Drive on Opportunity

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

Seriously Bob, are you trying to argue the Apollo 17 astronauts had NO time
to do EVAs or perform science?

Yes, everyone knows you can't work 24/7. The point is, even in the short
time the 2 of them worked, they covered more than the current rovers.





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

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

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


No, I read the one in the real world that suggested it COULD be a problem.

Which is basically what has been said all along.


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......

There's more than one solution.

From the press release: "Current spacecraft shield much more effectively
against SEPs than GCRs. "

So.. current spacecraft can't go to Mars anyway.

We're going to build different craft. And we'll take this data and future
data and apply it to the design.

My guess.. lots of water and polyethylene.

And.. for the early explorers, waivers on cancer risk. I'm sure there's a
number of folks willing to take the risk.





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

On May 31, 12:04*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
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

Seriously Bob, are you trying to argue the Apollo 17 astronauts had NO time
to do EVAs or perform science?

Yes, everyone knows you can't work 24/7. *The point is, even in the short
time the 2 of them worked, they covered more than the current rovers.



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

he short term workload on the moon, is not sustinable on a long term
basis on mars.....

then add all the routine maintence work not only in orbit, but on the
surface.....

In article 7203b252-9f79-468d-b7f6-258d6b63b609
@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

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

To be fair, some of this has to do with what *type* of work the
astronaut is doing. Lunar EVA's were *not* the same as performing
experiments or maintenance tasks on Skylab.

ISS is certainly similar. Digging through ISS looking for some piece of
equipment which wasn't stowed where it should be versus an EVA are two
decidedly different tasks. One would almost certainly be a p.i.t.a.
you'd like to soon forget and the other, an experience you'd remember
for a lifetime.

I'd expect that a Mars surface EVA won't be the same as performing
maintenance on the Mars Hab's systems.

Certainly mission planners learned from Skylab. One of those lessons is
that you can't take a type-A astronaut type personality who got there by
being the "hottest" pilot in their line of work (test pilot, Air Force
pilot, Navy pilot, etc.) and stick them on an endless list of tasks
which involve pushing experiment buttons at certain times, taking
pictures of the experiments at other times, and expecting them to "catch
up" on tasks they're behind on by sacrificing what little personal time
you've scheduled for 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

In article 014cb40b-fd5c-4ab4-a4a9-ee7638908817@
10g2000yqy.googlegroups.com, says...

On May 31, 12:04*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
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

Seriously Bob, are you trying to argue the Apollo 17 astronauts had NO time
to do EVAs or perform science?

Yes, everyone knows you can't work 24/7. *The point is, even in the short
time the 2 of them worked, they covered more than the current rovers.

he short term workload on the moon, is not sustinable on a long term
basis on mars.....

No one said it was "sustainable on a long term basis". The facts are
that even on a short term basis, humans can do far more than machines in
a few days than the machines can do in *years*. A Mars mission could
schedule two EVA's per week for the duration of their stay (leaving
plenty of time to rest) and still outperform *all* unmanned Mars
missions to date. They could also go the route of some EVA intensive
shuttle missions and have *two sets* (or more) of astronauts dedicated
to EVA's.

then add all the routine maintence work not only in orbit, but on the
surface.....

Which ISS is proving isn't really an issue, as long as your crew is
sized properly. Three is a bit too small to do much more than
maintenance tasks (during the construction phase), but six is proving to
be far better. Do you think that mission planners would "forget" this
recent lesson when planning a Mars mission? I think not.

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 May 31, 12:04 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
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

Seriously Bob, are you trying to argue the Apollo 17 astronauts had NO
time
to do EVAs or perform science?

Yes, everyone knows you can't work 24/7. The point is, even in the short
time the 2 of them worked, they covered more than the current rovers.



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

he short term workload on the moon, is not sustinable on a long term
basis on mars.....


So what. In the 3 EVAs they did far more than the best rover so far on
Mars.

I suspect even if we hired YOU as an astronaut you could get in 4-5 EVAs
over 6 months or so.

More productive folks could probably get in 1-2 EVAs a week. Imagine how
much they could do at that rate.

Just off the cuff, let's imagine a 6 person crew.

You'd rotate among jobs, but have some specialization.

So, you have 2 on EVA, another 2 analyzing results from the previous EVA and
sending/receiving data from Earth.
The other 2 are doing maintenance such as work on EVA suits for the next
round of EVA.

