| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Uncle Al" |
| Date: |
22 Jan 2004 12:41:50 PM |
| Object: |
"Spirit" rover craps out |
<http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/22/spirit.contact/index.html>
NASA is renowned for its antenna failures - the Hubble space
telescope, Ulysses at Jupiter, and now their little radio-controlled
go-cart on Mars.
Uncle Al eagerly anticipates a Hummer-2 advert beginning with the $240
million pigmy brain fart that couldn't call home. Anticipating that
its working life would be less than 90 days because of dust
accumulating on its solar panels is also precious. Hey NASA, "blow
job."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
| User: "Ed Keane III" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
22 Jan 2004 01:18:06 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4010196E.FF2F1560@hate.spam.net...
<http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/22/spirit.contact/index.html>
NASA is renowned for its antenna failures - the Hubble space
telescope, Ulysses at Jupiter, and now their little radio-controlled
go-cart on Mars.
Uncle Al eagerly anticipates a Hummer-2 advert beginning with the $240
million pigmy brain fart that couldn't call home. Anticipating that
its working life would be less than 90 days because of dust
accumulating on its solar panels is also precious. Hey NASA, "blow
job."
If we divert all of our resources away from other NASA
projects how soon can we get another one on the surface?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
22 Jan 2004 02:01:50 PM |
|
|
"Ed Keane III" <keane@westelcom.com> wrote in message
news:401025c8$0$21833$38cefb40@news.westelcom.com...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4010196E.FF2F1560@hate.spam.net...
<http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/22/spirit.contact/index.html>
NASA is renowned for its antenna failures - the Hubble space
telescope, Ulysses at Jupiter, and now their little radio-controlled
go-cart on Mars.
Uncle Al eagerly anticipates a Hummer-2 advert beginning with the $240
million pigmy brain fart that couldn't call home. Anticipating that
its working life would be less than 90 days because of dust
accumulating on its solar panels is also precious. Hey NASA, "blow
job."
If we divert all of our resources away from other NASA
projects how soon can we get another one on the surface?
A basic Hohmann transfer orbit takes in the neighborhood
of eight and a half months. You could get fancy with
Earth fly-by's to shave that down a bit. Add build time.
Add time to overcome political inertia. Call it five years.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
22 Jan 2004 01:54:59 PM |
|
|
Ed Keane III wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4010196E.FF2F1560@hate.spam.net...
<http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/22/spirit.contact/index.html>
NASA is renowned for its antenna failures - the Hubble space
telescope, Ulysses at Jupiter, and now their little radio-controlled
go-cart on Mars.
Uncle Al eagerly anticipates a Hummer-2 advert beginning with the $240
million pigmy brain fart that couldn't call home. Anticipating that
its working life would be less than 90 days because of dust
accumulating on its solar panels is also precious. Hey NASA, "blow
job."
If we divert all of our resources away from other NASA
projects how soon can we get another one on the surface?
About a week. Number Two rover is due to land end of January,
presumably harboring the same engineering glitch. Given NASA's very
limited abilities (when will the next scheduled Space Scuttle launch
be announced delayed?) and physical constraints in general, efficient
Mars launches are limited to orbital oppositions. Mars has an
opposition every 25 months. Perihelic oppositions occur perhaps
once/century.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Keane III" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
22 Jan 2004 02:08:11 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40102A93.839E182B@hate.spam.net...
Ed Keane III wrote:
If we divert all of our resources away from other NASA
projects how soon can we get another one on the surface?
About a week. Number Two rover is due to land end of January,
presumably harboring the same engineering glitch. Given NASA's very
limited abilities (when will the next scheduled Space Scuttle launch
be announced delayed?) and physical constraints in general, efficient
Mars launches are limited to orbital oppositions. Mars has an
opposition every 25 months. Perihelic oppositions occur perhaps
once/century.
A week! Good man. Is there any way we could
cut taxes and get it there by this weekend?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
22 Jan 2004 03:35:19 PM |
|
|
Ed Keane III wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40102A93.839E182B@hate.spam.net...
Ed Keane III wrote:
If we divert all of our resources away from other NASA
projects how soon can we get another one on the surface?
About a week. Number Two rover is due to land end of January,
presumably harboring the same engineering glitch. Given NASA's very
limited abilities (when will the next scheduled Space Scuttle launch
be announced delayed?) and physical constraints in general, efficient
Mars launches are limited to orbital oppositions. Mars has an
opposition every 25 months. Perihelic oppositions occur perhaps
once/century.
