Drive on Opportunity

On Jun 10, 10:37*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jun 9, 11:32*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jun 9, 11:07*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Note that 6 months is the 'normal' ISS rotation. *People have flown
longer than a year.

ISS is not in deep space, its close to earth and protected by the van
allen belts

Which has nothing to do with anything, you ignorant ****.

you tried to compare 6 months in orbit on ISS with 6 months in deep
space in transit to mars....

they are very different....

and you are extremely ignorant...

You were talking about vision problems.

In that regard they are not different at all.

I was talking about far more than vision troubles.

You're randomly switching objections as if they somehow rebut
mitigations described for previous objections. *In other words, you're
intellectually dishonest.



plus isnt it fascinating that the vision troubles were kept secret for
all these years?

Not particularly, no.



Certinally skylab crews must of had at east some of the issue, let
alone long term crews on mir, both american and russian......

I wonder if there are more undisclosed troubles that we havent been
told about YET?

Yes, wait until we disclose that aliens burst from their chests!



apparently astronauts are controlled by nasa.......

a long term flight in deep space may have other troubles that we have
no knowldge of...

And Bobbert goes from ignorant loon to paranoid loon in one swell
foop...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

fred your so dishonest you order all of your posts to disappear in 6
days. you must be ashamed of your posts....

we dont know what we dont know may apply to flights in deep space...

there may be some big gotcha waiting to be discovered........

In article d9b9a761-2c2e-4843-8111-f22e5b169e56
@bh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

fred your so dishonest you order all of your posts to disappear in 6
days. you must be ashamed of your posts....

This isn't "dishonest", but then again, you still don't understand
Usenet News even though it's been around for so long, it's just about
obsolete. It's also abundantly evident that spelling, grammar, and
punctuation aren't your strong suits either.

we dont know what we dont know may apply to flights in deep space...

Speak for yourself. Aerospace engineers, on the other hand, are paid to
know, or figure out, exactly that. Maybe you should "go play" and let
the adults get back to work.

there may be some big gotcha waiting to be discovered........

Space zombies, for instance. I vote we don't send people to Mars until
we can design a spacecraft that's impervious to space zombie attacks.

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 10, 1:08*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d9b9a761-2c2e-4843-8111-f22e5b169e56
@bh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...



fred your so dishonest you order all of your posts to disappear in 6
days. you must be ashamed of your posts....

This isn't "dishonest", but then again, you still don't understand
Usenet News even though it's been around for so long, it's just about
obsolete. *It's also abundantly evident that spelling, grammar, and
punctuation aren't your strong suits either.

we dont know what we dont know may apply to flights in deep space...

Speak for yourself. *Aerospace engineers, on the other hand, are paid to
know, or figure out, exactly that. *Maybe you should "go play" and let
the adults get back to work.

there may be some big gotcha waiting to be discovered........

Space zombies, for instance. *I vote we don't send people to Mars until
we can design a spacecraft that's impervious to space zombie attacks.

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

well in the begining nasa was concerned astronauts in orbit might not
be able to eat, drink or swallow...

untill we have had some fights in deep space we wouldnt know what
problems could appear....

this is a good reason for flights in deep space before leaving for
mars....

and there appeared to be a cover up of vision troubles......

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Jun 10, 1:08 pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d9b9a761-2c2e-4843-8111-f22e5b169e56
@bh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...



fred your so dishonest you order all of your posts to disappear in 6
days. you must be ashamed of your posts....

This isn't "dishonest", but then again, you still don't understand
Usenet News even though it's been around for so long, it's just about
obsolete. It's also abundantly evident that spelling, grammar, and
punctuation aren't your strong suits either.

we dont know what we dont know may apply to flights in deep space...

Speak for yourself. Aerospace engineers, on the other hand, are paid to
know, or figure out, exactly that. Maybe you should "go play" and let
the adults get back to work.

there may be some big gotcha waiting to be discovered........

Space zombies, for instance. I vote we don't send people to Mars until
we can design a spacecraft that's impervious to space zombie attacks.

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

well in the begining nasa was concerned astronauts in orbit might not
be able to eat, drink or swallow...

SOME felt that. But that's besides the point. The point is we had no
long-term zero-g experience.