And that's on a busy day. Give them a day off once a week, and you're still
going to do a heck of a lot.

then add all the routine maintence work not only in orbit, but on the
surface.....

What maintenance work is going to be done in orbit? You realize pretty much
every mission puts the boots on the ground where they can do work.

Heck, even the current Moon missions assume an unmanned craft left in orbit.






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

http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/msl/130530rad/

On Jun 1, 12:41*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/msl/130530rad/

And do you read your own cites, Bobbert? *We've been way ahead of you
all along...

"Moore said water in the walls of space modules would help blunt
radiation, or astronauts could store hydrogen-rich food and supplies
around their living quarters as a shield."

Gee, that sounds familiar...

"According to Moore, nuclear propulsion could cut the one-way transit
time from Earth to Mars to about 180 days."

Gee, that's nowhere near the numbers Bobbert has been citing and
actually not that huge a reduction - only about a 35% savings. *It
seems that, unlike Bobbert, NASA realizes that you have to carry fuel
for your NTR and you can't just thrust all the way to Mars and back.

You can also do the same thing with chemical rockets. *You just have
to carry more fuel.

--

According to NASA, advanced propulsion systems must be developed to
make more speedy journeys possible because the type of shielding
necessary to protect against cosmic radiation - several meters thick,
Semones said - is impractical due to the size and mass limitations of
spacecraft and launch vehicles.

On Jun 1, 11:41*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:41 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/msl/130530rad/

And do you read your own cites, Bobbert? We've been way ahead of you
all along...

"Moore said water in the walls of space modules would help blunt
radiation, or astronauts could store hydrogen-rich food and supplies
around their living quarters as a shield."

Gee, that sounds familiar...

"According to Moore, nuclear propulsion could cut the one-way transit
time from Earth to Mars to about 180 days."

Gee, that's nowhere near the numbers Bobbert has been citing and
actually not that huge a reduction - only about a 35% savings. It
seems that, unlike Bobbert, NASA realizes that you have to carry fuel
for your NTR and you can't just thrust all the way to Mars and back.

You can also do the same thing with chemical rockets. You just have
to carry more fuel.

According to NASA, advanced propulsion systems must be developed to
make more speedy journeys possible because the type of shielding
necessary to protect against cosmic radiation - several meters thick,
Semones said - is impractical due to the size and mass limitations of
spacecraft and launch vehicles.

1) The article doesn't say what you claim.

2) It's one guy.

3) It's budgetary politics.

But Bobbert is immune to either facts or any situation requiring
actual working brain cells.

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

your claiming the sun has quit shining means nothing, when everyone
can look outside and see its light...

On Jun 1, 8:20*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jun 1, 11:41 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:41 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/msl/130530rad/

And do you read your own cites, Bobbert? We've been way ahead of you
all along...

"Moore said water in the walls of space modules would help blunt
radiation, or astronauts could store hydrogen-rich food and supplies
around their living quarters as a shield."

Gee, that sounds familiar...

"According to Moore, nuclear propulsion could cut the one-way transit
time from Earth to Mars to about 180 days."

Gee, that's nowhere near the numbers Bobbert has been citing and
actually not that huge a reduction - only about a 35% savings. It
seems that, unlike Bobbert, NASA realizes that you have to carry fuel
for your NTR and you can't just thrust all the way to Mars and back..

You can also do the same thing with chemical rockets. You just have
to carry more fuel.

According to NASA, advanced propulsion systems must be developed to
make more speedy journeys possible because the type of shielding
necessary to protect against cosmic radiation - several meters thick,
Semones said - is impractical due to the size and mass limitations of
spacecraft and launch vehicles.

1) The article doesn't say what you claim.

2) It's one guy.

3) It's budgetary politics.

But Bobbert is immune to either facts or any situation requiring
actual working brain cells.

your claiming the sun has quit shining means nothing, when everyone
can look outside and see its light...

And so we see that Bobbert's mentation breaks down to 'bumper sticker
illogic'.

Bobbert, I've given you cites from NASA funded studies that say that
chemical rockets are perfectly feasible for going to Mars. *You remain
in denial. *YOU seem to be the one making claims that anyone looking
at all recognizes are counterfactual.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
*soul with evil."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Socrates

it certinally appears that the latest nasa news is that chemical
rockets arent enough

your ignoring the news on it