don't have it."

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address