Now we do. We also have details on the radiation environment.

Basically before it was a series of "this is what is different, we have NO
data".

Now it's "This is what is different and we HAVE data."



untill we have had some fights in deep space we wouldnt know what
problems could appear....

this is a good reason for flights in deep space before leaving for
mars....

and there appeared to be a cover up of vision troubles......


To you.

Seriously Bob, at this point this is just plain obstinance. You refuse to
admit you're wrong about anything.

Hell, if Fred said that acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface
was 9.8m/s^2 you'd disagree with him.

Look, I'd really love to discuss some of the more detailed engineering
issues for Mars mission. There's obviously a lot of disagreement on
particulars (witness the number of different plans). Is Zubrin on the right
track for example? Does Musk have a workable plan. The problem is, you're
so far outside the box, you don't even recognize the box.

It's distracting and annoying.

And unfortunately it seems that a vast array of usenet servers are
supporting about a dozen regular posters in the sci.space.* hierarchy and
you and Brad are lowering the signal to noise ratio in a huge way.

Seriously, do some reading you'll learn something.

Mook made a point (as silly as it was) that I'm not an aeronautical
engineer. He's right. So you and I are alike in that regard. But, the way
we're unlike is I learn. When Jeff suggested you read the CAIB and I
realized I had never read it, I took it upon myself to actually read it.
For the most part, the big picture I had right, but a wealth of material in
there.

And don't just read press releases. Find the reports. It's like your
comments about lack of science being done on ISS. I've pointed you at least
twice to the science being done. It's far more than simply the press
releases you're reading.

If Fred or Jeff make a statement that doesn’t sound right to me, I'll look
into it. Sometimes, hey, they make mistakes. Sometimes it's a learning
experience for me.

Seriously Bob, stop to think a bit. Learn, don't just spew. And READ what
is really being said. Don't color it with your perception of things or the
poster.

When Fred is saying we don't need a nuclear stage, he's NOT saying, if one
magically appeared tomorrow with everything in order he'd reject it out of
hand. No more than Columbus would have rejected the QE2. He's saying that
like Columbus, we have the technology NOW to do what we want. We don't need
to wait for the QE2.

Sure a nuclear stage MIGHT be nice. But it's hardly a necessity. (and brings
its OWN set of issues along with it, enough it still might not be the best
answer.)

I'll say again (and Jeff said recently also) it's really a mass problem. And
ass costs money. But as costs drop (thanks to SpaceX and others) it becomes
far less of an issue. If costs drop 50%, I can throw 2x as much mass at the
problem. Mass solves a LOT of issues. Need shielding, throw water at it.
Worried about breakdowns, through spare parts or even hell 2 craft flying in
formation, each with 50% capacity. etc.

In 5 years, you'll still be arguing about needing a nuclear stage and I'll
predict that Musk will be flying at the very least test articles.

There really is nothing remarkable about it. It's really just the details
and the details are NOT what you think they are.



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

In article 089c1e27-336b-4a85-870e-d667a046e9d9
@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jun 10, 1:08*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d9b9a761-2c2e-4843-8111-f22e5b169e56
@bh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...



fred your so dishonest you order all of your posts to disappear in 6
days. you must be ashamed of your posts....

This isn't "dishonest", but then again, you still don't understand
Usenet News even though it's been around for so long, it's just about
obsolete. *It's also abundantly evident that spelling, grammar, and
punctuation aren't your strong suits either.

we dont know what we dont know may apply to flights in deep space...

Speak for yourself. *Aerospace engineers, on the other hand, are paid to
know, or figure out, exactly that. *Maybe you should "go play" and let
the adults get back to work.

there may be some big gotcha waiting to be discovered........

Space zombies, for instance. *I vote we don't send people to Mars until
we can design a spacecraft that's impervious to space zombie attacks.

well in the begining nasa was concerned astronauts in orbit might not
be able to eat, drink or swallow...

We didn't *know* that for sure in 1959! Which is why two early Mercury
test flights had monkeys on board. They didn't die, so we had enough
data to conclude that short term exposure to microgravity wasn't likely
to kill a person. This provided enough confidence that test pilots
could be launched in Mercury capsules. Of course, news reports of a
Russian orbiting the earth provided some data as well.

