A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Mars Rover longevity again limited by dust build-up



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 11th 04, 10:20 AM
Manfred Bartz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mars Rover longevity again limited by dust build-up

"Ool" writes:

"Stanislaw Sidor" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
Newsuser "Manfred Bartz" wrote ...


Personally I think the Beagle mission had a better and more ambitious
science package. They were going to look for past and present life,
not just at a few rocks in search of past water activity. Oh well,
maybe a few missions down the track we'll get serious.... :/


Do you think, that SETI is a 'good science'?


Yeah! All these "Close Encounters" type missions, and in all
this time, when was the last time we had a rover roam the Moon?
That's a place whose resources could actually help us on Earth--
solve our energy problems and all that.


Nonsense.

If you are after resources you don't go down another gravity well.
You'd be much better off exploiting NEOs, especially the Ni-Fe ones.

And it would be the ideal jumping board to the rest of the Solar
System, if we were able to build and launch rockets from up there.


Nonsense again.

Assembling inter-planetary ships in free-fall makes a lot more sense
than at the bottom of a gravity well.

("Aluminum, silicon, oxygen, low gravity and lots of solar ener-
gy to be had..." *That's* music to my ears!


Lets talk about exploiting NEOs then. I am all for it.
Same with solar power satellites.
And space based, solar powered antimatter factories.

What's the deal with Mars if we haven't even built a base on the
Moon yet?


What would a base on the Moon achieve? About the only thing I can
think of is to learn how to build a base on Mars. And as you rightly
ask "what's the deal?" The answer might be "tourism", but probably not
much else.

Why do I get the feeling space exploration is funded by people who
get their idea of what's important from the head- lines of the
National Enquirer?


Hmm, maybe space exploration *is* funded by people who get their idea
of what's important from the headlines of the National Enquirer?

What's the deal with trying to find life out there?


Big deal or not, I am not *that* much focused on life on Mars. My
comment reflects more of a resentment that the science package on the
current rovers will not produce science commensurate with the expense.
All we'll get in the end is another IMAX movie and some more evidence
(probably still inconclusive) of past water. IMHO, that isn't
ambitious enough for 800M$.

I mean, it still doesn't mean that *we* could live there, and that's
all that counts!


Humans now have the ability to live nearly anywhere thanks to our
technology. The only thing missing at this stage is the will to do
this on a large scale.

AFAICS, about the only good reason to build bases on the Moon and on
Mars would be if it is done with the long term intention of creating
self-sufficient human colonies. And why would we want to do that?
-- As a contingency against a doomsday event I suggest.

--
Manfred Bartz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot remain in the cradle
forever." -- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Russian space pioneer

  #22  
Old January 11th 04, 03:15 PM
Andrew Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mars Rover longevity again limited by dust build-up

In article , Henry Spencer wrote:
I wrote:
Sojourner was still working fine when we last heard from it. When Mars
is actually unknown. (Probably not much longer than MP, though.)


Somehow that lost a line in the middle. Should have been roughly:

Sojourner was still working fine when we last heard from it. When Mars
is actually unknown. (Probably not much longer than MP, though.)


Um, much as I hate to quibble with these pearls of wisdom... ;-)

--
-Andrew Gray

  #23  
Old January 11th 04, 07:17 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mars Rover longevity again limited by dust build-up

I wrote (twice!):
Sojourner was still working fine when we last heard from it. When Mars
is actually unknown. (Probably not much longer than MP, though.)


Looks like something in the sci.space.science moderating machinery is
stripping out body lines that happen to begin with "Path". Tsk tsk. The
full text of that posting was:

Sojourner was still working fine when we last heard from it.
When Mars Pathfinder died, we couldn't talk to it any more.
How long it lasted is actually unknown. (Probably not much
longer than MP, though.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |
  #26  
Old January 11th 04, 11:46 PM
Ken Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mars Rover longevity again limited by dust build-up

"Ool" wrote in message
...
"Stanislaw Sidor" schrieb im Newsbeitrag

...
Newsuser "Manfred Bartz" wrote ...


