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

Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 2nd 13, 02:37 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

On Feb 1, 11:47*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:





Rick Jones wrote:


I want to see boots on Martian ground in my lifetime (boots with human
feet in them, with the rest of the human there in a suit as well...)


+1


but I am curious about how much it costs to put a rover on Mars for
weeks versus a human geologist for a day. *Lets say it takes three
weeks to do with a rover what a human geologist could do in a day. *Is
getting a human geologist to Mars (and I presume back again) more or
less than 21X the cost of a rover mission?


The same question that came to *my* mind.


Viking cost about a billion 1970s dollars - adjusted, that's more
than Curiosity [1], I believe.


Apollo ran to ~24 billion 1969 dollars.


Surveyor cost half a billion.


So manned:moon seems to be about 20/30 times more expensive than
unmanned:mars. *I'd guess that manned:mars would be an order of
magnitude more expensive than unmanned:mars.


Put it this way: for the cost of a manned Mars mission, you could
put a *lot* of rovers up there.


[1] Other data:
Spirit & Opportunity cost about a billion USD.
Curiosity about 2.8 billion.


The number you pulled out of your ass for the difference in
productivity between a man on the scene and a remote rover is WAY too
low.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn


well humans must eat sleep, bathe, care for themselves, have
recreation, and all the other things that must be done on a personal
level...... plus they will have to do maintence and repairs of their
suits, habitat, and everything else to stay alive.......

what the number of productive science hours per ISS resident? I have
never seen a published number just that its low, because of al the
must do chores....

now compare that with rovers, that can run 24 / 7 given operators to
supervise from earth.....

with a proper nuke power pack they can work day and nite, and theres
no concern of humans contaminating mars, sterlize everything before
shipment......

the best part of this? the artificial intelligence of robots can be
advanced a lot, useful for back on earth.

soon the US will be again competive in manufacturing by using robotics
to assemble products, eventually entire plants with few workers,
mostly maintence people to care for equiptement.

the days of Whipple Manufacturing are nearly here........

  #12  
Old February 2nd 13, 02:45 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

Rovers and robots will be competive with humans or perhaps better.
Humans will be lucky to work 5 hours a day on actual mars exploration
5 or 6 days a week tops. Plus they will have to deal with fear and
being lonely. Family and friends so far away, the long term dangers of
radiation, let alone the possiblity of some key equiptement breaking
with no spares available.

The rover mission costs will be far less, with no human consumables
necessary. Food, water, oxygen and all the other supplies, plus spares
for a mars mission will be a killer.

Let robots lead the way
  #13  
Old February 2nd 13, 06:12 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

On Feb 2, 11:58*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 1, 11:47*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:


Rick Jones wrote:


I want to see boots on Martian ground in my lifetime (boots with human
feet in them, with the rest of the human there in a suit as well...)


+1


but I am curious about how much it costs to put a rover on Mars for
weeks versus a human geologist for a day. *Lets say it takes three
weeks to do with a rover what a human geologist could do in a day. *Is
getting a human geologist to Mars (and I presume back again) more or
less than 21X the cost of a rover mission?


The same question that came to *my* mind.


Viking cost about a billion 1970s dollars - adjusted, that's more
than Curiosity [1], I believe.


Apollo ran to ~24 billion 1969 dollars.


Surveyor cost half a billion.


So manned:moon seems to be about 20/30 times more expensive than
unmanned:mars. *I'd guess that manned:mars would be an order of
magnitude more expensive than unmanned:mars.


Put it this way: for the cost of a manned Mars mission, you could
put a *lot* of rovers up there.


[1] Other data:
Spirit & Opportunity cost about a billion USD.
Curiosity about 2.8 billion.


The number you pulled out of your ass for the difference in
productivity between a man on the scene and a remote rover is WAY too
low.


well humans must eat sleep, bathe, care for themselves, have
recreation, and all the other things that must be done on a personal
level...... plus they will have to do maintence and repairs of their
suits, habitat, and everything else to stay alive.......


what the number of productive science hours per ISS resident? I have
never seen a published number just that its low, because of al the
must do chores....


Yes, you 'know' all sorts of preposterously incorrect things.

