Radiation hazards in a trip to Mars

In article ,
says...

jacob navia wrote:

The radiation measurement experiments aboard Curiosity during its trip
to mars yielded its first results. In a press conference, NASA stated:

quote
The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal
Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed
NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are used.
end quote


Certainly, if you don't take steps to actually shield them.

DOH!


This doesn't surprise me, we have been arguing this for several years in
this group.

Now it is established beyond reasonable doubt.


'Could' establishes nothing at all. It's scare-mongering by folks
with their own agenda of sending toasters.

No doubt. This is data coming from an unmanned probe being reported by
the team tasked with collecting the data from an unmanned probe. They
might very well have an axe to grind here. Besides, we can never
collect too much data from too many unmanned probes, can we?

Obviously, at some point, we have to stop studying the problem and "just
do it". Unfortunately, with SLS gobbling up so much money, I fear we'll
be studying a manned mission to Mars for some time to come.

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 c5769111-40d6-4a6c-8439-
, says...

I wonder why Fred is so gun ho about humans to mars? he dismisses a
nuke booster as unnecessary despite the fact it would cut travel time
a lot, while minimizing deep space radiation exposure, and cutting
consumables a lot, to say nothing of mimzing the travel part to have
more ground time on mars..

Because there is no such thing as "nuke booster". The cost and risk of
actually developing such a thing would be very hard to pin down. Safety
rules today are *not* the same as they were when NERVA looked like a
program which would come to fruition.

I'm also confused why you're so gung-ho to replace long duration
radiation exposure with radiation exposure caused by a nuclear engine.
Do you have any idea what this trade-off means?

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 May 31, 6:06*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...











The radiation measurement experiments aboard Curiosity during its trip
to mars yielded its first results. In a press conference, NASA stated:

quote
The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal
Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed
NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are used.
end quote

This doesn't surprise me, we have been arguing this for several years in
this group.

Now it is established beyond reasonable doubt.

jacob

Note the word *could* in the statement. *Also note that the current
limits are intended to only increase the cancer risk of an astronaut by
a mere 3%. *It may very well be that NASA can find volunteers willing to
accept a higher risk than that in order to fly a mission to Mars. *Heck,
I'd bet you'd find volunteers even if the increased risk of cancer was
30% or higher.

Note the risk that Apollo astronauts took. *A solar flare event was a
real risk, and the Apollo CSM/LEM combination offered little in the way
of a "radiation shield". *Not to mention the risk inherent in the
missions themselves (e.g. Apollo 1 and Apollo 13).

And finally, NASA has a long history of writing rules which are
subsequently re-written. Note also that NASA gets to write wavers to its
own rules (the shuttle program was quite famous for this), even if they
don't re-write the rules.

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

Any extended space travels to/from Mars is simply wide open to
receiving direct CME hits or any number of local and cosmic events
giving off hard X-rays and gamma. The odds of surviving as relatively
unscathed is unlikely, and complications added to many other
physiological considerations of zero gravity, is why the one-way
ticket to Mars is by far offering the best solution for those willing
to sacrifice a few years off their otherwise healthy and productive
lives.

BTW; a premature death from cancer(s) is one of the worse ways to go,
unless you're drugged out of your mind.

Le 31/05/13 15:06, Jeff Findley a écrit :
In article , says...

The radiation measurement experiments aboard Curiosity during its trip
to mars yielded its first results. In a press conference, NASA stated:

quote
The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal
Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed
NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are used.
end quote

This doesn't surprise me, we have been arguing this for several years in
this group.

Now it is established beyond reasonable doubt.

jacob

Note the word *could* in the statement.

Yes, that means that the trip hasn't happened.

Also note that the current
limits are intended to only increase the cancer risk of an astronaut by
a mere 3%. It may very well be that NASA can find volunteers willing to
accept a higher risk than that in order to fly a mission to Mars. Heck,
I'd bet you'd find volunteers even if the increased risk of cancer was
30% or higher.


The dose is 1.8 mS/day. For a 3 years exposure (around 1000 days) you
have 1.8 Sievert total dose.

