Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy - The Washington Post.
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Clark
May 17, 2013, 8:22:18 AM5/17/13
to
Excellent news:
NASA May Launch Donated Spy Satellite Telescope to Mars.
by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 15 May 2013 Time: 04:30 AM
ET
[Quote]
The NRO's gift to NASA of unused spy satellites could enable a new
project termed MOST, or Mars-Orbiting Space Telescope.
...
As it's currently envisioned, MOST would have three main science
instruments — an imaging spectral mapper, a high-resolution imager and
an ultraviolet spectrometer — allowing it to make a broad range of
detailed observations.
The mapper would have a spatial resolution of 0.7 feet (0.21 m)
per pixel at an orbiting altitude of 250 miles (400 kilometers),
McEwen said. That's about 100 times better than the resolution
achieved by a similar instrument aboard NASA's Mars Reconnaissance
Orbiter (MRO), which has been circling the Red Planet since 2006.
...
MOST's imaging instrument would be able to photograph small areas
with a resolution of 3.1 inches (8 centimeters) per pixel — about four
times better than MRO's HiRise instrument (which McEwen leads as
principal investigator).
...
Looking beyond Mars
MOST would also be built to look up and out, beyond the Red Planet
and its two tiny moons.
The telescope's UV spectrometer is envisioned to be similar to
that of the Hubble Space Telescope. But MOST likely wouldn't be able
to study extremely distant objects as well as the famous HST, because
installing a Hubble-like guidance and navigation system that allows a
prolonged lock on such faint targets would raise the price tag
significantly, McEwen said.
Instead, MOST may be optimized to view planets and moons in the
outer solar system.
"We decided to emphasize bright targets, so mostly solar system
targets — monitoring Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune atmospheres,
monitoring volcanism on [Jupiter's moon] Io and cloud patterns on
[Saturn's moon] Titan," McEwen said. "There's an interesting variety
of things you could do in planetary science with it."
[/quote]
http://www.space.com/21064-nasa-donated-spy-telescope-mars.html
Here is the report by McEwen at the "Study on Applications of Large
Space Optics" (SALSO) workshop:
The Mars Orbiting Space Telescope (MOST).
http://salso.msfc.nasa.gov/lib/119Mcewen.pdf
The NRO scopes were reported to be lighter than Hubble, but I was
surprised how much lighter. The study by McEwen uses a mass of only
2,000 kg for the telescope and instruments. This is compared to a mass
of 11,000 kg for the Hubble. In that case it's surprising it's felt
solar electric propulsion would be needed to put it in Mars orbit, not
even to land. Quite likely a Delta IV Heavy could do it, certainly a
Falcon Heavy could.
Other proposed uses for the NRO scopes discussed at the SALSO
workshop available here:
SALSO Abstract Library.
http://salso.msfc.nasa.gov/
Bob Clark
cf.,
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy,
rec.arts.sf.science
From: Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy - The
Washington Post.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.science/msg/e5ea3f7d6eedecb4?hl=en
NASA May Launch Donated Spy Satellite Telescope to Mars.
by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 15 May 2013 Time: 04:30 AM
ET
[Quote]
The NRO's gift to NASA of unused spy satellites could enable a new
project termed MOST, or Mars-Orbiting Space Telescope.
...
As it's currently envisioned, MOST would have three main science
instruments — an imaging spectral mapper, a high-resolution imager and
an ultraviolet spectrometer — allowing it to make a broad range of
detailed observations.
The mapper would have a spatial resolution of 0.7 feet (0.21 m)
per pixel at an orbiting altitude of 250 miles (400 kilometers),
McEwen said. That's about 100 times better than the resolution
achieved by a similar instrument aboard NASA's Mars Reconnaissance
Orbiter (MRO), which has been circling the Red Planet since 2006.
...
MOST's imaging instrument would be able to photograph small areas
with a resolution of 3.1 inches (8 centimeters) per pixel — about four
times better than MRO's HiRise instrument (which McEwen leads as
principal investigator).
...
Looking beyond Mars
MOST would also be built to look up and out, beyond the Red Planet
and its two tiny moons.
The telescope's UV spectrometer is envisioned to be similar to
that of the Hubble Space Telescope. But MOST likely wouldn't be able
to study extremely distant objects as well as the famous HST, because
installing a Hubble-like guidance and navigation system that allows a
prolonged lock on such faint targets would raise the price tag
significantly, McEwen said.
Instead, MOST may be optimized to view planets and moons in the
outer solar system.
"We decided to emphasize bright targets, so mostly solar system
targets — monitoring Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune atmospheres,
monitoring volcanism on [Jupiter's moon] Io and cloud patterns on
[Saturn's moon] Titan," McEwen said. "There's an interesting variety
of things you could do in planetary science with it."
[/quote]
http://www.space.com/21064-nasa-donated-spy-telescope-mars.html
Here is the report by McEwen at the "Study on Applications of Large
Space Optics" (SALSO) workshop:
The Mars Orbiting Space Telescope (MOST).
http://salso.msfc.nasa.gov/lib/119Mcewen.pdf
The NRO scopes were reported to be lighter than Hubble, but I was
surprised how much lighter. The study by McEwen uses a mass of only
2,000 kg for the telescope and instruments. This is compared to a mass
of 11,000 kg for the Hubble. In that case it's surprising it's felt
solar electric propulsion would be needed to put it in Mars orbit, not
even to land. Quite likely a Delta IV Heavy could do it, certainly a
Falcon Heavy could.
Other proposed uses for the NRO scopes discussed at the SALSO
workshop available here:
SALSO Abstract Library.
http://salso.msfc.nasa.gov/
Bob Clark
cf.,
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy,
rec.arts.sf.science
From: Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy - The
Washington Post.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.science/msg/e5ea3f7d6eedecb4?hl=en
Yousuf Khan
May 18, 2013, 11:19:24 AM5/18/13
to
On 17/05/2013 6:22 PM, Robert Clark wrote:
> Excellent news:
>
> NASA May Launch Donated Spy Satellite Telescope to Mars.
> by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 15 May 2013 Time: 04:30 AM
> ET
> [Quote]
> The NRO's gift to NASA of unused spy satellites could enable a new
> project termed MOST, or Mars-Orbiting Space Telescope.
> ...
> As it's currently envisioned, MOST would have three main science
> instruments � an imaging spectral mapper, a high-resolution imager and
> Excellent news:
>
> NASA May Launch Donated Spy Satellite Telescope to Mars.
> by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 15 May 2013 Time: 04:30 AM
> ET
> [Quote]
> The NRO's gift to NASA of unused spy satellites could enable a new
> project termed MOST, or Mars-Orbiting Space Telescope.
> ...
> As it's currently envisioned, MOST would have three main science
> an ultraviolet spectrometer � allowing it to make a broad range of
> detailed observations.
> The mapper would have a spatial resolution of 0.7 feet (0.21 m)
> per pixel at an orbiting altitude of 250 miles (400 kilometers),
> McEwen said. That's about 100 times better than the resolution
> achieved by a similar instrument aboard NASA's Mars Reconnaissance
> Orbiter (MRO), which has been circling the Red Planet since 2006.
Hey, why not? As a spy satellite it was originally intended to look down
> The mapper would have a spatial resolution of 0.7 feet (0.21 m)
> per pixel at an orbiting altitude of 250 miles (400 kilometers),
> McEwen said. That's about 100 times better than the resolution
> achieved by a similar instrument aboard NASA's Mars Reconnaissance
> Orbiter (MRO), which has been circling the Red Planet since 2006.
on the ground on Earth, now it can still look down on the ground, on
Mars this time. :)
Launching so much long-term satellite equipment on the various Solar
System bodies, like Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, etc. are really
putting our flag down on our ownership of this entire Solar System, not
just Earth.
> Looking beyond Mars
> MOST would also be built to look up and out, beyond the Red Planet
> and its two tiny moons.
> The telescope's UV spectrometer is envisioned to be similar to
> that of the Hubble Space Telescope. But MOST likely wouldn't be able
> to study extremely distant objects as well as the famous HST, because
> installing a Hubble-like guidance and navigation system that allows a
> prolonged lock on such faint targets would raise the price tag
> significantly, McEwen said.
> Instead, MOST may be optimized to view planets and moons in the
> outer solar system.
long-distance objects anyways, this way you can concentrate JWST's
resources on stuff outside the solar system, and this thing can look at
stuff inside it.
Yousuf Khan
bob haller
May 18, 2013, 1:20:03 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 11:19 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 6:22 PM, Robert Clark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Excellent news:
>
> > NASA May Launch Donated Spy Satellite Telescope to Mars.
> > by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 15 May 2013 Time: 04:30 AM
> > ET
> > [Quote]
> > The NRO's gift to NASA of unused spy satellites could enable a new
> > project termed MOST, or Mars-Orbiting Space Telescope.
> > ...
> > As it's currently envisioned, MOST would have three main science
> > instruments — an imaging spectral mapper, a high-resolution imager and
> On 17/05/2013 6:22 PM, Robert Clark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Excellent news:
>
> > NASA May Launch Donated Spy Satellite Telescope to Mars.
> > by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 15 May 2013 Time: 04:30 AM
> > ET
> > [Quote]
> > The NRO's gift to NASA of unused spy satellites could enable a new
> > project termed MOST, or Mars-Orbiting Space Telescope.
> > ...
> > As it's currently envisioned, MOST would have three main science
> > an ultraviolet spectrometer — allowing it to make a broad range of
at........
Message has been deleted
Brian Thorn
May 18, 2013, 4:05:09 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:20:03 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:
>Geez i suggested sending one of these to mars and was laughed
>at........
You sometimes have a nugget of a good idea, Bob. But you usually jump
off the cliff with lots of nonsense to justify it.
Regardless, I doubt MOST will ever happen. It would be like sending a
KH-11 or Hubble to Mars and would make MRO (a pretty big orbiter) look
tiny. What kind of rocket are we going to send this to Mars on, SLS?
How are we going to get back that much bandwidth of KH-11/Hubble class
images from Mars?
And wait until Henry Spencer and the CSA hear that NASA is trying to
steal the "MOST" name...
A more basic Earth-orbiting telescope is a far better use for this
hardware.
