NASA uses Mars as an excuses to keep ISS

On Sep 5, 5:54*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:38:44 -0700, Robert Higgins wrote:
On Sep 5, 2:30*pm, wrote:
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

wrote:

:In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote: : On
Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote: :
: In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
: On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote: :
: You go and get cooked. *Tell us how the toilet and its black
water : tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. *Ask
RV parks how : it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state
parks. :
: So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side
the : radiation belts will be cooked.
:
: And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by
which we : design space systems. I don't think so. :
:
: What part of three months or more did you not understand? :
: Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks. :
: If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6
months. : We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the
details. :
:A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total and time
:spent on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time
:spent in space.
:

Mars surface - 10-20 rems/year (depending on where you are) ISS -
20-40 rems/year (annualized)
Mars transit - 30 rem (6 months one way) Total Mars Mission - 100 rem
over 3 years (2 year stay) Moon surface - ~30 rem/year typical
Earth surface - .36 rem/year
Smoking - .28 rem/year typical

The reality is no one knows for sure.

Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

"Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD)

This instrument will characterize the broad spectrum of radiation found
near the surface of Mars for purposes of determining the viability and
shielding needs for human explorers."

It is all hypothetical anyway since there isn't a nation on the planet
with enough spare change to send humans to Mars anytime in the
foreseeable future.

Even if anyone could afford to do so, wouldn't the high failure rate of
previous unmanned missions to Mars make any such attempt just too risky
(ignoring for a second the very real dangers of radiation and such)?

Well bless him, but McCall pretty much blew the radiation thing out of
the water with facts. So really, let's do ignore radiation and the
irrational fears that come with it.

I guess I don't agree with the implicit assumption in your argument that
failure rates for unmanned missions, which are made entirely on the basis
of cost, are the same as the failure rates of manned missions, which are
based on protecting human life and generally have a much higher failure
rate.

It is hard to compare the failure rates of unmanned missions to Mars
with the failure rate of manned missions to Mars, for the simple
reason that there have not been any manned missions to Mars. By
"failure" for unammed missions, I mean things like losing all contact
with the spacecraft, or (undesired) kamikaze dives into the Martian
surface. Certainly having humans aboard a craft ight lesson some of
the control issues that led to previous unammed failures. On the other
hand, numerous addition safety systems must be carried in a manned
mission, so there are additional opportunities for catasatrophic
failure.

My main point was perhaps made too subtly. It is one thing for any
individual poster to say "Oh, it's not that dangerous. If I were in
charge, I'd send the mission to Mars." But any person in charge who
would order a manned mission to Mars, knowing the rates of previous
failures, without having a plan to reduce the risk by several orders
of magnitude, would be overruled and fired. I imagine that the closer
NASA gets to any mission, the more hesitant the adminstrators will
become about taking the risk.

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:26:56 -0700, Robert Higgins wrote:

On Sep 5, 5:54Â*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:38:44 -0700, Robert Higgins wrote:
On Sep 5, 2:30Â*pm, wrote:
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

wrote:

:In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote: :
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote: : : In
sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote: :
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote: : : You
go and get cooked. Â*Tell us how the toilet and its black water
: tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Â*Ask RV
parks how : it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state
parks. :
: So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out
side the : radiation belts will be cooked. :
: And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by
which we : design space systems. I don't think so. : :
: What part of three months or more did you not understand? :
: Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks. : : If we know
the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6 months. :
We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details. :
:A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total and time
:spent on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time
:spent in space.
:

Mars surface - 10-20 rems/year (depending on where you are) ISS -
20-40 rems/year (annualized)
Mars transit - 30 rem (6 months one way) Total Mars Mission - 100
rem over 3 years (2 year stay) Moon surface - ~30 rem/year typical
Earth surface - .36 rem/year
Smoking - .28 rem/year typical

The reality is no one knows for sure.

Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

"Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD)

This instrument will characterize the broad spectrum of radiation
found near the surface of Mars for purposes of determining the
viability and shielding needs for human explorers."

It is all hypothetical anyway since there isn't a nation on the
planet with enough spare change to send humans to Mars anytime in
the foreseeable future.

Even if anyone could afford to do so, wouldn't the high failure rate
of previous unmanned missions to Mars make any such attempt just too
risky (ignoring for a second the very real dangers of radiation and
such)?

Well bless him, but McCall pretty much blew the radiation thing out of
the water with facts. So really, let's do ignore radiation and the
irrational fears that come with it.

I guess I don't agree with the implicit assumption in your argument
that failure rates for unmanned missions, which are made entirely on
the basis of cost, are the same as the failure rates of manned
missions, which are based on protecting human life and generally have a
much higher failure rate.