1 Sievert increases your chance of getting cancer by 5%, 1.8 sievert is
9% increase in the cancer probability.

Now, of those 100 days, around 600-700 will be spent in Mars, where a
thin atmosphere will reduce the risk a bit, but they will be confronted
to radioactive soil/rocks in the surface whose radiation level is
unknown (it is being measured by the experiment right now in mars)

Note the risk that Apollo astronauts took. A solar flare event was a
real risk, and the Apollo CSM/LEM combination offered little in the way
of a "radiation shield". Not to mention the risk inherent in the
missions themselves (e.g. Apollo 1 and Apollo 13).


Moon missions are very short (1-2 weeks) so the total dose is 1.8 mS *14
days = 25.2 mS, around 1/40 of 5 percent increase, i.e. 0.125% increase
in the cancer probability, well below the 3% of NASA.

And finally, NASA has a long history of writing rules which are
subsequently re-written. Note also that NASA gets to write wavers to its
own rules (the shuttle program was quite famous for this), even if they
don't re-write the rules.


Well, if you want to have suicide missions, where the guys get to go to
Mars and die later I do not support that, even if they sign a
disclaimer.


Jeff

In article , says...

Le 31/05/13 15:06, Jeff Findley a écrit :
In article , says...

The radiation measurement experiments aboard Curiosity during its trip
to mars yielded its first results. In a press conference, NASA stated:

quote
The findings, which are published in the May 31 edition of the journal
Science, indicate radiation exposure for human explorers could exceed
NASA's career limit for astronauts if current propulsion systems are used.
end quote

This doesn't surprise me, we have been arguing this for several years in
this group.

Now it is established beyond reasonable doubt.

jacob

Note the word *could* in the statement.

Yes, that means that the trip hasn't happened.

No, it means what it says, that if a manned Mars mission happens, it
"could exceed NASA's career limit for astronauts".

Also note that the current
limits are intended to only increase the cancer risk of an astronaut by
a mere 3%. It may very well be that NASA can find volunteers willing to
accept a higher risk than that in order to fly a mission to Mars. Heck,
I'd bet you'd find volunteers even if the increased risk of cancer was
30% or higher.


The dose is 1.8 mS/day. For a 3 years exposure (around 1000 days) you
have 1.8 Sievert total dose.

1 Sievert increases your chance of getting cancer by 5%, 1.8 sievert is
9% increase in the cancer probability.

Now, of those 100 days, around 600-700 will be spent in Mars, where a
thin atmosphere will reduce the risk a bit, but they will be confronted
to radioactive soil/rocks in the surface whose radiation level is
unknown (it is being measured by the experiment right now in mars)

The atmosphere may be thin, but the *planet* is not. When on Mars, you
have an entire planet shielding you from roughly 1/2 of the cosmic
background radidation.

Note the risk that Apollo astronauts took. A solar flare event was a
real risk, and the Apollo CSM/LEM combination offered little in the way
of a "radiation shield". Not to mention the risk inherent in the
missions themselves (e.g. Apollo 1 and Apollo 13).


Moon missions are very short (1-2 weeks) so the total dose is 1.8 mS *14
days = 25.2 mS, around 1/40 of 5 percent increase, i.e. 0.125% increase
in the cancer probability, well below the 3% of NASA.

And finally, NASA has a long history of writing rules which are
subsequently re-written. Note also that NASA gets to write wavers to its
own rules (the shuttle program was quite famous for this), even if they
don't re-write the rules.


Well, if you want to have suicide missions, where the guys get to go to
Mars and die later I do not support that, even if they sign a
disclaimer.

So much for freedom for an individual too choose his own fate. I'd not
be against such a mission. How many people died exploring locations on
earth, like Antartica? Have we become so risk averse that we can't
explore without fear others will be sad if they die on an expedition?
Really?

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

Le 31/05/13 22:54, Jeff Findley a écrit :
jacob navia
Well, if you want to have suicide missions, where the guys get to go to
Mars and die later I do not support that, even if they sign a
disclaimer.

So much for freedom for an individual too choose his own fate.

There is nothing to choose. We will all die anyway, wherever we want
it or not. Suicide lets you have the illusion that you gain something
by accelerating the end.

