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 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 18:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4p980c9o6pjlqci2j23rhvufjmoama0muj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601185 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2016 4:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what
>>> mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start
>>> with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you
>>> have to import (again over time).
>>
>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ?
>>
>> your really not into this Mars thing are you.
>>
>
>There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction
>facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes
>weighs about 2 tons.
>
So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization
rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those
per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal.
--
"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 07:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu2f79$1rr4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601198 |
On 10/16/2016 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> >>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>> >>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. >>> >> >> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >> weighs about 2 tons. >> > > So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization > rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those > per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. > > in your imagination, "no big deal" what is the current failure rate of a Musk Mars Rocket ? 100%
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 06:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2nl90cp00n6nj3pufio68v90vf68pt74dn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601240 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >On 10/16/2016 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >>>> >>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>>> >>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. >>>> >>> >>> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >>> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >>> weighs about 2 tons. >>> >> >> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization >> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those >> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. >> > >in your imagination, "no big deal" > It's not. I'm sorry you think 2% is a big deal, but it's just not. > >what is the current failure rate of a Musk Mars Rocket ? 100% > Don't be silly. Right now it's 0% since it has 0 failures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu3hma$1r1s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601249 |
On 10/17/2016 8:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/16/2016 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>>>> >>>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. > >>>> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >>>> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >>>> weighs about 2 tons. >>>> >>> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization >>> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those >>> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. >>> >> >> in your imagination, "no big deal" >> > > It's not. yes it is, nothing exists yet, and you say "no big deal" you are dominated by your imagination. I'm sorry you think 2% is a big deal, but it's just not. 2% of nothing, is still nothing. > >> >> what is the current failure rate of a Musk Mars Rocket ? 100% >> > > Right now it's 0% since it has 0 failures. yes, the reliability is 0%. Nothing. the failure rate is 100% as they have never been able to fly this rocket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 23:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ci4gdd-r2g.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #601365 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/17/2016 8:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/16/2016 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>>>>> >>>>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. >> >>>>> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >>>>> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >>>>> weighs about 2 tons. >>>>> > >>>> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization >>>> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those >>>> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. >>>> >>> >>> in your imagination, "no big deal" >>> >> >> It's not. > > yes it is, nothing exists yet, and you say "no big deal" > > you are dominated by your imagination. > > I'm sorry you think 2% is a big deal, but it's just not. > > 2% of nothing, is still nothing. That is 2% for 1 very tiny landscaper sized excavator. How many excavators are needed to mine ice, iron, calcium deposits, if they exist, aluminum, rock, etc. and dig foundatiions for buildings? How many trucks to haul the stuff the excavators dig up? How many trucks to haul the finished products? How many trucks to haul the waste products away? How many trucks to haul the building materials? How many rock crushing machines to crush all the stuff dug up? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 07:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vgcc0cdkta0tdnh1fn3rsln0uup30rif0u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601405 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 10/17/2016 8:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/16/2016 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you.
>>>
>>>>>> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction
>>>>>> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes
>>>>>> weighs about 2 tons.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization
>>>>> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those
>>>>> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> in your imagination, "no big deal"
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not.
>>
>> yes it is, nothing exists yet, and you say "no big deal"
>>
>> you are dominated by your imagination.
>>
>> I'm sorry you think 2% is a big deal, but it's just not.
>>
>> 2% of nothing, is still nothing.
>
>That is 2% for 1 very tiny landscaper sized excavator.
>
>How many excavators are needed to mine ice, iron, calcium deposits, if
>they exist, aluminum, rock, etc. and dig foundatiions for buildings?
>
>How many trucks to haul the stuff the excavators dig up?
>
>How many trucks to haul the finished products?
>
>How many trucks to haul the waste products away?
>
>How many trucks to haul the building materials?
>
>How many rock crushing machines to crush all the stuff dug up?
