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 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 18:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntrrd7$oa9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600887 |
On 10/14/2016 4:09 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote: > 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. > agree! Mars has rocks, sand, dust Moon has rocks, sand, dust, and one used car
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h3u7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600874 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > 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 The AMA says the average person needs to consume about a gallon of water per day. Cooking food, cleaning eating utensils, and washing anything would be on top of that. > ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it. > > what is needed is a way to "wash" clothes without water. Not really as you need water for so many other things that if you have sufficient water for those you can also wash things. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 02:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfu30c15nnr5l83b65guu6n2b1fs1vndie@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600874 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/14/2016 1:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>
You need to read further. They get most of it back and reuse it. I've
told you how much water is shipped up to them. Some water is used to
make oxygen.
>
>ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it.
>
Of course it does. They're for COOLING and are very occasionally
replaced when they get empty. Actual nitrogen storage for use inside
the station is kept in a couple of small tanks in the airlock.
Here. Educate yourself.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150010425.pdf
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 10:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntth8r$qss$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600970 |
On 10/15/2016 4:57 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> >> 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 >> > > You need to read further. They get most of it back and reuse it. I've > told you how much water is shipped up to them. Some water is used to > make oxygen. no they dont. > >> >> ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it. >> > > Of course it does. They're for COOLING no it isnt. cooling is by radiation, NOT by venting GAS, idiot. > and are very occasionally > replaced when they get empty. Actual nitrogen storage for use inside > the station is kept in a couple of small tanks in the airlock. > <snip crap>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 21:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ev50c9urqau2bookgjlr765459sjj2ra0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600995 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/15/2016 4:57 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> You need to read further. They get most of it back and reuse it. I've
>> told you how much water is shipped up to them. Some water is used to
>> make oxygen.
>
>no they dont.
>
>>
>>>
>>> ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it.
>>>
>>
>> Of course it does. They're for COOLING
>>
>
>no it isnt. cooling is by radiation, NOT by venting GAS, idiot.
>
Who said anything about venting gas, you lying twat?
>> and are very occasionally
>> replaced when they get empty. Actual nitrogen storage for use inside
>> the station is kept in a couple of small tanks in the airlock.
>>
><snip crap>
>
You were hungry?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 14:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu0lqv$1981$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601062 |
On 10/15/2016 11:11 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2016 4:57 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> You need to read further. They get most of it back and reuse it. I've >>> told you how much water is shipped up to them. Some water is used to >>> make oxygen. >> >> no they dont. >> >>> >>>> >>>> ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it. >>>> >>> >>> Of course it does. They're for COOLING >>> >> >> no it isnt. cooling is by radiation, NOT by venting GAS, idiot. >> > > Who said anything about venting gas, NASA, it is what they do, go read about it on the website. Im not going to educate you, the info is free on the internet. Quit trying to pick a fight here, pick your big nose instead, and go Cite yourself. > >>> and are very occasionally >>> replaced when they get empty. Actual nitrogen storage for use inside >>> the station is kept in a couple of small tanks in the airlock. >>> >> <snip crap> >> > > I were hungry? > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3st7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600831 |
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> 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. Sigh. Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the net results of which is that there is far less power available on the surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about 3,000 square meters of solar panels. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 03:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0jv30cdskauhbb7efoukjm607qc2kajndv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600889 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> 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.
>
>Sigh.
>
>Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the
>net results of which is that there is far less power available on the
>surface of Mars than there is at the ISS.
>
>To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about
>3,000 square meters of solar panels.
>
Sigh.
Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In
other words, it's TRIVIAL.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 10:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntthbr$qss$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600971 |
On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>> >>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >>> section at 120kw. >>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >> >> Sigh. >> >> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. >> >> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >> 3,000 square meters of solar panels. >> > > Sigh. > > Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In > other words, it's TRIVIAL. > > square is not the problem, moron, it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 21:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tgv50ch0nma5lpta0afj882fv6b3qvq2lh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600997 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>>>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US
>>>> section at 120kw.
