Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #600337 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-10 21:29 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-10-18 11:15 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 297 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-10-10 21:29 -0400
A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 18:49 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-11 08:45 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-10-11 14:57 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 10:21 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-11 18:54 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-10-11 19:05 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 12:37 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-10-11 22:56 +0300
the static eventuality noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 09:55 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 10:13 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-11 18:56 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 12:44 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-11 21:46 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-11 19:46 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 20:18 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-12 05:19 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 12:59 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-11 19:10 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-11 19:19 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-11 20:51 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-11 20:50 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 20:58 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-12 05:23 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:09 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 17:42 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:03 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 19:40 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 01:20 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 21:26 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:15 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 19:05 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:13 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 13:36 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 11:02 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-14 12:40 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-16 09:21 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-16 19:32 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-18 08:53 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 11:36 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 18:54 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:49 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:10 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:07 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 14:39 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-10-16 22:13 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-16 19:27 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 17:21 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-18 08:46 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 08:45 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-18 17:18 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 21:44 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-19 07:14 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 08:23 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:10 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 23:48 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-14 06:09 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 18:03 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 02:27 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:14 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 17:52 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:28 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:10 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 14:44 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-16 09:25 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-16 18:29 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 17:17 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 20:00 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 05:19 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 05:51 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 14:03 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 23:40 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 07:30 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 10:01 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:45 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 20:49 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 05:28 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 14:48 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-16 23:45 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-18 08:48 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 10:07 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-19 07:15 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-19 09:02 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-19 16:29 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-19 19:38 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-19 19:27 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 18:57 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:08 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 12:15 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-12 02:37 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 21:02 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-12 05:23 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:11 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:17 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 23:54 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 10:52 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 13:07 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 20:50 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 08:50 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:16 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 17:45 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:05 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 19:43 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 01:22 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 19:20 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 11:27 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 17:47 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 20:48 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-12 01:21 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 08:53 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-10-12 19:18 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 16:02 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:06 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 06:26 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 00:01 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-14 06:14 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 18:07 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 02:35 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 14:50 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-16 23:54 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 18:21 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 07:12 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 06:50 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 17:00 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 23:47 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 07:31 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 12:16 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-10-17 13:40 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:24 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 10:58 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-12 02:36 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 21:01 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 08:56 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 14:12 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 17:49 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:06 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 19:45 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 21:08 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 11:48 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 10:42 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-12 00:38 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 08:59 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 07:18 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 14:14 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 17:52 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:13 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 20:02 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 21:18 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 08:05 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-13 09:38 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 00:06 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-13 21:26 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 02:51 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-14 06:01 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-14 07:25 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 07:29 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-14 10:20 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 11:30 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 13:48 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 14:09 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 18:57 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:08 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 02:57 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:16 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:11 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 14:53 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:04 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:02 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:18 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:23 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 15:00 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-16 19:30 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 00:00 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-16 20:17 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 05:28 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-17 07:15 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 18:13 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:53 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 06:47 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 16:50 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 18:09 -0700
