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

In article 2f13adf6-0dca-4e28-adda-
, says...

hey fred. are you so embarased of your posts you make them evaporate
poof gone?

Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jan 31, 10:17
pm).

Why are you bringing up this again? It has absolutely nothing to do
with the topic at hand.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

In article 5f89f19b-284e-4684-857e-c1a632f61055@
15g2000vbz.googlegroups.com, says...

Well a commercial pilot went postal and nearly crashed a fed X
airliner into the headquarters......
snip

Yes, Bob, we all read the news and I'm sure we're all aware of the facts
of this case. He was not a fighter pilot. He was not in a sleeper
cell. He didn't have anything to do with terrorists or terrorism.

He did appear to be mentally deranged and was attempting to cause
monetary harm to his employer while committing suicide so his family
could cash in on his $2.5 million dollar life insurance policy.

If you want to use this case as evidence that the US needs to change
something, use it as evidence that we need better mental health care.
Use it as evidence that FedEx needs to keep closer tabs on the mental
health of its pilots and other employees. Don't try to twist it into an
example of how the US could be attacked by a fighter pilot who's in a
sleeper cell because it makes you look like you are an example of why
the US needs better mental health care.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:16:58 -0500, Mike Ash wrote:

Yes, I think getting the people together would be even more difficult
than getting the money to just charter a jet. You could buy tickets for
nonexistent people to keep other people off the plane. I wonder how
likely it is for someone to notice that this flight has a vastly higher
than normal no-show rate, and raise a red flag due to that.

Don't stand by passengers take those seats?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:04:28 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
wrote:

So? Again, 9/11 was a terrible tragedy but it wasn't the end of the
world, and treating it like something other than the big crime that it
was is our mistake. That's what terrorists WANT. Terror, you changing
your behavior because of them, you acting on THEIR agenda, making the
ones captured feel big and important instead of, as Agatha Christie used
to say, a nasty bit of goods what's been found out.

In any event, a terrorist could TRY to take over the plane. Might or
might not succeed. Might just end crashing somewhere he didn't intend.
I, personally, would look more to trains for real disaster potential.

The solution to 9/11 was implemented over the skies of Pennsylvania.
Then the politicians took over.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

In article a53ca0e5-1255-43d1-907c-c91d99ba7bd1
@a10g2000vby.googlegroups.com, says...

really a single trip to moon or mars is a waste of effort. we need a
sustainable mars and moon base.

Baseless assertion. We don't "need" any such thing in order to explore
Mars and the Moon. Fixed based don't allow you to explore much. Mars
isn't a small place.

trouble is the costs are even more astronomical, making it impossible
to fund

and give a little thought to the added supplies for 300 to 500 days on
mars means.

It's obvious you have not done so. It's really not *that* bad, even if
you assume zero closed life support. Let's look at the Skylab numbers.
There was no closed life support there.

Obviously you don't know how much it would weigh, so let's look at Skylab (I've done this several times over the life of Usenet, so I keep a copy of the data around for just such an occasion).

Here is data on Skylab consumables:
LAUNCH END OF MISSION CONSUMABLES USED

Water 6000 LBS 1710 LBS 4290 LBS
Oxygen 6100 LBS 2764 LBS 3336 LBS
Nitrogen 1540 LBS 607 LBS 933 LBS

Total weight of consumables used over Skylab's manned missions is 8559
lbs.

Skylab mission durations:
MISSION SL-2 SL-3 SL-4 Total
DURATION 28 DAYS 59 DAYS 84 DAYS 171 DAYS
49 MIN 11 HRS 9 MIN 01 HR 16 MIN 13 HRS 14 MIN

So that's about 17 lbs of consumables per person per day for H2O, O2,
and N2. Another website says that 4.2 pounds of food was provided on ?
Skylab per person per day. This included the weight of the packaging.
So that's a bit over 20 lbs per person per day for a completely open
life support system (no recycling of anything).

many more rockets, because it isnt just food and water its everything
else like spare parts and supplies.

to maintain 10 people for a near year trip each way and 300 to 500
days on mars...... any idea of what all that would weigh? at current
launch costs it will look like the national debt, totally out of
control....

Your hypothetical is 10 people for a total mission duration of about
1000 days to 1200 days. That works out to 200,000 lbs to 240,000 lbs of
consumables for a completely open system. To put that into perspective,
the mass of Skylab in orbit was about 170,000 lbs. It's not that
hideous of a number when you consider how big and heavy your Mars lander
is going to need to be to support 10 people on the surface of Mars for a
year or two.

At any rate, let's look at a closed life support system which recycles
CO2 and excess H20 back into O2 and recycles water for drinking and
bathing as well. Note that nitrogen is really only needed for
replenishment of leaks and EVA's (which is why you really want to pump
down your airlock and recycle the air instead of just venting it all).
As you've already been told, we're learning how to do closed life
support on ISS. In other words, we're going to recycle everything but
food.

Food massed 4.2 lbs per person per day for Skylab, so food consumables
work out to 42,000 lbs to 50,400 lbs for your proposed 10 person Mars
mission. Are you asserting that this is not doable? It certainly
doesn't sound like much to me, considering how much a manned Mars lander
is going to weigh.

Also note that the mass of your Mars lander doesn't depend much on how
long you are going to stay on the surface. Extending the mission time
does increase consumables needed (food), but wouldn't increase much
else.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

Also note that the mass of your Mars lander doesn't depend much on how
long you are going to stay on the surface. *Extending the mission time
does increase consumables needed (food), but wouldn't increase much
else. *

Jeff
--

so your planning on running a mars shuttle to bring supplies down?

mission duration so far from earth means the crew will likey need
triple margins in case any supply ship has a loss or they cant get
home for any reason which is why i said triple margins. on everything
including spare space suits spare parts and supplies Isnt mars soil
abrasive? For such a long mission they will need ways to travel all
around the planet, adding more weight more costs and more risks

let alone more food, astronauts on mars will be working hard and
likely need more food than a skylab crew.

as the length of the stay goes up to get more science done both does
the overall mission cost, and the cancer risk....

if we had unlimited money, political support, and everything else for
20 or 30 years its possible.

how many think its likey or even possible?

A egypt air co pilot appears to have crashed a commercial airliner
too. It ended up in the ocean and everyone died.

Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jan 31, 10:17
pm).

Why are you bringing up this again? *It has absolutely nothing to do
with the topic at hand.

Jeff

Fred must be embarased of his posts so he makes them evaporate.....
cant say I blame him......

On 1/25/11 7:34 AM, Jonathan wrote:
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. wrote in message
...


Okay, that would make it anyone 30 or over has a reasonable chance of
seeing it, and anyone in their late teens can be pretty sure of seeing it.
Again, far, FAR cry from "virtually no one".


But the Mars Science Lab flies next year!

I wanna know now...dammit~

And even if it were only 20 years out, the rovers might
have already saturated us with data on Mars.

This is a Whole. Frickin'. PLANET.

What do you mean "saturated"? All the rovers you can send out in 20
years won't be able to do a lot of the things human beings can do in 1
year on site, which is pretty much the minimum once you get there.
There'll be a lot of data, but that's true no matter how you explore it.




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

On 1/25/11 10:20 AM, wrote:
A egypt air co pilot appears to have crashed a commercial airliner
too. It ended up in the ocean and everyone died.


So?

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