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 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 08:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.326fe2d1e8976fa3989849@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #601116 |
In article <iutcdd-on5.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > > In article <ceu7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > > says... > >> > >> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On 10/13/2016 10:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> I was talking about 50 MW of electrical power, not heat power. > >> > > >> > A small nuclear power plant of that capacity is orders of magnitude > >> > beyond the current state of the art. Building a small nuclear reactor > >> > with megawatts of capacity is doable with today's technology, but making > >> > a highly reliable heat engine to convert that heat into mechanical > >> > energy, and doing it in a suitably low mass and tiny package, is an > >> > entirely different matter. (NOTE: A nuclear reactor only makes heat. > >> > The only practical way we currently have to convert megawatts of heat > >> > into megawatts of electricity is with mechanical heat engines.) > >> > >> The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW > >> reactor would be tiny by comparison. > > > > Smaller is not only possible, but has been done in the past: > > > > Nuclear Power at McMurdo Station, Antarctica > > Tyler Reid > > March 21, 2014 > > http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ > > > > The nuclear plant at McMurdo Station, Antarctica (no longer active, but > > still a very important data point) was manufactured in several pieces > > and shipped to McMurdo Station to be assembled into an operational > > nuclear reactor which produced 1.25-2.0 MW, according to the article. > > > > Also note that this was PM-3A. There were two preceding units used at a > > remote radar station in Wyoming and at a US military base known as Camp > > Century setup in Northern Greenland. > > > > So there you go. Very small nuclear power plants shipped in > > prefabricated parts to remote locations. > > > > Jeff > > Yes, I know, and there also have been lots of tiny research reactors > built in the last 70 years or so. > > The point is not whether of not a reactor of any given size can be built, > but that doing useful things takes lots of power when the only power > you have is electricity. > > So what's the plan for this colony on Mars, ship some number of large Those are all possibilities. Or ship solar panels. But, we're years (possibly decades) away from shipping power generation capacity to Mars, so we don't have to decide the gory details right now! Eventually something like a solar panel factory could be built on Mars to make the colony more self sustaining. But until then, the power source(es) will be shipped from earth. The biggest problem is getting there cheaply. SpaceX at least has a vision for doing this and is building and testing hardware. NASA's vision of getting to Mars doesn't even look workable, given the current limitations on projected SLS manufacturing and launch rates. How the hell is anyone going to get to Mars when SLS will only be able to launch once every other year? Insanity. 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 | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 11:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1820ct05cu7nv76egmrlmleba2j7sf0qc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600813 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>I was talking about 50 MW of electrical power, not heat power.
>
>That is the sort of power you need to run things like industries
>synthesizing complex chemicals and making thngs like steel.
>
Why? What quantities are you assuming are needed?
>> Note that a Mars plant would need to produce heat to make electricity
>> and also heat for other purposes, such as heating dwellings.
>
>Sure you can use the waste heat for other purposes assuming a heat
>transport mechanism, which is usually water. However that there is
>sufficient available water is currentyl conjecture; only traces of
>water have been found anywhere near where one would set up.
>
>> To give you some idea of the present state of the art, NASA has done
>> development work on a 40 KW unit. Here is an excellent rundown of the
>> present state-of-the-art in space nukes.
>> http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx
>
>So the present state of the art is sufficient to support a research
>station on Mars but nowhere capable of supporting a colony and industry.
>
>QED.