If somebody wants to die by going to Mars it is OK with me. But why
should he be encouraged by other people that will let him explore
and die, giving him the means to accomplish that?

There is NOTHING a human can do in Mars (or in the moon) that can't
be done by another human sitting in his office and commanding a
robot.

The point of manned expeditions is to prepare the environment for
mankind as a whole to go in space, i.e. to prepare an environment where
anyone can go to space in the same way like today we go into any place
on earth.

The problem with trying to compete with teleguided robots is that you
can't. You (and Mr McCall) are waging a lost war against "toasters"
where you will always loose: a "toaster" of course is not intelligent
but it can become very intelligent if it is teleguided by another
human. The Opportunity team is proving that every day since 9 years:
exploring Mars TODAY with NO risks at all for anyone.

Manned exploration is to be understood as preparing the way to go out of
this planet into other worlds where we will organize human colonies
and human rated ENVIRONMENTS!

There is just NO POINT of a suicide mission.

What for?

Just for the fun of dying? Nobody will follow the suicidal space farer
of course.

I'd not
be against such a mission.

Yes, I know. You are saying this since ages. But FOR WHAT?

WHAT IS THE POINT of such a suicidal mission?

To explore Mars? We can do that by remote control in a MUCH more
efficient way. Our computers are improving, artificial intelligence
software to give high level commands (go there) and the robot figuring
out how to go there itself in Mars are already a reality, NASA is using
them with the 2 robots exploring Mars TODAY. And they can do (as
Curiosity has proved) quite sophisticated chemical analysis IN SITU,
together with boring the soil, traveling around, taking photographs,
analyzing, recording, measuring the mars
environment (wind speed, temperature whatever) in a way humans could
never do since they can't stay 24/24 7/7 365 days per year doing
science, tourism, even astronomy as a machine can do!

How many people died exploring locations on
earth, like Antartica?

But in those times there weren't any ROBOTS. You just COULD NOT send a
robot to Antarctica and see whats going on.

So *they had no other choice* but to risk their lives.

But what you still do not understand is that today the situation has
CHANGED and that we DO have robots!

And it would be much better if you (and many people that want the manned
exploration of space to continue) to argue about the REAL
value of manned exploration: as a way of preparing the environment for
all the rest of the human race to go into space!

THAT IS A WORTHY GOAL. And that can't be done by robots!

And it is a risky road mind you. Many people have left their lives after
Gagarin started this. There is NO POINT in taking risks that do
not bring anything new just for the fun of it!

What would the astronaut bring back to us (if he ever makes it back)?

Some photos? Some measurements? A rock as souvenir from Mars?

WHAT?

What that can't be done much cheaper by a "toaster" ???

NOTHING. He would bring us nothing at all.


Have we become so risk averse that we can't
explore without fear others will be sad if they die on an expedition?

We can explore and there are risks to be taken. But there is NO POINT in
suicidal missions. Space is risky enough. There is no point in sending
humans to die for nothing. Only when there is a worthy GOAL
risks are justified. But dying for taking photos of Mars?

Why not just look at the photos of Opportunity today?

You need to understand that space exploration will NOT be as we imagined
when we read the Buck Rogers comics.

Space needs a new kind of human and a new kind of machine.

Space exploration will be done by CYBORGS.

Just take a cyborg like Opportunity in Mars. The machine is guided by
its designers, but gives to its designers capabilities they do NOT
have, like resisting all this radiation filled trip, the freezing
temperatures and the lack of oxygen and food without a hitch, and
starting to do measurements and environment sensing for years!

That does NOT mean that we will stay on earth FOREVER of course. We
will build space colonies in this century, and humans will start to
leave their planet and explore the solar system. But that is a long
development that will take decades.

That is why I propose "smaller" missions to the moon, not Mars. Because
the objective of those missions is not to explore the moon but to
settle humans in the moon you see?

Really?


Really.

Serious space exploration needs a new mind-set Mr Findley.

No more Buck Rogers. But facts.

The fact is, we want (as a species) to explore, to know what is in
there because we are humans.

This species has always tried to look what is beyond the horizon and we
will go on.

