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 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 00:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57fdbe2c$0$34569$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #600487 |
On 2016-10-11 19:10, Jeff Findley wrote: > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. From a plant life point of view, it si doubtful you could get plants to grow "outdoors". And if your plants are indoors, the CO2 they will get will come from humans, not outside air (since the indoor habitat will do everyuthing to keep that nasty CO2 out). Maybe one day one could genetically engineer plants that can survive the weather extremes on Mars, and change its albedo to retain more of the sun's heat. But that isn't anytime soon. The Mars habitat might be the right facility for scientists to develop and test such plants though. It would be extremnely challenging to develop sustainable human presence on Mars of the type seen in Total Recall or even Babylon 5. Initial settlers into North America, were dependent on manufactured goods from their countr of oorigin (France, Britain, Netherlands, Spain)., but were generally self sufficient for survival (food, water, air, shelter, wood for heat). Eventually started to build manufacturing facilities and dependence on europe dwindled and eventually north america exported to europe (competing against the original companies upon which they used to be dependent). The problem with Mars is that initial settlers will be dependent on Earth for ALL their supplies for a long time, and it will be even longer time before they start to have ability to manufacture goods locally from locally mined iron/aluminium/coal etc. In fact, is there any information on whether mining for minerals can be done on mars ? Would there be veins of iron, bauxite, gold or some coal wrth digging for ? Or could mars be just one big rock where m,inerals needed for industrialisation would be distributed evenly everywhere with no high concentration worth digging for ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 08:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntlfkp$ipl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600539 |
On 10/11/2016 11:38 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > On 2016-10-11 19:10, Jeff Findley wrote: > >> False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. > From a plant life point of view, it si doubtful you could get plants to > grow "outdoors". And if your plants are indoors, the CO2 they will get > will come from humans, not outside air (since the indoor habitat will do > everyuthing to keep that nasty CO2 out). > Maybe one day one could genetically engineer plants that can survive the > weather extremes on Mars, and change its albedo to retain more of the > sun's heat. But that isn't anytime soon. The Mars habitat might be the > right facility for scientists to develop and test such plants though. > It would be extremnely challenging to develop sustainable human presence > on Mars of the type seen in Total Recall or even Babylon 5. > > Initial settlers into North America, were dependent on manufactured > goods from their countr of oorigin (France, Britain, Netherlands, > Spain)., but were generally self sufficient for survival (food, water, > air, shelter, wood for heat). Eventually started to build manufacturing > facilities and dependence on europe dwindled and eventually north > america exported to europe (competing against the original companies > upon which they used to be dependent). > The problem with Mars is that initial settlers will be dependent on > Earth for ALL their supplies for a long time, and it will be even longer > time before they start to have ability to manufacture goods locally from > locally mined iron/aluminium/coal etc. > In fact, is there any information on whether mining for minerals can be > done on mars ? Would there be veins of iron, bauxite, gold or some coal > wrth digging for ? > > Or could mars be just one big rock where m,inerals needed for > industrialisation would be distributed evenly everywhere with no high > concentration worth digging for ? > > excellent question, there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <add106fe-67b1-4320-a884-6a1f3da6d3e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #600571 |
Robots and AI are the way to explore the solar system. Just look at the Mars Recon Orbiter. It's brought back a totally new understanding of the planet. For the cost of just one manned mission to Mars we could launch more than a dozen orbiters and landers to different planets. I say send our technology, our intelligence, to explore. It's a much better value
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uq9tvbl1pk4onsfms2iblh1277mgiosug6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600571 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in
>its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars"
>
True, but your typical space colony won't be burning coal. Methane is
easily produced.
--
"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 | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 17:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntmerj$al7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600624 |
On 10/12/2016 4:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> >> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in >> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars" >> > > True, but your typical space colony won't be burning coal. Methane is > easily produced. > > 1 how much methane does it take to generate 1 watt hour ? 2 how many watt hours does your computer take ? (assume you use it for 1 hour) 3 how much poop does it take to generate the methane needed in 1 above ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 17:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <r1ktvb1ol70b35o0ik3a3smr3jhr4fnn88@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600632 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 4:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in
>>> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars"
>>>
>>
>> True, but your typical space colony won't be burning coal. Methane is
>> easily produced.