>
Send more than one. Dumbass.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 08:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntqkts$rsl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600804 |
On 10/13/2016 8:40 PM, Vaughn Simon wrote: > On 10/13/2016 8:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you >> would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work >> during the day. > We are a long way from being able to put a 50 MW nuke plant on Mars. > Making 50 MW of heat isn't the hard part. The hard part is turning > megawatts of heat into megawatts of electricity. Anything beyond a very > few kilowatts requires some sort of heat engine, which means moving > parts. In a compact nuke plant, those moving parts will likely be > radioactive, and therefore not repairable. Would you want your life > depending on something like that? > Note that a Mars plant would need to produce heat to make electricity > and also heat for other purposes, such as heating dwellings. > > To give you some idea of the present state of the art, NASA has done > development work on a 40 KW unit. Here is an excellent rundown of the > present state-of-the-art in space nukes. > http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx > > > nice update it seems like the greenies will have a hissyfit if Earth launches a lot of nuclear material up, as the rocket could fail spewing radioactive contents on earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 10:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Bo-dnW6CkKdudJ3FnZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #600834 |
"Serigo" wrote in message news:ntqkts$rsl$1@gioia.aioe.org... > >On 10/13/2016 8:40 PM, Vaughn Simon wrote: >> On 10/13/2016 8:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you >>> would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work >>> during the day. > >> We are a long way from being able to put a 50 MW nuke plant on Mars. >> Making 50 MW of heat isn't the hard part. The hard part is turning >> megawatts of heat into megawatts of electricity. Anything beyond a very >> few kilowatts requires some sort of heat engine, which means moving >> parts. In a compact nuke plant, those moving parts will likely be >> radioactive, and therefore not repairable. Would you want your life >> depending on something like that? > >> Note that a Mars plant would need to produce heat to make electricity >> and also heat for other purposes, such as heating dwellings. >> >> To give you some idea of the present state of the art, NASA has done >> development work on a 40 KW unit. Here is an excellent rundown of the >> present state-of-the-art in space nukes. >> http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx >> >> >> > >nice update > >it seems like the greenies will have a hissyfit if Earth launches a lot of >nuclear material up, as the rocket could fail spewing radioactive contents >on earth. This is honestly probably the biggest issue, the paperwork involved to launch something like this. Despite the overwhelming safety of it during launch. -- 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 09:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntqr6a$16nc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600840 |
On 10/14/2016 9:21 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote: > "Serigo" wrote in message news:ntqkts$rsl$1@gioia.aioe.org... >> >> On 10/13/2016 8:40 PM, Vaughn Simon wrote: >>> On 10/13/2016 8:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you >>>> would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work >>>> during the day. >>> http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> nice update >> >> it seems like the greenies will have a hissyfit if Earth launches a >> lot of nuclear material up, as the rocket could fail spewing >> radioactive contents on earth. > > This is honestly probably the biggest issue, the paperwork involved to > launch something like this. Despite the overwhelming safety of it during > launch. > > There was a big protest last time a nuk powered battery went up, wait till the future President Elizabeth Warren finds out. (gad!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 06:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.326a7d48c0188a1c98983f@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #600797 |
In article <eek5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > > In article <ntlfkp$ipl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > >> > >> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in > >> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars" > > > > So you use solar and nuclear power. And if fusion power ever becomes > > practical, you use that too. Just because we're dependant on fossil > > fuels here on earth doesn't mean a Mars colony needs to be! > > To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you > would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work > during the day. So send a small reactor. It doesn't even need to be 50 MW (smaller is acceptable). So, just ship very small (less than 10 MW) modular nuclear reactors built in factories. This is already being seriously considered for terrestrial use. Given the size (and apparant mass given they'd be shipped by truck in one piece), shipping one on a SpaceX Mars Colonial Transport wouldn't seem to be impossible at all. (shows picture of reactor being transported by semi-tractor/trailer) https://www.ft.com/content/bcffe4d2-2402-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Small-Modular-Reactor- Startup-Using-Molten-Salt-Nuclear-Design-Wins-7M-in http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/the-forgotten-history-of-small- nuclear-reactors Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <alu7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600828 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <eek5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> > In article <ntlfkp$ipl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> >> >> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in >> >> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars" >> > >> > So you use solar and nuclear power. And if fusion power ever becomes >> > practical, you use that too. Just because we're dependant on fossil >> > fuels here on earth doesn't mean a Mars colony needs to be! >> >> To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you >> would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work >> during the day. > > So send a small reactor. It doesn't even need to be 50 MW (smaller is > acceptable). So, just ship very small (less than 10 MW) modular nuclear > reactors built in factories. This is already being seriously considered > for terrestrial use. Given the size (and apparant mass given they'd be > shipped by truck in one piece), shipping one on a SpaceX Mars Colonial > Transport wouldn't seem to be impossible at all. When someone mentions facts why do the dreamers always drag up the word "impossible" as if someone said it? No one said anything was impossible, just difficult, expensive and in some cases not very practical. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 03:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj040c15vlq5hj8icufg75s4gkduf57hpl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600896 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <eek5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>> > In article <ntlfkp$ipl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>> >>
>>> >> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in
>>> >> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars"
>>> >
>>> > So you use solar and nuclear power. And if fusion power ever becomes
>>> > practical, you use that too. Just because we're dependant on fossil
>>> > fuels here on earth doesn't mean a Mars colony needs to be!
>>>
>>> To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you
>>> would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work
>>> during the day.
