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 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 02:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uhg8dd-rnk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600919 |
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > 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"? Navy reactors are for the most part built for each ship it is to power, but no, that is not what I meant. Production as in connected to the grid. >>> > 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. I proposed nothing. What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going to get from wind or solar on Mars. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 04:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d3340c1u7anfifuic3o0cvec93siv0oru0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600940 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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"?
>
>Navy reactors are for the most part built for each ship it is to
>power, but no, that is not what I meant.
>
>Production as in connected to the grid.
>
So you set an unreasonable criterion to start with. Unfortunately for
you, submarines have been 'connected to the grid' to provide power
during power plant failures. It's essentially 'shore power' but run
backwards.
>>>> > 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.
>
>I proposed nothing.
>
Of course you did. That's why we're talking about a reactor that size
in the first place. Nobody else thinks it's necessary.
>
>What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or
>structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going
>to get from wind or solar on Mars.
>
Wrong. It doesn't require anything close to 50 MW. As I pointed out
elsewhere, producing a ton of steel from ore takes about 5 MW-hrs of
power, all told. Unless I need to produce 10 tons of steel per hour I
don't need a reactor anywhere near as big as what you keep proposing.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 08:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu2joe$5h5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600981 |
On 10/15/2016 6:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or
>> structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going
>> to get from wind or solar on Mars.
>>
>
> Wrong. It doesn't require anything close to 50 MW. As I pointed out
> elsewhere, producing a ton of steel from ore takes about 5 MW-hrs of
> power, all told. Unless I need to produce 10 tons of steel per hour I
> don't need a reactor anywhere near as big as what you keep proposing.
>
>
do you know how silly and insane that sounds ?
You are proposing to set up an entire steel factory on Mars, and use 5
MWhrs to produce 1 ton of steel from "ore".
so where did you get your coke ?
Iron Ore ?
Limestone ?
O2 ?
Manganese?
Phosphorous ?
Sulfer?
Silicon ?
How heavy is the container holding 1 ton of liquid steel ?
How big and heavy is your rolling mill ?
How big and heavy is your soaking pit ?
How big and heavy are your handling tools ?
how big and heavy are your processing tools and factory ?
Mars surface dirt is more radioactive than Earth's dirt, so will your
"Mars Steel" be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dbhfdd-1ae.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #601244 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2016 6:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or >>> structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going >>> to get from wind or solar on Mars. >>> >> >> Wrong. It doesn't require anything close to 50 MW. As I pointed out >> elsewhere, producing a ton of steel from ore takes about 5 MW-hrs of >> power, all told. Unless I need to produce 10 tons of steel per hour I >> don't need a reactor anywhere near as big as what you keep proposing. >> >> > > do you know how silly and insane that sounds ? > > You are proposing to set up an entire steel factory on Mars, and use 5 > MWhrs to produce 1 ton of steel from "ore". > > so where did you get your coke ? > Iron Ore ? > Limestone ? > O2 ? > Manganese? > Phosphorous ? > Sulfer? > Silicon ? > > How heavy is the container holding 1 ton of liquid steel ? > > How big and heavy is your rolling mill ? > > How big and heavy is your soaking pit ? > > How big and heavy are your handling tools ? > > how big and heavy are your processing tools and factory ? > > Mars surface dirt is more radioactive than Earth's dirt, so will your > "Mars Steel" be. It is 10-19 MW-hrs from ore to one ton of steel, not counting fabrication into usefull stock. A ton of steel is a tivial amount. I have over a half ton of steel just in the various things I have built around the house and I'm not building any buildings. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu3hb7$1q9m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601315 |
On 10/17/2016 1:19 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> On 10/15/2016 6:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or >>>> structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going >>>> to get from wind or solar on Mars. >>>> >>> Wrong. It doesn't require anything close to 50 MW. As I pointed out >>> elsewhere, producing a ton of steel from ore takes about 5 MW-hrs of >>> power, all told. Unless I need to produce 10 tons of steel per hour I >>> don't need a reactor anywhere near as big as what you keep proposing. >>> >>> >> do you know how silly and insane that sounds ? >> >> You are proposing to set up an entire steel factory on Mars, and use 5 >> MWhrs to produce 1 ton of steel from "ore". >> >> so where did you get your coke ? >> Iron Ore ? >> Limestone ? >> O2 ? >> Manganese? >> Phosphorous ? >> Sulfer? >> Silicon ? >> How heavy is the container holding 1 ton of liquid steel ? >> >> How big and heavy is your rolling mill ? >> >> How big and heavy is your soaking pit ? >> >> How big and heavy are your handling tools ? >> >> how big and heavy are your processing tools and factory ? >> Mars surface dirt is more radioactive than Earth's dirt, so will your >> "Mars Steel" be. > It is 10-19 MW-hrs from ore to one ton of steel, not counting fabrication > into usefull stock. > > A ton of steel is a tivial amount. I have over a half ton of steel just > in the various things I have built around the house and I'm not building > any buildings. > 1 ton of steel = 4 cubic feet, or 1 foot by 2 foot by 2 foot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75pa0ch3p2chtvjggti0tv5b27uqhu1h49@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601315 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>It is 10-19 MW-hrs from ore to one ton of steel, not counting fabrication
>into usefull stock.
