|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |