Drive on Opportunity

Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Was it "about" science? Define "about"? The primary purpose obviously was
Kennedy's charge. But there is no doubt science was done. A lot of science.
While the early missions (11 especially) didn't have much time for training,
all the astronauts had at least some training.

According to the ALSJ it took Armstrong just less than eleven minutes
from stepping on to the surface:

109:24:23 Armstrong: That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap
for mankind.

to making geological (or selenological) observations, using words that
most people don't know the meaning of:

109:35:08 Armstrong: Be advised that a lot of the rock samples out here
- the hard rock samples - have what appear to be vesicles in the
surface. Also, I am looking at one now that appears to have some sort
of phenocrysts.

And that was before Aldrin had even reached the surface.

By Apollo 15 we've got two test pilots getting genuinely
excited by rocks [1]:

145:42:41 Irwin: Oh, man!
145:42:41 Scott: Oh, boy!
145:42:42 Irwin: I got...
145:42:42 Scott: Look at that.
145:42:44 Irwin: Look at the glint!
145:42:45 Scott: Aaah.
145:42:46 Irwin: Almost see twinning in there!
145:42:47 Scott: Guess what we just found. (Jim laughs with pleasure)
Guess what we just found! I think we found what we came for.
145:42:53 Irwin: Crystalline rock, huh?
145:42:55 Scott: Yes, sir. You better believe it.


That's my preamble.

I hope that we can all agree on two things:
1: A manned Mars mssion would be vastly more expensive
than current robotic ones.
2: A manned Mars mission would generate scientific
knowledge much much faster than current robotic ones.

But if we can put aside our preferences and prejudices for
a moment, how many robotic missions could be mounted for
the cost of a manned one? And what would be the science
output?


[1] I wonder - Irwin, as LMP, says "man", and the CDR says "boy" - were
they subconsciously echoing the command structure?

On May 24, 7:54*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message

...



By all means then Bob, tell us WHY a nuclear booster is needed.

Bolden has stated publically regular chemical rockets arent good
enough.....

Is that good enough for you?

No.

Just because one person says something doesn't make it so.



well ahh bolden is head of nasa. doesnt that count for something???

On May 26, 10:27*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On May 24, 7:54 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

....

By all means then Bob, tell us WHY a nuclear booster is needed.

Bolden has stated publically regular chemical rockets arent good
enough.....

Is that good enough for you?

No.

Just because one person says something doesn't make it so.

well ahh bolden is head of nasa. doesnt that count for something???

Apparently not even within his own organization, since NASA has
preliminary plans for a manned Mars mission that use "regular chemical
rockets".

And I, for one, am still waiting for a cite of an actual quote where
Bolden says that. *Your claim that "everyone knows" something merely
leaves me convinced that you're making it up.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

nasa has had LOTS of man to mars plans.....

Heres a question who came up with the very first nasa plan to mars and
how would it have been powered...?

"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote in message ...

Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Was it "about" science? Define "about"? The primary purpose obviously
was
Kennedy's charge. But there is no doubt science was done. A lot of
science.
While the early missions (11 especially) didn't have much time for
training,
all the astronauts had at least some training.

According to the ALSJ it took Armstrong just less than eleven minutes
from stepping on to the surface:

109:24:23 Armstrong: That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap
for mankind.

to making geological (or selenological) observations, using words that
most people don't know the meaning of:

109:35:08 Armstrong: Be advised that a lot of the rock samples out here
- the hard rock samples - have what appear to be vesicles in the
surface. Also, I am looking at one now that appears to have some sort
of phenocrysts.

And that was before Aldrin had even reached the surface.

By Apollo 15 we've got two test pilots getting genuinely
excited by rocks [1]:

145:42:41 Irwin: Oh, man!
145:42:41 Scott: Oh, boy!
145:42:42 Irwin: I got...
145:42:42 Scott: Look at that.
145:42:44 Irwin: Look at the glint!
145:42:45 Scott: Aaah.
145:42:46 Irwin: Almost see twinning in there!
145:42:47 Scott: Guess what we just found. (Jim laughs with pleasure)
Guess what we just found! I think we found what we came for.
145:42:53 Irwin: Crystalline rock, huh?
145:42:55 Scott: Yes, sir. You better believe it.


That's my preamble.

I hope that we can all agree on two things:
1: A manned Mars mssion would be vastly more expensive
than current robotic ones.
2: A manned Mars mission would generate scientific
knowledge much much faster than current robotic ones.


I would agree with both.

And that robotic missions in both cases (Mars and the Moon) are preludes to
manned landings.

They help us learn more about the environment and pick some of the more
interesting spots.

I can speak for myself, I don't see it as an either/or or even an
all/nothing.

While we can't afford manned missions, let's due robotic. And let's gain
more knowledge each time.

But let's not delude ourselves (as some seem to be doing) into thinking
robotic missions can replace manned missions.

But if we can put aside our preferences and prejudices for
a moment, how many robotic missions could be mounted for
the cost of a manned one? And what would be the science
output?


To a certain extent, I bet not as much as one might think.



[1] I wonder - Irwin, as LMP, says "man", and the CDR says "boy" - were
they subconsciously echoing the command structure?



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

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On May 24, 7:54 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...



By all means then Bob, tell us WHY a nuclear booster is needed.

Bolden has stated publically regular chemical rockets arent good
enough.....

Is that good enough for you?

No.

Just because one person says something doesn't make it so.



well ahh bolden is head of nasa. doesnt that count for something???


His word means more than yours, but doesn't mean "that's how things are
going to happen." Not until the US elects a Supreme Dictator who dictates
the space program.




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

In article 5119b14a-12a7-4111-ada6-
, says...


By all means then Bob, tell us WHY a nuclear booster is needed.

Bolden has stated publically regular chemical rockets arent good
enough.....

Is that good enough for you?

No, it's not. Cite? Is this something in a peer reviewed paper, or a
statement he made to the press, Congress, or some other such audience
where he's obliged to wear his pointy haired boss/political hat rather
than his engineer hat.

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 ahh bolden is head of nasa. doesnt that count for something???

His word means more than yours, but doesn't mean "that's how things are
going to happen." *Not until the US elects a Supreme Dictator who dictates
the space program.

Greg D. Moore

so there ill NEVER BE a manned mission to mars?

I dont believe the US will ever be ruled by a Supreme Dictator, do you?

"bob haller" wrote in message
...



well ahh bolden is head of nasa. doesnt that count for something???

His word means more than yours, but doesn't mean "that's how things are
going to happen." Not until the US elects a Supreme Dictator who
dictates
the space program.

Greg D. Moore

so there ill NEVER BE a manned mission to mars?


Bob, do you work hard at misunderstanding people?

Seriously. That's not what I said.


I dont believe the US will ever be ruled by a Supreme Dictator, do you?



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

the crew MUST eat, sleep, maintain the station, and theres no mars
dust to deal with....

by the time you get a crew to mars there will be little time for
exploring since they will be so busy doing all the required things to
stay alive

Right. Just like the astronauts on the Moon had no time to go on EVAs and
perform science.
Greg D. Moore *Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net

Its different for anyone to work hard for a day or two, with a forced
rest before and after.......

as skylab crews proved you cant force astronauts to work forever nat
that pace.......

and even apollo crews had to eat and sleep, they couldnt EVA 24/7

Did you see the news report that a mars mission using chemical rockets
will cause major health troubles by too much radiation exposure.

that must be why bolden said cant be chemical rockets. some of the
deep space radiation cant be easily stopped, the particles are too
energetic......