A week! Good man. Is there any way we could
cut taxes and get it there by this weekend?
Note that NASA just announced an open-ended delay in the eagerly
anticipated October 2004 Space Scuttle launch. The was never anything
wrong with the Space Scuttle, there still isn't anything wrong with
the Space Scuttle, and the Space Scuttle won't again be launched until
all unknown hazards are identified and studied.
There is 30 tons of payload capacity that can be played off against
safety concerns! Oops. Some seven tons have already been
compromised, er, invested in the future of manned space travel; down
to 23 tons of payload. The average Space Scuttle payload over 96
trips is a pitiful 15.9 tonnes - a meager 11% of the deadweight Space
Scuttle's 150 ton mass. Note a that a Boeing 747-400ER Freighter
weighs about 170 tonnes empty and 413 tonnes fully loaded. Why does
the Space Scuttle have 5.6% of its payload? The plane flies at Mach
0.855 with a range of 8700 miles.
http://shuttlepayloads.jsc.nasa.gov/flying/facts/facts.htm
If you read between the lines, the actual numbers are worse. NASA
credits Space Scuttle launch mass to a stripped empty Space Scuttle -
no fuel or other consummables, no stowage, no educators... One stands
(Ok - sits) amazed that the number of liters of space urine and
kilograms of space feces collected (presumably for our children) are
not highlighted.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
22 Jan 2004 08:33:26 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40104217.1EE32847@hate.spam.net...
If you read between the lines, the actual numbers are worse. NASA
credits Space Scuttle launch mass to a stripped empty Space Scuttle -
no fuel or other consummables, no stowage, no educators... One stands
(Ok - sits) amazed that the number of liters of space urine and
kilograms of space feces collected (presumably for our children) are
not highlighted.
Uhh... Butthead, he said "Feces" Ha heh heh, heh, Ummm.... "Feces feces"
heh, heh, heh
He also said Your mom's a *****, Beavis.
I know that, asswipe. Tell me something new.
Space urine, weenie.
Yank me, Uhh... You're in what, fart face. Heh heh heh
You're in my ***** and can't get out, Heh.
That'a good one, Butthead. Damn, I sure love the space program. Call N-*****-A
and tell them you're an ASStronout.
No way, buttmuncher. The only chicks that are in space are the ones that
can't get anything here on earth and have to go looking outside their
species for action. Didn't you know that?
So? You gonna let that stop you? Heh he heh he he he
Yeah... what's nasa's phone number?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Keane III" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
22 Jan 2004 04:28:03 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40104217.1EE32847@hate.spam.net...
Ed Keane III wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:40102A93.839E182B@hate.spam.net...
Ed Keane III wrote:
If we divert all of our resources away from other NASA
projects how soon can we get another one on the surface?
About a week. Number Two rover is due to land end of January,
presumably harboring the same engineering glitch. Given NASA's very
limited abilities (when will the next scheduled Space Scuttle launch
be announced delayed?) and physical constraints in general, efficient
Mars launches are limited to orbital oppositions. Mars has an
opposition every 25 months. Perihelic oppositions occur perhaps
once/century.
A week! Good man. Is there any way we could
cut taxes and get it there by this weekend?
Note that NASA just announced an open-ended delay in the eagerly
anticipated October 2004 Space Scuttle launch. The was never anything
wrong with the Space Scuttle, there still isn't anything wrong with
the Space Scuttle, and the Space Scuttle won't again be launched until
all unknown hazards are identified and studied.
There is 30 tons of payload capacity that can be played off against
safety concerns! Oops. Some seven tons have already been
compromised, er, invested in the future of manned space travel; down
to 23 tons of payload. The average Space Scuttle payload over 96
trips is a pitiful 15.9 tonnes - a meager 11% of the deadweight Space
Scuttle's 150 ton mass. Note a that a Boeing 747-400ER Freighter
weighs about 170 tonnes empty and 413 tonnes fully loaded. Why does
the Space Scuttle have 5.6% of its payload? The plane flies at Mach
0.855 with a range of 8700 miles.
http://shuttlepayloads.jsc.nasa.gov/flying/facts/facts.htm
If you read between the lines, the actual numbers are worse. NASA
credits Space Scuttle launch mass to a stripped empty Space Scuttle -
no fuel or other consummables, no stowage, no educators... One stands
(Ok - sits) amazed that the number of liters of space urine and
kilograms of space feces collected (presumably for our children) are
not highlighted.