Brian
wrote:
>Geez i suggested sending one of these to mars and was laughed
>at........
off the cliff with lots of nonsense to justify it.
Regardless, I doubt MOST will ever happen. It would be like sending a
KH-11 or Hubble to Mars and would make MRO (a pretty big orbiter) look
tiny. What kind of rocket are we going to send this to Mars on, SLS?
How are we going to get back that much bandwidth of KH-11/Hubble class
images from Mars?
And wait until Henry Spencer and the CSA hear that NASA is trying to
steal the "MOST" name...
A more basic Earth-orbiting telescope is a far better use for this
hardware.
Brian
bob haller
May 18, 2013, 6:28:31 PM5/18/13
to
> >Geez i suggested sending one of these to mars and was laughed
> >at........
>
> conjunction with that 'suggestion'.
>
My track record stands on its accuracy.:)
could a shuttle get stuck at statiion,,,,,,,, laughter, then columbia,
then nasa plans for a shuttle stuck at station
hey there have been too many fying catches, too much schedule
pressure, were going to a lose a shuttle... then columbia dies, cause?
too much schedule pressure
hey send a leftover spy sat to mars.LAUGHTER. Now they are taling of
doing just that:)
hey chemical propulsion for manned mars mission wouldnt work.
Now bolden says the same.
need I go on??????????
Meanwhile fred j cueless throws insults and offers nothing but useless
noise
jacob navia
May 18, 2013, 6:57:15 PM5/18/13
to
Le 18/05/13 17:19, Yousuf Khan a �crit :
No ownership of anything. It is not enough to send
a satellite somewhere to OWN a celestial body like Mars!
Anyway, other nations have sent satellites to other planets
(the russians for instance would own Venus since they landed in there
long time ago)
The U.S. owns a small portion of the earth delimited by their frontiers,
like all other countries on earth. They do not even own north america,
since canadian and mexicans also own part of it.
:-)
Just take it easy.
> Launching so much long-term satellite equipment on the various Solar
> System bodies, like Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, etc. are really
> putting our flag down on our ownership of this entire Solar System, not
> just Earth.
Just take it easy Mr.
> System bodies, like Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, etc. are really
> putting our flag down on our ownership of this entire Solar System, not
> just Earth.
No ownership of anything. It is not enough to send
a satellite somewhere to OWN a celestial body like Mars!
Anyway, other nations have sent satellites to other planets
(the russians for instance would own Venus since they landed in there
long time ago)
The U.S. owns a small portion of the earth delimited by their frontiers,
like all other countries on earth. They do not even own north america,
since canadian and mexicans also own part of it.
:-)
Just take it easy.
Yousuf Khan
May 18, 2013, 10:38:54 PM5/18/13
to
On 19/05/2013 4:57 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Just take it easy Mr.
>
> No ownership of anything. It is not enough to send
> a satellite somewhere to OWN a celestial body like Mars!
>
> Anyway, other nations have sent satellites to other planets
> (the russians for instance would own Venus since they landed in there
> long time ago)
>
> The U.S. owns a small portion of the earth delimited by their frontiers,
> like all other countries on earth. They do not even own north america,
> since canadian and mexicans also own part of it.
>
> :-)
>
> Just take it easy.
I was referring to Earth, not the United States.
> Just take it easy Mr.
>
> No ownership of anything. It is not enough to send
> a satellite somewhere to OWN a celestial body like Mars!
>
> Anyway, other nations have sent satellites to other planets
> (the russians for instance would own Venus since they landed in there
> long time ago)
>
> The U.S. owns a small portion of the earth delimited by their frontiers,
> like all other countries on earth. They do not even own north america,
> since canadian and mexicans also own part of it.
>
> :-)
>
> Just take it easy.
Yousuf Khan
Message has been deleted
bob haller
May 19, 2013, 9:35:10 AM5/19/13
to
>
> >Geez i suggested sending one of these to mars and was laughed
> >at........
>
> You were laughed at because you said such egregiously stupid things in
> conjunction with that 'suggestion'.
>
> This is your perpetual problem, Bobbert. You say something surrounded
> conjunction with that 'suggestion'.
>
> with idiotic ideas, people call you a moron, and later you only
> remember the one tiny similarity between what you said and what is
> happening.
>
so do some research and prove it, search the archives provide links
and post exactly I said that was idiotic......
my idea was to repurpose at least one of these spy sats for use in
mars orbit.
i was laughed at. your making the claim no prove it!
bob haller
May 19, 2013, 9:37:40 AM5/19/13
to
On May 18, 4:05 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:20:03 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
bandwith can be increased, it may be possible to compress the info.
DBS sats carry many more channels than they were capable of less than
10 years ago thanks to improvements in compression
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:20:03 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
DBS sats carry many more channels than they were capable of less than
10 years ago thanks to improvements in compression
Thomas Womack
May 19, 2013, 12:38:14 PM5/19/13
to
In article <3enfp89iun4irh3ve...@4ax.com>,
up on a Delta 4 with a solar-electric propulsion system on the
spacecraft, and creep up slowly on Mars.
Tom
Brian Thorn <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:20:03 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Geez i suggested sending one of these to mars and was laughed
>>at........
>
>You sometimes have a nugget of a good idea, Bob. But you usually jump
>off the cliff with lots of nonsense to justify it.
>
>Regardless, I doubt MOST will ever happen. It would be like sending a
>KH-11 or Hubble to Mars and would make MRO (a pretty big orbiter) look
>tiny. What kind of rocket are we going to send this to Mars on, SLS?
The scope is light (two tonnes or so); I think the plan is to send it
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:20:03 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Geez i suggested sending one of these to mars and was laughed
>>at........
>
>You sometimes have a nugget of a good idea, Bob. But you usually jump
>off the cliff with lots of nonsense to justify it.
>
>Regardless, I doubt MOST will ever happen. It would be like sending a
>KH-11 or Hubble to Mars and would make MRO (a pretty big orbiter) look
>tiny. What kind of rocket are we going to send this to Mars on, SLS?
up on a Delta 4 with a solar-electric propulsion system on the
spacecraft, and creep up slowly on Mars.
Tom
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 19, 2013, 2:28:53 PM5/19/13
to
stuff.
There is still however the minor issue of the maximum, practical, achievable
bandwidth of a data link between Earth and Mars which is far less than
that of Earth to Earth orbit.
--
Jim Pennino
Wayne Throop
May 19, 2013, 8:57:24 PM5/19/13
to
: Thomas Womack <two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
: The scope is light (two tonnes or so); I think the plan is to send it
UNTIL SUDDENLY I WAS UPON HIM!"
: The scope is light (two tonnes or so); I think the plan is to send it
: up on a Delta 4 with a solar-electric propulsion system on the
: spacecraft, and creep up slowly on Mars.
"Slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch,
: spacecraft, and creep up slowly on Mars.
UNTIL SUDDENLY I WAS UPON HIM!"
jacob navia
May 20, 2013, 5:38:11 AM5/20/13
to
Le 19/05/13 04:38, Yousuf Khan a �crit :
OK, I misunderstood. But even in that case, the question arises that we
would "own" something there ONLY if there isn't ANY life in Mars or
elsewhere.
If we find even a small bateria, the planet is not empty and we have NO
RIGHT to destroy that bacterium/alien life.
This is crucial. Alien life owns their planets, we have no right to
invade them, colonize them, destroy them.
It is just the golden rule: do not do onto others, what you wouldn't
like that others do to you. We wouldn't like being invaded, so we
shouldn't invade others.
Of course if the place is empty (no life at all) there is no problem.
would "own" something there ONLY if there isn't ANY life in Mars or
elsewhere.
If we find even a small bateria, the planet is not empty and we have NO
RIGHT to destroy that bacterium/alien life.
This is crucial. Alien life owns their planets, we have no right to
invade them, colonize them, destroy them.
It is just the golden rule: do not do onto others, what you wouldn't
like that others do to you. We wouldn't like being invaded, so we
shouldn't invade others.
Of course if the place is empty (no life at all) there is no problem.
bob haller
May 20, 2013, 9:10:19 AM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 5:38 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 19/05/13 04:38, Yousuf Khan a crit :
I believe life is everywhere, well perhaps not our moon but mars
probably has life.
we should explore mars with sterlized robots before sending dirty
bacteria covered humans.
> Le 19/05/13 04:38, Yousuf Khan a crit :
probably has life.
we should explore mars with sterlized robots before sending dirty
bacteria covered humans.
Message has been deleted
bob haller
May 21, 2013, 12:29:54 AM5/21/13
to
On May 20, 11:10 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And this shows why Bobbert really so favours toasters; he hates and is
> disgusted by those "dirty bacteria covered humans". As if humans will
> be running around Mars naked urinating on Mars life.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
it will be impossible to prevent humans from contaminating mars
> disgusted by those "dirty bacteria covered humans". As if humans will
> be running around Mars naked urinating on Mars life.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
it will be impossible to prevent humans from contaminating mars
Wrong Stuff
May 21, 2013, 1:21:45 AM5/21/13
to
already has life. If its sterile, life if takes maybe an improvement.
If there is life on Mars, that is answer to a big question, IMO.
If it is sterile, its a null result. It may have had life and
it went as the atmosphere went. There may have never been life
and that would be big but can we prove it.
Message has been deleted
bob haller
May 21, 2013, 8:47:40 AM5/21/13
to
> >> And this shows why Bobbert really so favours toasters; he hates and is
> >> disgusted by those "dirty bacteria covered humans". As if humans will
> >> be running around Mars naked urinating on Mars life.
>
> >it will be impossible to prevent humans from contaminating mars
>
> It will be impossible to prevent robots from contaminating mars
>
>
>
fred the robots will be sterilized.......
Message has been deleted
bob haller
May 21, 2013, 1:03:23 PM5/21/13
to
> >> >it will be impossible to prevent humans from contaminating mars
>
> >> It will be impossible to prevent robots from contaminating mars
>
> >fred the robots will be sterilized.......
>
> on mars........
no but human waste will have to be processed and no system will be
perfect....
all it will take is minor contamination to possibly wipe out all
current life on mars.
the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
in robots for exploring other planets can help with keeping the US
competive...