But this isn't 1959 anymore! We have a wealth of data available today
that we simply did not have in the 1950's.

untill we have had some fights in deep space we wouldnt know what
problems could appear....

this is a good reason for flights in deep space before leaving for
mars....

and there appeared to be a cover up of vision troubles......

This is *all* hand waving garbage. Nothing you've said makes any real
sense to a person who knows space history, let alone an engineer who
would use the vast treasure trove of data we've gathered to actually
design a spacecraft.

How about you try the following:

1. Go to your local library.
2. Check out an actual book on Project Mercury.
3. Read the book from cover to cover. Take notes if needed.
4. Repeat the above steps with books on Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, the
Space Shuttle, ISS, and etc. Augment with books about the history of
the Russian space program and unmanned probes. A book on the history of
pressure suits wouldn't hurt either.

Maybe then you'd have a better sense of what's actually been done. If
you know what's been done, you might have a better chance of figuring
out what is actually possible. As it is, it's pretty clear to me that
you really don't know space history.

Since you seem stuck in the 1950's, maybe you'll get this reference:
When it comes to space history, you're the Bizarro version of Henry
Spencer.

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 10, 2:40*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 089c1e27-336b-4a85-870e-d667a046e9d9
@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says...







On Jun 10, 1:08*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d9b9a761-2c2e-4843-8111-f22e5b169e56
@bh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

fred your so dishonest you order all of your posts to disappear in 6
days. you must be ashamed of your posts....

This isn't "dishonest", but then again, you still don't understand
Usenet News even though it's been around for so long, it's just about
obsolete. *It's also abundantly evident that spelling, grammar, and
punctuation aren't your strong suits either.

we dont know what we dont know may apply to flights in deep space....

Speak for yourself. *Aerospace engineers, on the other hand, are paid to
know, or figure out, exactly that. *Maybe you should "go play" and let
the adults get back to work.

there may be some big gotcha waiting to be discovered........

Space zombies, for instance. *I vote we don't send people to Mars until
we can design a spacecraft that's impervious to space zombie attacks.

well in the begining nasa was concerned astronauts in orbit might not
be able to eat, drink or swallow...

We didn't *know* that for sure in 1959! *Which is why two early Mercury
test flights had monkeys on board. *They didn't die, so we had enough
data to conclude that short term exposure to microgravity wasn't likely
to kill a person. *This provided enough confidence that test pilots
could be launched in Mercury capsules. *Of course, news reports of a
Russian orbiting the earth provided some data as well.

But this isn't 1959 anymore! *We have a wealth of data available today
that we simply did not have in the 1950's.

untill we have had some fights in deep space we wouldnt know what
problems could appear....

this is a good reason for flights in deep space before leaving for
mars....

and there appeared to be a cover up of vision troubles......

This is *all* hand waving garbage. *Nothing you've said makes any real
sense to a person who knows space history, let alone an engineer who
would use the vast treasure trove of data we've gathered to actually
design a spacecraft.

How about you try the following:

1. *Go to your local library.
2. *Check out an actual book on Project Mercury.
3. *Read the book from cover to cover. *Take notes if needed.
4. *Repeat the above steps with books on Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, the
Space Shuttle, ISS, and etc. *Augment with books about the history of
the Russian space program and unmanned probes. *A book on the history of
pressure suits wouldn't hurt either.

Maybe then you'd have a better sense of what's actually been done. *If
you know what's been done, you might have a better chance of figuring
out what is actually possible. *As it is, it's pretty clear to me that
you really don't know space history.

Since you seem stuck in the 1950's, maybe you'll get this reference:
When it comes to space history, you're the Bizarro version of Henry
Spencer.

Jeff
--


so exactly how much manned deep space experience do we have? how many
hours?

ISS has long term orbital info but has never gone beyond close orbit
around earth.

Before leaving for mars we really need some asteroid exploration time.

which was supposed to be the plan after apollo moon landings......

apollo applications was scheduled as a bridge before a manned mars
mission

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
so exactly how much manned deep space experience do we have? how many
hours?


What are your exact objections or concerns. And don't say, "I don't know" or
"the unknown". Be specific.

The NASA scientists before Mercury were specific.

