A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 28th 13, 02:36 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

Now imagine 20 of them crawling all over mars...... at about 9 years
old its a excellent tested design.. land some in more rugged areas....
modify the design a bit to pick up interesting finds and take them to
a retrieval lander, to send them back to earth.

isnt it amazing what a toaster can do heck soon they will be able to
remote control refuel satellites

  #2  
Old January 28th 13, 03:15 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

In article 347a9744-0a01-4b2f-99de-d7f5859908c8
@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...

Now imagine 20 of them crawling all over mars...... at about 9 years
old its a excellent tested design.. land some in more rugged areas....
modify the design a bit to pick up interesting finds and take them to
a retrieval lander, to send them back to earth.


Your "I have a dream for toasters on Mars" is getting very, very old.

isnt it amazing what a toaster can do heck soon they will be able to
remote control refuel satellites


I spent 10 days on the trail at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico a
year and a half ago as a member of a group of 8 Boy Scouts (youth) and 3
adult leaders. Hiking amounted to about 4 to 5 hours each day, leaving
the rest of the day to "explore". In those 10 days, we hiked about 75
miles carrying 50 pound backpacks on our backs, which is more than three
times the distance traveled by Opportunity. In other words, we were
hiking three times the distance in a *day* what Opportunity was driving
in a *year*.

Now imagine the distance that a manned Mars mission could cover if
instead of walking, the astronauts traveled in a pressurized rover,
equipped with an airlock and suits for EVA's. Sound familiar? It
should. NASA is looking closely at just such an architecture for manned
surface operations.

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
  #3  
Old February 1st 13, 06:56 AM posted to sci.space.history
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
bob haller wrote:

Now imagine 20 of them crawling all over mars...... at about 9 years
old its a excellent tested design.. land some in more rugged areas....


And 20 of them would STILL cover practically no ground at all.


modify the design a bit to pick up interesting finds and take them to
a retrieval lander, to send them back to earth.


Yeah, because 'modifying a bit' doesn't change that "tested design" at
all.

snort


isnt it amazing what a toaster can do heck soon they will be able to
remote control refuel satellites


A guy on the ground with a 'Mars car' would get more done in a week.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn


Something the bobbert doesn't get-or never will, Fred. Even Steve Squyres,
the PI on the MER program, says that a human geologist on Mars can do in a
day what takes a rover weeks to do. The bobbert is pathetic, really.


  #4  
Old February 1st 13, 06:58 AM posted to sci.space.history
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article 347a9744-0a01-4b2f-99de-d7f5859908c8
@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...

Now imagine 20 of them crawling all over mars...... at about 9 years
old its a excellent tested design.. land some in more rugged areas....
modify the design a bit to pick up interesting finds and take them to
a retrieval lander, to send them back to earth.


Your "I have a dream for toasters on Mars" is getting very, very old.

isnt it amazing what a toaster can do heck soon they will be able to
remote control refuel satellites


I spent 10 days on the trail at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico a
year and a half ago as a member of a group of 8 Boy Scouts (youth) and 3
adult leaders. Hiking amounted to about 4 to 5 hours each day, leaving
the rest of the day to "explore". In those 10 days, we hiked about 75
miles carrying 50 pound backpacks on our backs, which is more than three
times the distance traveled by Opportunity. In other words, we were
hiking three times the distance in a *day* what Opportunity was driving
in a *year*.

Now imagine the distance that a manned Mars mission could cover if
instead of walking, the astronauts traveled in a pressurized rover,
equipped with an airlock and suits for EVA's. Sound familiar? It
should. NASA is looking closely at just such an architecture for manned
surface operations.

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

Jeff, the bobbert, in his enthuasism for rovers, continously ignores the
fact that each rover is hand-made, and that things like booster avability,
range issues, and launch manifests, get in the way of his pipe dream. Not to
mention his hostility towars any kind of human spaceflight. He's not quite
the lunatic the guthlessball is, but he's at least good for some laughs.


