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 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 18:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7eta0cp2nrb6si7jan0f0vskumomio8t3f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601360 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/17/2016 8:47 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average
>>> of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels.
>>>
>>
>> You have a point?
>>
>
>yes he does, and you missed it.
>
>low light = lots of panels => even more problems
>
>got it ?
>
Yeah. He had no point.
>
>For extra Credit list the problems,
>(hint, there are 8 major problems)
>
You don't get credit for listing problems, idiot. Go back to your
cave.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you
>>> bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping
>>> huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts?
>>>
>>
>> Initial power would come
>> from a number of relatively small nuclear reactors. The first two
>> down would provide power for a chemical plant making methane and
>> 'hotel power' for an initial habitat. These are relatively small
>> reactors, so having lots of them with each assigned to a specific
>> application is not a major problem.
>>
>
>you're in dreamland again... Nothing real, none of that exists.
>
DOE is building them now. DOH!
>
>and WHY ? to collect rocks on Mars ? For Geology ?
>
> f*ck that !!
>
I love how you make up the answers for other people.
>
>take that 16 Billion and give Jobs to people in the USA building
>factories here.
>
That won't help you. You still won't have a job.
--
"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 | 2016-10-17 18:46 -0700 |
| Subject | tensegrity ... TensegritoY |
| Message-ID | <20d16b48-0b64-4d37-bbb1-a284a18752cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601418 |
ha; you need a fundamental principle of Universe; ha > >take that 16 Billion and give Jobs to people in the USA building > >factories here. > > > > That won't help you. You still won't have a job. > > > -- > "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 | 2016-10-17 20:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu3vk7$bgf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601418 |
On 10/17/2016 8:09 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/17/2016 8:47 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average >>>> of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels. >>>> >>> >>> You have a point? >>> >> >> yes he does, and you missed it. >> >> low light = lots of panels => even more problems >> >> got it ? >> > > Yeah. He had no point. you are unable to think outside your very limited small teeny-tiny box. you still missed it. you dont have much on this topic do you? > >> >> For extra Credit list the problems, >> (hint, there are 8 major problems) >> > > You don't get credit for listing problems, idiot. problems are solved by engineering, you do not even have the depth to list the obvious problems, > >> >>> >>>> >>>> Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you >>>> bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping >>>> huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts? >>>> >>> >>> Initial power would come >>> from a number of relatively small nuclear reactors. The first two >>> down would provide power for a chemical plant making methane and >>> 'hotel power' for an initial habitat. These are relatively small >>> reactors, so having lots of them with each assigned to a specific >>> application is not a major problem. >>> >> >> you're in dreamland again... Nothing real, none of that exists. >> > > DOE is building them now. no they are not. They are funding studies. got a URL ? > >> >> and WHY ? to collect rocks on Mars ? For Geology ? >> >> f*ck that !! >> > > I love how you make up the answers for other people. wrong again. it is => THE ANSWER for MARS. > >> >> take that 16 Billion and give Jobs to people in the USA building >> factories here. >> > > That won't help you. you keep insulting people, instead of providing solutions, here is a HUGE political problem, and all you have is SNOT .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 07:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9bidnWz6WZNjj5_FnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #600889 |
wrote in message news:3st7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >> section at 120kw. >> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. > >Sigh. > >Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. > >To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >3,000 square meters of solar panels. > Umm... yeah... your point? Hell I'm seeing HOUSES down the street near me that have nearly that much (seriously there's one house that a quick ball-park estimate suggests they probably have about 2x the panels they need). Quick googling shows that I can get a 2 square meters of panels at $218. So that's $327,000. For a mission cost in the millions, that's pretty cheap. Heck, even with delivery costs (let's assume $1K/kg, but I believe Musk is shooting much lower), we're under $5M. Not to bad Hell, at that cost, maybe I'll splurge and by 4000 square meters.) Point being, it's a very solvable problem for a small Mars mission. And as you grow, you start to look at small nukes or just keep adding in more panels. Not a big problem. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9l7add-p9q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600982 |
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: > wrote in message news:3st7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> >>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >>> section at 120kw. >>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >> >>Sigh. >> >>Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >>net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >>surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. >> >>To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >>3,000 square meters of solar panels. >> > > Umm... yeah... your point? Hell I'm seeing HOUSES down the street near me > that have nearly that much (seriously there's one house that a quick > ball-park estimate suggests they probably have about 2x the panels they > need). > Quick googling shows that I can get a 2 square meters of panels at $218. So > that's $327,000. For a mission cost in the millions, that's pretty cheap. > Heck, even with delivery costs (let's assume $1K/kg, but I believe Musk is > shooting much lower), we're under $5M. Not to bad Hell, at that cost, maybe > I'll splurge and by 4000 square meters.) > > Point being, it's a very solvable problem for a small Mars mission. And as > you grow, you start to look at small nukes or just keep adding in more > panels. > > Not a big problem. Nope, not a big problem for a small research station but a huge problem if you are talking about a real colony building things. Turning dirt into industrial steel or industrial aluminum to build things takes lots of energy and you are not going to be building log cabins on Mars. It takes 20-25 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of iron from iron ore. It takes 20-50 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of steel from iron. So that is 40-75 MJ/kg of steel from dirt. It takes 227-342 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of aluminum from bauxite. It takes 7,590-7,755 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of electronic grade silicon. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 21:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9j060cp0npcjvs2dm0j82qn1se5kphfcsv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601010 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>> wrote in message news:3st7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>
>>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US
>>>> section at 120kw.