Using a toilet where no man has crapped before is what it's all about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BllFs6" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
23 Jan 2004 08:04:36 AM |
|
|
Using a toilet where no man has crapped before is what it's all about.
Well....knowing the joy men get whipping out the trouser snake and draining him
on a nice bush somewhere....I'd say that chance for a man to eliminate bodily
waste in a new area probably HAS been the main motivation for all of mankinds
exploratory escapades :)
take care
Blll
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
22 Jan 2004 10:05:27 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<40104217.1EE32847@hate.spam.net>...
....
There is 30 tons of payload capacity that can be played off against
safety concerns! Oops. Some seven tons have already been
compromised, er, invested in the future of manned space travel; down
to 23 tons of payload. The average Space Scuttle payload over 96
trips is a pitiful 15.9 tonnes - a meager 11% of the deadweight Space
Scuttle's 150 ton mass. Note a that a Boeing 747-400ER Freighter
weighs about 170 tonnes empty and 413 tonnes fully loaded. Why does
the Space Scuttle have 5.6% of its payload? The plane flies at Mach
0.855 with a range of 8700 miles.
Note that in your 13" screen measured diagonally desire to maximize
the numbers to make your point -- and if you didn't, the other guy
would, so you are pre-emptively justified, Mr. Gresham -- you have no
doubt included in the "payload" the 747 could carry 8700 miles the
fuel weight, while you carp that the shuttle's payload includes
consumables.
Nonetheless I'm sure the cost measured almost anyway to get something
where you want it is cheaper for the 747, but of course the question
is not how the space shuttle compares to a plane in some incomparable
comparison, nor how it compares to a freight train, a tramp freighter
or a mule cart, but how it compares to a theoretical maximum
efficiency for a vehicle which could do the same lifting job between
the same terminal points.
The shuttle system is evidently hampered by doing some of its work
outside the atmosphere, where it must bring oxidizer as well as fuel
-- while the 747 must only carry the fuel -- and also by lifting the
material higher (how high?), while the 747 is limited to maybe 6 miles
of lifting, and thereafter range is limited by drag, not gravitational
potential.
So about the only part of the shuttle/747 comparison which is truly
germane is the subset of the shuttle flight where the payload is
lifted from 0 to 6 miles: now, one is reminded both that the X-15 was
boosted precisely by a helpful airplane before lighting off, and ...
interestingly for your comparison ... that the empty shuttle at least
is carried back to base by precisely a 747.
Now one could look at cost comparisons between a hypothetical system
which carried a launch vehicle aloft as high as feasible with a
conventional aircraft, and then lit off the rockets, and the current
system where you light the rockets off on the ground. All factors
must be considered, including design of the the airplane (do we have
to build something even _bigger_ than a 747?).
You mention another limiting factor: safety. This has been mentioned
before. From the standpoint of freight, probably using a manned
vehicle with all the safety systems and redundancy deemed acceptable
in a manned space vehicle, vs. and un-manned freighter, is probably
about the dumbest thing you could do from the standpoint of orbital
payload efficiency. Get rid of the weight of crew support and cut the
safety margins to something economically rational for the value of the
payload -- not the value of the human payload, and you are probably
getting close to maximum achievable payload efficiency.
Now, let's combine these ideas, class. Considering fuel efficiency of
an airbreathing aerodynamic lifting vehicle (aka "plane"), the cost
efficiencies of using existing proven designs/fleets, and the saving
of acceptable unmanned safety levels, your freighter fleet consists of
strapping the largest mofo unmanned booster rocket + payload you can
manage onto a 747 with enough fuel to get it to launch altitude and
back with modest safety margin.
Just to do something new and wacko, build a special runway with a huge
trough to allow takeoff with an underslung booster vehicle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
22 Jan 2004 08:33:09 PM |
|
|
240 mil ? it was 879 mil.
and still counting
.
|
|
|
| User: "uray" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
22 Jan 2004 09:12:53 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7829-401087E5-409@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
240 mil ? it was 879 mil.
and still counting
The $800m+ cost is for both missions, Spirit and Opportunity. $240m
sounds about right for just one rover.
They should have bought the extended warranty :-(
uray
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alfred Einstead" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" rover craps out |
22 Jan 2004 07:50:03 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Uncle Al eagerly anticipates a Hummer-2 advert beginning with the $240
million pigmy brain fart that couldn't call home. Anticipating that
its working life would be less than 90 days because of dust
accumulating on its solar panels is also precious.
It just goes to prove: never trust a machine to do a man's job.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