>>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.
>>>
>>> Sigh.
>>>
>>> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the
>>> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the
>>> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS.
>>>
>>> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about
>>> 3,000 square meters of solar panels.
>>>
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In
>> other words, it's TRIVIAL.
>>
>
>square is not the problem, moron,
>
Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue?
>
> it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels
>
They actually weigh very little and you could just make them on Mars
(which is why you start with nuclear reactors for your high power
sources). Dust is easly managed. The rovers show that the Martian
winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their
solar arrays. You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying
them flat. In addition to letting the dust just slide off them, this
has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the
day.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 15:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu0m89$1aff$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601063 |
On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>>>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>>>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >>>>> section at 120kw. >>>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >>>> >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>>> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >>>> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >>>> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. >>>> >>>> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >>>> 3,000 square meters of solar panels. >>>> >>> >>> Sigh. >>> >>> Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In >>> other words, it's TRIVIAL. >>> >> >> square is not the problem, moron, >> > > Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue? answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no volumes, no costs, nothing no wonder you are lost. > >> >> it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels >> > > They actually weigh very little WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables. > and you could just make them on Mars WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to mfgr a panel ? > Dust is easly managed. WRONG, can't use WATER, only a Gas, cannot sweep it off either > The rovers show that the Martian > winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their > solar arrays. WRONG. after rover plugged up it stayed that way for months, which means you have to enlarge your solar array by a factor of 10 to 100. > You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying > them flat. WRONG. why have them shade each other ? > In addition to letting the dust just slide off them, WRONG, dust is so fine it sticks to the plastic and glass directly. A slide does not clean. > this > has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the > day. WRONG. They have to store the energy anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8vmdnadRNso2kJnFnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #601123 |
"Serigo" wrote in message news:nu0m89$1aff$1@gioia.aioe.org... > >On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" >>>>> <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>>>>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the >>>>>> US >>>>>> section at 120kw. >>>>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >>>>> >>>>> Sigh. >>>>> >>>>> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >>>>> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >>>>> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. >>>>> >>>>> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >>>>> 3,000 square meters of solar panels. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>>> Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In >>>> other words, it's TRIVIAL. >>>> >>> >>> square is not the problem, moron, >>> >> >> Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue? > >answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no >volumes, no costs, nothing > >no wonder you are lost. > >> >>> >>> it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels >>> >> >> They actually weigh very little > >WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables. Compared to the cost of other items, that's not much. And as Musk is bringing down the cost, the mass is easy. > >> and you could just make them on Mars > >WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to mfgr >a panel ? > > > > > Dust is easly managed. > >WRONG, can't use WATER, only a Gas, cannot sweep it off either Why can't you sweep it off? And if you want to use a gas... hmm.. funny thing, you've got this whole ATMOSPHERE there. > >> The rovers show that the Martian >> winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their >> solar arrays. > >WRONG. after rover plugged up it stayed that way for months, which means >you have to enlarge your solar array by a factor of 10 to 100. Cite on staying that way for months? And remember, the rovers didn't have anyone who could go out there and brush them off if needed. A base of people will have.. you know, PEOPLE to do so. > > >> You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying >> them flat. > >WRONG. why have them shade each other ? > > >> In addition to letting the dust just slide off them, > >WRONG, dust is so fine it sticks to the plastic and glass directly. A slide >does not clean. > >> this >> has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the >> day. > > >WRONG. They have to store the energy anyway. Which is what batteries are for. This is independent of the angle of the panels. -- 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 | 2016-10-17 00:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lugddd-mh7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #601123 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>>>>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >>>>>> section at 120kw. >>>>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >>>>> >>>>> Sigh. >>>>> >>>>> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >>>>> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >>>>> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. >>>>> >>>>> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >>>>> 3,000 square meters of solar panels. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>>> Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In >>>> other words, it's TRIVIAL. >>>> >>> >>> square is not the problem, moron, >>> >> >> Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue? > > answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no > volumes, no costs, nothing > > no wonder you are lost. > >> >>> >>> it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels >>> >> >> They actually weigh very little > > WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables. > >> and you could just make them on Mars > > WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to > mfgr a panel ? > > > >> Dust is easly managed. > > WRONG, can't use WATER, only a Gas, cannot sweep it off either > >> The rovers show that the Martian >> winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their >> solar arrays. > > WRONG. after rover plugged up it stayed that way for months, which means > you have to enlarge your solar array by a factor of 10 to 100. > > >> You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying >> them flat. > > WRONG. why have them shade each other ? Maximum energy is intercepted when the array is point south and angled at an angle equal to the latitude of the location. Anything other than that further reduces the available power per square meter by a factor related to the sine of beween the collector and normal to the sun. >> In addition to letting the dust just slide off them, > > WRONG, dust is so fine it sticks to the plastic and glass directly. A > slide does not clean. The periodic winds will blow most of the dust off, just as it does on the rovers. Just expect your already small power to be further reduced periodically. >> this >> has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the >> day. > > > WRONG. They have to store the energy anyway. Wrong answer, it reduces the total daily power. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 20:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu1599$dul$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #601123 |
