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

Drive on Opportunity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 20th 13, 05:50 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jochem Huhmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Drive on Opportunity

Jeff Findley writes:

Unmanned rovers "doing science" is quite inferior to manned missions
returning *many* samples to *far* better equipped earth based labs for
detailed analyses.


You're comparing apples to truckloads of oranges. Manned missions are
(would be) much more expensive, especially if you want more than flags
and footprints. And for the costs of a manned mission you could
literally spray Mars with rovers and return lots of selected samples if
you want to.

But all of this has been discussed to death already. Nobody in his right
mind will ever propose manned Mars missions for "science" if he has to
pay for it.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  #12  
Old May 20th 13, 06:00 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jochem Huhmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Drive on Opportunity

"Greg (Strider) Moore" writes:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


And exactly how many samples did *all* of the Mars rovers return to
earth? Zero.


How much would a manned Mars mission cost?

Even if you want to compare returned lunar samples, Apollo 11 returned
68 times the amount of material returned from all 3 Soviet sample return
missions combined.

And from a larger area.


Selected during 2.5 hours of EVA time. And for much more money.

Using people as biorobots is hideously expensive since you need to keep
them breathing and drinking and eating and comfortable during years of
no science being done at all.

Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  #13  
Old May 21st 13, 05:27 AM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Drive on Opportunity

..

Selected during 2.5 hours of EVA time. And for much more money.

Using people as biorobots is hideously expensive since you need to keep
them breathing and drinking and eating and comfortable during years of
no science being done at all.

* * * * Jochem


plus the humans exhausts, like defecation, urine, bacteria, etc etc
will contaminate the samples you are trying to collect
  #14  
Old May 21st 13, 10:16 AM posted to sci.space.history
Jochem Huhmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Drive on Opportunity

Fred J. McCall writes:

Jochem Huhmann wrote:

"Greg (Strider) Moore" writes:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


And exactly how many samples did *all* of the Mars rovers return to
earth? Zero.


How much would a manned Mars mission cost?


How much would a robot return mission that brings back more than grams
cost?


Less than a mission that has to keep a crew alive for years in which no
science at all is done.

I agree that this might be different if we had better propulsion or
could hibernate the crew (as robots do as a rule). But we haven't and we
can't.

And you can't be serious if you mean to say that a crew is so much
better at selecting samples and launching them back? For all intents and
purposes a crew wouldn't be much more than an extremely delicate and
expensive payload most of the time. And every pound of equipment,
supplies, crew quarters, shielding etc. you need to return the crew will
be a pound of samples you can't return.

Mind you, I agree that it would be better to have people there. But the
direct and indirect costs of actually getting them there and back alive
just isn't worth it.

Even if you want to compare returned lunar samples, Apollo 11 returned
68 times the amount of material returned from all 3 Soviet sample return
missions combined.

And from a larger area.


Selected during 2.5 hours of EVA time. And for much more money.


It was still a better return on the money.


Back then robotics was very much in its infancy. Again, using people as
bio-robots is a bad idea especially when the travel times are measured
in years. Propulsion and life support have hardly improved since Apollo
but robotics have improved. A lot. That's the reason we have rovers on
Mars and no crews.

Using people as biorobots is hideously expensive since you need to keep
them breathing and drinking and eating and comfortable during years of
no science being done at all.


Do you want results or do you want to just putter for decades?


I prefer the results of robotic misssions that actually happen over
dreaming about manned missions that don't happen and that nobody wants
to pay for.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  #15  
Old May 21st 13, 01:39 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Drive on Opportunity

In article 36e42f8f-c48b-4bd7-9fa9-
, says...
Selected during 2.5 hours of EVA time. And for much more money.

Using people as biorobots is hideously expensive since you need to keep
them breathing and drinking and eating and comfortable during years of
no science being done at all.


plus the humans exhausts, like defecation, urine, bacteria, etc etc
will contaminate the samples you are trying to collect


On Apollo missions they weren't, you ignorant git! The Apollo lunar
samples were sealed inside vacuum tight sample containers that contained
*triple* redundant seals. They were definitely *not* open when the LEM
was re-pressurized.

ALSRC, Apollo Lunar Sample Return Container, Apollo 11
http://airandspace.si.edu/events/apo...oartifact.cfm?
id=A19710814000

If we did such a good job on Apollo missions trying to prevent any sort
of cross-contamination of samples, why do you think that Mars would be
any different?

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
  #16  
Old May 21st 13, 04:59 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jochem Huhmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Drive on Opportunity

Fred J. McCall writes:

How much would a robot return mission that brings back more than grams
cost?


Less than a mission that has to keep a crew alive for years in which no
science at all is done.


Non-response noted.


Do you expect me to tell you what a robotic return mission would cost in
absolute terms?

I agree that this might be different if we had better propulsion or
could hibernate the crew (as robots do as a rule). But we haven't and we
can't.