We're not talking about ISS. *How old is ISS? *Stop trying to compare
apples to aardvarks.



now compare that with rovers, that can run 24 / 7 given operators to
supervise from earth.....


And if one of your 'degrading' factors for humans is "do maintenance
and repairs", you need to assume your rover (being machinery just like
all that other machinery) require the same AND THERE IS NO ONE THERE
TO DO IT. *So the first deduction point for humans MUST assume your
rover 'dies' at that point from lack of maintenance. *Either that or
the maintenance required when humans are present is pretty damned
minimal.

Your 'rovers are magical' approach isn't exactly appropriate in a
'sci' newsgroup.



with a proper nuke power pack they can work day and nite, and theres
no concern of humans contaminating mars, sterlize everything before
shipment......


the best part of this? the artificial intelligence of robots can be
advanced a lot, useful for back on earth.


soon the US will be again competive in manufacturing by using robotics
to assemble products, eventually entire plants with few workers,
mostly maintence people to care for equiptement.


the days of Whipple Manufacturing are nearly here........


Time for you to cut back on the drugs. *You're starting to mistake
your hallucinations for reality.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine


bogus talking points since opportunity has operated for 9 years and
22 miles without any on site maintence...

ISS originally had 3 astronauts when it was brand new, and it took
nearly all of those 3 just to do maintence. Obviously a human rated
station will need lots more service and be far more complex than a
rover.

Fred your slipping........
  #14  
Old February 2nd 13, 08:39 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

a flyng service vehicle for mars rovers might be a good investment.

Number 29 just turned over, geez those college drivers. send the flyer
to put it upright, and while were there clean the solar panels....

Rovers could collect rock samples depositing them in known spots for
later transit to earth or ISS
  #15  
Old February 3rd 13, 12:21 AM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

On Feb 2, 4:43*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 2, 11:58*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 1, 11:47*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:


Rick Jones wrote:


I want to see boots on Martian ground in my lifetime (boots with human
feet in them, with the rest of the human there in a suit as well....)


+1


but I am curious about how much it costs to put a rover on Mars for
weeks versus a human geologist for a day. *Lets say it takes three
weeks to do with a rover what a human geologist could do in a day. *Is
getting a human geologist to Mars (and I presume back again) more or
less than 21X the cost of a rover mission?


The same question that came to *my* mind.


Viking cost about a billion 1970s dollars - adjusted, that's more
than Curiosity [1], I believe.


Apollo ran to ~24 billion 1969 dollars.


Surveyor cost half a billion.


So manned:moon seems to be about 20/30 times more expensive than
unmanned:mars. *I'd guess that manned:mars would be an order of
magnitude more expensive than unmanned:mars.


Put it this way: for the cost of a manned Mars mission, you could
put a *lot* of rovers up there.


[1] Other data:
Spirit & Opportunity cost about a billion USD.
Curiosity about 2.8 billion.


The number you pulled out of your ass for the difference in
productivity between a man on the scene and a remote rover is WAY too
low.


well humans must eat sleep, bathe, care for themselves, have
recreation, and all the other things that must be done on a personal
level...... plus they will have to do maintence and repairs of their
suits, habitat, and everything else to stay alive.......


what the number of productive science hours per ISS resident? I have
never seen a published number just that its low, because of al the
must do chores....


Yes, you 'know' all sorts of preposterously incorrect things.


We're not talking about ISS. *How old is ISS? *Stop trying to compare
apples to aardvarks.


now compare that with rovers, that can run 24 / 7 given operators to
supervise from earth.....


And if one of your 'degrading' factors for humans is "do maintenance
and repairs", you need to assume your rover (being machinery just like
all that other machinery) require the same AND THERE IS NO ONE THERE
TO DO IT. *So the first deduction point for humans MUST assume your
rover 'dies' at that point from lack of maintenance. *Either that or
the maintenance required when humans are present is pretty damned
minimal.


Your 'rovers are magical' approach isn't exactly appropriate in a
'sci' newsgroup.


with a proper nuke power pack they can work day and nite, and theres
no concern of humans contaminating mars, sterlize everything before
shipment......


the best part of this? the artificial intelligence of robots can be
advanced a lot, useful for back on earth.


soon the US will be again competive in manufacturing by using robotics
to assemble products, eventually entire plants with few workers,
mostly maintence people to care for equiptement.


the days of Whipple Manufacturing are nearly here........