>
There seems to be some disagreement on these numbers.
http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/steel_energy_use.pdf
http://eande.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/publications/lbl-4836e-us-china-steeljune-2011.pdf
>
>A ton of steel is a tivial amount. I have over a half ton of steel just
>in the various things I have built around the house and I'm not building
>any buildings.
>
Well, let's look and see how many feet of steel beam is 'a trivial
amount'. Keeping in mind that we can use smaller beams on Mars (less
gravity)...
A foot of 24" steel beam weighs about 100 lbs. So a ton is around 20
feet, which sounds trivial indeed until we realize that two foot beams
are preposterously oversized for what a Mars colony will need to
build.
A foot of 7" steel beam weighs around 20 lbs. That gives 100 feet of
beam per ton of steel, which starts to look much better. And that's
probably still over specified for what they'll be used for on Mars.
A foot of 3" steel beam weighs 6 lbs. So if that's all I need I can
get 333 feet of beam out of a ton of steel. Starts to sound less and
less 'trivial', doesn't it?
So it all comes down to how 'fast' you can make steel. Given low
power reactors I can only make around a quarter ton of steel a day.
But throw together 10 'suitcase reactors' and I'm producing
comfortably over 2 tons per day. Even if I use Jimp's numbers, I can
make a ton a day.
That's a lot of steel beam...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 12:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu5liv$10sl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601408 |
On 10/17/2016 7:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> It is 10-19 MW-hrs from ore to one ton of steel, not counting fabrication >> into usefull stock. >> > > There seems to be some disagreement on these numbers. >> >> A ton of steel is a tivial amount. I have over a half ton of steel just >> in the various things I have built around the house and I'm not building >> any buildings. > > Well, let's look and see how many feet of steel beam is 'a trivial > amount'. Keeping in mind that we can use smaller beams on Mars (less > gravity)... > > A foot of 24" steel beam weighs about 100 lbs. So a ton is around 20 > feet, which sounds trivial indeed until we realize that two foot beams > are preposterously oversized for what a Mars colony will need to > build. > A foot of 7" steel beam weighs around 20 lbs. That gives 100 feet of > beam per ton of steel, which starts to look much better. And that's > probably still over specified for what they'll be used for on Mars. > > A foot of 3" steel beam weighs 6 lbs. So if that's all I need I can > get 333 feet of beam out of a ton of steel. Starts to sound less and > less 'trivial', doesn't it? > So it all comes down to how 'fast' you can make steel. Given low > power reactors I can only make around a quarter ton of steel a day. > But throw together 10 'suitcase reactors' and I'm producing > comfortably over 2 tons per day. Even if I use Jimp's numbers, I can > make a ton a day. > > That's a lot of steel beam... > > what are you smokin ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ela0cl39p2sj9v8i38fm0gmgti2608a5n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601244 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/15/2016 6:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or
>>> structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going
>>> to get from wind or solar on Mars.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. It doesn't require anything close to 50 MW. As I pointed out
>> elsewhere, producing a ton of steel from ore takes about 5 MW-hrs of
>> power, all told. Unless I need to produce 10 tons of steel per hour I
>> don't need a reactor anywhere near as big as what you keep proposing.
>>
>>
>
> do you know how silly and insane that sounds ?
>
>You are proposing to set up an entire steel factory on Mars, and use 5
>MWhrs to produce 1 ton of steel from "ore".
>
Eventually.
>
>so where did you get your coke ?
>
It's just carbon. The atmosphere is full of it and breaking that
stuff down to get oxygen is probably something we'd want to do
eventually anyway.
>
>Iron Ore ?
>
Hematite.
>
>Limestone ?
>
Don't need limestone. I need calcium oxide. Easily made from various
calcium deposits.
>
>O2 ?
>
Made from air and/or water. Need to be able to make it to breath
anyway.
>
>Manganese?
>
Dig it up. Rovers have found ore structures.
>
>Phosphorous ?
>
Dig it up. Rovers have found it.
>
>Sulfer?
>
Mars has lots of sulfur. Rovers have found it.
>
>Silicon ?
>
Easy, since the stuff is everywhere.
It's a whole planet, dude, and rovers have found high concentrations
of all that stuff even in the tiny area they've 'explored'.
>
>How heavy is ...
>
Who cares? You can make it in however small a lot size you need to.
