New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#2376 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Soyuz: Fly Me to the Moon » 2004-07-29 09:38:50
With soft currencies like the rouble, fixing a price in dollars seems risky.
Don't you mean, fixing a price in anything except dollars, euros, pounds or yens is risky?
Yup.
Except the "value" of large blocks of hard currency spent in Russia is most likely greater than the official exchange rate rather then less than the official rate. $100 million may go farther than we think.
#2377 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Soyuz: Fly Me to the Moon » 2004-07-29 08:50:50
This would still not be an easy-easy task, and you would need to risk putting people on the Proton or have to launch Soyuz ($50M) to dock with it. I can't see any way that this is going to cost under a signifigant fraction of a billion dollars.
With soft currencies like the rouble, fixing a price in dollars seems risky. $100 million in US dollars or Euros may well buy many more roubles than the exchange rates published in the Wall Street Journal might suggest.
#2378 Re: Not So Free Chat » Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one. » 2004-07-29 08:44:56
Okay, lets push this consensus stuff and see where we can go.
Government economic regulation is like motor oil. Dirty oil screws up the engine. No oil causes the engine to seize.
One example is patent law. No patents or copyright (which can only come from a government) and innovation is stifled. Bad patent law and innovation is stifled.
Product labeling. Allow manufacturers to lie about the alloys used in metal parts (Buyer Beware!) and every buyer will need to test every screw or alloy construction beam at great expense. Impose government penalties for selling rust-prone steel as stainless and economic efficiency increases.
How to tune the engine can be debated, but an economy cannot run without transparent effective rules which are like clean motor oil.
#2379 Re: Not So Free Chat » Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one. » 2004-07-29 08:09:27
Wise rich people will recognize that by helping to enrich the poor, they further enrich themselves because they will sell more after creating more demand thereby making themselves even richer.
A recursive bootstrap of demand lifts all boats.
The Henry Ford $5 dollar day is an example.
Many rich people are too short sighted to see this.
Can't argue with that. Prosperity for the greatness number helps all.
But too many people see economics as a zero-sum game. A gain for one is a loss for another. If we get this little bugger out of our collective heads we'll be much better off.
Game theory wonks have proven that cooperation often beats competition, but not always.
But to argue which is "better" IMHO is like arguing that the (+) phase of electric current is better than the (-). Nonsense.
We need both.
That said, a crude (faulty) social Darwinism inhabits the minds of too many on the Right, at least IMHO. And a simplistic hand holding Kumbaya signing inhabits the minds of too many on the Left.
Fair enough?
#2380 Re: Not So Free Chat » Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one. » 2004-07-29 08:00:23
Cobra wrote, quoting:
I cannot recall ever hearing a democratic, or even a socialist, politician make the claim that, on the whole, the rich in America became rich by cheating the poor.
Of course not. A politician would know it isn't going to fly. That, and politicians are often rather well-to-do themselves. But I've known far too many liberals that actually believe that on some level to just dismiss it as conservative rhetoric.
Wise rich people will recognize that by helping to enrich the poor, they further enrich themselves because they will sell more after creating more demand thereby making themselves even richer.
A recursive bootstrap of demand lifts all boats.
The Henry Ford $5 dollar day is an example.
Many rich people are too short sighted to see this.
= = =
The federally insured FHA mortgage was a huge engine for creating economic wealth in the American middle class and consumer spending by the American middle class created our current economy.
#2381 Re: Not So Free Chat » Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome! » 2004-07-29 07:19:14
In short, for universalists, essence precedes existence; for objective realists, existence precedes essence.
What if you are not sure? What if this question is the wrong question?
= = =
Follow on point. What if essence emerges from existence in a recursive bootstrap "upwards" spiral? Why cannot this process be dynamic?
Essence emerges to form a new existence which then emerges into a new essence.
= = =
Thoughts on TANNSAAFL. This is a true proposition =IF= we limit our math operations.
Example - take three 3s as your starting point.
3 + 3 + 3 = 9
Whole cannot exceed sum of the parts.
3 x 3 x 3 = 27
This whole exceeds sum of parts but not the product of the parts.