It is hard to compare the failure rates of unmanned missions to Mars
with the failure rate of manned missions to Mars, for the simple reason
that there have not been any manned missions to Mars. By "failure" for
unammed missions, I mean things like losing all contact with the
spacecraft, or (undesired) kamikaze dives into the Martian surface.
Certainly having humans aboard a craft ight lesson some of the control
issues that led to previous unammed failures. On the other hand,
numerous addition safety systems must be carried in a manned mission, so
there are additional opportunities for catasatrophic failure.

My main point was perhaps made too subtly. It is one thing for any
individual poster to say "Oh, it's not that dangerous. If I were in
charge, I'd send the mission to Mars." But any person in charge who
would order a manned mission to Mars, knowing the rates of previous
failures, without having a plan to reduce the risk by several orders of
magnitude, would be overruled and fired. I imagine that the closer NASA
gets to any mission, the more hesitant the adminstrators will become
about taking the risk.

****. With that kind of thinking, humans would never have ventured out
from the trees. Too dangerous! There are cheetahs out there.

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: :In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
: : On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote:
: :
: : In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
: : On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
: :
: : You go and get cooked. Tell us how the toilet and its black water
: : tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Ask RV parks how
: : it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state parks.
: :
: : So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side the
: : radiation belts will be cooked.
: :
: : And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by which we
: : design space systems. I don't think so.
: :
: :
: : What part of three months or more did you not understand?
: :
: : Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks.
: :
: : If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6 months.
: : We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details.
: :
: :A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total and time
: :spent on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time
: :spent in space.
: :
:
: Mars surface - 10-20 rems/year (depending on where you are)
: ISS - 20-40 rems/year (annualized)
: Mars transit - 30 rem (6 months one way)
: Total Mars Mission - 100 rem over 3 years (2 year stay)
: Moon surface - ~30 rem/year typical
: Earth surface - .36 rem/year
: Smoking - .28 rem/year typical
:
:
:The reality is no one knows for sure.
:

So Jimp the Chimp doesn't want to let the facts intrude on his little
rant. Why am I not surprised?

http://www.solarstorms.org/MarsDosages.html

If you are interested in facts, read your own link.

What is there is estimates of just cosmic rays.

:From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory
:
:"Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD)
:
:This instrument will characterize the broad spectrum of radiation found
:near the surface of Mars for purposes of determining the viability and
:shielding needs for human explorers."
:
:It is all hypothetical anyway since there isn't a nation on the planet
:with enough spare change to send humans to Mars anytime in the foreseeable
:future.
:

So we should just shut down all space science until we're ready. If
it's all hypothetical, there's no need for the Mars Science Laboratory
to go measure radiation.

Non sequitur.

The MSL is going to Mars for a lot more than just to see how long it
would be before humans would fry.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:30:01 +0000, jimp wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote: : On
Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote: :
: In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote: :
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote: :
: You go and get cooked. Tell us how the toilet and its black
water : tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Ask RV
parks how : it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state
parks. :
: So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side
the : radiation belts will be cooked.
:
: And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by
which we : design space systems. I don't think so. :
:
: What part of three months or more did you not understand? :
: Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks. :
: If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6
months. : We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details.
:
:A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total and time
:spent on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time
:spent in space.
:

Mars surface - 10-20 rems/year (depending on where you are) ISS - 20-40
rems/year (annualized)
Mars transit - 30 rem (6 months one way) Total Mars Mission - 100 rem
over 3 years (2 year stay) Moon surface - ~30 rem/year typical
Earth surface - .36 rem/year
Smoking - .28 rem/year typical


The reality is no one knows for sure.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

"Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD)

This instrument will characterize the broad spectrum of radiation found
near the surface of Mars for purposes of determining the viability and
shielding needs for human explorers."

It is all hypothetical anyway since there isn't a nation on the planet
with enough spare change to send humans to Mars anytime in the
foreseeable future.

So, you're making an appeal to ignorance fallacy and following it up with
circular logic.

The appeal to ignorance fallacy being "we don't know" with the implicit
(false) assumption that we can't find out if we go there.

Nonsense.

Finding out whether or not humans can survive by sending humans and
seeing if they survive is just plain stupid.

That's one of the reasons robots have to be sent first.

The circular logic is that we shouldn't go because we're not going.

Okay, anyone with a RATIONAL argument why we shouldn't go to Mars?

Sure, right now we don't know for sure if humans can even survive the
round trip, and if they can, no one can afford to send humans for the
foreseeable future.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:00:01 +0000, jimp wrote:

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote:

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

You go and get cooked. Tell us how the toilet and its black water
tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Ask RV parks how
it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state parks.

