Drive on Opportunity

Run away! *Run away!

--

fred is the most obnxious person here. he spews garbage and believes
he knows it all......

meanwhile he must of driven off many old time posters.

Hell, we don't
even HAVE spacesuits that are good for more than a few EVAs.

We don't have 'Mars suits' at all, but that's just an engineering
problem.


we dont have a nuclear booster for travel between earth and mars and
back. is that fact just another engineering problem?

"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message
...
Fred J. McCall writes:

You keep making statements that are contrary to all known facts.

You mean like the $100 billion (in today's money) for about 80 EVA hours
on the Moon that Apollo managed to scrape together? Most of it spent on
deploying experiments and generally using the crews as bio-robots? OK,
this was for six landings, but one landing on Mars isn't going to cover
much more ground than a robotic rover anyway.

Do you REALLY think Apollo was about the science? With one (1) scientist
among the crews (on the last flight, after much pressure from the
scientific community)?

What do you think a manned Mars mission would cost? What could a crew do
in half a year that 100 rovers couldn't do in a decade?

Fix things when they break.

--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

In article 9ef2aa61-73c9-4726-a0bc-dabb0d029050
@fv8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...
Run away! *Run away!

fred is the most obnxious person here. he spews garbage and believes
he knows it all......

meanwhile he must of driven off many old time posters.

No Bob, that's you spewing garbage, not Fred.

Many of the "old time posters" said they were leaving due to the
horrible signal to noise ratio on Usenet newsgroups. You're absolutely
one of the biggest contributors to the noise here.

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 e9a0f4a8-95f8-462c-bd7e-
, says...

Hell, we don't
even HAVE spacesuits that are good for more than a few EVAs.

We don't have 'Mars suits' at all, but that's just an engineering
problem.


we dont have a nuclear booster for travel between earth and mars and
back. is that fact just another engineering problem?

You've been told repeatedly by those who actually understand aerospace
engineering that a "nuclear booster" is *not* necessary for a trip to
Mars.

However, a "Mars EVA suit" is absolutely necessary for a manned Mars
mission. Otherwise, why send people at all if they can't set foot
outside their Mars lander?

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

fred is the most obnxious person here. he spews garbage and believes
he knows it all......

meanwhile he must of driven off many old time posters.

No Bob, that's you spewing garbage, not Fred.

Many of the "old time posters" said they were leaving due to the
horrible signal to noise ratio on Usenet newsgroups. *You're absolutely
one of the biggest contributors to the noise here.

Jeff


Fred insults near everyone who disagrees with him. he is just plain
obnxious.

If I say a nuclear booster is necessary for a manned mission to mars,
well just look at his responses.

He avoids the subject while insulting the posters

ME? I would rather discuss the topic

"bob haller" wrote in message
...



fred is the most obnxious person here. he spews garbage and believes
he knows it all......

meanwhile he must of driven off many old time posters.

No Bob, that's you spewing garbage, not Fred.

Many of the "old time posters" said they were leaving due to the
horrible signal to noise ratio on Usenet newsgroups. You're absolutely
one of the biggest contributors to the noise here.

Jeff


Fred insults near everyone who disagrees with him. he is just plain
obnxious.


I'll freely admit I'm no fan of Fred's style.

That said, he brings facts to the table. You tend to bring nonsense.


If I say a nuclear booster is necessary for a manned mission to mars,
well just look at his responses.

He avoids the subject while insulting the posters

ME? I would rather discuss the topic

See, I don't believe that. I believe you'd rather cast stuff out there,
ignore any facts and then 6 months later toss them out again.

You're like a stopped clock. Yes, twice a day you get to proclaim, "See, I
was right" but the rest of the time you're not very useful as a timepiece.

Brad on the other hand is the clock that loses a random amount of time each
day, so not only do you now know what time it is, it's rarely if ever
accurate and when it is, you're still not confident.





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

"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message ...

Fred J. McCall writes:

You keep making statements that are contrary to all known facts.

You mean like the $100 billion (in today's money) for about 80 EVA hours
on the Moon that Apollo managed to scrape together?

I think you really have to consider that closer to 160 hours since you've
got two people, independently looking, observing, etc. (i.e. even when
riding side by side, they're seeing different things.)


Most of it spent on
deploying experiments and generally using the crews as bio-robots? OK,
this was for six landings, but one landing on Mars isn't going to cover
much more ground than a robotic rover anyway.

Umm, sure it is. They'll cover more ground in a couple of days than a robot
rover has in 9 years. That was the metric that started this thread.


Do you REALLY think Apollo was about the science? With one (1) scientist
among the crews (on the last flight, after much pressure from the
scientific community)?

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. Watch From the Earth to the
Moon for a fun take on Apollo 15s training. There was definitely a fair
amount of science done on the Apollo missions to the Moon.

And I would guess that even more would be done on a Mars mission, in part
because you'll probably have a larger crew and the ability to specialize
members a bit more.



What do you think a manned Mars mission would cost? What could a crew do
in half a year that 100 rovers couldn't do in a decade?

They could easily cover twice as much ground. If Apollo 17 could do in a
couple of days what it took one rover to do in 9 years, I think it's safe a
larger crew (which again I think is more likely) with better equipment will
be quite capable of covering more ground.

Really, the only way more rovers wins out of a single crewed mission is
being able to land in vastly different parts of the planet.


Hell, we don't
even HAVE spacesuits that are good for more than a few EVAs. Half a
year? How much R&D money do you want to invest here and how many spare
parts do you want to bring? How much mass do you want to land on Mars to
allow those crews to do something worthwhile there for half a year?
Something that a rover couldn't?

As much mass as is necessary. Keep in mind too, it doesn't need to arrive
all at once. You can preposition a lot of it.


Come on, just tell me about that mission. Just tell me a rough cost
estimate, crew size, surface EVA time, range on the ground and what they
do there.

I'd estimate a crew size of 6-8 myself. Surface EVA time of around 720
hours or more. Range depends a lot on what they bring. Unpressurized rover,
easily cover most spots within say a 10-20km radius. If they have a
pressurized rover, probably closer to 100km.

Those are really just SWAGs. Time will tell how close any of us are.



Please back them up, if "even the most cursory look" proves your
point.

Enlighten us...

Seems as useful as shining a light at a black hole.


Jochem


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

In article 9cbfe5e2-c1b9-4f83-8588-
, says...

Fred insults near everyone who disagrees with him. he is just plain
obnxious.

Not so, just the loons, like you, who can't back up their absurd
assertions.

If I say a nuclear booster is necessary for a manned mission to mars,
well just look at his responses.

And there we are, the perfect example of a completely unsupported,
absurd, assertion. A "nuclear booster" is absolutely not necessary for
a manned mission to Mars.

He avoids the subject while insulting the posters

ME? I would rather discuss the topic

Really? Where's that "rolls-eyes" smiley GIF when I need it...

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 Friday, May 24, 2013 10:17:00 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:


fred is the most obnxious person here. he spews garbage and believes

he knows it all......



meanwhile he must of driven off many old time posters.



No Bob, that's you spewing garbage, not Fred.



Many of the "old time posters" said they were leaving due to the

horrible signal to noise ratio on Usenet newsgroups. *You're absolutely

one of the biggest contributors to the noise here.



Jeff





Fred insults near everyone who disagrees with him. he is just plain

obnxious.



If I say a nuclear booster is necessary for a manned mission to mars,

well just look at his responses.



He avoids the subject while insulting the posters



ME? I would rather discuss the topic

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