Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

On Jan 29, 4:07*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 29, 6:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:





"Jonathan" wrote:

wrote in message
....
On Jan 26, 6:43 pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article deef1644-9c05-4c21-8936-6ef5125d1b90
@j19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, says...

nope 1000 times more ambitious and posters here ran it to a amazing
500 days on mars, in a attempt to show some science from it.

No, Mars surface stay times on the order of 300 to 500 days is dictated
by orbital mechanics (i.e. to keep the size of the rocket stages needed
to get to and from Mars to a reasonable size). You've been told this,
but you seem to be unwilling to accept the laws of physics.

These same laws of physics means the mission would be limited to
two or three weeks on the surface so as not to miss the ride home.

Read it again, you bloody great loon. *"Martian surface stay times"
*IS* "on the surface".

Because if you think we can send a mission directly from Earth
to Mars and support a multi-year colony, you are deluded.
Such an ambitious plan would require a moon base ...first.

Really? *For what?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Moon base would be good to learn operations..

But the 500 day plus round trip is unsupportable......- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, Cite your source, please (unless it's just in your head). And no,
Popular Science doesn't count.

In article ,
Howard Brazee wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 07:45:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

a group of terrorist might get together to attack a target. perhaps
one plane wouldnt do much, but 5 all flown at the same target?


Would do five times zero damage. Do you have any idea how little a
typical general aviation aircraft weighs?

I suspect they wouldn't select a "typical general aviation aircraft",
but instead pick one that could carry a load similar to, say, the load
used in the Oklahoma City bombing.

No doubt, however the context was small planes.

An airplane which can carry 7,000 pounds of cargo (the approximate size
of the OK City bomb) is going to require substantial amounts of money to
acquire and substantial amounts of training to fly.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Jan 29, 12:14*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 29, 1:20*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Jan 28, 6:59*pm, " wrote:

private industry isnt given a cost plus contract to build robots.

they are given a list of requirements, and more challenging goals.

they bid the job for the basics, and get heavy duty bonuses for
exceeding minimum requirements.

their profit isnt in running up costs and times, its in building a
great design that exceeds expectations.

the futher over the minimum requirements the larger the profits....

and the contracted company gets to use the tech developed for free,
while everyone else pays license fees

That's now how it works in the real world, Bob. And you know it. There
has to be a profit motive in something before private industry gets
involved: or did you fail Econ 101?

my point is there are ways to structure a contract where its based on
performance. unlike current government contracts that are cost plus.

why not run the cost up its more profitable- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And that attracts the attention of budget-cutters. Or does that
concern you these days? I thought not. The GOP control of the House
may mean that the commercial side of ObamaSpace is in for some tough
times. And that means Orion on an EELV (which Lockheed-Martin is all
in favor of) for LEO. (i.e. ISS crew rotation)

wrote in message
...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...ag=mncol;lst;3



have you noticed the large heavy concrete planters / obstructions
around most public buildings so a truck bomber cant get close enough
to destroy a building....


When I was a kid growimg up in the DC area, it used to
be one could walk right into the Senate Office building
and into a Senator's office without so much as flashing
an id. There'd be a guard sitting at a desk watching
everyone come and go, but that was about it.

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" wrote in message
...
On 1/29/11 2:08 PM, Jonathan wrote:

These same laws of physics means the mission would be limited to
two or three weeks on the surface so as not to miss the ride home.

Um, no. What part of 300-500 days do you not understand?



Because if you think we can send a mission directly from Earth
to Mars and support a multi-year colony, you are deluded.
Such an ambitious plan would require a moon base ...first.

No, that would actually not be a particularly useful thing to do if your
goal is to go to Mars.


Well then, you tell me, how much would it cost and how long
to put a dozen or so people on Mars for several years?
And then try to justify that huge cost in terms of the
extra science it would return?

The burden is certainly heavy on the 'pro' side of this idea.






--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;; Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com
Blog: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

On Jan 29, 10:34*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Jan 29, 4:07*pm, " wrote:





On Jan 29, 6:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

"Jonathan" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 6:43 pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article deef1644-9c05-4c21-8936-6ef5125d1b90
@j19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, says...

nope 1000 times more ambitious and posters here ran it to a amazing
500 days on mars, in a attempt to show some science from it.