tensegrity ... TensegritoY noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 18:46 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 20:58 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-15 07:29 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 18:03 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:52 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:01 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 09:51 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:34 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 08:06 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 01:54 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:30 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 00:11 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 21:40 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 02:57 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 10:30 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:14 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 19:11 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 23:28 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 19:59 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 02:23 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 04:07 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 08:29 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 18:19 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 16:54 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:14 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 12:19 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:15 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-15 07:37 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:45 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:17 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-15 07:32 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-16 09:17 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-16 18:36 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 18:48 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 08:42 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:27 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 17:19 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-10-17 13:40 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:21 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-18 08:42 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 11:16 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 08:00 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-14 10:21 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 09:47 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-14 06:28 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:18 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:20 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 08:56 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 11:09 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-15 16:17 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-15 20:00 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 22:39 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 09:02 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 18:24 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 08:57 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 12:46 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 17:56 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:41 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 21:18 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 07:53 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 13:28 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 10:50 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 13:17 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 02:40 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:21 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-15 21:09 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 23:04 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 22:47 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 09:03 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:29 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:25 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-10-16 18:36 +0100
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-14 20:08 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 04:00 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 09:20 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:34 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 20:42 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 21:23 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 09:38 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 09:37 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 02:04 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 07:44 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 02:00 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 07:42 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:29 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 00:14 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-14 06:32 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 12:27 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:28 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:26 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:34 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:25 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-10-15 19:28 +0200
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 18:23 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 22:22 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 18:21 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 18:38 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 22:17 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 09:07 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 13:29 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 18:38 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 20:28 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-18 00:58 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 07:32 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 08:12 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-18 17:24 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:38 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:32 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-19 13:43 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-19 16:32 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 19:00 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 18:48 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-10-11 13:34 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-11 21:48 +0000
A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 16:19 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-10-18 11:15 -0400
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 17:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntmeeg$a00$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600617 |
On 10/12/2016 3:16 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/11/2016 10:50 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct/11/2016 at 8:19 PM, Serigo wrote : >>>>> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: >>>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> no food, no water, no air. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) >>>>> >>>>> conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable. >>>> Well, let's say it is a very strong conjecture. >>>> >>> >>> It's not conjecture. It's a fact. Water has been detected and in >>> other places than the poles. >>> >> >> NASA says it is conjecture. >> > Read something newer than half a century old. > >> >> Go read the orgional reports and studies. >> > > Go read something current. FLOWING SURFACE WATER is 'conjecture'. The > presence of large quantities of water as ices and frozen brines is > FACT. wrong, it is only photos of a flowed surface, it is conjectured as water flow, not verified. try to keep up. > >> >> you can not provide any URLS to support your assertions. >> > > I certainly can't list all the hits googling "water Mars" produces. no need, find the one to the orgional NASA report that conjecturs it must be water. ALL the rest of the articals come from that one. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 17:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nrjtvbtb663mmuuofbtru17rhdqs30jc8d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600629 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 3:16 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2016 10:50 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct/11/2016 at 8:19 PM, Serigo wrote :
>>>>>> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no food, no water, no air.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable.
>
>>>>> Well, let's say it is a very strong conjecture.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not conjecture. It's a fact. Water has been detected and in
>>>> other places than the poles.
>>>>
>>>
>>> NASA says it is conjecture.
>>>
>
>> Read something newer than half a century old.
>>
>>>
>>> Go read the orgional reports and studies.
>>>
>>
>> Go read something current. FLOWING SURFACE WATER is 'conjecture'. The
>> presence of large quantities of water as ices and frozen brines is
>> FACT.
>
>wrong, it is only photos of a flowed surface, it is conjectured as water
>flow, not verified.
>
>try to keep up.
>
Wrong, it is much more than you claim.
Try to pull your head out.
>>
>>>
>>> you can not provide any URLS to support your assertions.
>>>
>>
>> I certainly can't list all the hits googling "water Mars" produces.
>
>no need, find the one to the orgional NASA report that conjecturs it
>must be water.
>
>ALL the rest of the articals come from that one.