Nothing says you have to make it tons at a time. And a single cargo
vessel brings in 100 tons of stuff.
>
>Mars surface dirt is more radioactive than Earth's dirt, so will your
>"Mars Steel" be.
>
You keep raising this like it matters. It's insignificant and only
applies to 'dirt'; not so much to rocks under the 'dirt'.
--
"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 | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 07:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <-c2dnXtbraphiZ_FnZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #600940 |
wrote in message news:uhg8dd-rnk.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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"? > >Navy reactors are for the most part built for each ship it is to >power, but no, that is not what I meant. Actually, if anything Naval reactors are closer to "standardized" than commercial ones, especially here in the US. Look at the number of commercial reactors designed and built in the US vs. naval reactors. I'll give you a hint: submarine nuclear reactors are standard enough that pretty much all training occurs in one place here in the US about 50 miles from my house. I'd ask my friend more about the training, but when push comes to shove he simply smiles and changes the subject. > >Production as in connected to the grid. > >>>> > 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. > >I proposed nothing. > >What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or >structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going >to get from wind or solar on Mars. > So, First as others have pointed out, you're not going to build Rome in a day. And even then, hell, most cities in the US don't have steel production capabilities. The ship it in. On Mars, for a long time a lot will be shipped there, and a lot recycled. > -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 03:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qk140c18920mqtj30bcsh317rsgfn0idl4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600911 |
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.
>
You're not thinking again. The reason there are relatively few small
commercial power reactors here on Earth is economies of scale. Those
are going to be different if you have to ship the things to Mars.
>
>> 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.
>
OK. Per capita power consumption of very high power users here on
Earth is around 2 kw. So your 50 MW plant can produce power for
millions of people. Again, just how big are you assuming the colony
is to require that big a power reactor?
>> 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.
>
That's rather his point about your 50 MW reactor.
>>> 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).
>
But you don't need anything close to 50 MW for that unless you're
assuming we're immediately going to start off with a colony of
millions of people.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 03:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1pv30c9qhp9ohhrj7or9j8fc8nktpmd73u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600891 |
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.
>
But there are lots of reactors much smaller than that. Some of them
were even used in commercial power plants, like the Shippingport
Atomic Power Station reactor, which at 60 MW was close to your 50 MW
size. There have been a number of others
There are many smaller reactors which are not used for commercial
power production here on Earth (economies of scale being what they
are).
>
>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.
>
Nor would we want to, because we're probably not going to want a steam
plant. Use something more like a space reactor (which is the current
plan).
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 07:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6oadnfg5aJtxjp_FnZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #600891 |
wrote in message news:ceu7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >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. Yes, because for economy of scale that's what makes sense on Earth for a commercial nuclear reactor. But hey, go with the French Rubis class submarine reactor at 48MW. Or look at any of the designed and proposed small modular reactors. NuScale has a design for about 45MW. > >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 assemble it there. >>> 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 >> > -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 09:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.326d480520a9e331989842@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #600891 |
In article <ceu7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > 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. Smaller is not only possible, but has been done in the past: Nuclear Power at McMurdo Station, Antarctica Tyler Reid March 21, 2014 http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ The nuclear plant at McMurdo Station, Antarctica (no longer active, but still a very important data point) was manufactured in several pieces and shipped to McMurdo Station to be assembled into an operational nuclear reactor which produced 1.25-2.0 MW, according to the article. Also note that this was PM-3A. There were two preceding units used at a remote radar station in Wyoming and at a US military base known as Camp Century setup in Northern Greenland. So there you go. Very small nuclear power plants shipped in prefabricated parts to remote locations. 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 | 2016-10-16 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iutcdd-on5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #601088 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <ceu7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> >> 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. > > Smaller is not only possible, but has been done in the past: > > Nuclear Power at McMurdo Station, Antarctica > Tyler Reid > March 21, 2014 > http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ > > The nuclear plant at McMurdo Station, Antarctica (no longer active, but > still a very important data point) was manufactured in several pieces > and shipped to McMurdo Station to be assembled into an operational > nuclear reactor which produced 1.25-2.0 MW, according to the article. > > Also note that this was PM-3A. There were two preceding units used at a > remote radar station in Wyoming and at a US military base known as Camp > Century setup in Northern Greenland. > > So there you go. Very small nuclear power plants shipped in > prefabricated parts to remote locations. > > Jeff Yes, I know, and there also have been lots of tiny research reactors built in the last 70 years or so. The point is not whether of not a reactor of any given size can be built, but that doing useful things takes lots of power when the only power you have is electricity. So what's the plan for this colony on Mars, ship some number of large reactors in pieces and assemble on Mars or ship lots of prebuilt small reactors? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 18:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu103v$1pi7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601116 |
On 10/16/2016 2:36 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > So what's the plan for this colony on Mars, ship some number of large > reactors in pieces and assemble on Mars or ship lots of prebuilt small > reactors? When help is months or even years away, any single point of failure is your enemy, and redundancy is your friend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 08:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu2kfh$6u3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601153 |
On 10/16/2016 5:48 PM, Vaughn Simon wrote: > On 10/16/2016 2:36 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> So what's the plan for this colony on Mars, ship some number of large >> reactors in pieces and assemble on Mars or ship lots of prebuilt small >> reactors? > > When help is months or even years away, any single point of failure is > your enemy, and redundancy is your friend. agree! each item has a probability of failure associated with it. Call it Lambda assume you have 99.99% relibility on all components, and you have 1000 components. the reliability of that system is only 90% ( 0.9999^1000 ) but you have 100,000 componnents at a minimum... and with semi commertial components like Musk is proposing, you can get perhaps 99% which means your failure rate is greater than 99.999%
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qdna0cl58p7gqbfe17v24uvo52dt6al0gb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601247 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/16/2016 5:48 PM, Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> On 10/16/2016 2:36 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> So what's the plan for this colony on Mars, ship some number of large
>>> reactors in pieces and assemble on Mars or ship lots of prebuilt small
>>> reactors?