Le Oct/16/2016 à 4:00 PM, Serigo a écrit : > On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" >>>>> <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>>>>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for >>>>>> the US >>>>>> section at 120kw. >>>>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >>>>> >>>>> Sigh. >>>>> >>>>> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >>>>> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >>>>> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. >>>>> >>>>> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >>>>> 3,000 square meters of solar panels. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>>> Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In >>>> other words, it's TRIVIAL. >>>> >>> >>> square is not the problem, moron, >>> >> >> Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue? > > answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no > volumes, no costs, nothing > > no wonder you are lost. > >> >>> >>> it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels >>> >> >> They actually weigh very little > > WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables. > >> and you could just make them on Mars > > WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to > mfgr a panel ? You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area. Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 05:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u44edd-je9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #601188 |
In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: <snip> > You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You > need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your > own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency > panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in > order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on > Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area. > > Alain Fournier As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels. Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 07:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu2bs6$dij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #601220 |
Le Oct/17/2016 à 1:28 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com a écrit : > In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: > > <snip> > >> You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You >> need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your >> own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency >> panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in >> order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on >> Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area. >> >> Alain Fournier > > As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average > of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels. > > Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you > bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping > huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts? Low efficiency solar panels don't need "solar panel silicon". I saw a guy who was making solar panels in his basement. He had some kind of paste he made and he would basically paint his paste on, if I recall correctly, sheets of copper, then put a wire on the copper side and another wire on his pained side. That's all, it worked, not very efficiently but it worked. His panels had only about 30% the efficiency of commercial panels, but they were cheap. Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 18:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uvgfdd-1ae.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #601239 |
In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: > Le Oct/17/2016 ? 1:28 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com a ?crit : >> In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You >>> need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your >>> own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency >>> panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in >>> order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on >>> Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area. >>> >>> Alain Fournier >> >> As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average >> of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels. >> >> Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you >> bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping >> huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts? > > Low efficiency solar panels don't need "solar panel silicon". I saw a > guy who was making solar panels in his basement. He had some kind of > paste he made and he would basically paint his paste on, if I recall > correctly, sheets of copper, then put a wire on the copper side and > another wire on his pained side. That's all, it worked, not very > efficiently but it worked. His panels had only about 30% the efficiency > of commercial panels, but they were cheap. > > > Alain Fournier 40 W/m^2 is based on reasonably efficient solar panels. 30% of that means you get 12 W/m^2. That means you need 84,000 square meters of panel to generate 1 MW. Increasing the required area increases the number of support structures you have to build and concrete into the ground. You need a steel or aluminum mill and mines to provide the raw stock to build the support structures and a cement plant to install them. You also need a copper mine and mill to produce the sheet copper. You will not have any of those things until you have installed the very large amount of generating capacity it takes to run them. It would appear to me it would be far cheaper and easier to ship high efficiency stuff from earth until you have the power to build your own high efficiency panels and mounting structures. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <l5oa0c5ag4id6494d3eack6amsklc9ollg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601309 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> Le Oct/17/2016 ? 1:28 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com a ?crit :
>>> In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You
>>>> need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your
>>>> own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency
>>>> panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in
>>>> order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on
>>>> Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average
>>> of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels.