>
You're still talking about FLOWING SURFACE WATER. A colony doesn't
need that and there is all sorts of evidence for various ices on Mars,
some of them in surprising places.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 19:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntmlbv$hmp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600643 |
On 10/12/2016 7:05 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/12/2016 3:16 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/11/2016 10:50 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct/11/2016 at 8:19 PM, Serigo wrote : >>>>>>> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> no food, no water, no air. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable. >> >>>>>> Well, let's say it is a very strong conjecture. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's not conjecture. It's a fact. Water has been detected and in >>>>> other places than the poles. >>>>> >>>> >>>> NASA says it is conjecture. >>>> >> >>> Read something newer than half a century old. >>> >>>> >>>> Go read the orgional reports and studies. >>>> >>> >>> Go read something current. FLOWING SURFACE WATER is 'conjecture'. The >>> presence of large quantities of water as ices and frozen brines is >>> FACT. >> >> wrong, it is only photos of a flowed surface, it is conjectured as water >> flow, not verified. >> >> try to keep up. >> > > Wrong, it is much more than you claim. > read material carefully. now provide a link. > >>> >>>> >>>> you can not provide any URLS to support your assertions. >>>> >>> >>> I certainly can't list all the hits googling "water Mars" produces. >> >> no need, find the one to the orgional NASA report that conjecturs it >> must be water. >> >> ALL the rest of the articals come from that one. >> > > You're still talking about FLOWING SURFACE WATER. A colony doesn't > need that and there is all sorts of evidence for various ices on Mars, > some of them in surprising places. so how do you get it ? mine it ? reduce it with heat ? how to transport it ? think it through, How much water does a colony, say one person need per day?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 01:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5743dd-b93.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600649 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2016 7:05 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/12/2016 3:16 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/11/2016 10:50 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>>> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct/11/2016 at 8:19 PM, Serigo wrote : >>>>>>>> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> no food, no water, no air. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable. >>> >>>>>>> Well, let's say it is a very strong conjecture. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not conjecture. It's a fact. Water has been detected and in >>>>>> other places than the poles. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NASA says it is conjecture. >>>>> >>> >>>> Read something newer than half a century old. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Go read the orgional reports and studies. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Go read something current. FLOWING SURFACE WATER is 'conjecture'. The >>>> presence of large quantities of water as ices and frozen brines is >>>> FACT. >>> >>> wrong, it is only photos of a flowed surface, it is conjectured as water >>> flow, not verified. >>> >>> try to keep up. >>> >> >> Wrong, it is much more than you claim. >> > > read material carefully. > > now provide a link. > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> you can not provide any URLS to support your assertions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I certainly can't list all the hits googling "water Mars" produces. >>> >>> no need, find the one to the orgional NASA report that conjecturs it >>> must be water. >>> >>> ALL the rest of the articals come from that one. >>> >> >> You're still talking about FLOWING SURFACE WATER. A colony doesn't >> need that and there is all sorts of evidence for various ices on Mars, >> some of them in surprising places. > > so how do you get it ? mine it ? reduce it with heat ? how to transport > it ? > > think it through, > > How much water does a colony, say one person need per day? About a gallon per day for intake, much more if you want to wash anything. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 19:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <t1rtvb96trsmnmvt86ej1fuil4vbeai97j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600649 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 7:05 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2016 3:16 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2016 10:50 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct/11/2016 at 8:19 PM, Serigo wrote :
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no food, no water, no air.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable.
>>>
>>>>>>> Well, let's say it is a very strong conjecture.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not conjecture. It's a fact. Water has been detected and in
>>>>>> other places than the poles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> NASA says it is conjecture.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Read something newer than half a century old.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Go read the orgional reports and studies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go read something current. FLOWING SURFACE WATER is 'conjecture'. The
>>>> presence of large quantities of water as ices and frozen brines is
>>>> FACT.
>>>
>>> wrong, it is only photos of a flowed surface, it is conjectured as water
>>> flow, not verified.
>>>
>>> try to keep up.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong, it is much more than you claim.
>>
>
>read material carefully.
>
Have someone read the material and explain it to you.
>
>now provide a link.
>
http://www.space.com/30502-mars-giant-ice-sheet-discovery-mro.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_polar_ice_caps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-coming-and-going-of-ice-on-mars
https://themis.asu.edu/node/5392
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you can not provide any URLS to support your assertions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I certainly can't list all the hits googling "water Mars" produces.
>>>
>>> no need, find the one to the orgional NASA report that conjecturs it
>>> must be water.
>>>
>>> ALL the rest of the articals come from that one.
>>>
>>
>> You're still talking about FLOWING SURFACE WATER. A colony doesn't
>> need that and there is all sorts of evidence for various ices on Mars,
>> some of them in surprising places.