Personally I think the Beagle mission had a better and more ambitious
science package. They were going to look for past and present life,
not just at a few rocks in search of past water activity. Oh well,
maybe a few missions down the track we'll get serious.... :/


Do you think, that SETI is a 'good science'?


Yeah! All these "Close Encounters" type missions, and in all
this time, when was the last time we had a rover roam the Moon?
That's a place whose resources could actually help us on Earth--
solve our energy problems and all that. And it would be the
ideal jumping board to the rest of the Solar System, if we were
able to build and launch rockets from up there.

("Aluminum, silicon, oxygen, low gravity and lots of solar ener-
gy to be had..." *That's* music to my ears! As opposed to:
"Ancient fossilized microbes found on meteorite--maybe." So
what, even if they were??)


I'm not aware that we've run low on Al, Si or O2 just yet. There's also a
bit of solar energy available in this half of the world. If you really want
to go into space to get it, go to earth orbit, no need to go to the moon
(much longer power cord!).

Ken



What's the deal with Mars if we haven't even built a base on the
Moon yet? Why do I get the feeling space exploration is funded
by people who get their idea of what's important from the head-
lines of the National Enquirer?

What's the deal with trying to find life out there? I mean, it
still doesn't mean that *we* could live there, and that's all
that counts!



  #27  
Old January 12th 04, 01:07 AM
Poliisi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mars Rover longevity again limited by dust build-up

Yeah! All these "Close Encounters" type missions, and in all
this time, when was the last time we had a rover roam the Moon?
That's a place whose resources could actually help us on Earth--
solve our energy problems and all that.


How, is there something that we dont have on Earth already?
  #28  
Old January 12th 04, 10:28 AM
George William Herbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mars Rover longevity again limited by dust build-up

(posted and mailed)

Henry Spencer wrote:
Looks like something in the sci.space.science moderating machinery is
stripping out body lines that happen to begin with "Path". Tsk tsk.


Good spot. Awk script was intended to stop parsing
after the header ended, and didn't.

According to RCS, that bug had been there for 9 years and 7 months...
This was the first report.


-george william herbert
Moderator, sci.space.tech & sci.space.science
Moderator, sci.military.moderated
Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation
Moderator, alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-radiological-moderated


  #29  
Old January 12th 04, 08:01 PM
Arduin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mars Rover longevity again limited by dust build-up

Marc 182 wrote in message t...
Ever blast a PC fan with a can of "air"? Dust blows off everywhere. It
would work, even with a moderately weak compressor.


I was thinking along the lines of a thin, transparent plastic cover(s)
with "memory" of being tightly rolled. Blow the catch holding the
cover down and it rolls back to remove all the accumulated dust. Not
sure if it would survive the journey, however.

Seems like a nuke-powered rover can be made self-heating, so why the
concern over cold?

--
Bob
  #30  
Old January 13th 04, 01:13 AM
Coos Haak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mars Rover longevity again limited by dust build-up

Op Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:07:06 +0000 (UTC) schreef Poliisi
:

Yeah! All these "Close Encounters" type missions, and in all
this time, when was the last time we had a rover roam the Moon?
That's a place whose resources could actually help us on Earth--
solve our energy problems and all that.


How, is there something that we dont have on Earth already?


A new form of selenium or even dilithium perhaps?

--
Coos
 




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
Delta-Like Fan On Mars Suggests Ancient Rivers Were Persistent Ron Baalke Science 0 November 13th 03 10:06 PM
International Student Team Selected to Work in Mars Rover Mission Operations Ron Baalke Science 0 November 7th 03 06:55 PM
If You Thought That Was a Close View of Mars, Just Wait (Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) Ron Baalke Science 0 September 23rd 03 10:25 PM
NASA Selects UA 'Phoenix' Mission To Mars Ron Baalke Science 0 August 4th 03 10:48 PM
Students and Teachers to Explore Mars Ron Baalke Science 0 July 18th 03 07:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:30 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.