3 ^3 ^ 3 (3 cubed cubed) = 19,683
Way more than the sum of the parts.
Now how about 3! (3 factorial) rasied to the 3! power and raised to the 3! power again cubed cubed?
46656 raised to the 6th power. My cheap Canon calculator fails at this point.
Back to TANNSAAFL. If every member of society only knows how to add, then its a zero-sum game. If someone knows how to mulitply and everyone else adds, they win the game.
If everyone knows how to do factorials and and raise to powers there will be plenty for everyone.
#2382 Re: Not So Free Chat » Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome! » 2004-07-29 07:18:17
Cindy, does stubborn-ness equal strength?
#2383 Re: Not So Free Chat » The USA Budget » 2004-07-28 17:18:47
Cobra & PurdueUSAF - -
Don't the arguments you state above support John Kerry's position that we should have 40,000 new regular Army/Marine infantry and double the special forces and increased pay and benefits and faster rotation of Reservists (ending Reserve "stop loss")?
If we are to be an imperial occupation minded power we will need more muddy boots.
#2384 Re: Human missions » Might Shuttle C - save Hubble? » 2004-07-28 17:14:28
SpaceNut, here is a http://www.nsschapters.org/ny/nyc/Shutt … .pdf]great SDV link.
And an old http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … 80]NewMars thread.
#2385 Re: Not So Free Chat » Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome! » 2004-07-28 16:41:50
From a European point of view, the real moral-political struggle of modern civilization stands between ethical universalism and objectivist realism.
Gennaro, would you call this fellow an http://www.uucroton.org/sermons/0425.Un … df]ethical universalist?
= = =
I have done some more google searches and since I believe there are universal principles, its just darn hard for any feeble human mind (mine included) to grasp them, I guess that makes me an ethical universalist but absolutely not an absolutist. 
#2386 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » ISS cutbacks » 2004-07-28 16:35:34
So what exactly is the argument here?
=IF= ISS/STS could be scrapped immediately perhaps the money could be better spent. I have argued that quite loudly yet I accept that ending ISS may not be politically feasible. Perhaps my real point about scrapping ISS/STS now is that GWB just ain't the space visionary the GOP spin machine would like us to believe he is.
=BUT= if ISS will not be scrapped NOW, then to finish it and not put it to any useful work is worse than worst case.
To finish ISS with petulance and refuse to modify ISS to allow useful experiments (such as a TransHab crew module and CELSS testing) is the same as burning $20 -$30 billion just to make a rhetorical point.
#2387 Re: Not So Free Chat » Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome! » 2004-07-28 16:06:40
Cindy, re-read that Yahoo piece, then this except from Obama's speech. Which version of America do you prefer?
*Hi Bill. I prefer the America in Obama's speech.
There is nothing personal against anyone today, I am just in a mood.
*Can only speak for myself of course, but I haven't taken anything you've posted personally.
--Cindy
Off topic? I am the last person who should ever complain about that! 
I switch subjects on my wife mid-sentence. Makes her nuts.
#2388 Re: Not So Free Chat » Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome! » 2004-07-28 15:35:31
First, some tone-setting quotes:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa01.htm]Federalist #1
To the People of the State of New York:
AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.
and then this:
Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears.So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.
= = =
One side holds that whether a person is poor or rich is dependent overwhelmingly on their own choices, and it's wrong to punish the successful through taxation to redistribute the wealth. The other side holds that the rich became so by cheating the poor, and therefore should pay heavily for social programs that take care of them, if not outright redistribute the ill-gotten wealth.
Nature vs nuture vs free choice. Its not either/or - - its all of the above. And by the way, Adam Smith was most incensed by wealthy businessmen conspiring with government to restrain free trade.
I consider myself a firm devotee of Adam Smith and that many libertarians have distorted his original theories of political economy beyond recognition.
But, we necessarily comes back to Marx and Keynes. First Marx. IMHO a great historian in explaining how capitalist economies function. Like a doctor who can diagnose a disease.
His treatments are worse than the disease, even allowing for the fact that Stalin & Lenin and Mao perverted his theories.