>>
>
>so how do you get it ? mine it ? reduce it with heat ? how to transport
>it ?
>
>think it through,
>
Great advice. If only you would take it you would not ask so many
stupid questions.
>
>How much water does a colony, say one person need per day?
>
If you live like you do on Earth, you'll use about 20 litres per day.
Almost all of that can be recovered and recycled. About 3.7 litres of
that are for human consumption, including water in food. With air and
waste recycling, almost all of that can be recovered, too.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 11:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45cfea24-2755-493d-870f-c36483716039@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #600503 |
bring dimers (OO, HH; to m@rs, every one is your friend > > all moisture would leave the plant. > > Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants. > > Radiation will kill it off in a few years. > > You would do so in pressurized greenhouses. It can be done. > > > Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 17:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntmehq$a00$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600593 |
On 10/12/2016 1:27 PM, noTthaTguY wrote: > bring dimers (OO, HH; to m@rs, every one is your friend > >>> all moisture would leave the plant. >>> Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants. >>> Radiation will kill it off in a few years. >> >> You would do so in pressurized greenhouses. It can be done. >> >> >> Alain Fournier > you could order dinner online, be delivered in 6 months or more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 20:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jbcrvbd2bhvvliq05mic51bjpueiu3vqia@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600497 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>
>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.
>>
>> Opinion.
>
>Fact. Mars is Dead.
>
Not a fact. It's likely, but not a fact.
>>
>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.
>>
>> False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one.
>
>1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be
>used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air.
>
Define 'air'. You said it was vacuum. You now admit it isn't. You're
not even a GOOD troll.
>
>> If you
>> want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but
>> even the moon looks to have water.
>
>"looks" => conjecture
>
Nope. We've detected it. And Mars actually has quite a bit of water.
>
>>
>>> no food, no water, no air.
>>
>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions)
>>
>
>conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable.
>
There's more than he says and it is not conjecture. It's a fact.
>
>> and again a CO2
>> atmosphere. Food could be grown.
>
>all moisture would leave the plant.
>Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants.
>Radiation will kill it off in a few years.
>
Poppycock.
>
>>
>>> send a robot.
>>
>> Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science
>> compared to a manned mission.
>>
>
>silly opinion.
>
It's not an opinion. It's a fact. You really seem to have those two
things swapped in your head.
>
>>
>>> to hell with Musk and his gov funded R&D companies.
>>
>> Tell us how you really feel...
>
>I dont want Gov stealing my money for dead ideas.
>
You're not smart enough to have to pay taxes. You're just a parasite
on the system.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 01:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57fdc83e$0$31173$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #600525 |
On 2016-10-11 23:48, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Define 'air'. You said it was vacuum. You now admit it isn't. You're > not even a GOOD troll. Say I went on a camping trip to Mars. Would my tent widstand the winds ? (higher winds but thinner air). Forgetting abrasive nature of sand, would structures have to be stronger than on earth to widthstand the winds ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 08:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntlf84$hhe$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600545 |
On 10/12/2016 12:21 AM, JF Mezei wrote: > On 2016-10-11 23:48, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >> Define 'air'. You said it was vacuum. You now admit it isn't. You're >> not even a GOOD troll. > > > Say I went on a camping trip to Mars. Would my tent widstand the winds ? > (higher winds but thinner air). > > Forgetting abrasive nature of sand, would structures have to be stronger > than on earth to widthstand the winds ? > simple questions actually, just calculate the Mass flow rates and compair. mass*velocity stuff. if mars is 99% less than earth, then winds can be 100 times greater, simple ratios
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 19:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntm29e$5st$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #600545 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> schrieb: > Say I went on a camping trip to Mars. Would my tent widstand the winds ? > (higher winds but thinner air). No problem. Wind speeds measured by Viking were around 30 m/s. Density of mars atmosphere is around 0.02 kg/m^3. This gives you a dynamic pressure of around 9 Pa, or 9 Newton per m^2. On earth, usual atmospheric density is around 1.2 kg/m^3. To get to the same dynamic pressure, you would have a wind speed of a bit less than 4 m/s, which is in the range for Beaufort 3. So, literally a gentle breeze.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <44bed385-ccea-4da6-94c8-068f11a17fab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #600604 |
hey, three b. per hexahedral meter! > On earth, usual atmospheric density is around 1.2 kg/m^3. To get > to the same dynamic pressure, you would have a wind speed of a > bit less than 4 m/s, which is in the range for Beaufort 3. > > So, literally a gentle breeze.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3l5tvb1sq1c9hkt0i6gkfi9jj86j2b8b4k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600545 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-10-11 23:48, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> Define 'air'. You said it was vacuum. You now admit it isn't. You're
>> not even a GOOD troll.
