Seven Minutes of Terror

In article 75832e27-4f92-4694-8220-d2e09312c0c8
@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jul 11, 1:02*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ab6e8f8a-dc17-4037-ae6a-
, says...



On Jul 11, 8:55*am, "hanson" wrote:
.... or have you forgotten already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s
and also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=P4boyXQuUIw

i will be shocked if it works successfully.

the system appears overly complex and the great martian is licking his
chops. worse theres no 2nd vehicle in transit.

besides which the nuclear power supply is reported to be degrading too
fast which will limit science operations

And yet, you're a long time supporter of more toasters on Mars.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

so spirit and opportunity are toasters to you???

Pretty much. They're quite limited in what they can do and how far they
can roam.

We've been through this before. People in EVA suits are still orders of
magnitude more capable than "robots". Besides, if we're never going to
send people to Mars, why would we be exploring it in the first place?

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article 1abd29c3-7751-4938-8021-
, says...

On Jul 11, 11:02*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

And yet, you're a long time supporter of more toasters on Mars.

Sending men into orbit is easy enough - we sent men into LEO starting
with John Glenn back in 1963. Sending men to the Moon was proven
technically feasible in 1969 - we should not have stopped as soon as
we did, but instead we should have progressed to building a permanent
base on the Moon.

Can we send men to Mars?

Without greatly improved life-support technology, sending a man to
Mars by rocket would be very impractical, _even_ taking advantage of
Dr. Robert Zubrin's ingenious idea to save fuel mass for the return
journey, because of the length of time the trip would take.

That shouldn't be too terrible an obstacle, though. Life-support
technology can be tested here on Earth without the expense of a rocket
launch, and so it should be possible to develop the technology that is
needed. Doing that would be a lot less expensive than designing a new
manned booster (although, of course, we need one anyways to send
astronauts to the ISS, even though the ISS does not serve as obvious a
purpose as a trip to Mars). So I'm somewhat surprised there is no sign
of an ambitious effort to get life support tech up to that ambitious
level.

The brute force method for life support is to take along all the O2,
H2O, and food needed. In other words, no closed loop recycling. Sure
it adds some mass to the mass budget, but not as much as you'd think.
The H2O and food double as radiation shielding for the solar storm
shelter, which you're going to need anyway. The extra O2 is really the
only added mass, and that replaces lots of complex air recycling
systems, so it reduces risk.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

so spirit and opportunity are toasters to you???

Pretty much. *They're quite limited in what they can do and how far they
can roam.

We've been through this before. *People in EVA suits are still orders of
magnitude more capable than "robots". *Besides, if we're never going to
send people to Mars, why would we be exploring it in the first place?

Jeff

so why bother doing the grand tour? or the mission to pluto? or send
craft out of the solar system if even accidently........

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
On 12/07/2012 2:24 AM, bob haller wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:55 am, "hanson" wrote:
.... or have you forgotten already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s
and also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=P4boyXQuUIw

i will be shocked if it works successfully.

the system appears overly complex and the great martian is licking his
chops. worse theres no 2nd vehicle in transit.

It's certainly complex, but to characterise it as overly complex implies
that there is a simpler way of doing it.

The purpose of each step is identified in the video. What can be left out?


The idea of the skycrane was to lower the complexity of the system
and increase reliability for a bunch of reasons.

An airbag lander is much simpler and more reliable. But that
would greatly reduce the size of the rover. And a legged
lander would be the most complicated of all, and also
greatly reduce the size of the lander since the total weight
landing on Mars would be much higher.

A skycrane doesn't have to deal with the interaction between
the thrusters and the ground.

And it can land on places with a far wider range of terrain than
a legged lander. Which would have to be far more concerned
with the exact landing site in terms of rocks, and especially slope.

And a legged lander needs to shut off the thrusters at the exact
moment of landing, so the skycrane makes for a more stable
landing without having to have very complicated active hazard
detection and avoidance systems.