Next, wikipedia ain't scholarly but its a start for Keynes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_lunch]TAANSTAAFL
Strictly speaking, the idea that there is no free lunch at the societal level applies only when all resources are being used completely and appropriately, i.e., when efficiency prevails. But when inefficiency exists, one can get a "free lunch" by abolishing it. For example, microeconomics argues that the pollution example of the previous paragraph is allocatively inefficient. A tax or other program that forces the polluter to internalize this externality would improve efficiency, increasing social welfare. However, others (rent seekers) may be benefiting from the inefficiency and use their political or social power to prevent you from doing so. That is, the polluter may use lobbying and campaign contributions to preserve his or her right to pollute.
Hard-core (classical liberal) advocates of the TANSTAAFL principle seem to assume that markets are efficient unless due to interference by the government or other "outside" forces. The free market is seen as the solution to issues such as pollution.
I believe markets can be substantially inefficient absent government interference. In other words, governments are not the only source of inefficiency. Lack of education is a another source of inefficiency, for example. Short sighted capitalists who drive wages to zero for short term profits are an inherent inefficiency whether or not government is involved. See $5 dollar day below.
Technology can leverage productivity very substantially yet there is no private incentive to pay for R&D unless government offers patent protection, for example.
Arbitrage opportunities are abundant, meaning the Austrian assumption is wrong.
More wikipedia - - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of … ow]Parable of the broken window:
Note that the Austrian interpretation stems from the assumption that all resources are initially fully and appropriately employed. Another school, the Keynesians, argues that in some circumstances the little boy may actually be a benefactor, though not the best possible one. Facing severely underutilized resources (as in the Great Depression), John Maynard Keynes argued (in a somewhat joking way) that it may make economic sense to build totally useless pyramids in order to stimulate the economy, raise aggregate demand, and encourage full employment. More analogous to the broken window, World War II, an extremely destructive event, had exactly that effect. However, Keynes would have preferred to engage in demand stimulus in a way that would be more beneficial to society, such as government investment in education, basic research, public health, and infrastructure.
I believe that Marx is correct that the natural tendency of unfettered capitalism is to drive wages essentially to zero. There are many additional factors of course yet if that were to happen everyone suffers.
Henry Ford paid his workers $5 per day to create demand for people to buy his cars.
Are you familiar with the term "velocity of money" - - the faster money flows through an economy, the more it turns over the more leverage it creates for society.
= = =
I am a amateur follower of third way economics. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de … s]Hernando de Soto is one author who is helpful here.
Bottom line?
Without government PROPERTY would be impossible.
Without social stability GOVERNMENT would be impossible.
Without a sense of equity and fair dealing shared by all members of the community, SOCIAL STABILITY would be impossible.
Without at least some measure of welfare state to help assure that all people have a rock bottom minimum safety net the fruits of 20th century American capitalism would never have been picked.
Where do we draw the balance? Good question and reasonable people can differ.
#2389 Re: Not So Free Chat » The USA Budget » 2004-07-28 10:35:50
We can maintain military supremacy for decades. But then the payback against my grandchildren will be fearsome.
And I seek to avoid that result.
The world is ours for the taking, and we don't. We've never used our power accept for altruism, that says allot about our national character.
Until now. That is my beef with GWB.
#2390 Re: Not So Free Chat » Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome! » 2004-07-28 10:29:33
Not entirely accurate. There is a serious ideologic rift in this country. Right and left (not necessarily Democrat and Republican) are engaged in a struggle for whose vision of what America should be, will be. They represent two fundamentally different philosphies that can't be fully reconciled, only temporarily patched over.
From where I view things, one of those rifts is a "moral America" versus a "moralistic America" - - just as Mrs. Kerry said last night.
I saw this expressed in an essay I read at belief.net about "Harry Potter" and "Left Behind" which said Harry Potter was essentially Catholic while Left Behind is essentially Protestant.
To amplify - - in the mythos of Left Behind its the good people versus the bad people like GWB's war against evildoers. You are either with us or against us, black or white. In the mythos of Harry Potter all of us have streaks of good and bad intermixed in our souls. Some have more good and less bad and some have less good and more bad. But every human being, from bin Laden to Mother Theresa is a mixture of good and evil, just in varying proportions.
