517 Watts

I'll just note that it took over a month to take that one picture and
it took SIX MONTHS after it was taken for people to see it. *Now it
can move a few feet and take another 6+ months to take a look at the
new point...

A human on scene would have done it in 5 minutes and better.

lets not forget the 2 year travel time, probably a trillion bucks
costs, nasa always understimates costs, just look at JWST and the
risks...... and at the earliest 20 to 30 years in the future. at
current budget levels never..........

In article 31662a24-2278-4221-818f-205aabce9bc4
@x4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...

a human walking past a fossil is just one persons observation

But a human can pick up the fossil and bring it back to earth.

mars rovers photos have millions of people looking at them.

A single Mars fossil in an earth lab would be worth far more to
researchers than all the pictures ever taken from toasters even if those
pictures included fossils in them.

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

On Jun 20, 9:13*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 31662a24-2278-4221-818f-205aabce9bc4
@x4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...



a human walking past a fossil is just one persons observation

But a human can pick up the fossil and bring it back to earth.

mars rovers photos have millions of people looking at them.

A single Mars fossil in an earth lab would be worth far more to
researchers than all the pictures ever taken from toasters even if those
pictures included fossils in them.

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

there are proposals for sample return mssions

In article 2b0a6a85-f0c5-4740-83ea-
, says...

On Jun 20, 9:13*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 31662a24-2278-4221-818f-205aabce9bc4
@x4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...
a human walking past a fossil is just one persons observation

But a human can pick up the fossil and bring it back to earth.

mars rovers photos have millions of people looking at them.

A single Mars fossil in an earth lab would be worth far more to
researchers than all the pictures ever taken from toasters even if those
pictures included fossils in them.

there are proposals for sample return mssions

And *if* such an unmanned mission ever flies, and if it is successful,
it will no doubt be *very* limited in what it returns to earth.
Unmanned Mars rovers have been proven to have very limited speed and
range when compared to Apollo's manned lunar rover.

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

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Jun 20, 9:13 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 31662a24-2278-4221-818f-205aabce9bc4
@x4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...



a human walking past a fossil is just one persons observation

But a human can pick up the fossil and bring it back to earth.

mars rovers photos have millions of people looking at them.

A single Mars fossil in an earth lab would be worth far more to
researchers than all the pictures ever taken from toasters even if those
pictures included fossils in them.

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

there are proposals for sample return mssions

Yes, and compared to a crewed mission they'll take a LOT longer, bring back
far fewer samples and probably a lower quality set of samples.

Again, an astronaut in ONE day will cover more ground and find better
samples than many of the suggested sample return missions. (in fact one was
basically scuttled and revamped when they realized the odds of them finding
anything WORTH sampling within reach of the fixed lander was basically
zero.)

Compare the Soviet Lunar sample return missions compared to JUST Apollo and
compare how much they brought back.





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

Le 20/06/13 22:14, Jeff Findley a écrit :


And *if* such an unmanned mission ever flies, and if it is successful,
it will no doubt be *very* limited in what it returns to earth.
Unmanned Mars rovers have been proven to have very limited speed and
range when compared to Apollo's manned lunar rover.

Jeff


Opportunity has covered *more* ground that the lunar rovers.

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-051813a.html

quote
Mars rover Opportunity breaks US distance record set by Apollo 17 moon buggy


"The record we established with a roving vehicle was made to be broken,"
Cernan told Jim Rice, an Opportunity team member at NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, a few days before the rover passed
the astronaut's driving distance. "I'm excited and proud to be able to
pass the torch to Opportunity."

The international record for rolling across another world is still held
by the Soviet Union's remote-controlled Lunokhod 2 rover, which
traversed 23 miles (37 kilometers) on the surface of Earth's moon in 1973.
end quote

Look, this futile attempt to believe that humans can *replace*
machines is doomed to failure, as everybody knows that humans are
no match for machines in deep space.

Humans can conceive and use machines though, what machines can't do.
That's the point.

Mankind is exploring Mars now using machines because the technology
for doing a human Mars mission just doesn't exist. There are proposals,
and they will be realized some day in the middle term (2060-2100) but
for this generation of human beings machines are the ONLY way to go to
Mars.

The moon, as I repeat over and over, is MUCH closer and human
exploration THERE would be perfectly doable RIGHT NOW.

But this insisting on Mars is just counter-productive.

"jacob navia" wrote in message ...

Le 20/06/13 22:14, Jeff Findley a écrit :


And *if* such an unmanned mission ever flies, and if it is successful,
it will no doubt be *very* limited in what it returns to earth.
Unmanned Mars rovers have been proven to have very limited speed and
range when compared to Apollo's manned lunar rover.

Jeff


Opportunity has covered *more* ground that the lunar rovers.

No, it's covered more ground than ONE lunar rover. And taken a decade to do
so, compared to 3 days.

I think you made Jeff's point.



http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-051813a.html

quote
Mars rover Opportunity breaks US distance record set by Apollo 17 moon
buggy


"The record we established with a roving vehicle was made to be broken,"
Cernan told Jim Rice, an Opportunity team member at NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, a few days before the rover passed
the astronaut's driving distance. "I'm excited and proud to be able to pass
the torch to Opportunity."