>>>
>>> Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you
>>> bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping
>>> huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts?
>>
>> Low efficiency solar panels don't need "solar panel silicon". I saw a
>> guy who was making solar panels in his basement. He had some kind of
>> paste he made and he would basically paint his paste on, if I recall
>> correctly, sheets of copper, then put a wire on the copper side and
>> another wire on his pained side. That's all, it worked, not very
>> efficiently but it worked. His panels had only about 30% the efficiency
>> of commercial panels, but they were cheap.
>>
>
>40 W/m^2 is based on reasonably efficient solar panels. 30% of that means
>you get 12 W/m^2. That means you need 84,000 square meters of panel to
>generate 1 MW.
>
So about a 300 meter square, then. And note that Alan is talking
about cells someone made in their basement. It won't be hard for a
real foundry to do better than that.
>
>Increasing the required area increases the number of support structures
>you have to build and concrete into the ground.
>
>You need a steel or aluminum mill and mines to provide the raw stock to
>build the support structures and a cement plant to install them.
>
There are other ways to do it. Concrete is easy.
>
>You also need a copper mine and mill to produce the sheet copper.
>
Copper could potentially be a problem, as we haven't found any
concentrated copper deposits yet, but we have examined very little of
the Martian surface.
>
>You will not have any of those things until you have installed the
>very large amount of generating capacity it takes to run them.
>
For some moderate value of 'very large'. When did Earth humans start
using copper and how much installed power capacity did they have at
the sites where they used it? Both the copper age and the iron age
occurred before humans even started keeping records. Earth humans
made steel before the birth of Christ.
Yes, wholesale production of large pieces is harder, but you talk like
this is an insurmountable barrier and it quite obviously is not.
>
>It would appear to me it would be far cheaper and easier to ship high
>efficiency stuff from earth until you have the power to build your
>own high efficiency panels and mounting structures.
>
Actually, it's probably cheaper initially to use nuclear power. DOE
has designed small (suitcase sized) reactors that would provide around
40 kW each. They're going to build the first one for testing next
year. Want a 160 kW nuke plant? It's the size of four suitcases.
--
"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 | 2016-10-17 06:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uui90cp20441t0fffssfi24vj4qhoqucp7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601220 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average
>of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels.
>
You have a point?
>
>Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you
>bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping
>huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts?
>
You've had this explained to you repeatedly. Initial power would come
from a number of relatively small nuclear reactors. The first two
down would provide power for a chemical plant making methane and
'hotel power' for an initial habitat. These are relatively small
reactors, so having lots of them with each assigned to a specific
application is not a major problem.
--
"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 16:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu3h2i$1pun$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601248 |
On 10/17/2016 8:47 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>
>> As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average
>> of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels.
>>
>
> You have a point?
yes he does, and you missed it.
low light = lots of panels => even more problems
got it ?
For extra Credit list the problems,
(hint, there are 8 major problems)
>
>>
>> Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you
>> bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping
>> huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts?
>>
>
> Initial power would come
> from a number of relatively small nuclear reactors. The first two
> down would provide power for a chemical plant making methane and
> 'hotel power' for an initial habitat. These are relatively small
> reactors, so having lots of them with each assigned to a specific
> application is not a major problem.
you're in dreamland again... Nothing real, none of that exists.
and WHY ? to collect rocks on Mars ? For Geology ?
f*ck that !!
take that 16 Billion and give Jobs to people in the USA building
factories here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web