  #5  
Old February 1st 13, 01:01 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message news

Jeff, the bobbert, in his enthuasism for rovers, continously ignores the
fact that each rover is hand-made, and that things like booster avability,
range issues, and launch manifests, get in the way of his pipe dream. Not
to mention his hostility towars any kind of human spaceflight. He's not
quite the lunatic the guthlessball is, but he's at least good for some
laughs.


Funny thing is, I've seen Guth have a few lucid moments where he's posted
something sensible.





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

  #6  
Old February 1st 13, 01:59 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

On Feb 1, 12:58*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...



In article 347a9744-0a01-4b2f-99de-d7f5859908c8
@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...


Now imagine 20 of them crawling all over mars...... at about 9 years
old its a excellent tested design.. land some in more rugged areas....
modify the design a bit to pick up interesting finds and take them to
a retrieval lander, to send them back to earth.


Your "I have a dream for toasters on Mars" is getting very, very old.


isnt it amazing what a toaster can do heck soon they will be able to
remote control refuel satellites


I spent 10 days on the trail at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico a
year and a half ago as a member of a group of 8 Boy Scouts (youth) and 3
adult leaders. *Hiking amounted to about 4 to 5 hours each day, leaving
the rest of the day to "explore". *In those 10 days, we hiked about 75
miles carrying 50 pound backpacks on our backs, which is more than three
times the distance traveled by Opportunity. *In other words, we were
hiking three times the distance in a *day* what Opportunity was driving
in a *year*.


Now imagine the distance that a manned Mars mission could cover if
instead of walking, the astronauts traveled in a pressurized rover,
equipped with an airlock and suits for EVA's. *Sound familiar? *It
should. *NASA is looking closely at just such an architecture for manned
surface operations.


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


Jeff, the bobbert, in his enthuasism for rovers, continously ignores the
fact that each rover is hand-made, and that things like booster avability,
range issues, and launch manifests, get in the way of his pipe dream. Not to
mention his hostility towars any kind of human spaceflight. He's not quite
the lunatic the guthlessball is, but he's at least good for some laughs.


rovers need not be made in small numbers, economy of scale could
produce a hundred, and falcon versions send them on their way for a
fraction of the cost of the original spirit and opportunity..

future versions of these robust rovers could collect samples, placing
them in central locations for travel back to earth..

while it might be nice to send astronauts there are problems.

humans will contaminate mars, we cant afford it, travel times are fr
too long untill a nuke rocket is built, radiation of deep space is a
big issue. theres probably a million problems sending astronauts that
arent a issue for robotic missions....

and so what if the rovers are slow? we can replace them when they
break and length of exploration really doesnt matter.....
  #7  
Old February 1st 13, 04:48 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

In article 261623a9-8af7-4b17-adc1-b74b634f1c85
@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...

On Feb 1, 12:58*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

Jeff, the bobbert, in his enthuasism for rovers, continously ignores the
fact that each rover is hand-made, and that things like booster avability,
range issues, and launch manifests, get in the way of his pipe dream. Not to
mention his hostility towars any kind of human spaceflight. He's not quite
the lunatic the guthlessball is, but he's at least good for some laughs.


rovers need not be made in small numbers, economy of scale could
produce a hundred, and falcon versions send them on their way for a
fraction of the cost of the original spirit and opportunity..


You keep asserting this, without any proof. Who, besides you, thinks
that Mars rovers, including all of the necessary hardware to actually
land the thing on Mars, can be made this way? It just might be
possible, but what type of investment would we be talking about here?

These things aren't going to be made at a rate that would necessitate a
production line, like you see in the automobile industry. Production
would be more in line with typical aerospace endeavors like fighter
aircraft (which aren't cheap). In that sort of production environment,
there is some automation, but there is also a lot of hands on assembly.

future versions of these robust rovers could collect samples, placing
them in central locations for travel back to earth..


Sample return from Mars has not yet been done. This isn't going to be
inexpensive, even if the "toaster rovers" are "free".

while it might be nice to send astronauts there are problems.