The international record for rolling across another world is still held by
the Soviet Union's remote-controlled Lunokhod 2 rover, which traversed 23
miles (37 kilometers) on the surface of Earth's moon in 1973.
end quote

Look, this futile attempt to believe that humans can *replace*
machines is doomed to failure, as everybody knows that humans are
no match for machines in deep space.

It's doomed to fail because you've got it backwards. People are trying to
claim that machines can replace humans.



Humans can conceive and use machines though, what machines can't do.
That's the point.

Right. And Humans will use machines when they reach Mars.



Mankind is exploring Mars now using machines because the technology
for doing a human Mars mission just doesn't exist.

The TECHNOLOGY exists. The money or the will (you can decide which) doesn't
exist. Big difference.

There are proposals, and they will be realized some day in the middle term
(2060-2100) but
for this generation of human beings machines are the ONLY way to go to
Mars.

The moon, as I repeat over and over, is MUCH closer and human exploration
THERE would be perfectly doable RIGHT NOW.

But this insisting on Mars is just counter-productive.

How?





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

In article , says...

Le 20/06/13 22:14, Jeff Findley a écrit :


And *if* such an unmanned mission ever flies, and if it is successful,
it will no doubt be *very* limited in what it returns to earth.
Unmanned Mars rovers have been proven to have very limited speed and
range when compared to Apollo's manned lunar rover.

Jeff


Opportunity has covered *more* ground that the lunar rovers.

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-051813a.html

It took Opportunity *nine* years to cover the distance that the manned
lunar rover covered in four hours 26 minutes.

Look, this futile attempt to believe that humans can *replace*
machines is doomed to failure, as everybody knows that humans are
no match for machines in deep space.

Really? Years to complete a task that it takes a person to do in days?
Hurray for the toasters!

Also, I think that scientists who were able to examine lunar samples
sent back to earth during the Apollo missions would disagree considering
they've had precious few samples returned to earth from unmanned
missions.

Humans can conceive and use machines though, what machines can't do.
That's the point.

Agreed. They compliment each other. But today's robotic Mars space
probes are quite simply no match for a human in a suit. Part of the
problem is the time delay, so a human in a Mars habitat controlling
something like a Mars rover would be quite a useful compliment to people
in suits on Mars.

Mankind is exploring Mars now using machines because the technology
for doing a human Mars mission just doesn't exist. There are proposals,
and they will be realized some day in the middle term (2060-2100) but
for this generation of human beings machines are the ONLY way to go to
Mars.

B.S. The technology has existed for quite some time. The issue is
cost, but that is starting to (finally) come down as companies like
SpaceX pursue reusable launch vehicle technologies that NASA seems hell-
bent to ignore. The only part of SLS which *might* end up being reused
would be the SRB's, but reuse of them is pretty much an economic wash,
as the shuttle program proved).

The moon, as I repeat over and over, is MUCH closer and human
exploration THERE would be perfectly doable RIGHT NOW.

Been there, done that over 40 years ago, and got the prize for getting
there first. It's a gigantic dead hunk of rock.

But this insisting on Mars is just counter-productive.

In what way? Mars has many more unanswered questions than the moon.


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

a human walking past a fossil is just one persons observation

mars rovers photos have millions of people looking at them.

Yeah Bob,
but if you have found some, where would you send it for public discussion?

There are many discussions forums about opportunity. For instance

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...30179b0b06125f
2e1&showforum=36

That site has been hosting that forum for all this 9+ years and many
people there discuss each photograph, each movement, etc.

This is, (remember that) the first exploration of Mars by humans ever.
Compared to the huge scope of the undertaking you could wonder why
there aren't more participants, but that is another story.

I went through "Tech, General and Imagery" and got a slightly boring
impression. In the last 10 years ssh or ssp had better threads. I looked
in the board rules

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...act=boardrules

and found the explanation:

1.3 Astrobiology may not be discussed here, even in the context
of a mission with those stated goals. This includes other banned
topics such as SETI, "Red Rain," alien visitors, exobiology,
biosignatures, microorganisms, fossils et cetera. (Amended 19Oct'12 /
Updated 21Nov'12)

That fossils or microorganisms are banned topics on a forum
"unmannedspaceflight" seems highly odd. That they put it on a list
with "alien visitors" tells all. No minds from the 20th century.
No place where new ideas could be found.

The planetary society has published in the last nine years a monthly
review of all activities of Spirit and Opportunity, besides their
continuing reporting in their blog.

The above forum is advertised as "a project of the planetary society".
The board rules sound more like the Spanish Inquisition.

So where (is) could fossils on Mars imagery be discussed?


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##

mars rovers photos have millions of people looking at them.

A single Mars fossil in an earth lab would be worth far more to
researchers than all the pictures ever taken from toasters even if those
pictures included fossils in them.

Jeff

Yeah, I thought that too. But I was very wrong. At first you are
surprised. Then comes "of course that we had to expect". And soon
you want such a critter alive in a lab. No way around.


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##