>>
>
>1 how much methane does it take to generate 1 watt hour ?
>
A little over 3 cubic feet. Why does it matter? You can produce as
much as you need.
>
>2 how many watt hours does your computer take ? (assume you use it for 1
>hour)
>
Who the fuck knows or cares?
>
>3 how much poop does it take to generate the methane needed in 1 above ?
>
None, since that's not how you produce it, you ignorant clot.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 20:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntmmft$ipv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600645 |
On 10/12/2016 7:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/12/2016 4:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in >>>> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars" >>>> >>> >>> True, but your typical space colony won't be burning coal. Methane is >>> easily produced. >>> >> >> 1 how much methane does it take to generate 1 watt hour ? >> > > A little over 3 cubic feet. Why does it matter? You can produce as > much as you need. wrong, you are unfamiliar with sizing a problem, determining the bounds or limits. If you’re looking for a rough estimate rather than an entirely accurate one; a hundred cubic foot of gas is between 2 and 3 kWh, depending upon the conversion factors which are used. > >> >> 2 how many watt hours does your computer take ? (assume you use it for 1 >> hour) >> > > Who the fuck knows or cares? look at your power supply, or turn over your computer, it is on the label, know how to read ? > >> >> 3 how much poop does it take to generate the methane needed in 1 above ? >> > > None, since that's not how you produce it, you ignorant clot. > How much biogas can I get out of my waste? The amount of biogas you can extract from your organic waste depends on the waste itself and the design of the digester system. Some digesters can yield 20 m3 of biogas per tonne of waste SO 1 tonn poop = 20 m^3 biogas which is 60% methane = 12 m^3 methane =424 cubic feets your computer takes 120V*3A or 360 watts (including display) 424 cubic feet => 8,000 to 12,000 watt hours take the average of 10,000, 10,000/360 = 27 therefore 1 ton of poop will run your computer for 27 hours better go get your exlax so now what do you do with the used poop ? you need the water out of it.... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 21:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f2uvb1qvjhva8fvu8opnsg374fgp2soil@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600651 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 7:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2016 4:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in
>>>>> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True, but your typical space colony won't be burning coal. Methane is
>>>> easily produced.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1 how much methane does it take to generate 1 watt hour ?
>>>
>>
>> A little over 3 cubic feet. Why does it matter? You can produce as
>> much as you need.
>
>wrong, you are unfamiliar with sizing a problem, determining the bounds
>or limits.
>
Wrong. I seem to know a lot more about this (and everything) than you
do, troll. For any reasonable amount you can produce as much as you
want.
>
>If you’re looking for a rough estimate rather than an entirely accurate
>one; a hundred cubic foot of gas is between 2 and 3 kWh, depending upon
>the conversion factors which are used.
>
You're the one who was looking for an 'estimate'. I wasn't because
any sane Mars settlement will be using nuclear and solar.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 2 how many watt hours does your computer take ? (assume you use it for 1
>>> hour)
>>>
>>
>> Who the fuck knows or cares?
>>
>
>look at your power supply, or turn over your computer, it is on the
>label, know how to read ?
>
Which part of "who the fuck cares" was it that left you confused?
>
>>
>>>
>>> 3 how much poop does it take to generate the methane needed in 1 above ?
>>>
>>
>> None, since that's not how you produce it, you ignorant clot.
>>
>
>How much biogas can I get out of my waste?
>
Who the fuck cares, since that's not where a Mars settlement would get
methane?
<snip irrelevant troll poop>
Go educate yourself and get back to me, troll.