>
Now figure out what you can ship with 1,000 tons of cargo for every
hundred people you send...
--
"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 12:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu5ld4$10li$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601465 |
On 10/18/2016 9:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. >>>>>>> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >>>>>>> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >>>>>>> weighs about 2 tons. >>>>>>> >>>>>> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization >>>>>> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those >>>>>> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> in your imagination, "no big deal" >>>>> >>>> It's not. >>> >>> yes it is, nothing exists yet, and you say "no big deal" >>> >>> you are dominated by your imagination. >>> >>> I'm sorry you think 2% is a big deal, but it's just not. >>> >>> 2% of nothing, is still nothing. >> >> That is 2% for 1 very tiny landscaper sized excavator. >> How many excavators are needed to mine ice, iron, calcium deposits, if >> they exist, aluminum, rock, etc. and dig foundatiions for buildings? >> >> How many trucks to haul the stuff the excavators dig up? >> How many trucks to haul the finished products? >> >> How many trucks to haul the waste products away? >> >> How many trucks to haul the building materials? >> >> How many rock crushing machines to crush all the stuff dug up? >> > > Now figure out what you can ship with 1,000 tons of cargo for every > hundred people you send... > > still no detail you have to launch it off earth, then land it on mars safely slowly, a HUGE amount of fuel. All those rockets landing on Mars will double their atmosphere, all unbreathable stuff. and they are all one way rockets, THe "US Occupation of Mars" will be led by Nancy Palosie and her poodle dog Obama-snowser, and as much socailists, democrats,and lefties we can stuff like sausages, into Muskrockets. Trump can go too, + tape Hiellary to the engine with ducktape, and BJ Bill. and their Foundation. time to buy stock in Alcoa (rocket are made of that stuff.) +time to take out the trash. (note: they are all politicians+lawyers)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053F0FAB1A1AD0@aca41283.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #601198 |
Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On 10/15/2016 4:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what >>>> mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start >>>> with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you >>>> have to import (again over time). >>> >>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>> >>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. >>> >> >>There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >>facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >>weighs about 2 tons. >> > > So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization > rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those > per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. Wouldn't redundancy make it a big deal? In a decade, 3D printers would be very useful. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <s8na0cl6r3tnapmior0i9n5hps8n6gar9n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601246 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2016 4:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what
>>>>> mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start
>>>>> with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you
>>>>> have to import (again over time).
>>>>
>>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ?
>>>>
>>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction
>>>facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes
>>>weighs about 2 tons.
>>>
>>
>> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization
>> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those
>> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal.
>>
>
>Wouldn't redundancy make it a big deal? In a decade, 3D printers
>would be very useful.
>
So ship two. Musk is talking about roughly 10 cargo launches per 100
settlers. That's 1,000 tons of 'stuff'. How many excavators do you
need per 100 people. And yes, being able to make parts locally with
3-D printers will be useful, but you'll still have to ship the 'ink'
for a good long while.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2s620cp88e8jcpvpe96g4e7uc7cauldicl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600795 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <ntjvi8$brk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>
>>> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>> > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>> >>
>>> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.
>>> >
>>> > Opinion.
>>>
>>> Fact. Mars is Dead.
>>
>> Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural
>> resources.
>>
>>> >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.
>>> >
>>> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one.
>>>
>>> 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be
>>> used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air.
>>
>> Chemistry. CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and
>> oxygen for the return trip back to earth. Also, note people breathe
>> oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support.
>>
>> The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done
>> in the lab many times. We just need to send the necessary equipment to
>> Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase).
>
>Which would be a big industrial plant, a nuclear reactor to power it,
>and a shitload of support equipment.
>
Nope. It only needs a "big industrial plant" if you need to produce
millions of tons of the stuff quickly. Otherwise a small industrial
plant works quite well. After all, 21st century Earth society didn't
just spring full grown from the forehead of Zeus...
>>> > If you
>>> > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but
>>> > even the moon looks to have water.
