Maybe you are not skilled or poorly skilled in Google Foo but it is widely accepted that it isn't a complete waste.
I didn't say it was net negative, budget-wise, just that there are surely much better investments for taxpayers. If, for example, avoidance of lost revenue is to be pursued here, as the article seems to suggest, what about stopping gutting the IRS instead? Taking the numbers from that article of yours at face value (which doesn't even seem to suggest any operational cost for the project, or did I misread it?), the wall is peanuts compared to the uncollected taxes.
Yes, and they have to be pre-programmed in 24-hour cycles in advance using teams of dozens of operators and a computerized scheduler. A decision that would take a human seconds to make and implement takes at least those 24 hours with those robots.
It's not really 20 times faster. It's around 250 times or so for Opportunity vs. a human in a spacesuit on an Martian ATV. So, yes, the initial costs are way higher, but the results are *also* way higher. So it's not at all sure that the result/cost ratio would be worse for a manned expedition, unless you somehow expect that the manned expedition wouldn't be helped in all sorts of ways with semiautomatic machines. Opportunity's two weeks of human equivalent are at $400 million of costs, so the question really is if you can put that man on an ATV onto the surface for $15 billion or less. Chances are that we actually could sometime in the next two decades.
Doesn't self-selection - or even preliminary self-selection - ruin such trials? Your sample doesn't then reflect the average population and you can't extrapolate from it accurately.
Kyosuke claimed it was EASIER to land a craft there than in Australia
I claimed no such thing. I said that places don't care about the distance from which you arrive to them. Mars won't make you landing easier just because you're only departing from Deimos either.
Obviously, equipment lifetime is the one thing that can be a factor here. But I don't see how how non-autonomous nature would have helped you here. Pretty much all time-sensitive operations such as vehicle ascent and reentry are pre-programmed and under computer's control. Even on manned vehicles, even on Earth, where real-time ground control *could* be an option, we still opt for pre-programmed scenarios, since you don't want to entrust anything more complex than an abort switch to people under the circumstances of time-critical flight sequences. Frequency of attempts I already mentioned above - it's logical that we'll gather it more quickly here.
Cepheid measurements have nothing to do with Solar System navigation. Distances to Cepheids are immaterial since we don't travel over interstellar distances.
Those are simple facts known to anyone interested. I'm not the one who's ignorant here. The Lunar Module, for example, didn't have to deal with aerodynamics at all, so it had much simpler control logic and didn't need a heat shield or even thermal protection of the engine section necessary for a soft touchdown.
Delta IV is also unsustainable and won't fly anymore after April 2019, with the exception of the Heavy version that will have a few more remaining flights still until Vulcan can replace it.
Cosmology is a branch of astronomy that involves the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. According to NASA, the definition of cosmology is "the scientific study of the large scale properties of the universe as a whole."
Exactly, NOTHING to do with operating planetary probes, as I already pointed out.
Interestingly, local conditions on other interesting bodies of the Solar System such as Moon or Mars are also much more boring and easier to pre-program for; hence the difficulties lie elsewhere. But congratulations for completely missing the whole point yet again (I can only assume that you're trolling, since it's the most flattering explanation), given how I was NOT comparing a plane landing to a Mars landing, but rather two plane landings from different distances. In exactly the same way, a Mars landing does not care about Earth's distance at any point.
I'm not "pretending", implying, spelling out, or in any way saying that the two are comparable in any way. If you re-read what I wrote, it becomes obvious.
Yeah it does take more technology to make a plane go further actually.
And so does making upper stages inject their payloads onto higher energy trajectories, but neither of those things has anything to do with landings.
But beyond that, one is Earth and ONE IS MARS.
That's exactly the point. The procedure of landing on Mars and it comparative difficulty is determined by conditions on Mars, not by how far away the conditions are located.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you are not skilled or poorly skilled in Google Foo but it is widely accepted that it isn't a complete waste.
I didn't say it was net negative, budget-wise, just that there are surely much better investments for taxpayers. If, for example, avoidance of lost revenue is to be pursued here, as the article seems to suggest, what about stopping gutting the IRS instead? Taking the numbers from that article of yours at face value (which doesn't even seem to suggest any operational cost for the project, or did I misread it?), the wall is peanuts compared to the uncollected taxes.