>>
>
>Say I went on a camping trip to Mars. Would my tent widstand the winds ?
>(higher winds but thinner air).
>
Your tent won't always withstand the winds on Earth. It also won't
always withstand the winds on Mars.
>
>Forgetting abrasive nature of sand, would structures have to be stronger
>than on earth to widthstand the winds ?
>
Just how high do you think the winds on Mars are? Typical 'dust
storm' winds are only on the order of 60-70 miles per hour.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 06:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.32692b614bd1b535989833@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #600497 |
In article <ntjvi8$brk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > > On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: > > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > >> > >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. > > > > Opinion. > > Fact. Mars is Dead. Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural resources. > >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. > > > > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. > > 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be > used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air. Chemistry. CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and oxygen for the return trip back to earth. Also, note people breathe oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support. The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done in the lab many times. We just need to send the necessary equipment to Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase). > > If you > > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but > > even the moon looks to have water. > > "looks" => conjecture Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole). No there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be extracted and used. It's a natural resource despite your whining to the contrary. > >> no food, no water, no air. > > > > There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) > > conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable. Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence for water on the Mars too. > > and again a CO2 > > atmosphere. Food could be grown. > > all moisture would leave the plant. > Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants. > Radiation will kill it off in a few years. Hydroponic greenhouses pressurized to 1 atmosphere of pressure (or nearly so since plants grow at lesser pressures right here on earth). Ever see how they grow tomatoes in Canada or the hydroponics garden at Disney Epcot? Pretty much just like that. > >> send a robot. > > > > Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science > > compared to a manned mission. > > silly opinion. Fact, not opinion. Look at the science returns from Apollo (e.g. kg of samples returned, experiments performed, and equipment set up). Look at how far the manned lunar rovers drove compared to the robotic rovers on Mars. Facts you are apparently either ignorant of, or are ignoring. > > > >> to hell with Musk and his gov funded R&D companies. > > > > Tell us how you really feel... > > I dont want Gov stealing my money for dead ideas. Capitalistic competition between SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, Boeing, and etc. is *far* better than throwing money down the glorious socialist SLS/Orion "rocket to nowhere" rat-hole. That program has spent many billions of dollars and flown zero times. At least SpaceX is "pushing the envelope" and lowering launch costs. High launch costs are arguably the biggest roadblock for any manned mission beyond LEO. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 00:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4rj5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600678 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <ntjvi8$brk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: >> > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> >> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. >> > >> > Opinion. >> >> Fact. Mars is Dead. > > Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural > resources. > >> >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. >> > >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. >> >> 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be >> used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air. > > Chemistry. CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and > oxygen for the return trip back to earth. Also, note people breathe > oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support. > > The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done > in the lab many times. We just need to send the necessary equipment to > Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase). Which would be a big industrial plant, a nuclear reactor to power it, and a shitload of support equipment. >> > If you >> > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but >> > even the moon looks to have water. >> >> "looks" => conjecture > > Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on > the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole). No > there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be > extracted and used. It's a natural resource despite your whining to the > contrary. Generally something is called a natural resource when it is concentrated and easy to extract. The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it. >> >> no food, no water, no air. >> > >> > There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) >> >> conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable. > > Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence for water on the Mars too. But not in usefull amounts or convienient places. >> > and again a CO2 >> > atmosphere. Food could be grown. >> >> all moisture would leave the plant. >> Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants. >> Radiation will kill it off in a few years. > > Hydroponic greenhouses pressurized to 1 atmosphere of pressure (or > nearly so since plants grow at lesser pressures right here on earth). > Ever see how they grow tomatoes in Canada or the hydroponics garden at > Disney Epcot? Pretty much just like that. > >> >> send a robot. >> > >> > Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science >> > compared to a manned mission. >> >> silly opinion. > > Fact, not opinion. Look at the science returns from Apollo (e.g. kg of > samples returned, experiments performed, and equipment set up). Look at > how far the manned lunar rovers drove compared to the robotic rovers on > Mars. Facts you are apparently either ignorant of, or are ignoring. The Mars rovers ran for years 24/7. How long was the longest stay for humans on the Moon? How far away from the landing site did the lunar rovers go compared to the Martian rovers? The Martian rovers don't need to return rocks to Earth, they can analyze them on the spot. >> >> to hell with Musk and his gov funded R&D companies. >> > >> > Tell us how you really feel... >> >> I dont want Gov stealing my money for dead ideas. > > Capitalistic competition between SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, Boeing, and > etc. is *far* better than throwing money down the glorious socialist > SLS/Orion "rocket to nowhere" rat-hole. That program has spent many > billions of dollars and flown zero times. At least SpaceX is "pushing > the envelope" and lowering launch costs. High launch costs are arguably > the biggest roadblock for any manned mission beyond LEO. > > Jeff Well that and basic survival. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 06:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.326a79f16270fa1198983e@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #600795 |
In article <4rj5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > > In article <ntjvi8$brk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > >> > >> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: > >> > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > >> >> > >> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. > >> > > >> > Opinion. > >> > >> Fact. Mars is Dead. > > > > Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural > > resources. > > > >> >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. > >> > > >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. > >> > >> 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be > >> used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air. > > > > Chemistry. CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and > > oxygen for the return trip back to earth. Also, note people breathe > > oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support. > > > > The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done > > in the lab many times. We just need to send the necessary equipment to > > Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase). > > Which would be a big industrial plant, a nuclear reactor to power it, > and a shitload of support equipment. No, it's not "big". Mars reference missions include this because the "plant" needed can be small, if you give it many months to do its work. Hint: The life support equipment on ISS contains chemical "plants" as well. The Russians have been using them for quite some time. And they have the disadvantage that they had to work in zero gravity. > >> > If you > >> > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but > >> > even the moon looks to have water. > >> > >> "looks" => conjecture > > > > Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on > > the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole). No > > there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be > > extracted and used. It's a natural resource despite your whining to the > > contrary. > > Generally something is called a natural resource when it is concentrated > and easy to extract. > > The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it. On earth, fossil fuels are still relatively cheap, given advances in technologies like fracking. So, we simply won't ramp up on renewable energy on earth until its cost effective to do so. On Mars, it would likely be hideously expensive to try to mine fossil fuels, especially since we have no idea if there are any fossil fuels on Mars. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ugj7dd-voh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600826 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <4rj5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> > In article <ntjvi8$brk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> >> >> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: >> >> > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> >> >> >> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. >> >> > >> >> > Opinion. >> >> >> >> Fact. Mars is Dead. >> > >> > Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural >> > resources. >> > >> >> >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. >> >> > >> >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. >> >> >> >> 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be >> >> used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air. >> > >> > Chemistry. CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and >> > oxygen for the return trip back to earth. Also, note people breathe >> > oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support. >> > >> > The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done >> > in the lab many times. We just need to send the necessary equipment to >> > Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase). >> >> Which would be a big industrial plant, a nuclear reactor to power it, >> and a shitload of support equipment. > > No, it's not "big". Mars reference missions include this because the > "plant" needed can be small, if you give it many months to do its work. > Hint: The life support equipment on ISS contains chemical "plants" as > well. The Russians have been using them for quite some time. And they > have the disadvantage that they had to work in zero gravity. Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big. If all you want is a research station, no need to produce anything locally. >> >> > If you >> >> > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but >> >> > even the moon looks to have water. >> >> >> >> "looks" => conjecture >> > >> > Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on >> > the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole). No >> > there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be >> > extracted and used. It's a natural resource despite your whining to the >> > contrary. >> >> Generally something is called a natural resource when it is concentrated >> and easy to extract. >> >> The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it. > > On earth, fossil fuels are still relatively cheap, given advances in > technologies like fracking. So, we simply won't ramp up on renewable > energy on earth until its cost effective to do so. On Mars, it would > likely be hideously expensive to try to mine fossil fuels, especially > since we have no idea if there are any fossil fuels on Mars. > > Jeff That is true enough, but people keep confusing a handfull of something with a natural resource. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 02:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <imt30ch30401cd4a37f8d1lase6nnkh5pk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600868 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <4rj5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>> > In article <ntjvi8$brk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>> >>
>>> >> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>> >> > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Opinion.
>>> >>
>>> >> Fact. Mars is Dead.
>>> >
>>> > Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural
>>> > resources.
>>> >
>>> >> >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one.
>>> >>
>>> >> 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be
>>> >> used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air.
>>> >
>>> > Chemistry. CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and
>>> > oxygen for the return trip back to earth. Also, note people breathe
>>> > oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support.
>>> >
>>> > The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done
>>> > in the lab many times. We just need to send the necessary equipment to
>>> > Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase).
>>>
>>> Which would be a big industrial plant, a nuclear reactor to power it,
>>> and a shitload of support equipment.
>>
>> No, it's not "big". Mars reference missions include this because the
>> "plant" needed can be small, if you give it many months to do its work.
>> Hint: The life support equipment on ISS contains chemical "plants" as
>> well. The Russians have been using them for quite some time. And they
>> have the disadvantage that they had to work in zero gravity.
>>
>
>Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big.
>
Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what
mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start
with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you
have to import (again over time).
>
>If all you want is a research station, no need to produce anything
>locally.
>
Sure there is, if you ever plan on having your researchers come home.
>>> >> > If you
>>> >> > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but
>>> >> > even the moon looks to have water.
>>> >>
>>> >> "looks" => conjecture
>>> >
>>> > Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on
>>> > the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole). No
>>> > there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be
>>> > extracted and used. It's a natural resource despite your whining to the
>>> > contrary.
>>>
>>> Generally something is called a natural resource when it is concentrated
>>> and easy to extract.
>>>
>>> The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it.
>>
>> On earth, fossil fuels are still relatively cheap, given advances in
>> technologies like fracking. So, we simply won't ramp up on renewable
>> energy on earth until its cost effective to do so. On Mars, it would
>> likely be hideously expensive to try to mine fossil fuels, especially
>> since we have no idea if there are any fossil fuels on Mars.
>>
>
>That is true enough, but people keep confusing a handfull of something
>with a natural resource.
>
No, they don't. People keep denying the existence of things that are
known to exist. I'll ask you again, just how many TRILLION ACRE FEET
of water in the form of ice must exist before you accept it's a
'natural resource'?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 14:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu0llo$1981$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600966 |
On 10/15/2016 4:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> >> >> Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big. >> > > Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what > mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start > with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you > have to import (again over time). is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? your really not into this Mars thing are you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 23:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <phgddd-mh7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #601121 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2016 4:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >>>> >>> >>> Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big. >>> >> >> Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what >> mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start >> with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you >> have to import (again over time). > > is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? > > your really not into this Mars thing are you. There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes weighs about 2 tons. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web