Time for you to cut back on the drugs. *You're starting to mistake
your hallucinations for reality.


bogus talking points since *opportunity has operated for 9 years and
22 miles without any on site maintence...


Which is a great description of your position; "bogus talking points".



ISS originally had 3 astronauts when it was brand new, and it took
nearly all of those 3 just to do maintence. Obviously a human rated
station will need lots more service and be far more complex than a
rover.


Because it was UNDER CONSTRUCTION. *As I said earlier, comparing that
to a Mars mission is comparing apples to aardvarks.



Fred your slipping........


Not hardly....

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine


first fred talks of the stations age, now its under construction .....

opportunity has traveled 22 miles in 9 years, without any on site
service.

humans will reqiuire systems under constant repairs and rebuilding.

fred maybe the earths nations should cut miitary spending to zero, and
use a fraction of the saved money for space exploration. whats your
thoughts on this
  #16  
Old February 3rd 13, 12:40 AM posted to sci.space.history
Fevric J. Glandules
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

Fred J. McCall wrote:

"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:


[Various mission costs]

The number you pulled out of your ass for the difference in
productivity between a man on the scene and a remote rover is WAY too
low.


That wasn't me.

I just googled up some costs in a vague attempt to estimate what a
manned mission to Mars would cost. My conclusion was that it would
be very very expensive - enough for many many rovers. Which route
would produce "more science" - I don't know.
  #17  
Old February 3rd 13, 07:34 AM posted to sci.space.history
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article 261623a9-8af7-4b17-adc1-b74b634f1c85
@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...

On Feb 1, 12:58 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

Jeff, the bobbert, in his enthuasism for rovers, continously ignores
the
fact that each rover is hand-made, and that things like booster
avability,
range issues, and launch manifests, get in the way of his pipe dream.
Not to
mention his hostility towars any kind of human spaceflight. He's not
quite
the lunatic the guthlessball is, but he's at least good for some
laughs.


rovers need not be made in small numbers, economy of scale could
produce a hundred, and falcon versions send them on their way for a
fraction of the cost of the original spirit and opportunity..


You keep asserting this, without any proof. Who, besides you, thinks
that Mars rovers, including all of the necessary hardware to actually
land the thing on Mars, can be made this way? It just might be
possible, but what type of investment would we be talking about here?

These things aren't going to be made at a rate that would necessitate a
production line, like you see in the automobile industry. Production
would be more in line with typical aerospace endeavors like fighter
aircraft (which aren't cheap). In that sort of production environment,
there is some automation, but there is also a lot of hands on assembly.

future versions of these robust rovers could collect samples, placing
them in central locations for travel back to earth..


Sample return from Mars has not yet been done. This isn't going to be
inexpensive, even if the "toaster rovers" are "free".

while it might be nice to send astronauts there are problems.


Nice doesn't begin to describe how flexible humans are at solving
problems. Humans are close to invaluable in unexpected situations.

humans will contaminate mars,


There are engineering solution to this. It's not like humans can live
on Mars without pressure suits, which means there is already a barrier
between people and the surface of Mars. Keeping the outside of suits
decontaminated before exiting an airlock is a problem which can be
solved.

we cant afford it,


Yet you think we can afford multiple copies of rovers all doing sample
return missions. You have a strange idea of what is "affordable".

travel times are fr
too long untill a nuke rocket is built,


This is b.s.

radiation of deep space is a
big issue.


Easily solved by using water to shield sleeping areas which double as a
radiation storm shelter.

theres probably a million problems sending astronauts that
arent a issue for robotic missions....


Just as there are a million problems which are common to both.

and so what if the rovers are slow? we can replace them when they
break and length of exploration really doesnt matter.....


Only if you want your data to come back as a tiny trickle spread out
over a very long time. Making multiple copies of rovers doesn't help as
much as you think it would.

