Drive on Opportunity

Fred J. McCall writes:

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.

Your attempts to put words in my mouth don't change the facts on the
ground. Humans are orders of magnitude more effective than toasters.

Effective for what? For some things, yes (like driving around and
selecting samples). For some other things, no (like measuring things for
hours or days). They also need to be kept alive from launch to return
regardless of what they do, useful or not. This drives the efficiency
way down.

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.

Only by ignorant sods who will not look at the facts.

People who have to pay the bills are usually very motivated to look at
the facts and at what they get for the money.

Well, it's not me you need to convince anyway.

Do you see any big Mars probes in the pipeline that aren't directly
tied to the idea that they're scouting for humans?

Well, the only mission in the pipeline ist InSight, wich is a lander
mission with a drill and seismometer to determine the interior structure
of Mars, hardly "scouting for humans". Surely nothing where a crew would
be orders of magnitude more efficient either.


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

Dean writes:

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"!

Exactly. Reason enough if you ask me.

I'm not saying that manned missions are wrong, I'm just saying that
pretending that crews are more efficient for science is the best way to
prevent manned missions because even the most cursory look at that
proves it to be wrong. Manned spaceflight never is really about science
(even if there is usually science tacked on if you're going 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

lets use ISS as a example of efficency.

most astronaut time is spent maintaing the station, only a small
percentage is spent on science.

the crew MUST eat, sleep, maintain the station, and theres no mars
dust to deal with....

by the time you get a crew to mars there will be little time for
exploring since they will be so busy doing all the required things to
stay alive

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

lets use ISS as a example of efficency.

most astronaut time is spent maintaing the station, only a small
percentage is spent on science.

Bob, why do you keep repeating this myth despite me more than once sending
you documentation proving you wrong?


the crew MUST eat, sleep, maintain the station, and theres no mars
dust to deal with....

by the time you get a crew to mars there will be little time for
exploring since they will be so busy doing all the required things to
stay alive

Right. Just like the astronauts on the Moon had no time to go on EVAs and
perform science.

Oh wait.





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

In article aa14a738-b7e3-4f26-81ed-
, says...

lets use ISS as a example of efficency.

most astronaut time is spent maintaing the station, only a small
percentage is spent on science.

That may have been the case when ISS initially had a three person crew,
but that was only during the "construction" phase, so science wasn't the
top priority anyway.

This has *not* been the case since ISS has had a six person crew (I
believe since 2009), so the rest of your argument falls flat.

So, as usual, you're pulling "facts" out of your @$$ that turn out to be
wrong.

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 ,
says...

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

lets use ISS as a example of efficency.

most astronaut time is spent maintaing the station, only a small
percentage is spent on science.

Bob, why do you keep repeating this myth despite me more than once sending
you documentation proving you wrong?

Perhaps reading anything more complex than a short news article isn't
his forte?

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 ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

lets use ISS as a example of efficency.

Let's not, since it isn't an exploratory mission.


by the time you get a crew to mars there will be little time for
exploring since they will be so busy doing all the required things to
stay alive


Bull****. Would you like me to send you the schedule for such a crew?

It wouldn't do any good as he's already been sent this information.

He's apparently still living pre-2009 when ISS had a crew of only three
during the "construction" phase of the program. Perhaps Bob's mental
state is worse than mere delusions of grandeur of an office machine
repairman who thinks he's an aerospace engineer. Humility is certainly
not one of his stronger traits.

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 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? 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?

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.

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

--
"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

Jeff Findley writes:

That may have been the case when ISS initially had a three person crew,
but that was only during the "construction" phase, so science wasn't the
top priority anyway.

The ISS needs about two to two and a half crew members full time for
maintenance. This was one reason that there was hardly any science done
with a three person crew.

This surely has some consequences for a Mars mission since you will have
to leave your craft for about half a year in Orbit with the landing crew
down there, which either lets you keep a two or three men crew breathing
and drinking and eating up there just to keep the craft in shape (which
means basically wasting supplies because the crew can't do anything a
unmanned orbiter couldn't do just as well, so: no useful science) or
invest quite some more R&D and testing to ensure you can leave that
craft dormant for half a year.

There're lots of interesting things to discuss here, really. One could
perfectly take Bobs objections as a starting point to do that. But...

So, as usual, you're pulling "facts" out of your @$$ that turn out to be
wrong.

Say, what would the two or three halfway sane people in s.s.* do if Bob
decides to leave? Because it looks as if nobody is doing anything else
here but telling Bob what an idiot he is and that everything he says is
wrong. "No. No. No. You're an idiot. No. I know better. No.".

Pat was the last real reason I came here once in a while. Since he's
gone I'm coming back now and then just to see these groups decomposing.
It's a sad sight.

Well, I'm off. Happy fighting!


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

"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message ...


Say, what would the two or three halfway sane people in s.s.* do if Bob
decides to leave? Because it looks as if nobody is doing anything else
here but telling Bob what an idiot he is and that everything he says is
wrong. "No. No. No. You're an idiot. No. I know better. No.".

I will admit this is an ongoing problem, far too few folks on usenet these
days and the % of them who are... less than reasonable is way too high.



Pat was the last real reason I came here once in a while. Since he's
gone I'm coming back now and then just to see these groups decomposing.
It's a sad sight.


It's not what it used to be.

Wish I knew how to attract more interested people.

I just renewed the account so I can continue to moderate sci.space.science
and sci.space.tech, but this is probably the last year.


Well, I'm off. Happy fighting!


Jochem


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