>>
>> So send a small reactor. It doesn't even need to be 50 MW (smaller is
>> acceptable). So, just ship very small (less than 10 MW) modular nuclear
>> reactors built in factories. This is already being seriously considered
>> for terrestrial use. Given the size (and apparant mass given they'd be
>> shipped by truck in one piece), shipping one on a SpaceX Mars Colonial
>> Transport wouldn't seem to be impossible at all.
>>
>
>When someone mentions facts why do the dreamers always drag up the
>word "impossible" as if someone said it?
>
When SOME people mention some facts (or even non-facts) their phrasing
indicates 'impossible'. Some of those people have such overweaning
egos that they cannot stand being corrected.
--
"Yet here I sit, years of evildoing under my belt, and still a
happy camper."
-- Alan Shore, "Boston Legal"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 08:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu2l9n$8le$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600973 |
On 10/15/2016 5:20 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>> In article <eek5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>> says... >>>> >> > > When SOME people mention some facts (or even non-facts) their phrasing > indicates 'impossible'. Some of those people have such overweaning > egos that they cannot stand being corrected. > > you cant support your view with any facts or in depth thoughts, so you turn to insulting people. Guess you have run out of contributing anything useful. you fail to realize simple bounds can be put on ideas due to reality, that is what engineering is all about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 11:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tj720ch748vejonevsnapsbefat14jb86u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600797 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <ntlfkp$ipl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>
>>> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in
>>> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars"
>>
>> So you use solar and nuclear power. And if fusion power ever becomes
>> practical, you use that too. Just because we're dependant on fossil
>> fuels here on earth doesn't mean a Mars colony needs to be!
>>
>> Jeff
>
>To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you
>would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work
>during the day.
>
Why would I need a 50 MW reactor (or that much power)? Just how big a
colony are you assuming here? A million square meters is only a
square one kilometer on a side.
>
>If we had dilithium reactors, warp drive, replicators, and transporters
>the problem would be trivial.
>
Do you insist the effort for anything you do must be 'trivial'?
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 16:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <58028ef7$0$1915$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #600866 |
On 2016-10-14 14:09, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>If we had dilithium reactors, warp drive, replicators, and transporters >>the problem would be trivial. >> > > Do you insist the effort for anything you do must be 'trivial'? Actually yes. Current discussions are for projects that would be launched now (the project) with early actual launches to Mars in a few years. (aka: as agressive if not more than sending a man on the moon within 7 years of announcement). And this means using tech that is basically available today with only a need to fine tune and scale it up. (eg: very large composite tanks). We're not talking about di-lithium crystals, and matter/anti-matter engines which don't exist yet. So in many wys, what is being attempted now must be "trivial" in that sense: existing tech.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 20:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntuftr$no8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #601024 |
On Oct/15/2016 at 4:17 PM, JF Mezei wrote : > On 2016-10-14 14:09, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>> If we had dilithium reactors, warp drive, replicators, and transporters >>> the problem would be trivial. >>> >> >> Do you insist the effort for anything you do must be 'trivial'? > > > Actually yes. Current discussions are for projects that would be > launched now (the project) with early actual launches to Mars in a few > years. (aka: as agressive if not more than sending a man on the moon > within 7 years of announcement). > > And this means using tech that is basically available today with only a > need to fine tune and scale it up. (eg: very large composite tanks). > We're not talking about di-lithium crystals, and matter/anti-matter > engines which don't exist yet. So in many wys, what is being attempted > now must be "trivial" in that sense: existing tech. That is stretching the truth a little (only a little). There are several things that need to be developed before going to Mars. There are no show stoppers all the problems can be solved by throwing mass at them. But you don't want to through that much mass, so you would want to think about the best solutions. We don't need breakthroughs in physics but we do need a lot of engineering. No one has experienced gravity below 4 m/s^2 for long enough to do a Mars mission. Those who have for more than 1 year have suffered severe consequences. There are other problems which need to be studied. The radiation environment is one of them. As I said, those aren't show stoppers, the problems can be solved and we know how to solve them given enough mass but... Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 22:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ml360c1565iojqtdb3vku4qem5cdrthv5q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601024 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-10-14 14:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>>>If we had dilithium reactors, warp drive, replicators, and transporters
>>>the problem would be trivial.
>>>
>>
>> Do you insist the effort for anything you do must be 'trivial'?
>>
>
>Actually yes.
>
Then I hope you enjoy sitting in your cave eating bushes.