Greg (Strider) Moore
May 21, 2013, 8:09:42 PM5/21/13
to
"bob haller" wrote in message
news:78ff1262-ac63-415f...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Since when? You do realize that complete sterilization is not possible and
it's quite likely we've already contaminated the surface.
That said, it really only matters if material can actually live on Mars.
It's quite likely most stuff can't.
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
news:78ff1262-ac63-415f...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
it's quite likely we've already contaminated the surface.
That said, it really only matters if material can actually live on Mars.
It's quite likely most stuff can't.
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Greg (Strider) Moore
May 21, 2013, 9:45:28 PM5/21/13
to
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:44fkp8d1hiip8klu9...@4ax.com...
news:44fkp8d1hiip8klu9...@4ax.com...
>As if humans will
>be running around Mars naked urinating on Mars life.
>
Thanks Fred. If I ever get to Mars I now have a goal!
>be running around Mars naked urinating on Mars life.
>
Message has been deleted
Jeff Findley
May 22, 2013, 8:50:24 AM5/22/13
to
In article <1358f5e0-9cc1-4c8c-92a9-
fd4d88...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
contain the waste so it doesn't escape into the atmosphere of Mars.
That's called a waste holding tank. I'm pretty sure NASA is capable of
producing a tank to contain human waste that does not leak.
> all it will take is minor contamination to possibly wipe out all
> current life on mars.
There is no definitive proof that life currently exists on Mars. On top
of that, even if there were life on Mars, there is no basis for your
claim that earth life would destroy Martian life. This is especially
true since earth life is *not* suited to the extreme conditions present
on Mars.
> the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
> in robots for exploring other planets can help with keeping the US
> competive...
This is what I hear from you: bla, bla, bla, bla...
None of what you say in this thread is even remotely factually correct.
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
fd4d88...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> > >> >it will be impossible to prevent humans from contaminating mars
> >
> > >> It will be impossible to prevent robots from contaminating mars
> >
> > >fred the robots will be sterilized.......
> >
> > bobbert the humans won't be running around naked urinating on bushes
> > on mars........
>
> no but human waste will have to be processed and no system will be
> perfect....
It doesn't have to be "perfect" you ignorant git, it just needs to
> > >> >it will be impossible to prevent humans from contaminating mars
> >
> > >> It will be impossible to prevent robots from contaminating mars
> >
> > >fred the robots will be sterilized.......
> >
> > bobbert the humans won't be running around naked urinating on bushes
> > on mars........
>
> no but human waste will have to be processed and no system will be
> perfect....
contain the waste so it doesn't escape into the atmosphere of Mars.
That's called a waste holding tank. I'm pretty sure NASA is capable of
producing a tank to contain human waste that does not leak.
> all it will take is minor contamination to possibly wipe out all
> current life on mars.
of that, even if there were life on Mars, there is no basis for your
claim that earth life would destroy Martian life. This is especially
true since earth life is *not* suited to the extreme conditions present
on Mars.
> the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
> in robots for exploring other planets can help with keeping the US
> competive...
None of what you say in this thread is even remotely factually correct.
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
bob haller
May 22, 2013, 9:23:42 AM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 8:50 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <1358f5e0-9cc1-4c8c-92a9-
> fd4d887a6...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
the problem is humans are dirty, covered with bacteria all over our
bodies, in our waste, and even when we exhale. any of these could kill
whatever life forms currently exist on mars. or perhaps more
importandly could be rediscovered believed to be native martian life.
the first discovery of life on another planet will be gigantically
historic.
now about robotics replacing humans doing work.
with auto drive cars, robotically controlled farm machines like
computer driven plows and harvesters, robot butchers. pretty soon most
manual labor jobs will cease to exist. this can bring manufacturing
back to the US, unfortunately without most of the jobs, but we can be
competive again..
you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
they are cheaper than humans.
The US could be cutting edge by investing in space robots.
> In article <1358f5e0-9cc1-4c8c-92a9-
> fd4d887a6...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
bodies, in our waste, and even when we exhale. any of these could kill
whatever life forms currently exist on mars. or perhaps more
importandly could be rediscovered believed to be native martian life.
the first discovery of life on another planet will be gigantically
historic.
now about robotics replacing humans doing work.
with auto drive cars, robotically controlled farm machines like
computer driven plows and harvesters, robot butchers. pretty soon most
manual labor jobs will cease to exist. this can bring manufacturing
back to the US, unfortunately without most of the jobs, but we can be
competive again..
you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
they are cheaper than humans.
The US could be cutting edge by investing in space robots.
bob haller
May 22, 2013, 9:38:26 AM5/22/13
to
> >the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
> >in robots for exploring other planets can help with keeping the US
> >competive...
>
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57563618/are-robots-hurting-job-growth/
bob haller
May 22, 2013, 9:40:56 AM5/22/13
to
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57563618/are-robots-hurting-job...
Andrew McAfee: When I see what computers and robots can do right now,
I project that forward for two, three more generations, I think we're
going to find ourselves in a world where the work as we currently
think about it is largely done by machines.
Steve Kroft: And what are the people going to do?
Andrew McAfee: That's the $64,000 question.
Jeff Findley
May 22, 2013, 9:49:24 AM5/22/13
to
In article <473d870e-57f6-46cc-857a-1ebf6b401801
@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
Mars naked, breathing, urinating and defecating on everything.
> any of these could kill
> whatever life forms currently exist on mars. or perhaps more
> importandly could be rediscovered believed to be native martian life.
Unsupported assertion. Give me a cite for an earth based organism that
can live in Maritain conditions. Better yet, give me a cite for one
that can actually thrive on Mars and would pose a threat to any
indigenous species that *might* currently exist on Mars.
> the first discovery of life on another planet will be gigantically
> historic.
You're presupposing that life currently exists on Mars. That's simply
not been proven one way or the other.
> now about robotics replacing humans doing work.
More toaster fantasies...
> with auto drive cars, robotically controlled farm machines like
> computer driven plows and harvesters, robot butchers. pretty soon most
> manual labor jobs will cease to exist. this can bring manufacturing
> back to the US, unfortunately without most of the jobs, but we can be
> competive again..
Mars isn't the same as any of the conditions faced by the above semi-
autonomous or tele-operated machines on earth.
What about the time delay Bob? Ever take a control systems class? Do
you know what the maximum delay time in a control system is to prevent
pilot induced oscillations? I do, as I majored in dynamics and control
as part of my B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from Purdue University.
Please remind all of us of your qualifications again.
> you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
> jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
> they are cheaper than humans.
We're not there yet. I remember hearing that this was supposed to
happen "soon" ever since I was a little kid. Four decades later, and it
hasn't quite happened yet. My cousin's tractors don't drive themselves
on the farm. Airliners don't routinely take off and land without flight
crew. Army supply vehicles don't drive themselves to their
destinations.
You're the one that needs to accept reality, not me.
> The US could be cutting edge by investing in space robots.
I see you subscribe to the "NASA spin-off" myth that investing in "space
technology" in order to get earth bound "spin-offs" is somehow better or
cheaper than simply investing in earth bound technology in the first
place.
@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> On May 22, 8:50 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > This is what I hear from you: bla, bla, bla, bla...
> >
> > None of what you say in this thread is even remotely factually correct.
>
> On May 22, 8:50 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > This is what I hear from you: bla, bla, bla, bla...
> >
> > None of what you say in this thread is even remotely factually correct.
>
> the problem is humans are dirty, covered with bacteria all over our
> bodies, in our waste, and even when we exhale.
And you've been told repeatedly that humans won't be running around on
> bodies, in our waste, and even when we exhale.
Mars naked, breathing, urinating and defecating on everything.
> any of these could kill
> whatever life forms currently exist on mars. or perhaps more
> importandly could be rediscovered believed to be native martian life.
can live in Maritain conditions. Better yet, give me a cite for one
that can actually thrive on Mars and would pose a threat to any
indigenous species that *might* currently exist on Mars.
> the first discovery of life on another planet will be gigantically
> historic.
not been proven one way or the other.
> now about robotics replacing humans doing work.
> with auto drive cars, robotically controlled farm machines like
> computer driven plows and harvesters, robot butchers. pretty soon most
> manual labor jobs will cease to exist. this can bring manufacturing
> back to the US, unfortunately without most of the jobs, but we can be
> competive again..
autonomous or tele-operated machines on earth.
What about the time delay Bob? Ever take a control systems class? Do
you know what the maximum delay time in a control system is to prevent
pilot induced oscillations? I do, as I majored in dynamics and control
as part of my B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from Purdue University.
Please remind all of us of your qualifications again.
> you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
> jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
> they are cheaper than humans.
happen "soon" ever since I was a little kid. Four decades later, and it
hasn't quite happened yet. My cousin's tractors don't drive themselves
on the farm. Airliners don't routinely take off and land without flight
crew. Army supply vehicles don't drive themselves to their
destinations.
You're the one that needs to accept reality, not me.
> The US could be cutting edge by investing in space robots.
technology" in order to get earth bound "spin-offs" is somehow better or
cheaper than simply investing in earth bound technology in the first
place.
bob haller
May 22, 2013, 9:55:00 AM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 9:49 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <473d870e-57f6-46cc-857a-1ebf6b401801
> @g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> In article <473d870e-57f6-46cc-857a-1ebf6b401801
Jeff Findley
May 22, 2013, 9:57:40 AM5/22/13
to
In article <e345eca4-9447-44da-bf57-
baa891...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
And the point of the segment had nothing to do with "investing
in robots for exploring other planets". The point of the program was
that somehow robots are taking our jobs. If we bought into what this
program said, we should be smashing robots to protect our jobs.
Of course, this program was a giant load of Luddite crap.
baa891...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> > >the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
> > >in robots for exploring other planets can help ï¿œwith keeping the US
> > >the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
> > >competive...
> >
> > What absolute bullshit.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57563618/are-robots-hurting-job-growth/
Thats a TV segment, not a peer reviewed scientific or economic paper.
> >
> > What absolute bullshit.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57563618/are-robots-hurting-job-growth/
And the point of the segment had nothing to do with "investing
in robots for exploring other planets". The point of the program was
that somehow robots are taking our jobs. If we bought into what this
program said, we should be smashing robots to protect our jobs.