ISS has long term orbital info but has never gone beyond close orbit
around earth.


Again, because it's not designed too.


Before leaving for mars we really need some asteroid exploration time.


Why/


which was supposed to be the plan after apollo moon landings......

apollo applications was scheduled as a bridge before a manned mars
mission


Lots of things were planned. Reality happened.



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

On Jun 10, 8:38*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message
...
so exactly how much manned deep space experience do we have? how many
hours?

What are your exact objections or concerns. And don't say, "I don't know" or
"the unknown". *Be specific.

The NASA scientists before Mercury were specific.

ISS has long term orbital info but has never gone beyond close orbit
around earth.

Again, because it's not designed too.

Before leaving for mars we really need some asteroid exploration time.

Why/

which was supposed to be the plan after apollo moon landings......

apollo applications was scheduled as a bridge before a manned mars
mission

Lots of things were planned. Reality happened.



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

before driving new york to LA by car its generally a good idea to
prepare for the long drive.....

check your vehicle, tires brakes fuel etc.

before man leave for mars some deep space experience is needed. the
best way to gain that is probably some asteroid missions.

sending in advance some supply ships to mars, perhaps a couple new com
sats, and probably one in a orbit so that sun crossing wouldnt be a
problem

I find it interesting that my very reasonable ideas are being attacked
while a real mars mission is probably a generation away

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Jun 10, 8:38 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message
...
so exactly how much manned deep space experience do we have? how many
hours?

What are your exact objections or concerns. And don't say, "I don't know"
or
"the unknown". Be specific.

The NASA scientists before Mercury were specific.

ISS has long term orbital info but has never gone beyond close orbit
around earth.

Again, because it's not designed too.

Before leaving for mars we really need some asteroid exploration time.

Why/

which was supposed to be the plan after apollo moon landings......

apollo applications was scheduled as a bridge before a manned mars
mission

Lots of things were planned. Reality happened.



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

before driving new york to LA by car its generally a good idea to
prepare for the long drive.....

check your vehicle, tires brakes fuel etc.


What does this have to do with my question? What are your specific
objections or concenrs?


before man leave for mars some deep space experience is needed. the
best way to gain that is probably some asteroid missions.

sending in advance some supply ships to mars, perhaps a couple new com
sats, and probably one in a orbit so that sun crossing wouldnt be a
problem

I find it interesting that my very reasonable ideas are being attacked
while a real mars mission is probably a generation away


Reasonable ideas are not being attacked. YOUR ideas are being attacked.


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

On Jun 10, 11:20*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message
...

On Jun 10, 8:38 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message
....
so exactly how much manned deep space experience do we have? how many
hours?

What are your exact objections or concerns. And don't say, "I don't know"
or
"the unknown". *Be specific.

The NASA scientists before Mercury were specific.

ISS has long term orbital info but has never gone beyond close orbit
around earth.

Again, because it's not designed too.

Before leaving for mars we really need some asteroid exploration time..

Why/

which was supposed to be the plan after apollo moon landings......

apollo applications was scheduled as a bridge before a manned mars
mission

Lots of things were planned. Reality happened.

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

before driving new york to LA by car its generally a good idea to
prepare for the long drive.....

check your vehicle, tires brakes fuel etc.

What does this have to do with my question? *What are your specific
objections or concenrs?

before man leave for mars some deep space experience is needed. the
best way to gain that is probably some asteroid missions.

sending in advance some supply ships to mars, perhaps a couple new com
sats, and probably one in a orbit so that sun crossing wouldnt be a
problem

I find it interesting that my very reasonable ideas are being attacked
while a real mars mission is probably a generation away

Reasonable ideas are not being attacked. YOUR ideas are being attacked.



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

you can call my ideas anything you want to but I stand by them, just
like previous discussions asking about a shuttle stuck at station
before the columbia loss, and my prediction before the columbia loss
of another lost shuttle and crew........ based on the number of flying
catches before columbia was lost.

Sure you dont like me or my posts I really dont care......

but I said awhile ago a nuke stage was needed for a mars mission and
within a month nasa said the same thing.....

to minimize travel time in deep space, and radiation exposure.

meanwhile you suggest clunky work arounds like a tether and large
quanties of water for shielding