>
>Current discussions are for projects that would be
>launched now (the project) with early actual launches to Mars in a few
>years. (aka: as agressive if not more than sending a man on the moon
>within 7 years of announcement).
>
Nobody is talking people on Mars in the next 7 years (in 2024 or so).
NASA is talking at least a decade later (sometime in the 2030's) and
that will probably slide right. Musk is talking around 2024 (2024
launch with 2025 arrival), but he's using a booster and ship that do
not yet exist, so not 'existing technology' and it will probably slide
right some.
And any slide right means a 26 month slide...
>
>And this means using tech that is basically available today with only a
>need to fine tune and scale it up. (eg: very large composite tanks).
>
>
>We're not talking about di-lithium crystals, and matter/anti-matter
>engines which don't exist yet. So in many wys, what is being attempted
>now must be "trivial" in that sense: existing tech.
>
You've been listening to Jimp the Chimp too much. He's the only one
getting all wrapped around the axle over the need for 'Star Trek
technology'.
We apparently have very different ideas of 'trivial'. I don't
consider Musk's development effort 'trivial'. For you, it sounds like
things are 'trivial' up to the point of requiring magic fairy dust.
--
"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 | 2016-10-17 09:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu2ll8$99g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601074 |
On 10/16/2016 12:39 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> On 2016-10-14 14:09, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> >>>> If we had dilithium reactors, warp drive, replicators, and transporters >>>> the problem would be trivial. >>>> >>> >>> Do you insist the effort for anything you do must be 'trivial'? >>> >> >> Actually yes. >> > > Then I hope you enjoy sitting in your cave eating bushes. > ....while you are on Mars living in a tank below ground 95% of the time, pooping on a bucket to power your laptop, so you can reload a page from google in the semi dark, eating your tablespoon of peanut oil, 1 oz water, breathing bad air, with nothing else to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 18:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1jhfdd-1ae.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #601252 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/16/2016 12:39 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> >>> On 2016-10-14 14:09, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> >>>>> If we had dilithium reactors, warp drive, replicators, and transporters >>>>> the problem would be trivial. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Do you insist the effort for anything you do must be 'trivial'? >>>> >>> >>> Actually yes. >>> >> >> Then I hope you enjoy sitting in your cave eating bushes. >> > > ....while you are on Mars living in a tank below ground 95% of the time, > pooping on a bucket to power your laptop, so you can reload a page from > google in the semi dark, eating your tablespoon of peanut oil, 1 oz > water, breathing bad air, with nothing else to do. If the goal is to become a real colony, everybody would be busy as hell building things required to build other things. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 08:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu2lcc$8le$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601024 |
On 10/15/2016 3:17 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > On 2016-10-14 14:09, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>> If we had dilithium reactors, warp drive, replicators, and transporters >>> the problem would be trivial. >>> >> >> Do you insist the effort for anything you do must be 'trivial'? > Actually yes. Current discussions are for projects that would be > launched now (the project) with early actual launches to Mars in a few > years. (aka: as agressive if not more than sending a man on the moon > within 7 years of announcement). > > And this means using tech that is basically available today with only a > need to fine tune and scale it up. (eg: very large composite tanks). there are some items that do not "scale up" easily or at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 12:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pv3tvbh0u3petjqcj0ml2haivhv0nni6gv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600539 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>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).
>
Wrong. CO2 from humans will go into scrubbers.
>
>It would be extremnely challenging to develop sustainable human presence
>on Mars of the type seen in Total Recall or even Babylon 5.
>
For some moderate value of 'extremely'.
>
>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.
>
No. There will be some things that will be locally produced in fairly
short order. There will be some things that will probably have to be
imported for a very long time. There will have to be some new
industrial processes, since there will be no coal.
>
>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 ?
>
Sufficient amounts of various metals for initial development are
available without having to do much in the way of mining. Ores can
just be scraped up off the surface. There's never going to be any
coal, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_resources_on_Mars#Direct_evidence_for_useful_materials
>
>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 ?
>
Mars has had active volcanism and flowing water, so ores will have
formed.