Of course, this program was a giant load of Luddite crap.
Jeff Findley
May 22, 2013, 10:02:31 AM5/22/13
to
In article <4171d0f6-81c3-4907-89ee-
abb09f...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
This is a freaking TV program making grand predictions of what will
happen in "two, three more generations". Even if we accept this as
fact, do you seriously think that the cost of human spaceflight won't
come down in that same time period?
"Faster, better, cheaper", unfortunately, you can only pick TWO out of
three. Unmanned robotic exploration vehicles might be "faster" and
"cheaper", but they are absolutely, most certainly, NOT "better".
That's the point you're trying to argue against, and you're failing
miserably.
abb09f...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
happen in "two, three more generations". Even if we accept this as
fact, do you seriously think that the cost of human spaceflight won't
come down in that same time period?
"Faster, better, cheaper", unfortunately, you can only pick TWO out of
three. Unmanned robotic exploration vehicles might be "faster" and
"cheaper", but they are absolutely, most certainly, NOT "better".
That's the point you're trying to argue against, and you're failing
miserably.
Jeff Findley
May 22, 2013, 10:04:52 AM5/22/13
to
In article <39b76709-62d9-4846-9ad9-
bd5089...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
> http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514861/its-time-to-talk-about-
the-burgeoning-robot-middle-class/
More Luddite dreams of the future, not today's reality.
bd5089...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
> http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514861/its-time-to-talk-about-
the-burgeoning-robot-middle-class/
More Luddite dreams of the future, not today's reality.
bob haller
May 22, 2013, 10:26:16 AM5/22/13
to
>
> >http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57563618/are-robots-hurting-job...
>
> Thats a TV segment, not a peer reviewed scientific or economic paper.
>
> And the point of the segment had nothing to do with "investing
> in robots for exploring other planets". The point of the program was
> that somehow robots are taking our jobs.
just look around you today robots have taken many jobs.
> Thats a TV segment, not a peer reviewed scientific or economic paper.
>
> And the point of the segment had nothing to do with "investing
> in robots for exploring other planets". The point of the program was
> that somehow robots are taking our jobs.
A customer of mine is GM lordstown ohio plant.
they used to have over 15,000 employees, today around 3000. jobs have
moved to robots, the proof of previous employment? the vacant parking
lots, esclators shut down, employee gates permanetly closed...
its amazing walking thru there the level of automation is amazing. the
vacant lunchrooms speak to of what used to be....
just go to a ATM, that sed to be a teller. the ATM needs no days off,
no retirement, no benefits. banks around here are closing branches
replacing them with convenient ATMs....
bob haller
May 22, 2013, 10:29:46 AM5/22/13
to
from the MIT article......
Robots won’t have to be as good as the humans they replace.
Consider the automated checkout line at your local grocery store. It
makes more mistakes than a human clerk, it is harder to use, and it is
slower because of the rotating error light that loves to interrupt the
whole process every few minutes. Is it better than a human? Of course
not. It is simply good enough. And so begins the march of mediocre
robots that can defensibly replace humans, not because they advantage
the customer, but because they save money for a corporation. Robots
will be able to fix your car poorly before they can fix it well. They
will cook food that is bland and mealy before they garner a Michelin
star. But they will take on middle-class jobs and win, not because of
their qualitative merits, but because they look good in the antiseptic
light of financial balance sheets
Robots won’t have to be as good as the humans they replace.
Consider the automated checkout line at your local grocery store. It
makes more mistakes than a human clerk, it is harder to use, and it is
slower because of the rotating error light that loves to interrupt the
whole process every few minutes. Is it better than a human? Of course
not. It is simply good enough. And so begins the march of mediocre
robots that can defensibly replace humans, not because they advantage
the customer, but because they save money for a corporation. Robots
will be able to fix your car poorly before they can fix it well. They
will cook food that is bland and mealy before they garner a Michelin
star. But they will take on middle-class jobs and win, not because of
their qualitative merits, but because they look good in the antiseptic
light of financial balance sheets
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Vaughn
May 22, 2013, 11:07:17 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 9:49 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
>> >you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
>> >jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
>> >they are cheaper than humans.
> We're not there yet. I remember hearing that this was supposed to
> happen "soon" ever since I was a little kid. Four decades later, and it
> hasn't quite happened yet. My cousin's tractors don't drive themselves
> on the farm. Airliners don't routinely take off and land without flight
> crew. Army supply vehicles don't drive themselves to their
> destinations.
Define "Robot", or this discussion is meaningless. If you mean
>> >you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
>> >jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
>> >they are cheaper than humans.
> We're not there yet. I remember hearing that this was supposed to
> happen "soon" ever since I was a little kid. Four decades later, and it
> hasn't quite happened yet. My cousin's tractors don't drive themselves
> on the farm. Airliners don't routinely take off and land without flight
> crew. Army supply vehicles don't drive themselves to their
> destinations.
something that looks like us, or perhaps like R2D2, then I can only
agree! We're "not there yet" and possibly never will be.
On the other hand; if you mean some "smart" programmable general purpose
machine that can replace humans in at least a narrow range of jobs, well
that stuff has been common for decades now. Just visit most any
corporate assembly line or virtually any machine shop.
As for airliners, the technology to make them taxi and fly by themselves
has been around for decades and is already installed in some planes.
For many human non-technology reasons, pilotless airliners aren't likely
to happen anytime soon.
Jeff Findley
May 22, 2013, 11:07:39 AM5/22/13
to
In article <212388be-26d7-4271-a64e-
9bdda7...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
Those are higher educated, higher paid jobs that are added to the
economy. And, the products they produce are cheaper today than
comparable products built by hand in prior decades. So even people who
work minimum wage jobs can afford smart phones, laptops, tablets, high
definition flat screen TV's and the like.
This is simply a continuation of the Industrial Revolution. It's been
going on for hundreds of years now and our standard of living just keeps
on improving, even for the lower class. You crying gloom and doom about
jobs lost to robots is just alarmist Luddite yammering.
9bdda7...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> >
> > >http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57563618/are-robots-hurting-job...
> >
> > Thats a TV segment, not a peer reviewed scientific or economic paper.
> >
> > And the point of the segment had nothing to do with "investing
> > in robots for exploring other planets". ï¿œThe point of the program was
> >
> > >http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57563618/are-robots-hurting-job...
> >
> > Thats a TV segment, not a peer reviewed scientific or economic paper.
> >
> > And the point of the segment had nothing to do with "investing
> > that somehow robots are taking our jobs.
>
> just look around you today robots have taken many jobs.
>
> A customer of mine is GM lordstown ohio plant.
>
> they used to have over 15,000 employees, today around 3000. jobs have
> moved to robots, the proof of previous employment? the vacant parking
> lots, esclators shut down, employee gates permanetly closed...
>
> its amazing walking thru there the level of automation is amazing. the
> vacant lunchrooms speak to of what used to be....
>
> just go to a ATM, that sed to be a teller. the ATM needs no days off,
> no retirement, no benefits. banks around here are closing branches
> replacing them with convenient ATMs....
You forget that someone has to design, build, and maintain those robots.
>
> just look around you today robots have taken many jobs.
>
> A customer of mine is GM lordstown ohio plant.
>
> they used to have over 15,000 employees, today around 3000. jobs have
> moved to robots, the proof of previous employment? the vacant parking
> lots, esclators shut down, employee gates permanetly closed...
>
> its amazing walking thru there the level of automation is amazing. the
> vacant lunchrooms speak to of what used to be....
>
> just go to a ATM, that sed to be a teller. the ATM needs no days off,
> no retirement, no benefits. banks around here are closing branches
> replacing them with convenient ATMs....
Those are higher educated, higher paid jobs that are added to the
economy. And, the products they produce are cheaper today than
comparable products built by hand in prior decades. So even people who
work minimum wage jobs can afford smart phones, laptops, tablets, high
definition flat screen TV's and the like.
This is simply a continuation of the Industrial Revolution. It's been
going on for hundreds of years now and our standard of living just keeps
on improving, even for the lower class. You crying gloom and doom about
jobs lost to robots is just alarmist Luddite yammering.
Jeff Findley
May 22, 2013, 11:09:59 AM5/22/13
to
In article <8aad9a48-b52a-4c5b-b4a0-
2a8651...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> from the MIT article......
>
> Robots won?t have to be as good as the humans they replace.
Of course MIT is going to predict a rosy future where *their* research
bears fruit. MIT is in the business of getting money to do that
research. This is simply good sales and marketing. This is not an
attempt to accurately predict the future.
2a8651...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> from the MIT article......
>
> Robots won?t have to be as good as the humans they replace.
bears fruit. MIT is in the business of getting money to do that
research. This is simply good sales and marketing. This is not an
attempt to accurately predict the future.
Message has been deleted
Jeff Findley
May 22, 2013, 11:17:46 AM5/22/13
to
In article <knimv4$jhe$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, vaugh...@gmail.com
says...
will be cheap and easy to produce in massive quantities.
This is why he often refers to cars that can drive themselves. Auto-
drive cars are a research topic that is billed as being ready "any day
now", but they're not ready yet. On top of that, state laws are already
being passed which require a licensed driver in the car to take over
when the auto-drive tries to do something stupid.
> On the other hand; if you mean some "smart" programmable general purpose
> machine that can replace humans in at least a narrow range of jobs, well
> that stuff has been common for decades now. Just visit most any
> corporate assembly line or virtually any machine shop.
But that's not what Bobbert is predicting. He's predicting robots with
intelligence that's only found in sci-fi.
> As for airliners, the technology to make them taxi and fly by themselves
> has been around for decades and is already installed in some planes.
> For many human non-technology reasons, pilotless airliners aren't likely
> to happen anytime soon.
You mean like the fact that autopilots can't deal with the unexpected?
Pilots and co-pilots are required for very valid reasons. They aren't
there just to make the passengers "feel good".
says...
>
> On 5/22/2013 9:49 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> >> >you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
> >> >jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
> >> >they are cheaper than humans.