No, Mars surface stay times on the order of 300 to 500 days is dictated
by orbital mechanics (i.e. to keep the size of the rocket stages needed
to get to and from Mars to a reasonable size). You've been told this,
but you seem to be unwilling to accept the laws of physics.

These same laws of physics means the mission would be limited to
two or three weeks on the surface so as not to miss the ride home.

Read it again, you bloody great loon. *"Martian surface stay times"
*IS* "on the surface".

Because if you think we can send a mission directly from Earth
to Mars and support a multi-year colony, you are deluded.
Such an ambitious plan would require a moon base ...first.

Really? *For what?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Moon base would be good to learn operations..

But the 500 day plus round trip is unsupportable......- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, Cite your source, please (unless it's just in your head). And no,
Popular Science doesn't count.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

so wheres the money coming from for a 500 day stay on mars plus 8
months or so transit time each way.

wheres the MONEY?????????

besides the complexity of having a mission that far away with no
resupply ability for that long.

unless your willing to write off the crew in the event of a systems
failure....

OH WELL CREW DIED, next crew we wil try again

Even attempting to design and certify the equiptement for such a long
mission has unreal challenges. not only would the equiptement have to
be space certified for multi years, but the back up equiptement and
spare parts needs would be unreal.

picture this X will need 4 spares over the missions life based on its
mean failure time of a year. however we did have one fail in just 2
months. so make that 5 spares plus parts then to be on the safe side
double it.

so that one part now needs 10 spares and multiply that times
everything needed for the entire mission

and every item will have to be built to the highest tolerances and
even then for the entire mission someone can likely calculate the
chance of success.

I suspect they wouldn't select a "typical general aviation aircraft",
but instead pick one that could carry a load similar to, say, the load
used in the Oklahoma City bombing.

No doubt, however the context was small planes.

An airplane which can carry 7,000 pounds of cargo (the approximate size
of the OK City bomb) is going to require substantial amounts of money to
acquire and substantial amounts of training to fly.

--
Mike Ash

well the 9 11 terrorists were trained as pilots, and they can learn
those skills all over the world.

as for money the terrorists are well funded since we send a billion
dollars every day to the mid east for oil.

skimming off just 1% or more likely iran donating the funds money isnt
a problem

but such a large plane isnt necessary.

the terrorists can use SAMs surface to air missles to shoot down some
commercial airliners.

not only would this end air travel as we know it..........

airliners fly regular routes in the sky, just watch planes in the sky,
their routes are repetive.

a terrorist could use that route picking a shoot down spot that would
most likely bring debris into populated areas...

given all this a small plane flow into the open end of a sports
stadium, or dropping a small bomb thru the roof of the super bowl
would cause general chaos......

beyond all this the feds trying to prevent such a event is leading to
spying on everyone, and at some point the costs can bankrupt our
already bankrupt country...

refuse these security measures and they can proscute you..........

Bull****. *All they'll do is tell you to leave, since you aren't
flying today.

--

no you can be prscuted since it could be terrorists testing the
system, it made the news at the time of the new body scanners.

terorist hides something on their body and walks thru body
scanner........

they pass and board plane. terrorist is happy all set to kill soon

body scanner targets them for pat down, uh oh i will just leave this
method didnt work.

i havent heard if anyones been proscuted, but its certain TSA
can........

Perform the same exercise with regard to an unmanned program.


whats spirit and opportuniity cost to date?

whats the cost of a manned mission?

ISS is a great example of spending boatloads of bucks for very little
science. Given nasas lying I doubt anyone will let them get away with
it again.

Hey were building shuttle it will fly weekly and the cost to orbit
will be nearly free, and safe too.

meanwhile nasa knew it was a lie

Hey were building ISS to do earth shattering science.

meanwhile nasa knew it was a lie

so does anyone believe the voters will fall for that again?

hey were going to mars, it will be awesome and on budget......

yep quadruple the budget 10 times the time to build and likely kill a
crew.......

Perform the same exercise with regard to an unmanned program.
\

unmanned can be continious and incremental over 20 years or more.

manned will be one big effort, culminated by probably a single manned
landing at unreal cost and risks.

killing the first crew to land on mars wouldnt be good......

we can probably get more science from unmanned missions spanning 20 or
30 years

while minimizing costs and risks.