>>>
>>> "looks" => conjecture
>>
>> Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on
>> the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole). No
>> there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be
>> extracted and used. It's a natural resource despite your whining to the
>> contrary.
>
>Generally something is called a natural resource when it is concentrated
>and easy to extract.
>
Yes. Ice on Mars is a natural resource.
>
>The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it.
>
We didn't used to try to recover fresh water from it, either. Times
change.
>>> >> no food, no water, no air.
>>> >
>>> > There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions)
>>>
>>> conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable.
>>
>> Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence for water on the Mars too.
>
>But not in usefull amounts or convienient places.
>
Jesus, Chimp, will you go learn something that was printed in the last
couple of centuries. How many trillion acre-feet of water do you need
for you to consider it a 'useful amount'?
>>> > and again a CO2
>>> > atmosphere. Food could be grown.
>>>
>>> all moisture would leave the plant.
>>> Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants.
>>> Radiation will kill it off in a few years.
>>
>> Hydroponic greenhouses pressurized to 1 atmosphere of pressure (or
>> nearly so since plants grow at lesser pressures right here on earth).
>> Ever see how they grow tomatoes in Canada or the hydroponics garden at
>> Disney Epcot? Pretty much just like that.
>>
>>> >> send a robot.
>>> >
>>> > Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science
>>> > compared to a manned mission.
>>>
>>> silly opinion.
>>
>> Fact, not opinion. Look at the science returns from Apollo (e.g. kg of
>> samples returned, experiments performed, and equipment set up). Look at
>> how far the manned lunar rovers drove compared to the robotic rovers on
>> Mars. Facts you are apparently either ignorant of, or are ignoring.
>
>The Mars rovers ran for years 24/7.
>
And 'explored' in all those years an area that humans could do in a
week or so and do better than the toaster.
>
>How long was the longest stay for humans on the Moon?
>
>How far away from the landing site did the lunar rovers go compared to
>the Martian rovers?
>
>The Martian rovers don't need to return rocks to Earth, they can analyze
>them on the spot.
>
But not very well.
>>> >> to hell with Musk and his gov funded R&D companies.
>>> >
>>> > Tell us how you really feel...
>>>
>>> I dont want Gov stealing my money for dead ideas.
>>
>> Capitalistic competition between SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, Boeing, and
>> etc. is *far* better than throwing money down the glorious socialist
>> SLS/Orion "rocket to nowhere" rat-hole. That program has spent many
>> billions of dollars and flown zero times. At least SpaceX is "pushing
>> the envelope" and lowering launch costs. High launch costs are arguably
>> the biggest roadblock for any manned mission beyond LEO.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>Well that and basic survival.
>
Only if you're stupid (so I see why you would worry about it).
--
"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 | 2016-10-12 02:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <17k0dd-vco.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600487 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. > > Opinion. > >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. > > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. If you > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but > even the moon looks to have water. > >> no food, no water, no air. > > There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2 > atmosphere. Food could be grown. Not without horrendous effort. >> send a robot. > > Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science > compared to a manned mission. Wrong. Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7 without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 21:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u8drvb5sk6pq5pq55lsu85houv3jsf1fdh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600516 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>
>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.
>>
>> Opinion.
>>
>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.
>>
>> False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. If you
>> want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but
>> even the moon looks to have water.
>>
>>> no food, no water, no air.
>>
>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2
>> atmosphere. Food could be grown.
>
>Not without horrendous effort.
>
For some small value of 'horrendous'.
>>> send a robot.
>>
>> Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science
>> compared to a manned mission.
>
>Wrong.
>
No, he's right and we know that for a fact.
>
>Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7
>without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep.
>
And humans working ordinary shifts can cover more ground and
accomplish more in a few weeks than your toaster can do in years.