So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side the
radiation belts will be cooked.

And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by which
we design space systems. I don't think so.


What part of three months or more did you not understand?

Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks.

If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6
months. We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details.

A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total

Yep. About 6 months out, and 6 months back.

And likely go directly in for the cataract operation at a minimum.

and time spent
on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time spent in
space.

Nope. Mars has an atmosphere that provides a lot of shielding.

Nope, Mars has an atmosphere that provides very little shielding
and has very little in the way of a magnetic field.

Zubrin covered this in his book already. Are there any INFORMED
objections to a Mars mission?

Nobody yet knows from actual measurement the total, broadband radiation
on the surface of Mars.

Zubrin is estimating.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:26:56 -0700, Robert Higgins wrote:

On Sep 5, 5:54Â*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:38:44 -0700, Robert Higgins wrote:
On Sep 5, 2:30Â*pm, wrote:
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

wrote:

:In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote: :
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote: : : In
sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote: :
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote: : : You
go and get cooked. Â*Tell us how the toilet and its black water
: tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Â*Ask RV
parks how : it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state
parks. :
: So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out
side the : radiation belts will be cooked. :
: And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by
which we : design space systems. I don't think so. : :
: What part of three months or more did you not understand? :
: Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks. : : If we know
the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6 months. :
We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details. :
:A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total and time
:spent on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time
:spent in space.
:

Mars surface - 10-20 rems/year (depending on where you are) ISS -
20-40 rems/year (annualized)
Mars transit - 30 rem (6 months one way) Total Mars Mission - 100
rem over 3 years (2 year stay) Moon surface - ~30 rem/year typical
Earth surface - .36 rem/year
Smoking - .28 rem/year typical

The reality is no one knows for sure.

Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

"Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD)

This instrument will characterize the broad spectrum of radiation
found near the surface of Mars for purposes of determining the
viability and shielding needs for human explorers."

It is all hypothetical anyway since there isn't a nation on the
planet with enough spare change to send humans to Mars anytime in
the foreseeable future.

Even if anyone could afford to do so, wouldn't the high failure rate
of previous unmanned missions to Mars make any such attempt just too
risky (ignoring for a second the very real dangers of radiation and
such)?

Well bless him, but McCall pretty much blew the radiation thing out of
the water with facts. So really, let's do ignore radiation and the
irrational fears that come with it.

I guess I don't agree with the implicit assumption in your argument
that failure rates for unmanned missions, which are made entirely on
the basis of cost, are the same as the failure rates of manned
missions, which are based on protecting human life and generally have a
much higher failure rate.

It is hard to compare the failure rates of unmanned missions to Mars
with the failure rate of manned missions to Mars, for the simple reason
that there have not been any manned missions to Mars. By "failure" for
unammed missions, I mean things like losing all contact with the
spacecraft, or (undesired) kamikaze dives into the Martian surface.
Certainly having humans aboard a craft ight lesson some of the control
issues that led to previous unammed failures. On the other hand,
numerous addition safety systems must be carried in a manned mission, so
there are additional opportunities for catasatrophic failure.

My main point was perhaps made too subtly. It is one thing for any
individual poster to say "Oh, it's not that dangerous. If I were in
charge, I'd send the mission to Mars." But any person in charge who
would order a manned mission to Mars, knowing the rates of previous
failures, without having a plan to reduce the risk by several orders of
magnitude, would be overruled and fired. I imagine that the closer NASA
gets to any mission, the more hesitant the adminstrators will become
about taking the risk.

****. With that kind of thinking, humans would never have ventured out
from the trees. Too dangerous! There are cheetahs out there.

Your kind of thinking got us the Challenger disaster, seven dead crew
members, suspension of future missions, and a PR nightmare.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
:
: ****. With that kind of thinking, humans would never have ventured out
: from the trees. Too dangerous! There are cheetahs out there.
:
:Your kind of thinking got us the Challenger disaster, seven dead crew
:members, suspension of future missions, and a PR nightmare.
:

Bull****, but thank you for self-identifying as an 'XY' chromosomed
soprano...

"...failures in communication... resulted in a decision to launch 51-L
based on incomplete and sometimes misleading information, a conflict
between engineering data and management judgments, and a NASA management
structure that permitted internal flight safety problems to bypass key
Shuttle managers."

Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger
Accident


Or in other words, kick the tires, light the fires, let's just go,
and the hell with safety.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) concluded that NASA had
failed to learn many of the lessons of Challenger.

Total core to date, 14 dead crew members.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: :In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : wrote:
: :
: : :In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
: : : On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000, jimp wrote:
: : :
: : : In sci.physics Marvin the Martian wrote:
: : : On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:16:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
: : :
: : : You go and get cooked. Tell us how the toilet and its black water
: : : tank worked out after a couple of years of inputs. Ask RV parks how
: : : it works out in a one-gee field, sailboats, state parks.
: : :
: : : So, those moon landings were all faked, because anyone out side the
: : : radiation belts will be cooked.
: : :
: : : And yeah, right. Cheep chinese RV toilets are the standard by which we
: : : design space systems. I don't think so.
: : :
: : :
: : : What part of three months or more did you not understand?
: : :
: : : Apollo missions were all less than 2 weeks.
: : :
: : : If we know the exposure at 2 weeks, we can extrapolate out for 6 months.
: : : We already have the data. Dr. Zubrin worked out the details.
: : :
: : :A mission to Mars would be a longer than 6 months total and time
: : :spent on Mars would be little better radiation wise than the time
: : :spent in space.
: : :
: :
: : Mars surface - 10-20 rems/year (depending on where you are)
: : ISS - 20-40 rems/year (annualized)
: : Mars transit - 30 rem (6 months one way)
: : Total Mars Mission - 100 rem over 3 years (2 year stay)
: : Moon surface - ~30 rem/year typical
: : Earth surface - .36 rem/year
: : Smoking - .28 rem/year typical
: :
: :
: :The reality is no one knows for sure.
: :
:
: So Jimp the Chimp doesn't want to let the facts intrude on his little
: rant. Why am I not surprised?
:
: http://www.solarstorms.org/MarsDosages.html
:
:If you are interested in facts, read your own link.
:
:What is there is estimates of just cosmic rays.
:

Said estimates based on precisely the kind of radiation measures that
you're going to get off your next Rover. What other radiation do you
think there is, you silly ass? 'Cosmic radiation' (the **** from
space) is what you've been expressing all this concern about. Do you
perhaps think that Mars is made of plutonium or something?

There are more kinds of radiation besides cosmic rays and even the
cosmic ray numbers are estimates.

The MSL is going to Mars, among other reasons, to see what is really
there in terms of radiation.

Are you opposed to measuring the real, total levels of radiation on
Mars for some reason?

: :From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory
: :
: :"Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD)
: :
: :This instrument will characterize the broad spectrum of radiation found
: :near the surface of Mars for purposes of determining the viability and
: :shielding needs for human explorers."
: :
: :It is all hypothetical anyway since there isn't a nation on the planet
: :with enough spare change to send humans to Mars anytime in the foreseeable
: :future.
: :
:
: So we should just shut down all space science until we're ready. If
: it's all hypothetical, there's no need for the Mars Science Laboratory
: to go measure radiation.
:
:Non sequitur.
:

Not at all. Makes perfect sense. If people aren't going, there's no
reason to spend money on it.

:
:The MSL is going to Mars for a lot more than just to see how long it
:would be before humans would fry.
:

But nothing we need to know if people aren't going.

People aren't going to a lot of place that we spend money studying, such
as the Earth's mantle and the Sun.

It is called gathering knowledge.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

:On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:38:44 -0700, Robert Higgins wrote:
:
: Even if anyone could afford to do so, wouldn't the high failure rate of
: previous unmanned missions to Mars make any such attempt just too risky
: (ignoring for a second the very real dangers of radiation and such)?
:
:Well bless him, but McCall pretty much blew the radiation thing out of
:the water with facts. So really, let's do ignore radiation and the
:irrational fears that come with it.
:

I generally go with facts. It's why YOU can't stand me. You can't
ignore radiation, but it's manageable if you're will to exceed your
lifetime allowable exposure on a single mission.

:
:I guess I don't agree with the implicit assumption in your argument that
:failure rates for unmanned missions, which are made entirely on the basis
f cost, are the same as the failure rates of manned missions, which are
:based on protecting human life and generally have a much higher failure
:rate.
:

Uh, you might want to reread the last part of your last sentence...

The real reason to not go to Mars right away is that it winds up being
another 'no future' mission or missions and we don't know that we can
make the equipment the landing party needs last through the mission.

I'd rather see us going for long term stays on the Moon first. In the
shorter run it's more useful to get industrial capacity started there.

Building just what exactly that can't be had orders of magnitude cheaper
on the Earth?

Name just one item.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
:
:Sure, right now we don't know for sure if humans can even survive the
:round trip, and if they can, no one can afford to send humans for the
:foreseeable future.
:

Wrong. We know quite well humans can survive the round trip. The
round trip is only a 60 rem dose over a year (assuming you don't stop
and just fly out and back).

Wrong, we think that humans could probably survive based on current
estimates.

We don't know for sure one way or another.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.