|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Drive on Opportunity
Jeff Findley writes:
Unmanned rovers "doing science" is quite inferior to manned missions returning *many* samples to *far* better equipped earth based labs for detailed analyses. You're comparing apples to truckloads of oranges. Manned missions are (would be) much more expensive, especially if you want more than flags and footprints. And for the costs of a manned mission you could literally spray Mars with rovers and return lots of selected samples if you want to. But all of this has been discussed to death already. Nobody in his right mind will ever propose manned Mars missions for "science" if he has to pay for it. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Drive on Opportunity
"Greg (Strider) Moore" writes:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ... And exactly how many samples did *all* of the Mars rovers return to earth? Zero. How much would a manned Mars mission cost? Even if you want to compare returned lunar samples, Apollo 11 returned 68 times the amount of material returned from all 3 Soviet sample return missions combined. And from a larger area. Selected during 2.5 hours of EVA time. And for much more money. Using people as biorobots is hideously expensive since you need to keep them breathing and drinking and eating and comfortable during years of no science being done at all. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Drive on Opportunity
..
Selected during 2.5 hours of EVA time. And for much more money. Using people as biorobots is hideously expensive since you need to keep them breathing and drinking and eating and comfortable during years of no science being done at all. * * * * Jochem plus the humans exhausts, like defecation, urine, bacteria, etc etc will contaminate the samples you are trying to collect |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Drive on Opportunity
Fred J. McCall writes:
Jochem Huhmann wrote: "Greg (Strider) Moore" writes: "Jeff Findley" wrote in message ... And exactly how many samples did *all* of the Mars rovers return to earth? Zero. How much would a manned Mars mission cost? How much would a robot return mission that brings back more than grams cost? Less than a mission that has to keep a crew alive for years in which no science at all is done. I agree that this might be different if we had better propulsion or could hibernate the crew (as robots do as a rule). But we haven't and we can't. And you can't be serious if you mean to say that a crew is so much better at selecting samples and launching them back? For all intents and purposes a crew wouldn't be much more than an extremely delicate and expensive payload most of the time. And every pound of equipment, supplies, crew quarters, shielding etc. you need to return the crew will be a pound of samples you can't return. Mind you, I agree that it would be better to have people there. But the direct and indirect costs of actually getting them there and back alive just isn't worth it. Even if you want to compare returned lunar samples, Apollo 11 returned 68 times the amount of material returned from all 3 Soviet sample return missions combined. And from a larger area. Selected during 2.5 hours of EVA time. And for much more money. It was still a better return on the money. Back then robotics was very much in its infancy. Again, using people as bio-robots is a bad idea especially when the travel times are measured in years. Propulsion and life support have hardly improved since Apollo but robotics have improved. A lot. That's the reason we have rovers on Mars and no crews. Using people as biorobots is hideously expensive since you need to keep them breathing and drinking and eating and comfortable during years of no science being done at all. Do you want results or do you want to just putter for decades? I prefer the results of robotic misssions that actually happen over dreaming about manned missions that don't happen and that nobody wants to pay for. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Drive on Opportunity
Fred J. McCall writes:
How much would a robot return mission that brings back more than grams cost? Less than a mission that has to keep a crew alive for years in which no science at all is done. Non-response noted. Do you expect me to tell you what a robotic return mission would cost in absolute terms? I agree that this might be different if we had better propulsion or could hibernate the crew (as robots do as a rule). But we haven't and we can't. Irrelevant. Why? It costs mass and money to carry the crew there and back and keep them alive. Nothing of that contributes to science, it's just a very delicate payload. Hint: Look at how much 'science' a pair of rovers on Mars have done over a DECADE and realize that humans could cover the same ground in a few days. "Covering ground" is not science. You need time for science, not speed. And that's why a crew could do what the rovers have taken a decade to do simply by working over a long weekend. I doubt that very much, but even if this were true: You don't get a crew there and back for $800 million. Robotics are *still* "in their infancy" and will be for a long, long time to come. Robotics has