--
"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 08:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nto0qi$k69$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600665 |
On 10/12/2016 11:18 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Wrong. I seem to know a lot more about this (and everything) than you > do, troll. For any reasonable amount you can produce as much as you > want. > >> > >> >If you’re looking for a rough estimate rather than an entirely accurate >> >one; a hundred cubic foot of gas is between 2 and 3 kWh, depending upon >> >the conversion factors which are used. >> > > I'm the one who was looking for an 'estimate'. try reading; can YOU generate 1 ton of poop to power your computer for a day ? no! How much biogas can I get out of my waste? The amount of biogas you can extract from your organic waste depends on the waste itself and the design of the digester system. Some digesters can yield 20 m3 of biogas per tonne of waste SO 1 tonn poop = 20 m^3 biogas which is 60% methane = 12 m^3 methane =424 cubic feets your computer takes 120V*3A or 360 watts (including display) 424 cubic feet => 8,000 to 12,000 watt hours take the average of 10,000, 10,000/360 = 27 therefore 1 ton of poop will run your computer for 27 hours better go get your exlax so now what do you do with the used poop ? you need the water out of it.... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 09:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6JCdnTGDAfnXE2LKnZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #600693 |
"Serigo" wrote in message news:nto0qi$k69$1@gioia.aioe.org... > >On 10/12/2016 11:18 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Wrong. I seem to know a lot more about this (and everything) than you >> do, troll. For any reasonable amount you can produce as much as you >> want. >> >>> > >>> >If you’re looking for a rough estimate rather than an entirely accurate >>> >one; a hundred cubic foot of gas is between 2 and 3 kWh, depending upon >>> >the conversion factors which are used. >>> > >> I'm the one who was looking for an 'estimate'. > >try reading; > >can YOU generate 1 ton of poop to power your computer for a day ? > >no! > > > >How much biogas can I get out of my waste? First of all, what's this fascination with methane for powering your computer? You've got abundant solar and battery power. The reason you want methane, if at all is for a launch vehicle. In that case, either bring your H2 with you and crack CO2 and make methane (the most likely process planned on at this time, or a bit harder capture the moisture you can, crack that and the CO2 and make methane. Or, very intriguing, if you can confirm there's methane already there (and there's some evidence) use that.) You're purposely making things difficult for no good reason. > >The amount of biogas you can extract from your organic waste depends on the >waste itself and the design of the digester system. > >Some digesters can yield 20 m3 of biogas per tonne of waste > >SO 1 tonn poop = 20 m^3 biogas which is 60% methane = 12 m^3 methane =424 >cubic feets > >your computer takes 120V*3A or 360 watts (including display) Yours might? Why would I want something so inefficient and why would I run it, including display 24 hours a day? I'll give you a hint, my cell phone already has more computing power than ALL of Apollo had and probably more than ALL of the shuttle program. I haven't checked, but it's probably about as powerful as the main computer on ISS. And it's not even optimized for its job. So let's look at something like that! > >424 cubic feet => 8,000 to 12,000 watt hours > >take the average of 10,000, 10,000/360 = 27 > >therefore 1 ton of poop will run your computer for 27 hours No, YOUR ton of poop will run YOUR computer for 27 hours. I'm going to run mine for as long as I want off a few solar panels. > >better go get your exlax > >so now what do you do with the used poop ? If anything, use it for fertilizer, certainly not to produce methane. > >you need the water out of it.... > > > > >> -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 00:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <s5k5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600699 |
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: > "Serigo" wrote in message news:nto0qi$k69$1@gioia.aioe.org... >> >>On 10/12/2016 11:18 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> Wrong. I seem to know a lot more about this (and everything) than you >>> do, troll. For any reasonable amount you can produce as much as you >>> want. >>> >>>> > >>>> >If you?re looking for a rough estimate rather than an entirely accurate >>>> >one; a hundred cubic foot of gas is between 2 and 3 kWh, depending upon >>>> >the conversion factors which are used. >>>> > >>> I'm the one who was looking for an 'estimate'. >> >>try reading; >> >>can YOU generate 1 ton of poop to power your computer for a day ? >> >>no! >> >> >> >>How much biogas can I get out of my waste? > > First of all, what's this fascination with methane for powering your > computer? You've got abundant solar and battery power. Nope, you've got about 40 W/m^2 of electrical power averaged over a day available. You do know Mars is farther from the Sun than the Earth? > The reason you want methane, if at all is for a launch vehicle. In that > case, either bring your H2 with you and crack CO2 and make methane (the most > likely process planned on at this time, or a bit harder capture the moisture > you can, crack that and the CO2 and make methane. Or, very intriguing, if > you can confirm there's methane already there (and there's some evidence) > use that.) Sure, all it takes is lots of energy. It is possible to synthesize all the products obtained from crude oil, yet the Middle East is still pumping. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 21:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <YMednUNj0dzQqZ3FnZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #600796 |