We will build a symbiosis with machines, that will enhance our body (as
they always have done by the way)

The artic explorers weren't naked. They had means of protecting
themselves from cold, they had ways to orient themselves in the white
desert, the trip was risky but doable. Some had bad luck, some
succeeded, but it is obvious that they weren't suicidal.

The objective now, in this new trip we started a few decades ago, is to
prepare many people, to go to space and put human outposts in each
planet of the system.

We need the technology to build big ships, that rotate, are shielded
from radiation, and guarantee the crew the maximal survival chances.

Nobody CARES about suicidal missions. They wouldn't bring the goal of
having an outpost in each planet of the system any nearer.

We have now only ONE: The ISS. But it is a start.

A Moon outpost will follow, then a Mars outpost.

They are all feasible with current technology albeit it is much more
effort than a capsule a few meters long.

It must be hundreds of meters, shielded environments, with a small
ecological system to allow very long trips. Heavy ships go slowly
since our propulsion technology is at its start.

But we have done that already.

The exploration of the Pacific (Tahiti, Easter island, etc) show us that
a small group of people can survive for very long trips in a few dozens
of meters.

And now it is much easier in a sense, since we KNOW where we are going,
and do NOT have to support the pressure of not knowing (imagine) if we
will hit an island!!!!!

Those were really risks!

And in that time it was the only option.

NOW it is no longer necessary, but other, new risks are surely in store
for us.

Let's go then. But remember that the goal is to allow humans to live,
work, travel and see for themselves the great spaces beyond the horizon.

Not to just try to replace the "toasters".

Jeff


Jacob

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


Note the word *could* in the statement. Also note that the current
limits are intended to only increase the cancer risk of an astronaut by
a mere 3%. It may very well be that NASA can find volunteers willing to
accept a higher risk than that in order to fly a mission to Mars. Heck,
I'd bet you'd find volunteers even if the increased risk of cancer was
30% or higher.


Note to, the INCREASE is 3%. It's not that 3% of the astronauts are
guaranteed to get cancer.

Heck, at this rate, the most dangerous part will be lift-off and re-entry
based on historical data.

And look at the number of volunteers who worked at Chernobyl and Fukashima.
(granted, the need was far more urgent).

But folks have stepped up to risks for many reasons.

Hell, look at the number of deaths on Mount Everest and the only reason
people climb it is recreational.

Note the risk that Apollo astronauts took. A solar flare event was a
real risk, and the Apollo CSM/LEM combination offered little in the way
of a "radiation shield". Not to mention the risk inherent in the
missions themselves (e.g. Apollo 1 and Apollo 13).


As dramatized in the "Apollo 18" mission of Michener's "Space".


And finally, NASA has a long history of writing rules which are
subsequently re-written. Note also that NASA gets to write wavers to its
own rules (the shuttle program was quite famous for this), even if they
don't re-write the rules.


Ayup.

And as I keep saying. It's a matter of mass. Through enough water/ice/etc at
the issue and it really isn't much of an issue. It's a cost issue, not
really an engineering issue.

Look, we're looking to fly the equivalent of the Spirit of St. Louis here,
NOT A United 747 flight. To twist Gene Krantz's famous quote:

Risk IS an option.


Jeff

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

"jacob navia" wrote in message ...

Le 31/05/13 15:06, Jeff Findley a écrit :

Now, of those 100 days, around 600-700 will be spent in Mars, where a
thin atmosphere will reduce the risk a bit, but they will be confronted
to radioactive soil/rocks in the surface whose radiation level is
unknown (it is being measured by the experiment right now in mars)


But, the planet itself reduces the risk from the very thing you're most
worried about cosmic rays.

And rocks don't simply get "radioactive" by exposure.

Note the risk that Apollo astronauts took. A solar flare event was a
real risk, and the Apollo CSM/LEM combination offered little in the way
of a "radiation shield". Not to mention the risk inherent in the
missions themselves (e.g. Apollo 1 and Apollo 13).


Moon missions are very short (1-2 weeks) so the total dose is 1.8 mS *14
days = 25.2 mS, around 1/40 of 5 percent increase, i.e. 0.125% increase
in the cancer probability, well below the 3% of NASA.