>>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.
>>>
>>>Sigh.
>>>
>>>Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the
>>>net results of which is that there is far less power available on the
>>>surface of Mars than there is at the ISS.
>>>
>>>To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about
>>>3,000 square meters of solar panels.
>>>
>>
>> Umm... yeah... your point? Hell I'm seeing HOUSES down the street near me
>> that have nearly that much (seriously there's one house that a quick
>> ball-park estimate suggests they probably have about 2x the panels they
>> need).
>> Quick googling shows that I can get a 2 square meters of panels at $218. So
>> that's $327,000. For a mission cost in the millions, that's pretty cheap.
>> Heck, even with delivery costs (let's assume $1K/kg, but I believe Musk is
>> shooting much lower), we're under $5M. Not to bad Hell, at that cost, maybe
>> I'll splurge and by 4000 square meters.)
>>
>> Point being, it's a very solvable problem for a small Mars mission. And as
>> you grow, you start to look at small nukes or just keep adding in more
>> panels.
>>
>> Not a big problem.
>>
>
>Nope, not a big problem for a small research station but a huge problem
>if you are talking about a real colony building things.
>
Not really.
>
>Turning dirt into industrial steel or industrial aluminum to build
>things takes lots of energy and you are not going to be building
>log cabins on Mars.
I love how you pick joules for your unit to make the numbers sound big
and forbidding.
>
>It takes 20-25 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of iron from iron ore.
>
>It takes 20-50 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of steel from iron.
>
>So that is 40-75 MJ/kg of steel from dirt.
>
Let me see. I know it takes 5 MW-hrs to make a ton of steel from ore.
Your numbers are much higher. Where did you get these numbers?
>
>It takes 227-342 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of aluminum from bauxite.
>
This number seems preposterously high, as well. It takes about 14.5
GJ per tonne. Your numbers seem to be over an order of magnitude too
high. Again, where did you get them?
http://bauxite.world-aluminium.org/refining/energy-efficiency.html
>
>It takes 7,590-7,755 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of electronic grade silicon.
>
Your number is a little over 2 MW-hr for a kilogram of electronic
grade silicon. Once again your number seems to be an order of
magnitude too large. Where did you get it?
http://pyrometallurgy.co.za/Pyro2011/Papers/083-Xakalashe.pdf
--
"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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5mt7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600824 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to spread out >> > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. >> >> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar >> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. >> >> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million >> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. >> > > So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it > can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars > anytime soon. > > Jeff Likely not but since life would depend on reacotrs running, having several avoids single point of failure issues so probably makes more sense. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <i0320ch6hcpbo4lo22juc6lgssdj7o6soq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600693 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 11:18 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Wrong. I seem to know a lot more about this (and everything) than you
>> do, troll. For any reasonable amount you can produce as much as you
>> want.
>>
>>> >
>>> >If you’re looking for a rough estimate rather than an entirely accurate
>>> >one; a hundred cubic foot of gas is between 2 and 3 kWh, depending upon
>>> >the conversion factors which are used.
>>> >
>> I'm the one who was looking for an 'estimate'.
>
>try reading;
>
>can YOU generate 1 ton of poop to power your computer for a day ?
>
>no!
>
Try reading. Why would I want to? Only an idiot (you) is going to
try to produce methane from your poop rather than simply making it out
of water and CO2. Only a fuckwitted moron is going to burn methane
for power on Mars.