> > We're not there yet. I remember hearing that this was supposed to
> > happen "soon" ever since I was a little kid. Four decades later, and it
> > hasn't quite happened yet. My cousin's tractors don't drive themselves
> > on the farm. Airliners don't routinely take off and land without flight
> > crew. Army supply vehicles don't drive themselves to their
> > destinations.
>
> Define "Robot", or this discussion is meaningless. If you mean
> something that looks like us, or perhaps like R2D2, then I can only
> agree! We're "not there yet" and possibly never will be.
Bobbert thinks that "robots" that can operate on Mars semi-autonomously
> On 5/22/2013 9:49 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> >> >you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
> >> >jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
> >> >they are cheaper than humans.
> > We're not there yet. I remember hearing that this was supposed to
> > happen "soon" ever since I was a little kid. Four decades later, and it
> > hasn't quite happened yet. My cousin's tractors don't drive themselves
> > on the farm. Airliners don't routinely take off and land without flight
> > crew. Army supply vehicles don't drive themselves to their
> > destinations.
>
> Define "Robot", or this discussion is meaningless. If you mean
> something that looks like us, or perhaps like R2D2, then I can only
> agree! We're "not there yet" and possibly never will be.
will be cheap and easy to produce in massive quantities.
This is why he often refers to cars that can drive themselves. Auto-
drive cars are a research topic that is billed as being ready "any day
now", but they're not ready yet. On top of that, state laws are already
being passed which require a licensed driver in the car to take over
when the auto-drive tries to do something stupid.
> On the other hand; if you mean some "smart" programmable general purpose
> machine that can replace humans in at least a narrow range of jobs, well
> that stuff has been common for decades now. Just visit most any
> corporate assembly line or virtually any machine shop.
intelligence that's only found in sci-fi.
> As for airliners, the technology to make them taxi and fly by themselves
> has been around for decades and is already installed in some planes.
> For many human non-technology reasons, pilotless airliners aren't likely
> to happen anytime soon.
Pilots and co-pilots are required for very valid reasons. They aren't
there just to make the passengers "feel good".
bob haller
May 23, 2013, 8:56:01 AM5/23/13
to
On May 22, 8:50 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <1358f5e0-9cc1-4c8c-92a9-
> fd4d887a6...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
>
>
>
> > > >> >it will be impossible to prevent humans from contaminating mars
>
> > > >> It will be impossible to prevent robots from contaminating mars
>
> > > >fred the robots will be sterilized.......
>
> > > bobbert the humans won't be running around naked urinating on bushes
> > > on mars........
>
> > no but human waste will have to be processed and no system will be
> > perfect....
>
> It doesn't have to be "perfect" you ignorant git, it just needs to
> contain the waste so it doesn't escape into the atmosphere of Mars.
> That's called a waste holding tank. I'm pretty sure NASA is capable of
> producing a tank to contain human waste that does not leak.
>
> > all it will take is minor contamination to possibly wipe out all
> > current life on mars.
>
> There is no definitive proof that life currently exists on Mars. On top
> of that, even if there were life on Mars, there is no basis for your
> claim that earth life would destroy Martian life. This is especially
> true since earth life is *not* suited to the extreme conditions present
> on Mars.
>
> > the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
> > in robots for exploring other planets can help with keeping the US
> > competive...
>
> This is what I hear from you: bla, bla, bla, bla...
>
> None of what you say in this thread is even remotely factually correct.
>
> Jeff
well since no one knows if mars life exists we should visit carefully
>
>
> > > >> >it will be impossible to prevent humans from contaminating mars
>
> > > >> It will be impossible to prevent robots from contaminating mars
>
> > > >fred the robots will be sterilized.......
>
> > > bobbert the humans won't be running around naked urinating on bushes
> > > on mars........
>
> > no but human waste will have to be processed and no system will be
> > perfect....
>
> It doesn't have to be "perfect" you ignorant git, it just needs to
> contain the waste so it doesn't escape into the atmosphere of Mars.
> That's called a waste holding tank. I'm pretty sure NASA is capable of
> producing a tank to contain human waste that does not leak.
>
> > all it will take is minor contamination to possibly wipe out all
> > current life on mars.
>
> There is no definitive proof that life currently exists on Mars. On top
> of that, even if there were life on Mars, there is no basis for your
> claim that earth life would destroy Martian life. This is especially
> true since earth life is *not* suited to the extreme conditions present
> on Mars.
>
> > the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
> > in robots for exploring other planets can help with keeping the US
> > competive...
>
> This is what I hear from you: bla, bla, bla, bla...
>
> None of what you say in this thread is even remotely factually correct.
>
> Jeff
and sterilize all landers, while looking for life before humans gamble
on contaminating mars.
its just possible that a mars life form might cure cancer or other
real earth shattering development.
bob haller
May 23, 2013, 9:15:04 AM5/23/13
to
> >robotically controlled farm machines like
> >computer driven plows and harvesters,
>
>
> Hint: Most farm labour is still muscles.
>
In the 1930s, 24 percent of the American population worked in
agriculture compared to 1.5 percent in 2002; in 1940, each farm worker
supplied 11 consumers, whereas in 2002, each worker supplied 90
consumers.
most farm labor hasnt been muscles for a long time, source wikipedia
Jeff Findley
May 23, 2013, 10:00:28 AM5/23/13
to
In article <5d14d0ef-0ade-4eb6-8682-aa28bb76e4c3
@h5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
unless you *never* want to send people to Mars.
> its just possible that a mars life form might cure cancer or other
> real earth shattering development.
The chance of this "might" coming true is so infinitesimally small that
it can safely be ignored.
@h5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
> well since no one knows if mars life exists we should visit carefully
> and sterilize all landers, while looking for life before humans gamble
> on contaminating mars.
It's awfully hard to prove a negative, so your argument is invalid
> and sterilize all landers, while looking for life before humans gamble
> on contaminating mars.
unless you *never* want to send people to Mars.
> its just possible that a mars life form might cure cancer or other
> real earth shattering development.
it can safely be ignored.
Jeff Findley
May 23, 2013, 10:07:28 AM5/23/13
to
In article <bd70c917-370d-46be-8984-
89e163...@c7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
a completely autonomous, computer controlled, system.
Along those lines, I am not aware of a single commercially sold tractor
or combine that can drive itself without an operator being present in
the cab. Yes, it's a research topic. Yes, several companies and
universities are playing with prototype autonomous tractors and the
like.
But, that does *not* mean that my cousin, who is a farmer, can buy one
today.
89e163...@c7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
> > >robotically controlled farm machines like
> > >computer driven plows and harvesters,
> >
> > And US farms are just LITTERED with such things!
> >
> > Hint: ï¿œMost farm labour is still muscles.
> > >computer driven plows and harvesters,
> >
> > And US farms are just LITTERED with such things!
> >
>
> In the 1930s, 24 percent of the American population worked in
> agriculture compared to 1.5 percent in 2002; in 1940, each farm worker
> supplied 11 consumers, whereas in 2002, each worker supplied 90
> consumers.
>
> most farm labor hasnt been muscles for a long time, source wikipedia
He meant that there is still a "man in the loop" (i.e. labor) instead of
> In the 1930s, 24 percent of the American population worked in
> agriculture compared to 1.5 percent in 2002; in 1940, each farm worker
> supplied 11 consumers, whereas in 2002, each worker supplied 90
> consumers.
>
> most farm labor hasnt been muscles for a long time, source wikipedia
a completely autonomous, computer controlled, system.
Along those lines, I am not aware of a single commercially sold tractor
or combine that can drive itself without an operator being present in
the cab. Yes, it's a research topic. Yes, several companies and
universities are playing with prototype autonomous tractors and the
like.
But, that does *not* mean that my cousin, who is a farmer, can buy one
today.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
bob haller
May 23, 2013, 11:23:09 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 10:00 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <5d14d0ef-0ade-4eb6-8682-aa28bb76e4c3
> @h5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> In article <5d14d0ef-0ade-4eb6-8682-aa28bb76e4c3
uses.
robots, science stations, and sample return missions should be
completed before manned exploration begins.......
thats easy since theres no money for a manned mission. during the prep
period better probably nuclear boosters can be developed, along with
some deep space manned missions...
Greg (Strider) Moore
May 23, 2013, 11:29:10 AM5/23/13
to
"bob haller" wrote in message
news:70be1bb3-1f3f-4e95...@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Greg (Strider) Moore
May 23, 2013, 11:30:59 AM5/23/13
to
"bob haller" wrote in message
news:70be1bb3-1f3f-4e95...@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
news:70be1bb3-1f3f-4e95...@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>On May 23, 10:00 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
>> In article <5d14d0ef-0ade-4eb6-8682-aa28bb76e4c3
>> @h5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
>
>> In article <5d14d0ef-0ade-4eb6-8682-aa28bb76e4c3
>> @h5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
>
>things from remote rainforsests have been found to have medicinal
>uses.
>
Yes Bob, that's true. And they also grew up in the same biome we did.
>uses.
>
While it may be interesting if we find life on Mars, odds are that it
probably is unlike Earth life (different proteins, synthesis cycles, etc.)
>robots, science stations, and sample return missions should be
>completed before manned exploration begins.......
>
>thats easy since theres no money for a manned mission. during the prep
>period better probably nuclear boosters can be developed, along with
>some deep space manned missions...
Falcon 9 Heavy flights will be far cheaper.
>
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Message has been deleted
jacob navia
May 23, 2013, 1:06:19 PM5/23/13
to
Le 22/05/13 02:09, Greg (Strider) Moore a �crit :
> That said, it really only matters if material can actually live on Mars.
> It's quite likely most stuff can't.
>
Artic bacteria can live in mars.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35695/title/Arctic-Bacteria-Thrives-at-Mars-Temps/
Arctic Bacteria Thrives at Mars Temps
Researchers discover a microbe living at -15�C, the coldest temperature
ever reported for bacterial growth, giving hope to the search for life
elsewhere in the cosmos.
> That said, it really only matters if material can actually live on Mars.
> It's quite likely most stuff can't.