Irrelevant.


Why? It costs mass and money to carry the crew there and back and keep
them alive. Nothing of that contributes to science, it's just a very
delicate payload.

Hint: Look at how much 'science' a pair of rovers on Mars have done
over a DECADE and realize that humans could cover the same ground in a
few days.


"Covering ground" is not science. You need time for science, not speed.

And that's why a crew could do what the rovers have taken a decade to
do simply by working over a long weekend.


I doubt that very much, but even if this were true: You don't get a crew
there and back for $800 million.

Robotics are *still* "in their infancy" and will be for a long, long
time to come.


Robotics has come a long way in the last 50 years, while manned
spaceflight works very much the same. That's the reason we have rovers
on Mars but no crews.

I prefer not paying for your toasters and the uncertainty in their
results. Don't count on a lot more rovers, either. No Buck Rogers,
no bucks has been the historical pattern on these things.


If there is any pattern here it proves that manned spaceflight is done
for political reasons and not for science. Talking up the science aspect
is nice as long as you just want to argue but as soon as there's real
money to be spent people want to see actual numbers and mission
objectives and then unmanned missions will always win.

There's no better way to make sure that there never will be any manned
missions to Mars than pretending that you want to see manned missions
because you can do more science for the dollar then. Because you can't.

You sound very much like all the people in the fifties expecting huge
space stations in LEO with crews of specialists staring through
telescopes. Didn't work out this way and the reasons for that are even
more obvious today and more important for missions to other planets.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  #17  
Old May 22nd 13, 01:41 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jochem Huhmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Drive on Opportunity

Fred J. McCall writes:

You sound very much like all the people in the fifties expecting huge
space stations in LEO with crews of specialists staring through
telescopes. Didn't work out this way and the reasons for that are even
more obvious today and more important for missions to other planets.


You sound like all the toaster fans everywhere at any time of your
choosing. If people aren't going, stop wasting my money.


Thanks for confirming that it's not about "science" for you. You want
people going and all the talk about science is just an excuse.

Nothing wrong with wanting manned missions, by the way. Just don't
pretend it's about science. Because if you do so every mission proposal
that is looked at from a cost/benefit POV will be shot down immediately
then.

Well, it's not me you need to convince anyway.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  #18  
Old May 22nd 13, 03:21 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default Drive on Opportunity

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:41:39 AM UTC-4, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Fred J. McCall writes:



You sound very much like all the people in the fifties expecting huge


space stations in LEO with crews of specialists staring through


telescopes. Didn't work out this way and the reasons for that are even


more obvious today and more important for missions to other planets.






You sound like all the toaster fans everywhere at any time of your


choosing. If people aren't going, stop wasting my money.




Thanks for confirming that it's not about "science" for you. You want

people going and all the talk about science is just an excuse.



Nothing wrong with wanting manned missions, by the way. Just don't

pretend it's about science. Because if you do so every mission proposal

that is looked at from a cost/benefit POV will be shot down immediately

then.



Well, it's not me you need to convince anyway.

Jochem


Of course it's not just about science! It's about exploration and human curiosity. To paraphrase why we should send people to Mars: "Because it's there"!

  #19  
Old May 22nd 13, 03:32 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Drive on Opportunity

On May 22, 10:21*am, Dean wrote:
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:41:39 AM UTC-4, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Fred J. McCall writes:


You sound very much like all the people in the fifties expecting huge


space stations in LEO with crews of specialists staring through


telescopes. Didn't work out this way and the reasons for that are even


more obvious today and more important for missions to other planets.


You sound like all the toaster fans everywhere at any time of your


choosing. *If people aren't going, stop wasting my money.


Thanks for confirming that it's not about "science" for you. You want


people going and all the talk about science is just an excuse.


Nothing wrong with wanting manned missions, by the way. Just don't


pretend it's about science. Because if you do so every mission proposal


that is looked at from a cost/benefit POV will be shot down immediately


then.


Well, it's not me you need to convince anyway.


* * * * Jochem


Of course it's not just about science! *It's about exploration and human curiosity. *To paraphrase why we should send people to Mars: *"Because it's there"!


Currently the bucks arent available to send humans.......

but good science can be done robotically
 




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
Liberals can't drive well either Saul Levy Misc 0 June 6th 06 12:42 AM
NASA Announcement of Opportunity for the New Frontiers Program 2003and Missions of Opportunity Alex R. Blackwell Space Science Misc 0 October 10th 03 08:43 PM
NASA Announcement of Opportunity for the New Frontiers Program 2003and Missions of Opportunity Alex R. Blackwell Science 0 October 10th 03 07:42 PM
NASA Announcement of Opportunity for the New Frontiers Program 2003and Missions of Opportunity Alex R. Blackwell Technology 0 October 10th 03 07:42 PM
Ion drive bluherron Misc 5 August 8th 03 11:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 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.