come a long way in the last 50 years, while manned spaceflight works very much the same. That's the reason we have rovers on Mars but no crews. I prefer not paying for your toasters and the uncertainty in their results. Don't count on a lot more rovers, either. No Buck Rogers, no bucks has been the historical pattern on these things. If there is any pattern here it proves that manned spaceflight is done for political reasons and not for science. Talking up the science aspect is nice as long as you just want to argue but as soon as there's real money to be spent people want to see actual numbers and mission objectives and then unmanned missions will always win. There's no better way to make sure that there never will be any manned missions to Mars than pretending that you want to see manned missions because you can do more science for the dollar then. Because you can't. You sound very much like all the people in the fifties expecting huge space stations in LEO with crews of specialists staring through telescopes. Didn't work out this way and the reasons for that are even more obvious today and more important for missions to other planets. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Drive on Opportunity
Fred J. McCall writes:
You sound very much like all the people in the fifties expecting huge space stations in LEO with crews of specialists staring through telescopes. Didn't work out this way and the reasons for that are even more obvious today and more important for missions to other planets. You sound like all the toaster fans everywhere at any time of your choosing. If people aren't going, stop wasting my money. Thanks for confirming that it's not about "science" for you. You want people going and all the talk about science is just an excuse. Nothing wrong with wanting manned missions, by the way. Just don't pretend it's about science. Because if you do so every mission proposal that is looked at from a cost/benefit POV will be shot down immediately then. Well, it's not me you need to convince anyway. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Drive on Opportunity
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:41:39 AM UTC-4, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Fred J. McCall writes: You sound very much like all the people in the fifties expecting huge space stations in LEO with crews of specialists staring through telescopes. Didn't work out this way and the reasons for that are even more obvious today and more important for missions to other planets. You sound like all the toaster fans everywhere at any time of your choosing. If people aren't going, stop wasting my money. Thanks for confirming that it's not about "science" for you. You want people going and all the talk about science is just an excuse. Nothing wrong with wanting manned missions, by the way. Just don't pretend it's about science. Because if you do so every mission proposal that is looked at from a cost/benefit POV will be shot down immediately then. Well, it's not me you need to convince anyway. Jochem Of course it's not just about science! It's about exploration and human curiosity. To paraphrase why we should send people to Mars: "Because it's there"! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Drive on Opportunity
On May 22, 10:21*am, Dean wrote:
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:41:39 AM UTC-4, Jochem Huhmann wrote: Fred J. McCall writes: You sound very much like all the people in the fifties expecting huge space stations in LEO with crews of specialists staring through telescopes. Didn't work out this way and the reasons for that are even more obvious today and more important for missions to other planets. You sound like all the toaster fans everywhere at any time of your choosing. *If people aren't going, stop wasting my money. Thanks for confirming that it's not about "science" for you. You want people going and all the talk about science is just an excuse. Nothing wrong with wanting manned missions, by the way. Just don't pretend it's about science. Because if you do so every mission proposal that is looked at from a cost/benefit POV will be shot down immediately then. Well, it's not me you need to convince anyway. * * * * Jochem Of course it's not just about science! *It's about exploration and human curiosity. *To paraphrase why we should send people to Mars: *"Because it's there"! Currently the bucks arent available to send humans....... but good science can be done robotically |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Drive on Opportunity
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Liberals can't drive well either | Saul Levy | Misc | 0 | June 6th 06 12:42 AM |
NASA Announcement of Opportunity for the New Frontiers Program 2003and Missions of Opportunity | Alex R. Blackwell | Space Science Misc | 0 | October 10th 03 08:43 PM |
NASA Announcement of Opportunity for the New Frontiers Program 2003and Missions of Opportunity | Alex R. Blackwell | Science | 0 | October 10th 03 07:42 PM |
NASA Announcement of Opportunity for the New Frontiers Program 2003and Missions of Opportunity | Alex R. Blackwell | Technology | 0 | October 10th 03 07:42 PM |
Ion drive | bluherron | Misc | 5 | August 8th 03 11:34 PM |