>>
>> When help is months or even years away, any single point of failure is
>> your enemy, and redundancy is your friend.
>
>agree!
>
>each item has a probability of failure associated with it.
>Call it Lambda
>
>assume you have 99.99% relibility on all components, and you have
>1000 components. the reliability of that system is only 90% ( 0.9999^1000 )
>
>but you have 100,000 componnents at a minimum...
>and with semi commertial components like Musk is proposing, you can get
>perhaps 99%
>which means your failure rate is greater than 99.999%
>
Congratulations. I think you just demonstrated that our current
society on Earth cannot exist. You must be terrified when you fly,
given the thousands and thousands of parts that make up an airplane.
Even automobiles can't possibly work!
You 'cleverly' left out the idea of MTBF. Yes, EVERYTHING will fail
eventually. But just how long that 'eventually' is is crucial to the
problem.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 17:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6680c90ikgo64bqu3bjhp1kfmvdr3duep@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601116 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>Yes, I know, and there also have been lots of tiny research reactors
>built in the last 70 years or so.
>
>The point is not whether of not a reactor of any given size can be built,
>but that doing useful things takes lots of power when the only power
>you have is electricity.
>
>So what's the plan for this colony on Mars, ship some number of large
>reactors in pieces and assemble on Mars or ship lots of prebuilt small
>reactors?
>
You only need large reactors if you're providing power to millions of
people. Oddly, you're the only one who thinks we're going to START
colonizing by dropping the equivalent of Pennsylvania on Mars.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053F0FB8F229B2@aca41283.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #601190 |
Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >>Yes, I know, and there also have been lots of tiny research reactors >>built in the last 70 years or so. >> >>The point is not whether of not a reactor of any given size can be built, >>but that doing useful things takes lots of power when the only power >>you have is electricity. >> >>So what's the plan for this colony on Mars, ship some number of large >>reactors in pieces and assemble on Mars or ship lots of prebuilt small >>reactors? >> > > You only need large reactors if you're providing power to millions of > people. Oddly, you're the only one who thinks we're going to START > colonizing by dropping the equivalent of Pennsylvania on Mars. To build a reactor takes a lot of energy, e.g., welding and a cement manufacturing plant. I suppose the first site could be next to a volcano but that's quite risky since there isn't any way to evacuate. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ctma0cp4ovqc1kje07m6gkvrh843dt1t60@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601245 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I know, and there also have been lots of tiny research reactors
>>>built in the last 70 years or so.
>>>
>>>The point is not whether of not a reactor of any given size can be built,
>>>but that doing useful things takes lots of power when the only power
>>>you have is electricity.
>>>
>>>So what's the plan for this colony on Mars, ship some number of large
>>>reactors in pieces and assemble on Mars or ship lots of prebuilt small
>>>reactors?
>>>
>>
>> You only need large reactors if you're providing power to millions of
>> people. Oddly, you're the only one who thinks we're going to START
>> colonizing by dropping the equivalent of Pennsylvania on Mars.
>
>To build a reactor takes a lot of energy, e.g., welding and a cement
>manufacturing plant. I suppose the first site could be next to a
>volcano but that's quite risky since there isn't any way to evacuate.
>
Not really. You don't need cement if you just put the thing in a hole
a kilometer or so away from the people. The hole is even optional.
Concrete on Mars is pretty easy. You don't even need water.
And that's all irrelevant for quite some time. Early reactors (150 kW
or so) will just be shipped intact from Earth. There are even 50 kW
'suitcase reactors'. Just think about how many of those could be
shipped in a 100 ton cargo....
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web