<snip TrollPoop>
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 08:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.326949745a2664c498983b@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #600651 |
In article <ntmmft$ipv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > > On 10/12/2016 7:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/12/2016 4:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in > >>>> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars" > >>>> > >>> > >>> True, but your typical space colony won't be burning coal. Methane is > >>> easily produced. > >>> > >> > >> 1 how much methane does it take to generate 1 watt hour ? > >> > > > > A little over 3 cubic feet. Why does it matter? You can produce as > > much as you need. > > wrong, you are unfamiliar with sizing a problem, determining the bounds > or limits. > > If you?re looking for a rough estimate rather than an entirely accurate > one; a hundred cubic foot of gas is between 2 and 3 kWh, depending upon > the conversion factors which are used. > > > > > >> > >> 2 how many watt hours does your computer take ? (assume you use it for 1 > >> hour) > >> > > > > Who the fuck knows or cares? > > look at your power supply, or turn over your computer, it is on the > label, know how to read ? My Raspberry Pi 3 single board computers (quad core ARM running at 1 gigahertz) that I use to run Linux and "set top box" software each have a 5 volt 1 Amp power supply, so 5 watts. Where will we get the power to run our (energy efficient) computers? Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 08:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nto0s8$k69$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600692 |
On 10/13/2016 7:34 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <ntmmft$ipv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> On 10/12/2016 7:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/12/2016 4:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> 2 how many watt hours does your computer take ? (assume you use it for 1 >>>> hour) >>>> >>> >>> Who the fuck knows or cares? >> >> look at your power supply, or turn over your computer, it is on the >> label, know how to read ? > > My Raspberry Pi 3 single board computers (quad core ARM running at 1 > gigahertz) that I use to run Linux and "set top box" software each have > a 5 volt 1 Amp power supply, so 5 watts. Where will we get the power to > run our (energy efficient) computers? > > Jeff > Rasberry Pi 3 are fantastic,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 01:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l363dd-7g3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600632 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2016 4:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in >>> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars" >>> >> >> True, but your typical space colony won't be burning coal. Methane is >> easily produced. >> >> > > 1 how much methane does it take to generate 1 watt hour ? > > 2 how many watt hours does your computer take ? (assume you use it for 1 > hour) > > 3 how much poop does it take to generate the methane needed in 1 above ? It would be silly to burn anything on Mars when there is no free oxygen. Methane would be more useful as a seed product for making other things such as plastics. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 08:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3269487de9fafa7298983a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #600571 |
In article <ntlfkp$ipl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > > there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in > its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars" So you use solar and nuclear power. And if fusion power ever becomes practical, you use that too. Just because we're dependant on fossil fuels here on earth doesn't mean a Mars colony needs to be! Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 00:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eek5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600691 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <ntlfkp$ipl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in >> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars" > > So you use solar and nuclear power. And if fusion power ever becomes > practical, you use that too. Just because we're dependant on fossil > fuels here on earth doesn't mean a Mars colony needs to be! > > Jeff To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work during the day. If we had dilithium reactors, warp drive, replicators, and transporters the problem would be trivial. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 21:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntpd21$11h6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600797 |
On 10/13/2016 8:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you > would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work > during the day. We are a long way from being able to put a 50 MW nuke plant on Mars. Making 50 MW of heat isn't the hard part. The hard part is turning megawatts of heat into megawatts of electricity. Anything beyond a very few kilowatts requires some sort of heat engine, which means moving parts. In a compact nuke plant, those moving parts will likely be radioactive, and therefore not repairable. Would you want your life depending on something like that? Note that a Mars plant would need to produce heat to make electricity and also heat for other purposes, such as heating dwellings. To give you some idea of the present state of the art, NASA has done development work on a 40 KW unit. Here is an excellent rundown of the present state-of-the-art in space nukes. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <26u5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600804 |
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/13/2016 8:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you >> would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work >> during the day. > > We are a long way from being able to put a 50 MW nuke plant on Mars. > Making 50 MW of heat isn't the hard part. The hard part is turning > megawatts of heat into megawatts of electricity. Anything beyond a very > few kilowatts requires some sort of heat engine, which means moving > parts. In a compact nuke plant, those moving parts will likely be > radioactive, and therefore not repairable. Would you want your life > depending on something like that? I was talking about 50 MW of electrical power, not heat power. That is the sort of power you need to run things like industries synthesizing complex chemicals and making thngs like steel. > Note that a Mars plant would need to produce heat to make electricity > and also heat for other purposes, such as heating dwellings. Sure you can use the waste heat for other purposes assuming a heat transport mechanism, which is usually water. However that there is sufficient available water is currentyl conjecture; only traces of water have been found anywhere near where one would set up. > To give you some idea of the present state of the art, NASA has done > development work on a 40 KW unit. Here is an excellent rundown of the > present state-of-the-art in space nukes. > http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx So the present state of the art is sufficient to support a research station on Mars but nowhere capable of supporting a colony and industry. QED. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 10:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntqq6b$154p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600813 |