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


I agree, Jeff. However, to the bobbert, these are merely, "details, details"
that get in the way of his fantasy world. Anything we tell him that
contradicts that is either ignored outright, or is spun to fit his dream
world. And if we dare disagree with him, we're all mentally off somehow.
Because "he" knows the way and everyone else doesn't.


  #18  
Old February 3rd 13, 05:06 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

On Feb 3, 12:09*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:43*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 2, 11:58*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:


Time for you to cut back on the drugs. *You're starting to mistake
your hallucinations for reality.


bogus talking points since *opportunity has operated for 9 years and
22 miles without any on site maintence...


Which is a great description of your position; "bogus talking points".


ISS originally had 3 astronauts when it was brand new, and it took
nearly all of those 3 just to do maintence. Obviously a human rated
station will need lots more service and be far more complex than a
rover.


Because it was UNDER CONSTRUCTION. *As I said earlier, comparing that
to a Mars mission is comparing apples to aardvarks.


Fred your slipping........


Not hardly....


first fred talks of the stations age, now its under construction .....


Bobbert obviously can't even follow his own ramblings. *ISS *is* old.
When it "originally had 3 astronauts when it was brand new" it was
still under construction.



opportunity has traveled 22 miles in 9 years, without any on site
service.


And let's look at this record that Bobbert is touting for his
favourite toaster. *That 22 miles in 9 years amounts to a rate of
advance of a whopping .00028 miles per hour. *A man in a Mars car
could more thoroughly explore that 22 miles in a single day than
Bobbert's toaster has managed in 9 years. *That's a 3285:1 advantage
to man. *NOW run your cost comparisons! *Assume men will have 6 months
on the ground and figure out how many rovers for how many years you
would need to even come close to what they could do.



humans will reqiuire systems under constant repairs and rebuilding.


Why is that? *We can build rovers that require no maintenance for 9
years but the instant people are around everything breaks down all the
time? *You honestly believe that? *REALLY???

Even if you assume a preposterous maintenance burden, there is STILL
that 3285:1 advantage to man. *On a 6 man mission, you could dedicate
2/3 of the available hours to maintenance and STILL get that advantage
over a toaster.



fred maybe the earths nations should cut miitary spending to zero, and
use a fraction of the saved money for space exploration. whats your
thoughts on this


Other than that it's a stupidly unrealistic question, you mean? *If it
was possible I think it would be a wonderful thing. *However, since it
isn't, I think we need to be by far the biggest dog in the forest. *If
we're not, we'll likely get new rulers who won't let idiots like you
bleat about everything. *Then what would you do?

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine


ahh while opportunity took 9 years to travel 9 miles it wasnt just
looking at things, it was doing real science, grinding and sampling
rocks as it went along.

no doubt a rover could be built to travel the same route fast but then
you lose all the detail work.

if you believe its easy to build human rated equiptement that requires
near no service you should be working for nasa designing ISS systems.
The ONLY human rated system in existence today require constant
maintence.'
While opportunity and the other rovers require no on site maintence at
all, over many years.

While it would be great to have humans on mars for hopefully more
than flags and footprints......

Theres no money, theres little or no public support, theres no real
political support, we lack some necessary equiptement, like nuclear
booster to cut travel time, like radiation protection for crews in
deep space....

basically we lack the basic building blocks to send humans While we
definetely have a great start on robotic planetary exploration....
  #19  
Old February 3rd 13, 06:28 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

On Feb 3, 11:30*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:09*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:43*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 2, 11:58*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:


Time for you to cut back on the drugs. *You're starting to mistake
your hallucinations for reality.


bogus talking points since *opportunity has operated for 9 years and
22 miles without any on site maintence...


Which is a great description of your position; "bogus talking points".


ISS originally had 3 astronauts when it was brand new, and it took
nearly all of those 3 just to do maintence. Obviously a human rated
station will need lots more service and be far more complex than a
rover.


Because it was UNDER CONSTRUCTION. *As I said earlier, comparing that
to a Mars mission is comparing apples to aardvarks.


Fred your slipping........


Not hardly....


first fred talks of the stations age, now its under construction ......


Bobbert obviously can't even follow his own ramblings. *ISS *is* old..
When it "originally had 3 astronauts when it was brand new" it was
still under construction.


opportunity has traveled 22 miles in 9 years, without any on site
service.