They simply knew there was nothing more to screw up there. ;)
WHY would you fund something that from the cost/benefit perspective surely must be one of the dumbest ideas any US government has ever had?
Yes, and they have to be pre-programmed in 24-hour cycles in advance using teams of dozens of operators and a computerized scheduler. A decision that would take a human seconds to make and implement takes at least those 24 hours with those robots.
A cave the size of an RV.
I didn't know American RVs were so huge.
It's not really 20 times faster. It's around 250 times or so for Opportunity vs. a human in a spacesuit on an Martian ATV. So, yes, the initial costs are way higher, but the results are *also* way higher. So it's not at all sure that the result/cost ratio would be worse for a manned expedition, unless you somehow expect that the manned expedition wouldn't be helped in all sorts of ways with semiautomatic machines. Opportunity's two weeks of human equivalent are at $400 million of costs, so the question really is if you can put that man on an ATV onto the surface for $15 billion or less. Chances are that we actually could sometime in the next two decades.
Solar panels have higher power-to-weight ratio than currently feasible nuclear installations.
...or simply just get stronger signal and more reliable reception on existing receivers.
...now IN SPACE!
Doesn't self-selection - or even preliminary self-selection - ruin such trials? Your sample doesn't then reflect the average population and you can't extrapolate from it accurately.
Kyosuke claimed it was EASIER to land a craft there than in Australia
I claimed no such thing. I said that places don't care about the distance from which you arrive to them. Mars won't make you landing easier just because you're only departing from Deimos either.
Obviously, equipment lifetime is the one thing that can be a factor here. But I don't see how how non-autonomous nature would have helped you here. Pretty much all time-sensitive operations such as vehicle ascent and reentry are pre-programmed and under computer's control. Even on manned vehicles, even on Earth, where real-time ground control *could* be an option, we still opt for pre-programmed scenarios, since you don't want to entrust anything more complex than an abort switch to people under the circumstances of time-critical flight sequences. Frequency of attempts I already mentioned above - it's logical that we'll gather it more quickly here.
Cepheid measurements have nothing to do with Solar System navigation. Distances to Cepheids are immaterial since we don't travel over interstellar distances.
I never compared Mars to Melbourne, so you're barking up the wrong tree.
It's more difficult (and expensive obviously) to land on a foreign planet than on Earth.
If it is, it's because of local conditions. Not because because of distance, as some "cosmological" moron above tried to claim.
Why would I do something so nonsensical?
Those are simple facts known to anyone interested. I'm not the one who's ignorant here. The Lunar Module, for example, didn't have to deal with aerodynamics at all, so it had much simpler control logic and didn't need a heat shield or even thermal protection of the engine section necessary for a soft touchdown.
Delta IV is also unsustainable and won't fly anymore after April 2019, with the exception of the Heavy version that will have a few more remaining flights still until Vulcan can replace it.
Cosmology is a branch of astronomy that involves the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. According to NASA, the definition of cosmology is "the scientific study of the large scale properties of the universe as a whole."
Exactly, NOTHING to do with operating planetary probes, as I already pointed out.
you're willing to lie about the difficulty in landing on another planet vs. Melbourne.
I can only imagine that you have some kind of random text scrambler in your head messing with the remnants of your reading comprehension.
So that makes the top-level comment meaningless, as I immediately pointed out in my first comment.
Interestingly, local conditions on other interesting bodies of the Solar System such as Moon or Mars are also much more boring and easier to pre-program for; hence the difficulties lie elsewhere. But congratulations for completely missing the whole point yet again (I can only assume that you're trolling, since it's the most flattering explanation), given how I was NOT comparing a plane landing to a Mars landing, but rather two plane landings from different distances. In exactly the same way, a Mars landing does not care about Earth's distance at any point.
Cosmological maths are required for space travel.
No, it's not.
You don't work in the field
Perhaps, but I've known since the age of ten how cosmology differs from celestial mechanics. (Are you nine, by any chance?)
I'm not "pretending", implying, spelling out, or in any way saying that the two are comparable in any way. If you re-read what I wrote, it becomes obvious.
Yeah it does take more technology to make a plane go further actually.
And so does making upper stages inject their payloads onto higher energy trajectories, but neither of those things has anything to do with landings.
But beyond that, one is Earth and ONE IS MARS.
That's exactly the point. The procedure of landing on Mars and it comparative difficulty is determined by conditions on Mars, not by how far away the conditions are located.