That's NOT what he was discussing. He was discussing the very real risk of
a solar flare which would have killed the crew in minutes or hours.

Note some of the Apollo missions were during the solar maximum.

And finally, NASA has a long history of writing rules which are
subsequently re-written. Note also that NASA gets to write wavers to its
own rules (the shuttle program was quite famous for this), even if they
don't re-write the rules.


Well, if you want to have suicide missions, where the guys get to go to
Mars and die later I do not support that, even if they sign a
disclaimer.



That's fine. You don't have to support it. But the folks paying the bills
and flying most likely will.


Jeff




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

"jacob navia" wrote in message ...

Le 31/05/13 22:54, Jeff Findley a écrit :
jacob navia
Well, if you want to have suicide missions, where the guys get to go to
Mars and die later I do not support that, even if they sign a
disclaimer.

So much for freedom for an individual too choose his own fate.

There is nothing to choose. We will all die anyway, wherever we want
it or not. Suicide lets you have the illusion that you gain something
by accelerating the end.

If somebody wants to die by going to Mars it is OK with me. But why should
he be encouraged by other people that will let him explore
and die, giving him the means to accomplish that?

There is NOTHING a human can do in Mars (or in the moon) that can't
be done by another human sitting in his office and commanding a
robot.


Except as has been shown, they can do it 100s of times faster.

The Mark I eyeball and the Mark I brain are very good at discrimination of
details that even with modern cameras and screens.


The point of manned expeditions is to prepare the environment for mankind
as a whole to go in space, i.e. to prepare an environment where anyone can
go to space in the same way like today we go into any place on earth.


That's A point. But we still go to Antarctica and no one is talking about
colonizing the south pole.

The problem with trying to compete with teleguided robots is that you
can't. You (and Mr McCall) are waging a lost war against "toasters" where
you will always loose: a "toaster" of course is not intelligent
but it can become very intelligent if it is teleguided by another
human. The Opportunity team is proving that every day since 9 years:
exploring Mars TODAY with NO risks at all for anyone.


So in 9 years they've done what 2 astronauts did in 3 days. And those 2
astronauts brought a lot of handpicked samples back to Earth. Many are still
being analyzed.

Manned exploration is to be understood as preparing the way to go out of
this planet into other worlds where we will organize human colonies
and human rated ENVIRONMENTS!

There is just NO POINT of a suicide mission.


Tell that to everyone who attempts Mt. Everest.

What for?


Many reasons, including "Because it's there."

Just for the fun of dying? Nobody will follow the suicidal space farer of
course.

I'd not
be against such a mission.

Yes, I know. You are saying this since ages. But FOR WHAT?

WHAT IS THE POINT of such a suicidal mission?

To explore Mars? We can do that by remote control in a MUCH more efficient
way. Our computers are improving, artificial intelligence software to give
high level commands (go there) and the robot figuring
out how to go there itself in Mars are already a reality, NASA is using
them with the 2 robots exploring Mars TODAY. And they can do (as
Curiosity has proved) quite sophisticated chemical analysis IN SITU,
together with boring the soil, traveling around, taking photographs,
analyzing, recording, measuring the mars
environment (wind speed, temperature whatever) in a way humans could never
do since they can't stay 24/24 7/7 365 days per year doing science,
tourism, even astronomy as a machine can do!


You seem to think it's either/or. You can certainly put a devices to
measure wind speed/temp, etc on your habitat.

How many people died exploring locations on
earth, like Antartica?

But in those times there weren't any ROBOTS. You just COULD NOT send a
robot to Antarctica and see whats going on.


"in those times". Those times are STILL occurring.

So *they had no other choice* but to risk their lives.

But what you still do not understand is that today the situation has
CHANGED and that we DO have robots!

And it would be much better if you (and many people that want the manned
exploration of space to continue) to argue about the REAL
value of manned exploration: as a way of preparing the environment for
all the rest of the human race to go into space!

THAT IS A WORTHY GOAL. And that can't be done by robots!

And it is a risky road mind you. Many people have left their lives after
Gagarin started this. There is NO POINT in taking risks that do
not bring anything new just for the fun of it!