wrote in message news:s5k5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >wrote: >> "Serigo" wrote in message news:nto0qi$k69$1@gioia.aioe.org... >>> >>>On 10/12/2016 11:18 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> Wrong. I seem to know a lot more about this (and everything) than you >>>> do, troll. For any reasonable amount you can produce as much as you >>>> want. >>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >If you?re looking for a rough estimate rather than an entirely >>>>> >accurate >>>>> >one; a hundred cubic foot of gas is between 2 and 3 kWh, depending >>>>> >upon >>>>> >the conversion factors which are used. >>>>> > >>>> I'm the one who was looking for an 'estimate'. >>> >>>try reading; >>> >>>can YOU generate 1 ton of poop to power your computer for a day ? >>> >>>no! >>> >>> >>> >>>How much biogas can I get out of my waste? >> >> First of all, what's this fascination with methane for powering your >> computer? You've got abundant solar and battery power. > >Nope, you've got about 40 W/m^2 of electrical power averaged over >a day available. Umm, why do you say "nope" when you then agree with me? It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to spread out our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. > >You do know Mars is farther from the Sun than the Earth? Yes. > >> The reason you want methane, if at all is for a launch vehicle. In that >> case, either bring your H2 with you and crack CO2 and make methane (the >> most >> likely process planned on at this time, or a bit harder capture the >> moisture >> you can, crack that and the CO2 and make methane. Or, very intriguing, if >> you can confirm there's methane already there (and there's some evidence) >> use that.) > >Sure, all it takes is lots of energy. > >It is possible to synthesize all the products obtained from crude oil, >yet the Middle East is still pumping. > Yes, because that's cheaper and simpler, on Earth. For now. > -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 02:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600801 |
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: > wrote in message news:s5k5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> >>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >>wrote: >>> "Serigo" wrote in message news:nto0qi$k69$1@gioia.aioe.org... >>>> >>>>On 10/12/2016 11:18 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>> Wrong. I seem to know a lot more about this (and everything) than you >>>>> do, troll. For any reasonable amount you can produce as much as you >>>>> want. >>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >If you?re looking for a rough estimate rather than an entirely >>>>>> >accurate >>>>>> >one; a hundred cubic foot of gas is between 2 and 3 kWh, depending >>>>>> >upon >>>>>> >the conversion factors which are used. >>>>>> > >>>>> I'm the one who was looking for an 'estimate'. >>>> >>>>try reading; >>>> >>>>can YOU generate 1 ton of poop to power your computer for a day ? >>>> >>>>no! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>How much biogas can I get out of my waste? >>> >>> First of all, what's this fascination with methane for powering your >>> computer? You've got abundant solar and battery power. >> >>Nope, you've got about 40 W/m^2 of electrical power averaged over >>a day available. > > Umm, why do you say "nope" when you then agree with me? Because you said "abundant solar". There is solar power available but I would hardly call it "abundant". > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to spread out > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. >>You do know Mars is farther from the Sun than the Earth? > > Yes. > >> >>> The reason you want methane, if at all is for a launch vehicle. In that >>> case, either bring your H2 with you and crack CO2 and make methane (the >>> most >>> likely process planned on at this time, or a bit harder capture the >>> moisture >>> you can, crack that and the CO2 and make methane. Or, very intriguing, if >>> you can confirm there's methane already there (and there's some evidence) >>> use that.) >> >>Sure, all it takes is lots of energy. >> >>It is possible to synthesize all the products obtained from crude oil, >>yet the Middle East is still pumping. >> > > Yes, because that's cheaper and simpler, on Earth. For now. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 06:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #600812 |
In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to spread out > > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. > > Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar > panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. > > To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million > square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. > So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars anytime soon. Jeff -- 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 | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 07:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7dCdnU2cyrMyXZ3FnZ2dnUU7-N_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #600824 |