And let's look at this record that Bobbert is touting for his
favourite toaster. *That 22 miles in 9 years amounts to a rate of
advance of a whopping .00028 miles per hour. *A man in a Mars car
could more thoroughly explore that 22 miles in a single day than
Bobbert's toaster has managed in 9 years. *That's a 3285:1 advantage
to man. *NOW run your cost comparisons! *Assume men will have 6 months
on the ground and figure out how many rovers for how many years you
would need to even come close to what they could do.


humans will reqiuire systems under constant repairs and rebuilding.


Why is that? *We can build rovers that require no maintenance for 9
years but the instant people are around everything breaks down all the
time? *You honestly believe that? *REALLY???


Even if you assume a preposterous maintenance burden, there is STILL
that 3285:1 advantage to man. *On a 6 man mission, you could dedicate
2/3 of the available hours to maintenance and STILL get that advantage
over a toaster.


fred maybe the earths nations should cut miitary spending to zero, and
use a fraction of the saved money for space exploration. whats your
thoughts on this


Other than that it's a stupidly unrealistic question, you mean? *If it
was possible I think it would be a wonderful thing. *However, since it
isn't, I think we need to be by far the biggest dog in the forest. *If
we're not, we'll likely get new rulers who won't let idiots like you
bleat about everything. *Then what would you do?


ahh while opportunity took 9 years to travel 9 miles it wasnt just
looking at things, it was doing real science, grinding and sampling
rocks as it went along.


no doubt a rover could be built to travel the same route fast but then
you lose all the detail work.


Unless you had people in it who could look and see interesting things
and stop and knock of a sample.



if you believe its easy to build human rated equiptement that requires
near no service you should be working for nasa designing ISS systems.


I could be, but I don't want to move to Huntsville.



The ONLY human rated system in existence today require constant
maintence.'


Mostly because it's old and wasn't designed to not require it.



While opportunity and the other rovers require no on site maintence at
all, over many years.


You might want to look up the design lifetimes of those things.



While it would be great to have humans on mars for hopefully *more
than flags and footprints......


Since they'll be there 6 months, I suspect they'll be doing more than
that.



Theres no money, theres little or no public support, theres no real
political support, we lack some necessary equiptement, like nuclear
booster to cut travel time, like radiation protection for crews in
deep space....


Nuclear engines aren't required, as you've had repeatedly explained to
you. *As for radiation protection for crews, we invented WATER a long
time ago. *Again, you've had all this explained to you. *You really
need to pull your head out of your ass and stop being so adamantinely
ignorant if you expect people to take anything you say at all
seriously.



basically we lack the basic building blocks to send humans While we
definetely have a great start on robotic planetary exploration....


Basically, you're an ignorant lying ****bag. *There's less support for
your toasters than there is for a manned mission. *If people aren't
going, save the money and stop sending toasters.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson


your just a plain idiot.

while chemical propulsion could be used, travel time will be around 6
months each way and mars ground time near 2 years, or thereabouts. or
at best a week, cant do much in a week.

making a total travel time of nearly 3 years, if the crew stays 1.5 to
2 years on ground

crews gone that long, so far from earth are going to have big problems
with both physical and mental condition.. whats the longest time in
space up till now? around a year?

  #20  
Old February 3rd 13, 07:01 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

On Feb 3, 12:28*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Feb 3, 11:30*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:





bob haller wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:09*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:43*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 2, 11:58*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:


Time for you to cut back on the drugs. *You're starting to mistake
your hallucinations for reality.


bogus talking points since *opportunity has operated for 9 years and
22 miles without any on site maintence...


Which is a great description of your position; "bogus talking points".


ISS originally had 3 astronauts when it was brand new, and it took
nearly all of those 3 just to do maintence. Obviously a human rated
station will need lots more service and be far more complex than a
rover.


Because it was UNDER CONSTRUCTION. *As I said earlier, comparing that
to a Mars mission is comparing apples to aardvarks.


Fred your slipping........


Not hardly....


first fred talks of the stations age, now its under construction ......


Bobbert obviously can't even follow his own ramblings. *ISS *is* old.
When it "originally had 3 astronauts when it was brand new" it was
still under construction.


opportunity has traveled 22 miles in 9 years, without any on site
service.