Really? Tell that to the folks who sail around the world. Or the sailor
who died recently in an America's cup race.


What would the astronaut bring back to us (if he ever makes it back)?

Some photos? Some measurements? A rock as souvenir from Mars?

WHAT?

What that can't be done much cheaper by a "toaster" ???

NOTHING. He would bring us nothing at all.


Have we become so risk averse that we can't
explore without fear others will be sad if they die on an expedition?

We can explore and there are risks to be taken. But there is NO POINT in
suicidal missions. Space is risky enough. There is no point in sending
humans to die for nothing. Only when there is a worthy GOAL
risks are justified. But dying for taking photos of Mars?


Obviously you think science is limited to taking some pictures and grabbing
some random rocks.

Watch the From the Earth to the Moon episode on Apollo 15 where it makes a
good point of knowing WHICH rocks to grab are important. And they did their
job. Genesis Rock.

Again, it's not either/or. Yes, feet on the ground will take advantage of
robots and the like.

Why not just look at the photos of Opportunity today?

You need to understand that space exploration will NOT be as we imagined
when we read the Buck Rogers comics.

Space needs a new kind of human and a new kind of machine.

Space exploration will be done by CYBORGS.

Just take a cyborg like Opportunity in Mars. The machine is guided by
its designers, but gives to its designers capabilities they do NOT
have, like resisting all this radiation filled trip, the freezing
temperatures and the lack of oxygen and food without a hitch, and
starting to do measurements and environment sensing for years!

That does NOT mean that we will stay on earth FOREVER of course. We
will build space colonies in this century, and humans will start to
leave their planet and explore the solar system. But that is a long
development that will take decades.

That is why I propose "smaller" missions to the moon, not Mars. Because
the objective of those missions is not to explore the moon but to
settle humans in the moon you see?

Really?


Really.

Serious space exploration needs a new mind-set Mr Findley.

No more Buck Rogers. But facts.

The fact is, we want (as a species) to explore, to know what is in
there because we are humans.

This species has always tried to look what is beyond the horizon and we
will go on.

We will build a symbiosis with machines, that will enhance our body (as
they always have done by the way)

The artic explorers weren't naked. They had means of protecting themselves
from cold, they had ways to orient themselves in the white desert, the trip
was risky but doable. Some had bad luck, some succeeded, but it is obvious
that they weren't suicidal.

The objective now, in this new trip we started a few decades ago, is to
prepare many people, to go to space and put human outposts in each planet
of the system.

We need the technology to build big ships, that rotate, are shielded from
radiation, and guarantee the crew the maximal survival chances.

Nobody CARES about suicidal missions. They wouldn't bring the goal of
having an outpost in each planet of the system any nearer.

We have now only ONE: The ISS. But it is a start.

A Moon outpost will follow, then a Mars outpost.


Actually an orbiting hotel is probably next. That's my guess.

They are all feasible with current technology albeit it is much more
effort than a capsule a few meters long.

It must be hundreds of meters, shielded environments, with a small
ecological system to allow very long trips. Heavy ships go slowly
since our propulsion technology is at its start.

But we have done that already.

The exploration of the Pacific (Tahiti, Easter island, etc) show us that a
small group of people can survive for very long trips in a few dozens of
meters.

And now it is much easier in a sense, since we KNOW where we are going,
and do NOT have to support the pressure of not knowing (imagine) if we will
hit an island!!!!!

Those were really risks!

And in that time it was the only option.

NOW it is no longer necessary, but other, new risks are surely in store
for us.

Let's go then. But remember that the goal is to allow humans to live, work,
travel and see for themselves the great spaces beyond the horizon.

Not to just try to replace the "toasters".

Jeff


Jacob




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

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


No doubt. This is data coming from an unmanned probe being reported by
the team tasked with collecting the data from an unmanned probe. They
might very well have an axe to grind here. Besides, we can never
collect too much data from too many unmanned probes, can we?


BTW, for the fun of it, I decided to find some quotes from Steven Squyres:


http://www.space.com/6972-steve-squy...mans-mars.html

So, even the robotics guys think we should go.


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