--
"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 17:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntmf2i$arm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600609 |
On 10/12/2016 2:46 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> >>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). >> > > Wrong. CO2 from humans will go into scrubbers. wrong, no way to clean scrubbers on Mars. > >> >> It would be extremnely challenging to develop sustainable human presence >> on Mars of the type seen in Total Recall or even Babylon 5. >> > > For some moderate value of 'extremely'. it is still too costly, and there is no payoff, just rocks and sand in a vaccum > >> >> 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. >> > > No. There will be some things that will be locally produced in fairly > short order. name any of them. > There will be some things that will probably have to be > imported for a very long time. There will have to be some new > industrial processes, since there will be no coal. no need, no reason to go to mars. > >> >> 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 ? >> > > Sufficient amounts of various metals for initial development are > available without having to do much in the way of mining. Ores can > just be scraped up off the surface. so you have been there ? or are you just makeing stuff up ? >There's never going to be any > coal, though. NSS. > >> >> 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 ? >> > > Mars has had active volcanism and flowing water, so ores will have > formed. water is conjecter, not verified.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 17:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2dktvbpt1n6kghpdq29m9f0bsqsbbbrtgp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600633 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 2:46 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>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).
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. CO2 from humans will go into scrubbers.
>
>wrong, no way to clean scrubbers on Mars.
>
Wrong. Of course there is. Just take them outside, heat them, and
take them back inside before they cool.
>>
>>>
>>> It would be extremnely challenging to develop sustainable human presence
>>> on Mars of the type seen in Total Recall or even Babylon 5.
>>>
>>
>> For some moderate value of 'extremely'.
>
>it is still too costly, and there is no payoff, just rocks and sand in a
>vaccum
>
We already established that your "rocks and sand in a vacuum" is
false. The fact that you still repeat it says you're stupid.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> No. There will be some things that will be locally produced in fairly
>> short order.
>>
>
>name any of them.
>
Water, oxygen, various other gases, including methane for rocket fuel.
As a colony gets bigger it will start to pay to locally produce
metals.
Try and keep up.
>
>> There will be some things that will probably have to be
>> imported for a very long time. There will have to be some new
>> industrial processes, since there will be no coal.
>
>no need, no reason to go to mars.
>
If humanity listened to trolls like you we'd still be huddled in caves
eating bushes.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 ?
>>>
>>
>> Sufficient amounts of various metals for initial development are
>> available without having to do much in the way of mining. Ores can
>> just be scraped up off the surface.
>>
>
>so you have been there ? or are you just makeing stuff up ?
>
So you're an idiot ? Or are you just a lying troll?
>
>>>
>>> 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 ?
>>>
>>
>> Mars has had active volcanism and flowing water, so ores will have
>> formed.
>
>water is conjecter, not verified.
>
Wrong.
--
"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 21:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntmquj$nic$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600647 |
On 10/12/2016 7:41 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/12/2016 2:46 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >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). >>>> >>> >>> Wrong. CO2 from humans will go into scrubbers. >> >> wrong, no way to clean scrubbers on Mars. >> > > Wrong. Of course there is. Just take them outside, heat them, and > take them back inside before they cool. > >>> >>>> >>>> It would be extremnely challenging to develop sustainable human presence >>>> on Mars of the type seen in Total Recall or even Babylon 5. >>>> >>> >>> For some moderate value of 'extremely'. >> >> it is still too costly, and there is no payoff, just rocks and sand in a >> vaccum >> > > We already established that your "rocks and sand in a vacuum" is > false. wrong, it is not a true or false game. Compaired to Earths atmosphere, Mars is more like outter space, a vacuum. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> No. There will be some things that will be locally produced in fairly >>> short order. >>> >> >> name any of them. >> > > Water, oxygen, they brought that with them, and the tech to produce it. > various other gases, like Nitrogen... which they also brought with them. > including methane for rocket fuel. they do not need rocket fuel, because they do not need to go back to Earth. > As a colony gets bigger it will start to pay to locally produce > metals. from melting down old supply rocketships, it is more cost effective to leave them there as scrap. > > Try and keep up. > >> >>> There will be some things that will probably have to be >>> imported for a very long time. There will have to be some new >>> industrial processes, since there will be no coal. >> >> no need, no reason to go to mars. >> > > If humanity listened to trolls like you we'd still be huddled in caves > eating bushes. you missed out on the moon exploration, and you have failed to keep up with NASA R&D on what is required for Mars. You keep stating the silly stuff. Like a stoner going to drift up and live the big life on Mars like in the movies. Get Real. or go post in sci.fiction.for.dummies > >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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 ? >>>> >>> >>> Sufficient amounts of various metals for initial development are >>> available without having to do much in the way of mining. Ores can >>> just be scraped up off the surface. >>> >> >> so you have been there ? or are you just makeing stuff up ? >> > <snip crap>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web