A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Drive on Opportunity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 18th 13, 03:27 AM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Drive on Opportunity

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/17/43...rive-off-earth

35.76km. Second only to Lunokhod 2 (37km).

Note that taken about 9 years to do what the Apollo astronauts did in a few
days.

I'll take the Mark I eyeball on site when I can.

  #2  
Old May 18th 13, 06:21 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Drive on Opportunity

On May 17, 10:27*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/17/43...portunity-reco...

35.76km. *Second only to Lunokhod 2 (37km).

Note that taken about 9 years to do what the Apollo astronauts did in a few
days.

I'll take the Mark I eyeball on site when I can.


well if speed is what you want...... that can be done but science
along the way takes time
  #3  
Old May 19th 13, 05:26 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Drive on Opportunity

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On May 17, 10:27 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/17/43...portunity-reco...

35.76km. Second only to Lunokhod 2 (37km).

Note that taken about 9 years to do what the Apollo astronauts did in a
few
days.

I'll take the Mark I eyeball on site when I can.


well if speed is what you want...... that can be done but science
along the way takes time


You're missing the point but that's not surprising. Note the Apollo 17
astronauts were doing SCIENCE also. They could just do it about 1,000 times
faster.

The Apollo 17 astronauts weren't out joyriding.





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

  #4  
Old May 19th 13, 06:30 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Drive on Opportunity

On May 19, 12:26*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message

...



On May 17, 10:27 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/17/43...portunity-reco....


35.76km. *Second only to Lunokhod 2 (37km).


Note that taken about 9 years to do what the Apollo astronauts did in a
few
days.


I'll take the Mark I eyeball on site when I can.


well if speed is what you want...... that can be done but science
along the way takes time


You're missing the point but that's not surprising. *Note the Apollo 17
astronauts were doing SCIENCE also. *They could just do it about 1,000 times
faster.

The Apollo 17 astronauts weren't out joyriding.



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


remote controlled geologists can be the best geogolists on earth, with
super high def cameras it would be like they are there.....

  #5  
Old May 20th 13, 04:24 AM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Drive on Opportunity



remote controlled geologists can be the best geogolists on earth, with
super high def cameras it would be like they are there.....


Wrong again. *You've gone from missing the point to deliberate lies
about it. *Congratulations.


the apollo stronauts were good astronauts, but not necessarily the
best geologists on earth.

with super high def video, and excellent robotics good science can be
done, without worry abut human contamination


  #6  
Old May 20th 13, 12:42 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default Drive on Opportunity

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:24:57 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:


remote controlled geologists can be the best geogolists on earth, with


super high def cameras it would be like they are there.....




Wrong again. *You've gone from missing the point to deliberate lies


about it. *Congratulations.






the apollo stronauts were good astronauts, but not necessarily the

best geologists on earth.



with super high def video, and excellent robotics good science can be

done, without worry abut human contamination


Uh Bob? You do realize they were not on Earth? And they sure were the BEST geologists on the moon? Hmmm, should they be Selenologists?
  #7  
Old May 20th 13, 01:27 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Drive on Opportunity



"Dean" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:24:57 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:


the apollo stronauts were good astronauts, but not necessarily the

best geologists on earth.



with super high def video, and excellent robotics good science can be

done, without worry abut human contamination


Uh Bob? You do realize they were not on Earth? And they sure were the
BEST geologists on the moon? Hmmm, should they be Selenologists?


Exactly.

And I'd dare say that Jack Schmitt was an excellent geologist as well as the
best Selenogist. Had Apollo lasted longer (and certainly if the AAP had
occurred) the number of scientists on the Moon would have been much higher).

And as it was, the Astronauts who did walk on the Moon were fairly well
trained (given the time they had) as geologists.


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

  #8  
Old May 20th 13, 02:39 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Drive on Opportunity

In article 8d272993-61e1-4f41-9c84-
, says...

On May 17, 10:27*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/17/43...portunity-reco...

35.76km. *Second only to Lunokhod 2 (37km).

Note that taken about 9 years to do what the Apollo astronauts did in a few
days.

I'll take the Mark I eyeball on site when I can.


well if speed is what you want...... that can be done but science
along the way takes time


And exactly how many samples did *all* of the Mars rovers return to
earth? Zero.

Unmanned rovers "doing science" is quite inferior to manned missions
returning *many* samples to *far* better equipped earth based labs for
detailed analyses.

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
  #9  
Old May 20th 13, 02:45 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Drive on Opportunity

In article ,
says...


"Dean" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:24:57 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:


the apollo stronauts were good astronauts, but not necessarily the

best geologists on earth.



with super high def video, and excellent robotics good science can be

done, without worry abut human contamination


Uh Bob? You do realize they were not on Earth? And they sure were the
BEST geologists on the moon? Hmmm, should they be Selenologists?


Exactly.

And I'd dare say that Jack Schmitt was an excellent geologist as well as the
best Selenogist. Had Apollo lasted longer (and certainly if the AAP had
occurred) the number of scientists on the Moon would have been much higher).

And as it was, the Astronauts who did walk on the Moon were fairly well
trained (given the time they had) as geologists.


This is truth. Having a geologist actually at the site is far superior
to having one in a control room for an unmanned rover whose every move
must be pre-programmed from earth. The ability to "do science" in real-
time on Mars is *not* possible to do remotely. Even if the robotics
tech was better (as Bob seems to think will happen "any day now"), there
is *no* getting around the light speed delay from earth to Mars and
back.

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
  #10  
Old May 20th 13, 05:15 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Drive on Opportunity

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


And exactly how many samples did *all* of the Mars rovers return to
earth? Zero.


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.


Unmanned rovers "doing science" is quite inferior to manned missions
returning *many* samples to *far* better equipped earth based labs for
detailed analyses.

Jeff


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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.