Humans can also deal with things 'outside' the program by reacting to
the data as they collect it.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 08:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntlfdr$iea$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600530 |
On 10/11/2016 11:01 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >>>> >>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. >>> >>> Opinion. >>> >>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. >>> >>> >>>> no food, no water, no air. >>> >>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2 >>> atmosphere. Food could be grown. >> Not without horrendous effort. >> > > For some small value of 'horrendous'. > >>>> send a robot. >>> Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science >>> compared to a manned mission. >> >> Wrong. >> > > No, he's right and we know that for a fact. > >> Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7 >> without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep. >> > > And humans working ordinary shifts can cover more ground and > accomplish more in a few weeks than your toaster can do in years. > Humans can also deal with things 'outside' the program by reacting to > the data as they collect it. silly. remember that any human on Mars must stay below surface 95% of the time to avoid radiation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 14:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qh6tvbtu53b0i1fvrnjbgq6hi38s7q04i0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600570 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/11/2016 11:01 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.
>>>>
>>>> Opinion.
>>>>
>>>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.
>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>>> no food, no water, no air.
>>>>
>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2
>>>> atmosphere. Food could be grown.
>
>>> Not without horrendous effort.
>>>
>>
>> For some small value of 'horrendous'.
>>
>>>>> send a robot.
>
>>>> Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science
>>>> compared to a manned mission.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>
>> No, he's right and we know that for a fact.
>>
>
>>> Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7
>>> without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep.
>>>
>>
>> And humans working ordinary shifts can cover more ground and
>> accomplish more in a few weeks than your toaster can do in years.
>> Humans can also deal with things 'outside' the program by reacting to
>> the data as they collect it.
>
>silly.
> remember that any human on Mars must stay below surface 95% of the
>time to avoid radiation.
>
Bullshit, troll. Shielding vehicles is easy.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 17:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntmeld$a00$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600623 |
On 10/12/2016 4:12 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/11/2016 11:01 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. >>>>> >>>>> Opinion. >>>>> >>>>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> no food, no water, no air. >>>>> >>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2 >>>>> atmosphere. Food could be grown. >> >>>> Not without horrendous effort. >>>> >>> For some small value of 'horrendous'. >>> >>>>>> send a robot. >> >>>>> Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science >>>>> compared to a manned mission. >>>> >>>> Wrong. >>>> >>> >>> No, he's right and we know that for a fact. >>> >>>> Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7 >>>> without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep. >>>> >>> >>> And humans working ordinary shifts can cover more ground and >>> accomplish more in a few weeks than your toaster can do in years. >>> Humans can also deal with things 'outside' the program by reacting to >>> the data as they collect it. >> silly. >> remember that any human on Mars must stay below surface 95% of the >> time to avoid radiation. >> > > Bullshit, troll. Shielding vehicles is easy. > > cant use lead, must use water. OR bury it below ground. try to keep up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 17:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pvjtvbhp8c0puvm0kouojtgoksh453fka1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600631 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 4:12 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2016 11:01 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no food, no water, no air.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2
>>>>>> atmosphere. Food could be grown.
>>>
>>>>> Not without horrendous effort.
>>>>>
>
>>>> For some small value of 'horrendous'.
>>>>
>>>>>>> send a robot.
>>>
>>>>>> Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science
>>>>>> compared to a manned mission.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, he's right and we know that for a fact.
>>>>
>
>>>>> Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7
>>>>> without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And humans working ordinary shifts can cover more ground and
>>>> accomplish more in a few weeks than your toaster can do in years.
>>>> Humans can also deal with things 'outside' the program by reacting to
>>>> the data as they collect it.
>
>>> silly.
>>> remember that any human on Mars must stay below surface 95% of the
>>> time to avoid radiation.
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit, troll. Shielding vehicles is easy.
>>
>
>cant use lead, must use water. OR bury it below ground.
>
Don't need lead. Don't need water. Don't need to bury it.
>
>try to keep up.