The skycrane also greatly reduces the total weight landing on
Mars, allowing for a larger rover, higher landing speed, and
increased landing stability. And with either an airbag or legged
lander the MSL would have to drive off the lander which
was a problem for the current rovers when the airbags got
in the way of the ramp.

The skycrane is a good way of minimizing risk, while maximizing
the size of the rover.


s








Sylvia.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article 75832e27-4f92-4694-8220-d2e09312c0c8
@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jul 11, 1:02 pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ab6e8f8a-dc17-4037-ae6a-
, says...



On Jul 11, 8:55 am, "hanson" wrote:
.... or have you forgotten already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s
and also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=P4boyXQuUIw

i will be shocked if it works successfully.

the system appears overly complex and the great martian is licking
his
chops. worse theres no 2nd vehicle in transit.

besides which the nuclear power supply is reported to be degrading
too
fast which will limit science operations

And yet, you're a long time supporter of more toasters on Mars.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

so spirit and opportunity are toasters to you???

Pretty much. They're quite limited in what they can do and how far they
can roam.

We've been through this before. People in EVA suits are still orders of
magnitude more capable than "robots". Besides, if we're never going to
send people to Mars, why would we be exploring it in the first place?


No one argues that people would be far more efficient explorers.
But the 20 or 30 year wait, or the huge costs aren't the
only problems. A program that takes that long would have
to be funded by a good half dozen different administrations
over time spans where the political and economic realities
may dramatically change.

Chances are a manned program would be canceled
before it really got started, and even if it did manage
to happen, would likely be the anti-climatic event
of the century, since all the various rovers will have
already saturated us with all the data and pictures
we care to have.

We've already seen how NASA's approach of
incremental exploration....search for water (not life)
.....now the search for habitable conditions (not life)
.....then waiting for a manned missions to search
for the holy grail...life, has worked out.

It got flushed halfway through.

It was a nice try by NASA to ensure a handful of
scientists had govt paid grants lasting for decades
and for their entire careers. But no cigar, the public
gets short changed by a self-serving approach to
exploration with a science program that doesn't
seem to understand politics, reality or the public.

No one wants to wait 30 years for the answers we
should be getting ....next month. Too bad for us
we don't get the answers to life on Mars since
NASA blew their chance by going for the gold.

A Gold-Plated Safari to Mars for the select and few.
While the world burns!

A fleet of nuclear powered ships to Mars?
To find the same answers a rover costing one thousand
as much, taking one twentieth the time could do?

What were they thinking? It was the definition of
lunacy.


Jonathan


s






Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Jul 12, 11:26*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:24*am, bob haller wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:55*am, "hanson" wrote:

.... or have you forgotten already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s
and also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=P4boyXQuUIw

i will be shocked if it works successfully.

the system appears overly complex and the great martian is licking his
chops. worse theres no 2nd vehicle in transit.

besides which the nuclear power supply is reported to be degrading too
fast which will limit science operations

They obviously couldn't spare any weapons grade plutonium for this
mission.

You're obviously an ignorant ****.

Hint: *It's not a nuclear reactor and they tend to degrade FASTER
because the half-life of the fuel is much shorter due to higher decay
rates.

Hint: *Bobbert is an ignorant ****, as well, and this is just one of
his usual drums to beat, ignoring the facts.


as always you missed the news.

The RTG is a new beta one, constrained by a lack of fuel.....

the new RTG will not allow full science to be performed, or all the
exloration originally planned, all for lack of power.

the bvehicle was rushed to launch and the team running it are already
talking of version 2 in case this one fails to land successfully.

nasa is incapable of doing much of anything but spending big bucks
just look at JWST........

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message ...

:: the nuclear power supply is reported to be degrading too fast which
:: will limit science operations

: Brad Guth
: They obviously couldn't spare any weapons grade plutonium for this
: mission.

I realize it's hopeless asking Guth, but might be amusing.
How would "weapons grade" plutonium help in a power application?



I was thinking the same thing.


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

In article c3f7e3b8-4453-46b3-817a-
, says...

so spirit and opportunity are toasters to you???

Pretty much. *They're quite limited in what they can do and how far they
can roam.