Not only is there an outward struggle between people of differing views but every day every human being faces an internal struggle between the better angels of their own nature and the worse angels of their own nature.
To excuse Abu Ghraib by saying Saddam was worse may be factually true but is a morally bankrupt argument if you believe in this second struggle.
But if you believe people can be divided into "good people, saved people" and "bad people, evildoers and the damned" then the evils of Abu Ghraib can be accepted as mere collateral damage.
IMHO George Bush believes he and America embody justice and morality and that he acts on behalf of the Almighty. He never has doubts, about anything. IMHO America has been more moral and decent than any other nation in history yet we can easily lose that stature if we allow ourselves to fall into an 'us vs them' mentality.
There are no "thems" only "us-es" and we are our brother's keeper. Globally.
By the way, Cobra, enabling sloth and laziness is not taking care of our brother. Nor is writing him off taking care of him either.
= = =
PS - If GWB intends to rid the world of all evildoers then there will be no people left. For all of us do evil in varying degrees every day of our lives.
#2391 Re: Not So Free Chat » The USA Budget » 2004-07-28 09:47:43
While I do appreciate that a strong military can come in handy, it seems like we could reduce the military by at least 1/3 and still be able to project overwhelming power throughout the world.
PurduesUSAFguy made some good points in response to this, but missed probably the most basic one.
If I attack you with a knife, would you rather fight back with two knives... or an automatic rifle from an armored vehicle with fifty guys and a helicopter backing you up? It's always prudent to have the greatest advantage possible, willfully reducing your capability in the face of any threat is foolish and irresponsible.
All the high tech weapons in the world will not stop the demographic bomb we are facing.
We need to figure out how to defuse global resentment (whether justified or not) because if our answer is to put our boot on peoples throats there will be hell to pay when we get pulled down.
And if we number 300 million in a world of 6 billion, we won't have enough boots to do the job.
#2392 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-07-28 09:14:58
In any event I am slowly moving from seeing Kerry as a minor annoyance if elected to a complete disaster on every level.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_arti … 725]Andrew Sullivan - - a conservative blogger.
#2393 Re: Not So Free Chat » Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome! » 2004-07-28 08:59:17
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/con … tion/]Link to full speech
Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, "We hold these truths to he self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
and this
Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better.
and this
Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure. John Kerry believes in America. And he knows it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.
A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
#2394 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-07-28 08:55:51
Manned exploration of space is not important as exploration of space itself,
That depends entirely on why we explore space. If settlement is the goal, we need manned spaceflight on as big a scale as possible. If we just want to know, then send robots. Take some pictures and never do a damn thing with the knowledge.
for Christ sake don't vote for the man because he's got a bold exploration vision, given the choice between Caeser with exploration of the East and Jesus Christ and the establishment of peace, which would you choose?
:laugh: Could Jesus convince everyone else to be peaceful? Did not the Romans accomplish any good?
"either or" misses the entire point.
But all things being equal, Caesar.
Qui vivra, verra.
History happens faster these days. If America seeks to become the next Rome, our bubble will only burst that much faster.
Last night Barack Obama reminded us what America is supposed to be all about - - "All men are created equal" and deserve equal rights not because of which nation they are citizens of but because we are all the same species.
If we lose sight of this, if we seek to leave some of our species behind or stratify who has a voice and who does not we squander our power.
IMHO, many Republicans frankly desire to leave people behind.
From another blog:
Obama's speech went to the difference between the two parties are about.
I am watching Jonah Goldberg on C-SPAN making my point for me. He is ranting about "No Child Left Behind." He wants to leave some children behind. He even used the the term the "nanny government."
= = =
I want America (and Americans) to spread into space so values like Obama's can also spread.
"All men are created equal"
and
"We are our brother's keeper"
#2395 Re: Not So Free Chat » Anyone else see Obama? - Awesome! » 2004-07-28 08:36:26
This comment was lifted from dailykos - - a Democrat blog:
Obama's speech went to the difference between the two parties are about.
I am watching Jonah Goldberg on C-SPAN making my point for me. He is ranting about "No Child Left Behind." He wants to leave some children behind. He even used the the term the "nanny government."