>
Try to pull your head out.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 19:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntmlf8$hmp$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600644 |
On 10/12/2016 7:06 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/12/2016 4:12 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/11/2016 11:01 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> no food, no water, no air. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2 >>>>>>> atmosphere. Food could be grown. >>>> >>>>>> Not without horrendous effort. >>>>>> >> >>>>> For some small value of 'horrendous'. >>>>> >>>>>>>> send a robot. >>>> >>>>>>> Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science >>>>>>> compared to a manned mission. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, he's right and we know that for a fact. >>>>> >> >>>>>> Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7 >>>>>> without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And humans working ordinary shifts can cover more ground and >>>>> accomplish more in a few weeks than your toaster can do in years. >>>>> Humans can also deal with things 'outside' the program by reacting to >>>>> the data as they collect it. >> >>>> silly. >>>> remember that any human on Mars must stay below surface 95% of the >>>> time to avoid radiation. >>>> >>> >>> Bullshit, troll. Shielding vehicles is easy. >>> >> >> cant use lead, must use water. OR bury it below ground. >> > > Don't need lead. Don't need water. Don't need to bury it. so how do you shield it ? you are uninformed. lots of NASA studies out that prove you have to be burried about 20 foot down. and stay there 95% of the time > >> >> try to keep up. >> > > Try to pull my head out. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 21:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cuutvblbf1sbtvr4sdskb4gpmdmjpl9uq4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600650 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 7:06 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2016 4:12 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2016 11:01 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Opinion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no food, no water, no air.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2
>>>>>>>> atmosphere. Food could be grown.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not without horrendous effort.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> For some small value of 'horrendous'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> send a robot.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science
>>>>>>>> compared to a manned mission.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, he's right and we know that for a fact.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7
>>>>>>> without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And humans working ordinary shifts can cover more ground and
>>>>>> accomplish more in a few weeks than your toaster can do in years.
>>>>>> Humans can also deal with things 'outside' the program by reacting to
>>>>>> the data as they collect it.
>>>
>>>>> silly.
>>>>> remember that any human on Mars must stay below surface 95% of the
>>>>> time to avoid radiation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit, troll. Shielding vehicles is easy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> cant use lead, must use water. OR bury it below ground.
>>>
>>
>> Don't need lead. Don't need water. Don't need to bury it.
>
>so how do you shield it ?
>
If you want to be sophisticated, hydrogenated BNNTs. You can even
weave spacesuits out of them and get significant shielding. If you're
willing to be less so, build with a sandwich made from polyethylene
between aluminum plates. Remember, we're talking VEHICLES here, like
what would be used to explore the surface. Fixed habitats would
likely be mostly buried, since that's easiest.
>
>you are uninformed. lots of NASA studies out that prove you have to be
>burried about 20 foot down.
>
To get the radiation level to what it is at the surface of the Earth.
But you don't need to get it that low
>
>and stay there 95% of the time
>
Bullshit. Normal Earth surface dose a year is around 3.6 mSv a year.
A dose of 100 mSv a year is the threshhold at which small but
noticeable increases in cancer occur. Current astronaut limits are
about 5x that (and the assumption that you won't do that for more than
a couple of years). With NO shielding the annual dose on the Martian
surface is about 280 mSv per year.
So do the math, dumbass. If a Mars explorer wanted to stay under the
100 mSv/yr level and lived in a habitat that was buried under 5 meters
of Martian regolith (so getting Earth surface radiation dosage) he
could spend around 8 hours a day on the surface with little to no
shielding.
That's a lot more than 5%, bucko. You really seem uninformed.