And let's look at this record that Bobbert is touting for his
favourite toaster. *That 22 miles in 9 years amounts to a rate of
advance of a whopping .00028 miles per hour. *A man in a Mars car
could more thoroughly explore that 22 miles in a single day than
Bobbert's toaster has managed in 9 years. *That's a 3285:1 advantage
to man. *NOW run your cost comparisons! *Assume men will have 6 months
on the ground and figure out how many rovers for how many years you
would need to even come close to what they could do.


humans will reqiuire systems under constant repairs and rebuilding.


Why is that? *We can build rovers that require no maintenance for 9
years but the instant people are around everything breaks down all the
time? *You honestly believe that? *REALLY???


Even if you assume a preposterous maintenance burden, there is STILL
that 3285:1 advantage to man. *On a 6 man mission, you could dedicate
2/3 of the available hours to maintenance and STILL get that advantage
over a toaster.


fred maybe the earths nations should cut miitary spending to zero, and
use a fraction of the saved money for space exploration. whats your
thoughts on this


Other than that it's a stupidly unrealistic question, you mean? *If it
was possible I think it would be a wonderful thing. *However, since it
isn't, I think we need to be by far the biggest dog in the forest. *If
we're not, we'll likely get new rulers who won't let idiots like you
bleat about everything. *Then what would you do?


ahh while opportunity took 9 years to travel 9 miles it wasnt just
looking at things, it was doing real science, grinding and sampling
rocks as it went along.


no doubt a rover could be built to travel the same route fast but then
you lose all the detail work.


Unless you had people in it who could look and see interesting things
and stop and knock of a sample.


if you believe its easy to build human rated equiptement that requires
near no service you should be working for nasa designing ISS systems.


I could be, but I don't want to move to Huntsville.


The ONLY human rated system in existence today require constant
maintence.'


Mostly because it's old and wasn't designed to not require it.


While opportunity and the other rovers require no on site maintence at
all, over many years.


You might want to look up the design lifetimes of those things.


While it would be great to have humans on mars for hopefully *more
than flags and footprints......


Since they'll be there 6 months, I suspect they'll be doing more than
that.


Theres no money, theres little or no public support, theres no real
political support, we lack some necessary equiptement, like nuclear
booster to cut travel time, like radiation protection for crews in
deep space....


Nuclear engines aren't required, as you've had repeatedly explained to
you. *As for radiation protection for crews, we invented WATER a long
time ago. *Again, you've had all this explained to you. *You really
need to pull your head out of your ass and stop being so adamantinely
ignorant if you expect people to take anything you say at all
seriously.


basically we lack the basic building blocks to send humans While we
definetely have a great start on robotic planetary exploration....


Basically, you're an ignorant lying ****bag. *There's less support for
your toasters than there is for a manned mission. *If people aren't
going, save the money and stop sending toasters.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson


your just a plain idiot.

while chemical propulsion could be used, travel time will be around 6
months each way and mars ground time near 2 years, or thereabouts. or
at best a week, cant do much in a week.

making a total travel time of nearly 3 years, if the crew stays 1.5 to
2 years on ground

crews gone that long, so far from earth are going to have big problems
with both physical and mental condition.. whats the longest time in
space up till now? around a year?


let alone radiation exposure during transit plus on mars. it will be
hard to impossible to treat a mars astronaut who develpos bcancer or
another dreaded disease....

which is another reason to minimize transit time, as much as possible

long travel times increase the chances of mechanical breakdowns
dramatically
 




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
NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity, now in its seventh yearon Mars, has a new capability Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 1 March 24th 10 04:30 AM
? I traveled INFINITE miles by car this year ( 2009 ). Semmalon Misc 1 January 8th 10 10:14 AM
I traveled INFINITE miles by car this year ( 2009 ). Semmalon Misc 0 January 1st 10 01:21 PM
I traveled INFINITE miles by car this year ( 2009 ). Semmalon Misc 0 January 1st 10 01:17 PM
Opportunity on Mars Lawrence Sayre Amateur Astronomy 3 January 25th 04 08:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:03 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.