>
Artic bacteria can live in mars.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35695/title/Arctic-Bacteria-Thrives-at-Mars-Temps/
Arctic Bacteria Thrives at Mars Temps
Researchers discover a microbe living at -15�C, the coldest temperature
ever reported for bacterial growth, giving hope to the search for life
elsewhere in the cosmos.
Greg (Strider) Moore
May 23, 2013, 5:07:07 PM5/23/13
to
"jacob navia" wrote in message news:knlia9$1rh$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>Le 22/05/13 02:09, Greg (Strider) Moore a écrit :
This doesn't mean they can live on Mars which has a very different
atmosphere, different atmospheric pressure, different soil chemistry and
different radiation levels.
And while the article doesn't go into details, I'll guarantee the amount of
actual activity is pretty low.
>http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35695/title/Arctic-Bacteria-Thrives-at-Mars-Temps/
>Arctic Bacteria Thrives at Mars Temps
>
>Researchers discover a microbe living at -15°C, the coldest temperature
>ever reported for bacterial growth, giving hope to the search for life
>elsewhere in the cosmos.
>
>
>
>
>
>Le 22/05/13 02:09, Greg (Strider) Moore a écrit :
>
>> That said, it really only matters if material can actually live on Mars.
>> It's quite likely most stuff can't.
>>
>
>Artic bacteria can live in mars.
>
No, Artic bacteria can live at Mars Temps.
>> That said, it really only matters if material can actually live on Mars.
>> It's quite likely most stuff can't.
>>
>
>Artic bacteria can live in mars.
>
This doesn't mean they can live on Mars which has a very different
atmosphere, different atmospheric pressure, different soil chemistry and
different radiation levels.
And while the article doesn't go into details, I'll guarantee the amount of
actual activity is pretty low.
>http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35695/title/Arctic-Bacteria-Thrives-at-Mars-Temps/
>Arctic Bacteria Thrives at Mars Temps
>
>Researchers discover a microbe living at -15°C, the coldest temperature
>ever reported for bacterial growth, giving hope to the search for life
>elsewhere in the cosmos.
>
>
>
>
Message has been deleted
jacob navia
May 24, 2013, 2:16:17 AM5/24/13
to
Le 23/05/13 23:07, Greg (Strider) Moore a �crit :
factors came WAY behind this huge problem: How to avoid freezing?
Freezing is deadly more or less immediately.
The other factors like atmospheric pressure and radiation can be solved
by going underground. A few cm of soil and you have much less radiation.
Soil composition is different but bacteria are great in finding
biochemical tools for that.
Actually, Mars bacteria could have developed all those skills. They
could live probably underground, producing the methane we detect when
the spring arrives.
> And while the article doesn't go into details, I'll guarantee the amount
> of actual activity is pretty low.
>
Maybe. Apparently Curiosity doesn't seem to be interested in finding
bacteria. They have yet to search for DNA at 30-40 cm depth apparently.
Why?
I do not know, but maybe one day they will figure out that THAT
measurement would be an interesting one isn't it?
:-)
> "jacob navia" wrote in message news:knlia9$1rh$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>> Le 22/05/13 02:09, Greg (Strider) Moore a �crit :
>>
>>
>>> That said, it really only matters if material can actually live on Mars.
>>> It's quite likely most stuff can't.
>>>
>>
>> Artic bacteria can live in mars.
>>
>
> No, Artic bacteria can live at Mars Temps.
>
> This doesn't mean they can live on Mars which has a very different
> atmosphere, different atmospheric pressure, different soil chemistry and
> different radiation levels.
>
I wouldn't be sure of that. The MAJOR problem was the temperature. Other
>>> That said, it really only matters if material can actually live on Mars.
>>> It's quite likely most stuff can't.
>>>
>>
>> Artic bacteria can live in mars.
>>
>
> No, Artic bacteria can live at Mars Temps.
>
> This doesn't mean they can live on Mars which has a very different
> atmosphere, different atmospheric pressure, different soil chemistry and
> different radiation levels.
>
factors came WAY behind this huge problem: How to avoid freezing?
Freezing is deadly more or less immediately.
The other factors like atmospheric pressure and radiation can be solved
by going underground. A few cm of soil and you have much less radiation.
Soil composition is different but bacteria are great in finding
biochemical tools for that.
Actually, Mars bacteria could have developed all those skills. They
could live probably underground, producing the methane we detect when
the spring arrives.
> And while the article doesn't go into details, I'll guarantee the amount
> of actual activity is pretty low.
>
bacteria. They have yet to search for DNA at 30-40 cm depth apparently.
Why?
I do not know, but maybe one day they will figure out that THAT
measurement would be an interesting one isn't it?
:-)
jacob navia
May 24, 2013, 2:19:59 AM5/24/13
to
Le 24/05/13 06:51, Fred J. McCall a �crit :
> Which part of "most" was it that left you confused?
None Mr McCall, and I am not "confused", it is you.
"Most stuff" was referring to terrestrial bacteria. I just pointed out
that some can survive very well. No confusion here.
> Which part of "most" was it that left you confused?
None Mr McCall, and I am not "confused", it is you.
"Most stuff" was referring to terrestrial bacteria. I just pointed out
that some can survive very well. No confusion here.
Jeff Findley
May 24, 2013, 9:02:20 AM5/24/13
to
In article <70be1bb3-1f3f-4e95-80bd-5e9aedfeab43
@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
terrestrial rainforest. We do *not* know that there is currently life
on Mars. Hell, we don't even know if there was *ever* life on Mars.
> robots, science stations, and sample return missions should be
> completed before manned exploration begins.......
We've done everything on your list except sample return. Just how long
do you want people to "keep off Mars"? Again, you can't prove a
negative, so you can't say "until we prove Mars does *not* currently
host life".
> thats easy since theres no money for a manned mission. during the prep
> period better probably nuclear boosters can be developed, along with
> some deep space manned missions...
That will change as the cost of access to space drops and there is every
sign that is *finally* happening in a meaningful way.
@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> things from remote rainforsests have been found to have medicinal
> uses.
Mars is not a remote terrestrial rainforest. We know there is life in
> things from remote rainforsests have been found to have medicinal
> uses.
terrestrial rainforest. We do *not* know that there is currently life
on Mars. Hell, we don't even know if there was *ever* life on Mars.
> robots, science stations, and sample return missions should be
> completed before manned exploration begins.......
do you want people to "keep off Mars"? Again, you can't prove a
negative, so you can't say "until we prove Mars does *not* currently
host life".
> thats easy since theres no money for a manned mission. during the prep
> period better probably nuclear boosters can be developed, along with
> some deep space manned missions...
sign that is *finally* happening in a meaningful way.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
bob haller
May 24, 2013, 11:25:14 PM5/24/13
to
> Perhaps you're just that poor at expressing yourself, but either way
> it means you're stupid.
>
fred at his best, theres no reason to insult people, but sadly thats
all fred does.
can you imagine the horror of having fred as a co worker:(
Message has been deleted
bob haller
May 25, 2013, 11:08:17 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 8:43 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> --
> You are
> What you do
> When it counts.
well you may not work with idiots but they do.....
you fred are a idiot in a class all by yourself
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps you're just that poor at expressing yourself, but either way
> >> it means you're stupid.
>
> >fred at his best, theres no reason to insult people, but sadly thats
> >all fred does.
>
> That's all I do to idiots.
>
> >> Perhaps you're just that poor at expressing yourself, but either way
> >> it means you're stupid.
>
> >fred at his best, theres no reason to insult people, but sadly thats
> >all fred does.
>
>
>
>
> >can you imagine the horror of having fred as a co worker:(
>
> They all love me. But then, I don't work with idiots.
>
>
> >can you imagine the horror of having fred as a co worker:(
>
>
> --
> You are
> What you do
> When it counts.
well you may not work with idiots but they do.....
you fred are a idiot in a class all by yourself
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
bob haller
May 26, 2013, 12:42:36 PM5/26/13
to
>
> Poor Bobbert. He keeps trying to insult me. Meanwhile they pay me
> excellent money for being an 'idiot'.
>
good you admit your a idiot:) thats step one on the road of
recovery:)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
bob haller
May 26, 2013, 5:12:07 PM5/26/13
to
Back to the original topic MOST could from orbit image areas for
futher research.
then send robots to explore specific areas of interest including some
sample return landers. and MOST could also image martian moons and if
the path to mars is carefully selected get some great images of
asteroids on the way to mars......
in now way would this prevent a manned mission in fact it would be a
building block to mars
how about sending MOST onto another target after its imaged all of
mars?
futher research.
then send robots to explore specific areas of interest including some
sample return landers. and MOST could also image martian moons and if
the path to mars is carefully selected get some great images of
asteroids on the way to mars......
in now way would this prevent a manned mission in fact it would be a
building block to mars
how about sending MOST onto another target after its imaged all of
mars?
Message has been deleted
bob haller
May 26, 2013, 10:01:59 PM5/26/13
to
On May 26, 5:57 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> nuclear propulsion but seem to believe that we can just drive a
> whacking great telescope all around the system with no regard for
> orbital mechanics, required delta-v, or anything else.
With ION engines and patience we can do lots of unmanned operations.
Message has been deleted
Yousuf Khan
Jun 2, 2013, 10:22:04 AM6/2/13
to
On 20/05/2013 5:38 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 19/05/13 04:38, Yousuf Khan a écrit :
>> I was referring to Earth, not the United States.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>
> OK, I misunderstood. But even in that case, the question arises that we
> would "own" something there ONLY if there isn't ANY life in Mars or
> elsewhere.
>
> If we find even a small bateria, the planet is not empty and we have NO
> RIGHT to destroy that bacterium/alien life.
I'm thinking that if we find even single-cells in another planet within
the Solar System, then we have a right to call it part of our family of
living organisms in this Solar System.
> This is crucial. Alien life owns their planets, we have no right to
> invade them, colonize them, destroy them.
>
> It is just the golden rule: do not do onto others, what you wouldn't
> like that others do to you. We wouldn't like being invaded, so we
> shouldn't invade others.
>
> Of course if the place is empty (no life at all) there is no problem.
I don't think we'd deliberately destroy any life on another planet, it's
more important for us to figure out how it survives there, and therefore
we would want to make sure it stays alive. That would then enable us to
learn how to survive there too.