Nice doesn't begin to describe how flexible humans are at solving
problems. Humans are close to invaluable in unexpected situations.

humans will contaminate mars,


There are engineering solution to this. It's not like humans can live
on Mars without pressure suits, which means there is already a barrier
between people and the surface of Mars. Keeping the outside of suits
decontaminated before exiting an airlock is a problem which can be
solved.

we cant afford it,


Yet you think we can afford multiple copies of rovers all doing sample
return missions. You have a strange idea of what is "affordable".

travel times are fr
too long untill a nuke rocket is built,


This is b.s.

radiation of deep space is a
big issue.


Easily solved by using water to shield sleeping areas which double as a
radiation storm shelter.

theres probably a million problems sending astronauts that
arent a issue for robotic missions....


Just as there are a million problems which are common to both.

and so what if the rovers are slow? we can replace them when they
break and length of exploration really doesnt matter.....


Only if you want your data to come back as a tiny trickle spread out
over a very long time. Making multiple copies of rovers doesn't help as
much as you think it would.

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
  #8  
Old February 1st 13, 07:19 PM posted to sci.space.history
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

Matt Wiser wrote:
Something the bobbert doesn't get-or never will, Fred. Even Steve
Squyres, the PI on the MER program, says that a human geologist on
Mars can do in a day what takes a rover weeks to do. The bobbert is
pathetic, really.


I want to see boots on Martian ground in my lifetime (boots with human
feet in them, with the rest of the human there in a suit as well...)
but I am curious about how much it costs to put a rover on Mars for
weeks versus a human geologist for a day. Lets say it takes three
weeks to do with a rover what a human geologist could do in a day. Is
getting a human geologist to Mars (and I presume back again) more or
less than 21X the cost of a rover mission?

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #9  
Old February 1st 13, 10:41 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

On Feb 1, 1:19*pm, Rick Jones wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
Something the bobbert doesn't get-or never will, Fred. Even Steve
Squyres, the PI on the MER program, says that a human geologist on
Mars can do in a day what takes a rover weeks to do. The bobbert is
pathetic, really.


I want to see boots on Martian ground in my lifetime (boots with human
feet in them, with the rest of the human there in a suit as well...)
but I am curious about how much it costs to put a rover on Mars for
weeks versus a human geologist for a day. *Lets say it takes three
weeks to do with a rover what a human geologist could do in a day. *Is
getting a human geologist to Mars (and I presume back again) more or
less than 21X the cost of a rover mission?

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...


Well a human one day on mars will be a nice LOOK WHAT WE DID, but
little science return;(

Given earth mars travel times with chemical rockets you talking of a
multi year mission that will cost mega bucks.

nuclear rocket can cut that time a lot....
  #10  
Old February 2nd 13, 03:24 AM posted to sci.space.history
Fevric J. Glandules
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

Rick Jones wrote:

I want to see boots on Martian ground in my lifetime (boots with human
feet in them, with the rest of the human there in a suit as well...)


+1

but I am curious about how much it costs to put a rover on Mars for
weeks versus a human geologist for a day. Lets say it takes three
weeks to do with a rover what a human geologist could do in a day. Is
getting a human geologist to Mars (and I presume back again) more or
less than 21X the cost of a rover mission?


The same question that came to *my* mind.

Viking cost about a billion 1970s dollars - adjusted, that's more
than Curiosity [1], I believe.

Apollo ran to ~24 billion 1969 dollars.

Surveyor cost half a billion.

So manned:moon seems to be about 20/30 times more expensive than
unmanned:mars. I'd guess that manned:mars would be an order of
magnitude more expensive than unmanned:mars.

Put it this way: for the cost of a manned Mars mission, you could
put a *lot* of rovers up there.

[1] Other data:
Spirit & Opportunity cost about a billion USD.
Curiosity about 2.8 billion.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity, now in its seventh yearon Mars, has a new capability Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 1 March 24th 10 04:30 AM
? I traveled INFINITE miles by car this year ( 2009 ). Semmalon Misc 1 January 8th 10 10:14 AM
I traveled INFINITE miles by car this year ( 2009 ). Semmalon Misc 0 January 1st 10 01:21 PM
I traveled INFINITE miles by car this year ( 2009 ). Semmalon Misc 0 January 1st 10 01:17 PM
Opportunity on Mars Lawrence Sayre Amateur Astronomy 3 January 25th 04 08:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.