We've been through this before. *People in EVA suits are still orders of
magnitude more capable than "robots". *Besides, if we're never going to
send people to Mars, why would we be exploring it in the first place?

Jeff

so why bother doing the grand tour? or the mission to pluto? or send
craft out of the solar system if even accidently........

That's a far cry from your calls to blanket Mars with lots of robotic
probes. Mars has had more than its fair share of unmanned landers. Why
do you think that is? I know my answer to that question, and I'd think
it was rather obvious.

Jeff
p.s. Coincidentally, I'm currently reading "Man Plus" by Frederik Pohl,
which actually ties in with my answer quite nicely.
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

"jonathan" wrote:



"hanson" wrote:
Seven Minutes of Terror, or have you forgotten already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s
and also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=P4boyXQuUIw
______

wrote:
i will be shocked if it works successfully.
the system appears overly complex and the great martian
is licking his chops. worse theres no 2nd vehicle in transit.
besides which the nuclear power supply is reported to be
degrading too fast which will limit science operations
______

Jeff Findley wrote:
And yet, you're a long time supporter of more toasters on Mars.
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
_______

wrote
so spirit and opportunity are toasters to you???
________

"Jeff Findley" wrote:
Pretty much. They're quite limited in what they can do and how far they
can roam.
We've been through this before. People in EVA suits are still orders of
magnitude more capable than "robots". Besides, if we're never going to
send people to Mars, why would we be exploring it in the first place?
________

"jonathan" wrote:
No one argues that people would be far more efficient explorers.
But the 20 or 30 year wait, or the huge costs aren't the
only problems. A program that takes that long would have
to be funded by a good half dozen different administrations
over time spans where the political and economic realities
may dramatically change.

Chances are a manned program would be canceled
before it really got started, and even if it did manage
to happen, would likely be the anti-climatic event
of the century, since all the various rovers will have
already saturated us with all the data and pictures
we care to have.

We've already seen how NASA's approach of
incremental exploration....search for water (not life)
.....now the search for habitable conditions (not life)
.....then waiting for a manned missions to search
for the holy grail...life, has worked out.

It got flushed halfway through.

It was a nice try by NASA to ensure a handful of
scientists had govt paid grants lasting for decades
and for their entire careers. But no cigar, the public
gets short changed by a self-serving approach to
exploration with a science program that doesn't
seem to understand politics, reality or the public.

No one wants to wait 30 years for the answers we
should be getting ....next month. Too bad for us
we don't get the answers to life on Mars since
NASA blew their chance by going for the gold.

A Gold-Plated Safari to Mars for the select and few.
While the world burns!

A fleet of nuclear powered ships to Mars?
To find the same answers a rover costing one thousand
as much, taking one twentieth the time could do?

What were they thinking? It was the definition of
lunacy.
________

hanson wrote:
Excellent analysis, Jonathan!.
No entertainment -- No money -- No missions.
Not even FUD-mastering raises enough interest
any longer since every interest group over-uses it.
http://tinyurl.com/FUD-Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt

On Jul 13, 12:06*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:26*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:24*am, bob haller wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:55*am, "hanson" wrote:

.... or have you forgotten already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s
and also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=P4boyXQuUIw

i will be shocked if it works successfully.

the system appears overly complex and the great martian is licking his
chops. worse theres no 2nd vehicle in transit.

besides which the nuclear power supply is reported to be degrading too
fast which will limit science operations

They obviously couldn't spare any weapons grade plutonium for this
mission.

You're obviously an ignorant ****.

Hint: *It's not a nuclear reactor and they tend to degrade FASTER
because the half-life of the fuel is much shorter due to higher decay
rates.

Hint: *Bobbert is an ignorant ****, as well, and this is just one of
his usual drums to beat, ignoring the facts.

as always you missed the news.

As always with you, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!

snip usual Bobberting

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

i guess we will all find out on landing day....

laugh now or cry then that is the question.........

but the designers already talking about a replacement is not a good
sign. they may be aware of some fault scenarios the public hasnt been
told about