--
"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 | 2016-10-13 11:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntodts$1ghk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600664 |
On 10/12/2016 11:08 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/12/2016 7:06 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> no food, no water, no air. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2 >>>>>>>>> atmosphere. Food could be grown. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not without horrendous effort. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> For some small value of 'horrendous'. >> > If you want to be sophisticated, hydrogenated BNNTs. You can even > weave spacesuits out of them and get significant shielding. If you're > willing to be less so, build with a sandwich made from polyethylene > between aluminum plates. Remember, we're talking VEHICLES here, like > what would be used to explore the surface. Fixed habitats would > likely be mostly buried, since that's easiest. you stated "Don't need to bury it", now you say you do. > >> >> you are uninformed. lots of NASA studies out that prove you have to be >> burried about 20 foot down. >> > > To get the radiation level to what it is at the surface of the Earth. > But you don't need to get it that low > >> >> and stay there 95% of the time >> > > Bullshit. Normal Earth surface dose a year is around 3.6 mSv a year. > A dose of 100 mSv a year is the threshhold at which small but > noticeable increases in cancer occur. Current astronaut limits are > about 5x that (and the assumption that you won't do that for more than > a couple of years). With NO shielding the annual dose on the Martian > surface is about 280 mSv per year. > your number is wrong, try 700 mSv ... assuming *no solar flares* dumbass, Solar Particle Event (SPE) the astronauts should expect one SPE every two months on average no Mars magnetic field to deflect, no atmosphere to attenuate. there is a whole lot of research already done on this topic, you are a fool for not keeping up and an un funny clown. 95% of the time underground, pooping to keep the methane generating to run your laptop to tell you what to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ep420ctgou2e7bo3koceq3g2761u130du7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600721 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 11:08 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2016 7:06 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no food, no water, no air.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2
>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere. Food could be grown.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not without horrendous effort.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For some small value of 'horrendous'.
>>>
>> If you want to be sophisticated, hydrogenated BNNTs. You can even
>> weave spacesuits out of them and get significant shielding. If you're
>> willing to be less so, build with a sandwich made from polyethylene
>> between aluminum plates. Remember, we're talking VEHICLES here, like
>> what would be used to explore the surface. Fixed habitats would
>> likely be mostly buried, since that's easiest.
>>
>
>you stated "Don't need to bury it", now you say you do.
>
You don't read very well, do you? Have someone explain to you the
difference in meaning between "would most likely be" and "must".
>
>>
>>>
>>> you are uninformed. lots of NASA studies out that prove you have to be
>>> burried about 20 foot down.
>>>
>>
>> To get the radiation level to what it is at the surface of the Earth.
>> But you don't need to get it that low
>>
>>>
>>> and stay there 95% of the time
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit. Normal Earth surface dose a year is around 3.6 mSv a year.
>> A dose of 100 mSv a year is the threshhold at which small but
>> noticeable increases in cancer occur. Current astronaut limits are
>> about 5x that (and the assumption that you won't do that for more than
>> a couple of years). With NO shielding the annual dose on the Martian
>> surface is about 280 mSv per year.
>>
>
>your number is wrong, try 700 mSv
>
Your number is wrong. We're talking Mars surface, not open space.
Mars surface radiation at peak (non-SPE) solar output is around 30
uSv/hr. Do the math.
>
>... assuming *no solar flares* dumbass, Solar Particle Event (SPE) the
>astronauts should expect one SPE every two months on average
>
Dumbass. I gave the non-SPE number because that's NORMAL BACKGROUND
and you don't know when you're going to get an SPE. UNSHIELDED Mars
surface exposure for the duration of a typical SPE is around 120 mSv
or lower. Vehicle shielding can cut that down to 40 mSv or less. A
habitat can cut it down to, well, pretty much unnoticeable.
>
>no Mars magnetic field to deflect, no atmosphere to attenuate.
>
Except that non-existent atmosphere DOES attenuate, dumbass.
>
>there is a whole lot of research already done on this topic,
>
Yes, there has been. You should read some of it.
>
>you are a fool for not keeping up and an un funny clown.
>
I'm sorry you're stupid, but I can't fix you.
>
>95% of the time underground, pooping to keep the methane generating to
>run your laptop to tell you what to do.
>
Well, they have to find something to keep you busy to prevent you
screwing things up.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web