On 10/13/2016 10:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > I was talking about 50 MW of electrical power, not heat power. A small nuclear power plant of that capacity is orders of magnitude beyond the current state of the art. Building a small nuclear reactor with megawatts of capacity is doable with today's technology, but making a highly reliable heat engine to convert that heat into mechanical energy, and doing it in a suitably low mass and tiny package, is an entirely different matter. (NOTE: A nuclear reactor only makes heat. The only practical way we currently have to convert megawatts of heat into megawatts of electricity is with mechanical heat engines.) > > So the present state of the art is sufficient to support a research > station on Mars but nowhere capable of supporting a colony and industry. Agreed. Vaughn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ceu7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600841 |
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/13/2016 10:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> I was talking about 50 MW of electrical power, not heat power. > > A small nuclear power plant of that capacity is orders of magnitude > beyond the current state of the art. Building a small nuclear reactor > with megawatts of capacity is doable with today's technology, but making > a highly reliable heat engine to convert that heat into mechanical > energy, and doing it in a suitably low mass and tiny package, is an > entirely different matter. (NOTE: A nuclear reactor only makes heat. > The only practical way we currently have to convert megawatts of heat > into megawatts of electricity is with mechanical heat engines.) The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW reactor would be tiny by comparison. Nuclear power plants generate electricity by boiling water and running the steam to steam engines. Yes, we could not send even a 50 MW plant to Mars as one assembled piece. >> So the present state of the art is sufficient to support a research >> station on Mars but nowhere capable of supporting a colony and industry. > > Agreed. > > Vaughn > -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 19:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntronm$lf8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600891 |
On 10/14/2016 5:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW > reactor would be tiny by comparison. Errr, do you mean the smallest commercial utility nuclear power plant? Because there are many nuclear reactors in the USA that are smaller than 479 MW. So really? You are saying that that a 50 MW nuke plant is "tiny" in comparison to a utility-sized power plant, so it must therefore be doable for us to build a MERE 50 MW plant on Mars? Really? Well hell, the ISS is "tiny" in comparison to NASA's massive Vehicle Assembly Building, so constructing the ISS should have been a fucking snap for NASA. > > Nuclear power plants generate electricity by boiling water and running > the steam to steam engines. Well, not all nuclear power plants work that way. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A) However, it would be far more correct to say that most nuclear power plants run a heat engine to convert heat energy to mechanical energy. (Hint: A steam engine is a heat engine, but not all heat engines are steam engines.) > > Yes, we could not send even a 50 MW plant to Mars as one assembled > piece. Did anyone say we should?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 23:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ia68dd-toj.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600908 |
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/14/2016 5:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW >> reactor would be tiny by comparison. > Errr, do you mean the smallest commercial utility nuclear power plant? > Because there are many nuclear reactors in the USA that are smaller than > 479 MW. Yes. I'm talking about things in production. > So really? You are saying that that a 50 MW nuke plant is "tiny" in > comparison to a utility-sized power plant, so it must therefore be > doable for us to build a MERE 50 MW plant on Mars? Really? I never said it could be done, would be afforadble, practical, or anything like that. What I am saying is a 50 MW plant is tiny in comparison to what runs the real world. > Well hell, the ISS is "tiny" in comparison to NASA's massive Vehicle > Assembly Building, so constructing the ISS should have been a fucking > snap for NASA. Irrelevant. >> Nuclear power plants generate electricity by boiling water and running >> the steam to steam engines. > Well, not all nuclear power plants work that way. > (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A) > > However, it would be far more correct to say that most nuclear power > plants run a heat engine to convert heat energy to mechanical energy. > (Hint: A steam engine is a heat engine, but not all heat engines are > steam engines.) All production nuclear power plants use steam. If you have something else that is in production and working, fine. >> Yes, we could not send even a 50 MW plant to Mars as one assembled >> piece. > > Did anyone say we should? No, but if the intent is a colony on Mars you need lots of power to do things like convert dirt into structural steel or dirt into structural aluminum (assuming there is any of either in recoverable amounts). -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 19:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntrrgl$og9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600911 |
On 10/14/2016 7:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 10/14/2016 5:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >> The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW >>> >> reactor would be tiny by comparison. >> > Errr, do you mean the smallest commercial utility nuclear power plant? >> > Because there are many nuclear reactors in the USA that are smaller than >> > 479 MW. > Yes. > > I'm talking about things in production. So naval nuclear power plants are not "in production"? > >> > So really? You are saying that that a 50 MW nuke plant is "tiny" in >> > comparison to a utility-sized power plant, so it must therefore be >> > doable for us to build a MERE 50 MW plant on Mars? Really? > I never said it could be done, would be afforadble, practical, or > anything like that. > > What I am saying is a 50 MW plant is tiny in comparison to what runs > the real world. > >> > Well hell, the ISS is "tiny" in comparison to NASA's massive Vehicle >> > Assembly Building, so constructing the ISS should have been a fucking >> > snap for NASA. > Irrelevant. Precisely! Your comparison between a utility-sized nuclear power plant and your proposed 50 MW plant is similarly irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web