Yousuf Khan
> Le 19/05/13 04:38, Yousuf Khan a écrit :
>> I was referring to Earth, not the United States.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>
> OK, I misunderstood. But even in that case, the question arises that we
> would "own" something there ONLY if there isn't ANY life in Mars or
> elsewhere.
>
> If we find even a small bateria, the planet is not empty and we have NO
> RIGHT to destroy that bacterium/alien life.
I'm thinking that if we find even single-cells in another planet within
the Solar System, then we have a right to call it part of our family of
living organisms in this Solar System.
> This is crucial. Alien life owns their planets, we have no right to
> invade them, colonize them, destroy them.
>
> It is just the golden rule: do not do onto others, what you wouldn't
> like that others do to you. We wouldn't like being invaded, so we
> shouldn't invade others.
>
> Of course if the place is empty (no life at all) there is no problem.
I don't think we'd deliberately destroy any life on another planet, it's
more important for us to figure out how it survives there, and therefore
we would want to make sure it stays alive. That would then enable us to
learn how to survive there too.
Yousuf Khan
bob haller
Jun 2, 2013, 10:28:38 AM6/2/13
to
>
> I don't think we'd deliberately destroy any life on another planet, it's
> more important for us to figure out how it survives there, and therefore
> we would want to make sure it stays alive. That would then enable us to
> learn how to survive there too.
>
> Yousuf Khan
planets......
all probes should be sterlized before sending to anywhere.
otherwise we might find life and not know if it just earth
contamination or not.....
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Jun 2, 2013, 11:42:44 PM6/2/13
to
On Jun 2, 1:04 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >its important we not accidently kill or add anything to other
> >planets......
>
> >all probes should be sterlized before sending to anywhere.
>
> >otherwise we might find life and not know if it just earth
> >contamination or not.....
>
> And since you can't do that with assurance, we shouldn't send probes.
> >planets......
>
> >all probes should be sterlized before sending to anywhere.
>
> >otherwise we might find life and not know if it just earth
> >contamination or not.....
>
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
probes have been sterlized in the past, perhaps not perfect but pretty
good.
humans cannot be sterlized
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Jun 3, 2013, 9:06:48 AM6/3/13
to
On Jun 3, 1:31 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 2, 1:04 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >its important we not accidently kill or add anything to other
> >> >planets......
>
> >> >all probes should be sterlized before sending to anywhere.
>
> >> >otherwise we might find life and not know if it just earth
> >> >contamination or not.....
>
> >> And since you can't do that with assurance, we shouldn't send probes.
>
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 2, 1:04 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >its important we not accidently kill or add anything to other
> >> >planets......
>
> >> >all probes should be sterlized before sending to anywhere.
>
> >> >otherwise we might find life and not know if it just earth
> >> >contamination or not.....
>
> >> And since you can't do that with assurance, we shouldn't send probes.
>
> >probes have been sterlized in the past, perhaps not perfect but pretty
> >good.
>
> So when it's toasters you think 'close' is good enough, but when it's
> >good.
>
> humans the risk must be absolutely zero? That's what you're saying.
>
>
>
> >humans cannot be sterlized
>
> Wrong again. One more time: We won't be running around naked on Mars
> pissing on the bushes.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
It will be impossible for humans to avoid contaminating mars...
Just being inside a habitat and depressurizing it for any reason will
allow earth bugs to get into the mars ecosphere..
Message has been deleted
Greg (Strider) Moore
Jun 3, 2013, 2:03:29 PM6/3/13
to
"bob haller" wrote in message
news:fef1d4e4-b9a9-4656...@j8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>Just being inside a habitat and depressurizing it for any reason will
>allow earth bugs to get into the mars ecosphere..
Bob, do yourself a favor. Never get in a position where you require major
surgery. Since you'll obviously die of infection since it's impossible to
sterilize an operating room.
>
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
news:fef1d4e4-b9a9-4656...@j8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>It will be impossible for humans to avoid contaminating mars...
>
So? We don't have to be perfect.
>
>It will be impossible for humans to avoid contaminating mars...
>
>Just being inside a habitat and depressurizing it for any reason will
>allow earth bugs to get into the mars ecosphere..
surgery. Since you'll obviously die of infection since it's impossible to
sterilize an operating room.
>
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
bob haller
Jun 3, 2013, 7:53:01 PM6/3/13
to
On Jun 3, 9:45 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 3, 1:31 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 2, 1:04 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >its important we not accidently kill or add anything to other
> >> >> >planets......
>
> >> >> >all probes should be sterlized before sending to anywhere.
>
> >> >> >otherwise we might find life and not know if it just earth
> >> >> >contamination or not.....
>
> >> >> And since you can't do that with assurance, we shouldn't send probes.
>
> >> >probes have been sterlized in the past, perhaps not perfect but pretty
> >> >good.
>
> >> So when it's toasters you think 'close' is good enough, but when it's
> >> humans the risk must be absolutely zero? That's what you're saying.
>
> >> >humans cannot be sterlized
>
> >> Wrong again. One more time: We won't be running around naked on Mars
> >> pissing on the bushes.
>
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 3, 1:31 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 2, 1:04 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >its important we not accidently kill or add anything to other
> >> >> >planets......
>
> >> >> >all probes should be sterlized before sending to anywhere.
>
> >> >> >otherwise we might find life and not know if it just earth
> >> >> >contamination or not.....
>
> >> >> And since you can't do that with assurance, we shouldn't send probes.
>
> >> >probes have been sterlized in the past, perhaps not perfect but pretty
> >> >good.
>
> >> So when it's toasters you think 'close' is good enough, but when it's
> >> humans the risk must be absolutely zero? That's what you're saying.
>
> >> >humans cannot be sterlized
>
> >> Wrong again. One more time: We won't be running around naked on Mars
> >> pissing on the bushes.
>
> >It will be impossible for humans to avoid contaminating mars...
>
> It will be impossible for probes to avoid contaminating mars...
>
>
>
>
> >Just being inside a habitat and depressurizing it for any reason will
> >allow earth bugs to get into the mars ecosphere..
>
> Just launching them and landing them on mars will allow earth bugs to
>
>
> >Just being inside a habitat and depressurizing it for any reason will
> >allow earth bugs to get into the mars ecosphere..
>
> get into the mars ecosphere..
>
> So, tell me, Bobbert, WHY WOULD THEY DEPRESSURIZE THE HABITAT?
>
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
airlocks must be opened for ingress egress......
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
and although operating rooms arent perfectly sterilized they are some
of the cleanest places in the hospital
Greg (Strider) Moore
Jun 3, 2013, 8:36:22 PM6/3/13
to
"bob haller" wrote in message
news:7173eb86-55d0-4a38...@2g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>airlocks must be opened for ingress egress......
>
>and although operating rooms arent perfectly sterilized they are some
>of the cleanest places in the hospital
>
And how exactly do they do that Bob? Do you have a clue? Now tell me why
>
>airlocks must be opened for ingress egress......
>
>and although operating rooms arent perfectly sterilized they are some
>of the cleanest places in the hospital
>
none of that can't be done in an airlock?
Again, we don't have to be perfect, just 'good enough'
Message has been deleted
Wayne Throop
Jun 4, 2013, 2:04:22 AM6/4/13
to
: Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com>
: But the interior (and exterior) of your body are not. So, given that
: you can't sterilize humans, as Bobbert insists, ALL surgical patients
: must die as it is impossible to sterilize the surgical field.
Well, be fair, surgical suites aren't really sterilized perfectly.
That is, indeed, a practical impossibility. It just has to be
sterile *enough* so that the body's immune system, even sometimes when
compromised, can handle the rest.
You know, sort of like, if you get the outside of the habitat as
sterile as possible, and you can limit outgassing and such, so that
the probability of tropical-conditions-and-inside-humans-adapted bugs
surviving the worse-than-arctic conditions, you'll get in the same
ballpark of probability of probes carrying something to mars.
Or rather, I don't see why they don't end up in the same ballpark,
in practical terms.
: But the interior (and exterior) of your body are not. So, given that
: you can't sterilize humans, as Bobbert insists, ALL surgical patients
: must die as it is impossible to sterilize the surgical field.
Well, be fair, surgical suites aren't really sterilized perfectly.
That is, indeed, a practical impossibility. It just has to be
sterile *enough* so that the body's immune system, even sometimes when
compromised, can handle the rest.
You know, sort of like, if you get the outside of the habitat as
sterile as possible, and you can limit outgassing and such, so that
the probability of tropical-conditions-and-inside-humans-adapted bugs
surviving the worse-than-arctic conditions, you'll get in the same
ballpark of probability of probes carrying something to mars.
Or rather, I don't see why they don't end up in the same ballpark,
in practical terms.
bob haller
Jun 4, 2013, 7:37:44 AM6/4/13
to
> >airlocks must be opened for ingress egress......
>
> >and although operating rooms arent perfectly sterilized they are some
> >of the cleanest places in the hospital
>
> And how exactly do they do that Bob? Do you have a clue? Now tell me why
> none of that can't be done in an airlock?
>
> Again, we don't have to be perfect, just 'good enough'
>
since we have no idea what if any type of life may exist on mars we
dont know what we dont know..
so if a escaped earth organism replicates on mars we wouldnt know if
its from mars, or a earth transplant..
the discover of life on mars will be of cosmic importance.
once mars is contaminated theres no way to uncontaminate it.........
plus a existing mars organism might be wiped out by something from
earth.....
either of these situations should be avoided.....
Jeff Findley
Jun 4, 2013, 9:22:57 AM6/4/13
to
In article <7173eb86-55d0-4a38-a714-b8cdb85b0967@
2g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
locks minimize the amount of air released and also minimize the area
exposed to the outside (i.e. the parts of the suit and inside of the
suit-lock which need disinfected).
> and although operating rooms arent perfectly sterilized they are some
> of the cleanest places in the hospital
A suit-lock would be much the same. These "problems" you keep pointing
out are engineering details which will need to be worked out, not show-
stoppers that should stop the program from proceeding at all.
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
2g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
> airlocks must be opened for ingress egress......