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... > >In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >says... >> > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to >> > spread out >> > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. >> >> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar >> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. Nor necessary. >> >> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million >> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7. No one else is claiming that. >> > >So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it >can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars >anytime soon. > >Jeff Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US section at 120kw. So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 07:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntqj37$olt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600831 |
On 10/14/2016 6:25 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote: > "Jeff Findley" wrote in message > news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >> >> In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >> says... >>> > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to > >>> spread out >>> > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. >>> >>> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar >>> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. > > Nor necessary. > >>> >>> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million >>> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. > > That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7. > No one else is claiming that. > >>> >> >> So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it >> can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars >> anytime soon. >> >> Jeff > > > Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US > section at 120kw. > So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. > but ISS does not provide its own food, nor clean clothes, nor replacement water and N2 and only supports 3 people, 6 for short times below from; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station Atmospheric control systems A flowchart diagram showing the components of the ISS life support system. The interactions between the components of the ISS Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) The atmosphere on board the ISS is similar to the Earth's.[159] Normal air pressure on the ISS is 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi);[160] the same as at sea level on Earth. An Earth-like atmosphere offers benefits for crew comfort, and is much safer than the alternative, a pure oxygen atmosphere, because of the increased risk of a fire such as that responsible for the deaths of the Apollo 1 crew.[161] Earth-like atmospheric conditions have been maintained on all Russian and Soviet spacecraft.[162] The Elektron system aboard Zvezda and a similar system in Destiny generate oxygen aboard the station.[163] The crew has a backup option in the form of bottled oxygen and Solid Fuel Oxygen Generation (SFOG) canisters, a chemical oxygen generator system.[164] Carbon dioxide is removed from the air by the Vozdukh system in Zvezda. Other by-products of human metabolism, such as methane from the intestines and ammonia from sweat, are removed by activated charcoal filters.[164] Part of the ROS atmosphere control system is the oxygen supply, triple-redundancy is provided by the Elektron unit, solid fuel generators, and stored oxygen. The Elektron unit is the primary oxygen supply, O 2 and H 2 are produced by electrolysis, with the H 2 being vented overboard. The 1 kW system uses approximately 1 litre of water per crew member per day from stored water from Earth, or water recycled from other systems. MIR was the first spacecraft to use recycled water for oxygen production. The secondary oxygen supply is provided by burning O 2-producing Vika cartridges (see also ISS ECLSS). Each 'candle' takes 5–20 minutes to decompose at 450–500 °C, producing 600 litres of O 2. This unit is manually operated.[165] The US Orbital Segment has redundant supplies of oxygen, from a pressurised storage tank on the Quest airlock module delivered in 2001, supplemented ten years later by ESA built Advanced Closed-Loop System (ACLS) in the Tranquility module (Node 3), which produces O 2 by electrolysis.[166] Hydrogen produced is combined with carbon dioxide from the cabin atmosphere and converted to water and methane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 10:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <UJKdneM0AKJfdJ3FnZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #600833 |
"Serigo" wrote in message news:ntqj37$olt$1@gioia.aioe.org... > >On 10/14/2016 6:25 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote: >> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>> says... >>>> > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to > >>>> spread out >>>> > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. >>>> >>>> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar >>>> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. >> >> Nor necessary. >> >>>> >>>> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a >>>> million >>>> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. >> >> That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7. >> No one else is claiming that. >> >>>> >>> >>> So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it >>> can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars >>> anytime soon. >>> >>> Jeff >> >> >> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >> section at 120kw. >> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >> > >but ISS does not provide its own food, nor clean clothes, nor replacement >water and N2 and only supports 3 people, 6 for short times Actually the standard crew is 6, and there is talk of moving to 7 once Dragon 2 or CST starts flying on a regular basis. And my point is, even if you double or quadruple the total area of coverage, you'll still have plenty of power for early bases. After that, as Jeff proposes, start bringing small nuclear reactors with you. We have the plans, they probably need some debugging, but it's not really rocket science (the paperwork to get them launched is probably far worse.) ISS doesn't have the advantage of ANY native resources to draw from. A base, even a very early one, on Mars would. Simply having the atmosphere there is a huge help. And if you're really worried about water, land near the poles. And, if we had something like the ITS to launch a new space station into Earth orbit, I can pretty much guarantee we'd take a different approach and worry a lot less about mass. This means we can add more hardware and more redundancy. This is ultimately the single largest advantage you get by cheaper launch costs. You can throw mass at the problem. -- 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 | 2016-10-14 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed820c1pmm8a0nb804him0rootj39lgntg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600833 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/14/2016 6:25 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>> says...
>>>> > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to >
>>>> spread out
>>>> > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar
>>>> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical.
>>
>> Nor necessary.
>>
>>>>
>>>> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million
>>>> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight.
>>
>> That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7.
>> No one else is claiming that.
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it
>>> can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars
>>> anytime soon.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US
>> section at 120kw.
>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.
>>
>
>but ISS does not provide its own food, nor clean clothes, nor
>replacement water and N2 and only supports 3 people, 6 for short times
>
Uh, no. Normal crew on ISS is 6-7 people. You think we're shipping
up huge loads of WATER to ISS? That's really quite funny. In reality,
ISS gets about 2,000 litres a year of 'replacement water'. Most of
the water on ISS already comes from recycling. Note that water is
used to generate O2 on ISS. 'Replacement' N2 is a vanishingly small
amount.
Mars has lots of in situ water and nitrogen. On Mars you'd just wash
clothes.
--
"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 | 2016-10-14 13:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntr9aa$1v1t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600871 |
On 10/14/2016 1:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/14/2016 6:25 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote: >>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>>> In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>> says... >>>>>> It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to > >>>>> spread out >>>>>> our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. >>>>> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar >>>>> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. >>> >>> Nor necessary. >>> >>>>> >>>>> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million >>>>> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. >>> >>> That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7. >>> No one else is claiming that. >>> >>>>> >>>> So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it >>>> can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars >>>> anytime soon. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>> >>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >>> section at 120kw. >>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >>> >> >> but ISS does not provide its own food, nor clean clothes, nor >> replacement water and N2 and only supports 3 people, 6 for short times >> > Uh, no. Normal crew on ISS is 6-7 people. You think we're shipping > up huge loads of WATER to ISS? That's really quite funny. In reality, > ISS gets about 2,000 litres a year of 'replacement water'. Most of > the water on ISS already comes from recycling. Note that water is > used to generate O2 on ISS. 'Replacement' N2 is a vanishingly small > amount. > > Mars has lots of in situ water and nitrogen. On Mars you'd just wash > clothes. > > Nasa says 0.43 gallons per day per person + 0.21 gallons for food per person, another NASA site says ISS uses 3 gallons per day per person ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it. what is needed is a way to "wash" clothes without water. https://cei.org/news-releases/federal-efficiency-rules-ruin-washing-machines
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 14:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b51ed63-7872-4e0d-ac8b-f0251d4db011@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #600874 |
Mars is not important. The far side of the Moon is where it's at. Radio silence for radio astronomy. Two light seconds away from helpers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web