The following paragraphs are not something that ANY Republican can say in NYC. Notice the use of WE.
"Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there's the United States of America.
The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."
#2396 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Soyuz: Fly Me to the Moon » 2004-07-27 16:12:07
Maybe the Russian do have a http://www.astronautix.com/articles/theghoax.htm]lander after all.
Very sketchy information but the idea that the Soviets erased history after losing to Apollo doesn't seem too far-fetched.
But who knows?
#2397 Re: Human missions » Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands » 2004-07-27 15:54:52
Cindy, I believe those two fellows (Cowing & Seitzen) are very pro -- George Bush and very pro -- Sean O'Keefe.
I have no problem with that.
Just take their assessment of John Kerry with the proverbial grain of salt. Anyway, the last sentence may be the most important.
It took Nixon to go to China and if the Republicans are truly committed to space, they can get John Kerry to do it, with a combination of political horse trading and public pressure about America falling behind or going in circles with ISS.
#2398 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » ISS cutbacks » 2004-07-27 15:08:07
We should have used the return to flight money (and time) on SDV.
Weeeell, that may be, maybe.
So here is the thing, what can we do now? There has to be some wiggle room here, no?
Fly the shuttle as often as possible. I don't think they will get the flight rate they are looking for. While there is a fixed cost to flying the Shuttle, there is opportunity for savings from deffered flights (due to one reason or another). Redirect that money into a crash SDV program/alternative ISS cargo launch solution.
This reduces the risk because we haven't placed all out bets on black- now some of em are on red.
Two solutions for SDV/alternative: Use the money to build dedicated SDV. OR, use the money to subsidize the private industry to build their own version of something that will meet the same needs. No contract+plus. Just, "here is what we got, now do it."
Actually I agree.
"Ground orbiter NOW!" is a good talking point because it focuses on the extreme option yet to develop SDV and fly orbiter does cover more bets and allows an ISS completion architecture where a SDV tosses up 2 ISS payloads, then 6 - 8 weeks later orbiter launches; then 1 week later a 2nd SDV launches 2 more ISS paylaods.
5 payloads per orbiter flight and the orbiter docks with the SDV payload and uses its engines to drag the components to ISS. If an Orbital Recoveries station keping module were used you could do the same with Proton - put an orbiter up with an ISS module then send a truss up on Proton with attitude control and a docking point and use orbiter to collect the truss.
Knocking 6 orbiter flights off the schedule should easily pay for 6 Proton shots plus design of an attitude control mechanism and a docking point.
= = =
Oh yeah, we can't pay the Russians. More falling on our own sword to prove a point.
#2399 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » ISS cutbacks » 2004-07-27 14:10:28
The point is PlanBush does NOTHING to escape the single payor system with US Tax dollars are the sole funding source and does nothing to seek "two for one" deals on technology development.
First return to flight. Then throw it all away.
Finish ISS. Then abandon it as obsolete.
Dumb.
#2400 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » ISS cutbacks » 2004-07-27 14:02:20
Fly 2 or 3 SDV per year to finish ISS and sell additional SDV at incremental cost plus 25%. In other words the fixed overhead that must be paid whether we fly no STS missions or 6 STS missions is NOT counted towards incremental costs.
As CGNRevenger says the incremental cost of SRBs and ETs and RS-68s is "relatively small" - - I will guess $200 - $300 million excluding all fixed overhead.
Bob Bigelow is one potential customer. Charge him $250 million to put a big TransHab based space hotel in LEO.
How many MER rovers could fit on a single SDV? Propose that a consortium of unversities each fund one MER each and divide the launch cost as many ways as possible. Spirit and Opportunity were built as a pair because the cost to build #2 was a tiny fraction of the cost to build #1.
Okay, build 10 and send up on SDV. Purdue funds 1. Caltech funds 1. MIT funds 1 and so on. . .
NASA's STS budget remains flatlined at 2004/2005 levels, we just get more bang for our bucks.
= = =
Each MER weighs about http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ … .html]2000 pounds - - shuttle C could lift at least a dozen with the cost divided equally among 12 universities who could use the expense to help train graduate students under JPL supervision.