You should look at suit-locks, which are being studied in detail. Suit-
locks minimize the amount of air released and also minimize the area
exposed to the outside (i.e. the parts of the suit and inside of the
suit-lock which need disinfected).
> and although operating rooms arent perfectly sterilized they are some
> of the cleanest places in the hospital
out are engineering details which will need to be worked out, not show-
stoppers that should stop the program from proceeding at all.
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
Message has been deleted
Me
Jun 5, 2013, 1:37:54 PM6/5/13
to
On May 17, 8:22 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
nd its two tiny moons.
> Here is the report by McEwen at the "Study on Applications of Large
> Space Optics" (SALSO) workshop:
>
> The Mars Orbiting Space Telescope (MOST).http://salso.msfc.nasa.gov/lib/119Mcewen.pdf
>
> The NRO scopes were reported to be lighter than Hubble, but I was
> surprised how much lighter. The study by McEwen uses a mass of only
> 2,000 kg for the telescope and instruments. This is compared to a mass
> of 11,000 kg for the Hubble. In that case it's surprising it's felt
> solar electric propulsion would be needed to put it in Mars orbit, not
> even to land. Quite likely a Delta IV Heavy could do it, certainly a
> Falcon Heavy could.
>
Just another case that shows that Clark is f'ing clueless and doesn't
know what he is talking about.
The 2000kg does not include the spacecraft supporting it, where as HST
mass (11,000) is for the whole spacecraft, which also has more
instruments. The actual mass of the NRO telescopes are 1700kg and the
HST optical telescope assembly, which includes the fine guidance
sensors, is 4000kg. So your comparison is wrong. And you are a math
teacher? What other incorrect information are you teaching?
nd its two tiny moons.
> Here is the report by McEwen at the "Study on Applications of Large
> Space Optics" (SALSO) workshop:
>
> The Mars Orbiting Space Telescope (MOST).http://salso.msfc.nasa.gov/lib/119Mcewen.pdf
>
> The NRO scopes were reported to be lighter than Hubble, but I was
> surprised how much lighter. The study by McEwen uses a mass of only
> 2,000 kg for the telescope and instruments. This is compared to a mass
> of 11,000 kg for the Hubble. In that case it's surprising it's felt
> solar electric propulsion would be needed to put it in Mars orbit, not
> even to land. Quite likely a Delta IV Heavy could do it, certainly a
> Falcon Heavy could.
>
Just another case that shows that Clark is f'ing clueless and doesn't
know what he is talking about.
The 2000kg does not include the spacecraft supporting it, where as HST
mass (11,000) is for the whole spacecraft, which also has more
instruments. The actual mass of the NRO telescopes are 1700kg and the
HST optical telescope assembly, which includes the fine guidance
sensors, is 4000kg. So your comparison is wrong. And you are a math
teacher? What other incorrect information are you teaching?
Greg (Strider) Moore
Jun 5, 2013, 11:22:44 PM6/5/13
to
"bob haller" wrote in message
news:4be79411-d830-43a5...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> >airlocks must be opened for ingress egress......
>>
>> >and although operating rooms arent perfectly sterilized they are some
>> >of the cleanest places in the hospital
>>
>> And how exactly do they do that Bob? Do you have a clue? Now tell me
>> why
>> none of that can't be done in an airlock?
>>
>> Again, we don't have to be perfect, just 'good enough'
>>
>> Greg D. Moore
>
>since we have no idea what if any type of life may exist on mars we
>dont know what we dont know..
>
We do have a fairly decent idea though.
>
>> >airlocks must be opened for ingress egress......
>>
>> >and although operating rooms arent perfectly sterilized they are some
>> >of the cleanest places in the hospital
>>
>> And how exactly do they do that Bob? Do you have a clue? Now tell me
>> why
>> none of that can't be done in an airlock?
>>
>> Again, we don't have to be perfect, just 'good enough'
>>
>> Greg D. Moore
>
>since we have no idea what if any type of life may exist on mars we
>dont know what we dont know..
>
>so if a escaped earth organism replicates on mars we wouldnt know if
>its from mars, or a earth transplant..
to tell, or it'll be so similar that it really won't matter.
>
>the discover of life on mars will be of cosmic importance.
>
>once mars is contaminated theres no way to uncontaminate it.........
>
>plus a existing mars organism might be wiped out by something from
>earth.....
Keep in mind we know that Mars meteorites have made it here and haven't
wiped out life.
And we have reason to believe Earth meteorites have made it there.
>
>either of these situations should be avoided.....
>
>
Greg (Strider) Moore
Jun 5, 2013, 11:24:39 PM6/5/13
to
"Wayne Throop" wrote in message news:13703...@sheol.org...
It can't be prefect, but we can do it on Earth pretty well as is.
>
>You know, sort of like, if you get the outside of the habitat as
>sterile as possible, and you can limit outgassing and such, so that
>the probability of tropical-conditions-and-inside-humans-adapted bugs
>surviving the worse-than-arctic conditions, you'll get in the same
>ballpark of probability of probes carrying something to mars.
>
>Or rather, I don't see why they don't end up in the same ballpark,
>in practical terms.
Ayup.
Take Jeff's idea of using "suitlocks" when possible and keep the suits in a
chamber you can flood with UV and keep at a near vacuum and you'll eliminate
most Earth life right there.
>
>: Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com>
>: But the interior (and exterior) of your body are not. So, given that
>: you can't sterilize humans, as Bobbert insists, ALL surgical patients
>: must die as it is impossible to sterilize the surgical field.
>
>Well, be fair, surgical suites aren't really sterilized perfectly.
>That is, indeed, a practical impossibility. It just has to be
>sterile *enough* so that the body's immune system, even sometimes when
>compromised, can handle the rest.
Yeah, and that's the point I'm hoping Bob can understand.
>: Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com>
>: But the interior (and exterior) of your body are not. So, given that
>: you can't sterilize humans, as Bobbert insists, ALL surgical patients
>: must die as it is impossible to sterilize the surgical field.
>
>Well, be fair, surgical suites aren't really sterilized perfectly.
>That is, indeed, a practical impossibility. It just has to be
>sterile *enough* so that the body's immune system, even sometimes when
>compromised, can handle the rest.
It can't be prefect, but we can do it on Earth pretty well as is.
>
>You know, sort of like, if you get the outside of the habitat as
>sterile as possible, and you can limit outgassing and such, so that
>the probability of tropical-conditions-and-inside-humans-adapted bugs
>surviving the worse-than-arctic conditions, you'll get in the same
>ballpark of probability of probes carrying something to mars.
>
>Or rather, I don't see why they don't end up in the same ballpark,
>in practical terms.
Take Jeff's idea of using "suitlocks" when possible and keep the suits in a
chamber you can flood with UV and keep at a near vacuum and you'll eliminate
most Earth life right there.
bob haller
Jun 6, 2013, 11:55:09 AM6/6/13
to
>
> Take Jeff's idea of using "suitlocks" when possible and keep the suits in a
> chamber you can flood with UV and keep at a near vacuum and you'll eliminate
> most Earth life right there.
as work around ideas develop the weight and size of the mission just
grew again. 90% more fuel for 10% more weight
Jeff Findley
Jun 6, 2013, 12:42:39 PM6/6/13
to
In article <d44eb4f1-91c8-4545-b733-a3a8dbc9f771
@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
earth organisms. It's been known for a long time that UV kills earth
microorganisms.
Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_germicidal_irradiation
> as work around ideas develop the weight and size of the mission just
> grew again. 90% more fuel for 10% more weight
So what? You've been told repeatedly that added mass is the solution to
the "problems" you're hyper-focused upon. Added mass isn't as much of a
problem as it used to be due to some of the commercial launch market's
current focus on reducing launch costs. As launch costs drop, the
desire to keep the mass of missions to an absolute minimum drops as
well.
@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> >
> > Take Jeff's idea of using "suitlocks" when possible and keep the suits in a
> > chamber you can flood with UV and keep at a near vacuum and you'll eliminate
> > most Earth life right there.
>
> whats the proof mars organizms dont like UV?
What would be the point? I thought you were trying to protect Mars from
> >
> > Take Jeff's idea of using "suitlocks" when possible and keep the suits in a
> > chamber you can flood with UV and keep at a near vacuum and you'll eliminate
> > most Earth life right there.
>
> whats the proof mars organizms dont like UV?
earth organisms. It's been known for a long time that UV kills earth
microorganisms.
Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_germicidal_irradiation
> as work around ideas develop the weight and size of the mission just
> grew again. 90% more fuel for 10% more weight
the "problems" you're hyper-focused upon. Added mass isn't as much of a
problem as it used to be due to some of the commercial launch market's
current focus on reducing launch costs. As launch costs drop, the
desire to keep the mass of missions to an absolute minimum drops as
well.
Greg (Strider) Moore
Jun 6, 2013, 3:08:52 PM6/6/13
to
"bob haller" wrote in message
news:d44eb4f1-91c8-4545...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>
>> Take Jeff's idea of using "suitlocks" when possible and keep the suits in
>> a
>> chamber you can flood with UV and keep at a near vacuum and you'll
>> eliminate
>> most Earth life right there.
>
>whats the proof mars organizms dont like UV?
>
None. We're talking about killing off the deadly EARTH germs you're so
>
>>
>> Take Jeff's idea of using "suitlocks" when possible and keep the suits in
>> a
>> chamber you can flood with UV and keep at a near vacuum and you'll
>> eliminate
>> most Earth life right there.
>
>whats the proof mars organizms dont like UV?
>
paranoid abuot.
>as work around ideas develop the weight and size of the mission just
>grew again. 90% more fuel for 10% more weight
show your math.
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion.
Robert Clark
Jun 6, 2013, 4:58:48 PM6/6/13
to
telescope mass as can be verified by anyone who actually *reads* the
report.
In any case, it's a moot point, as NASA has decided to use the NRO
scopes only for astrophysics missions, not for planetary missions such
as for observing Mars :-(
Only NASA Astrophysics Remains in Running for Donated NRO Telescope —
For Now.
By Dan Leone | Jun. 4, 2013
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/35628only-nasa-astrophysics-remains-in-running-for-donated-nro-telescope-%E2%80%94-for#.Ua9QPBkT8-9
Bob Clark
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages