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 14 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ic220cdmsqpednkvjg6biaindnv4u1gtdh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600659 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 7:42 PM, Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> On 10/12/2016 6:56 PM, Serigo wrote:
>>> water is conjecter, not verified.
>
>> Where have you been the last few years? The existence of water ice on
>> Mars was proven conclusively by NASA's Phoenix Lander in 2008. The
>> existence of flowing water on Mars might be considered a theory
>> (although some pretty good evidence exists) but the presence of water
>> ice is an established fact, and we know exactly where to go to find it.
>
>> " 'It is with great pride and a lot of joy that I announce today that we
>> have found proof that this hard bright material is really water ice and
>> not some other substance,' said Phoenix Principal Investigator Peter
>> Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, during a Friday news
>> briefing to announce the confirmation of water ice. "
>>
>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080620.html
>>
>
>still only observational, could be CO2, they have wished it was water
>
No, it couldn't be CO2. That's why they said it was water.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 02:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <um63dd-7g3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600648 |
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2016 6:56 PM, Serigo wrote: >> water is conjecter, not verified. > > Where have you been the last few years? The existence of water ice on > Mars was proven conclusively by NASA's Phoenix Lander in 2008. The > existence of flowing water on Mars might be considered a theory > (although some pretty good evidence exists) but the presence of water > ice is an established fact, and we know exactly where to go to find it. > > " 'It is with great pride and a lot of joy that I announce today that we > have found proof that this hard bright material is really water ice and > not some other substance,' said Phoenix Principal Investigator Peter > Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, during a Friday news > briefing to announce the confirmation of water ice. " > > http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080620.html Yes, the presence of water in small amounts has been proven. What is conjecter is that there are useful amounts. Useful being measured in acre feet. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rb7vvbt1teh7ggcd9smls83n2hnr1us89r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600660 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2016 6:56 PM, Serigo wrote:
>>> water is conjecter, not verified.
>>
>> Where have you been the last few years? The existence of water ice on
>> Mars was proven conclusively by NASA's Phoenix Lander in 2008. The
>> existence of flowing water on Mars might be considered a theory
>> (although some pretty good evidence exists) but the presence of water
>> ice is an established fact, and we know exactly where to go to find it.
>>
>> " 'It is with great pride and a lot of joy that I announce today that we
>> have found proof that this hard bright material is really water ice and
>> not some other substance,' said Phoenix Principal Investigator Peter
>> Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, during a Friday news
>> briefing to announce the confirmation of water ice. "
>>
>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080620.html
>>
>
>Yes, the presence of water in small amounts has been proven.
>
>What is conjecter is that there are useful amounts.
>
>Useful being measured in acre feet.
>
There are trillions of acre feet in the South Pole alone. There is an
ice sheet the size of California at more northern latitudes. This
isn't conjecture.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 02:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5f63dd-7g3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600633 |
In sci.physics 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. > >> >>> >>> 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. Gravestones. >> 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 ? He's trying to divert the issue. Sure you can make small amounts metals by scrapping the surface, very small amounts. Notice that on the Earth where they do that the "scrapping" goes down a long ways and ends up being a huge hole in the ground? > >>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. Whether or not water ever flowed on Mars is irrelevant to most minerals. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 07:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a27vvb9ibua3pobsgj67tg7rt65qoe7f59@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600655 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2016 2:46 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 ?
>>
>
>He's trying to divert the issue.
>
No, that's Serigo's game. One needn't have been on Mars to know
something about the geology any more than one need to have been to the
bottom of the ocean to know that it's wet.
>
>Sure you can make small amounts metals by scrapping the surface, very
>small amounts. Notice that on the Earth where they do that the "scrapping"
>goes down a long ways and ends up being a huge hole in the ground?
>
Any colony will 'start small'. They will be able to get metals in
quantities sufficient for use by the colony for some time to come.
We're not talking about trying to support hundreds of millions of
people the first day and it's supporting those sorts of numbers is
what leads to those "huge holes".
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 08:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3269482dfd33136989839@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #600539 |
In article <57fdbe2c$0$34569$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says... > > On 2016-10-11 19:10, Jeff Findley wrote: > > > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. > > From a plant life point of view, it si doubtful you could get plants to > grow "outdoors". And if your plants are indoors, the CO2 they will get > will come from humans, not outside air (since the indoor habitat will do > everyuthing to keep that nasty CO2 out). So it's not a problem to grow plants if you build a pressurized greenhouse. Pretty much everyone knows that. It was even in book and movie "The Maritain". > 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. So, just like the base at the South Pole. Note how long it's been permanently staffed! 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 00:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okk5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600690 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <57fdbe2c$0$34569$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>, > jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says... >> >> On 2016-10-11 19:10, Jeff Findley wrote: >> >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. >> >> From a plant life point of view, it si doubtful you could get plants to >> grow "outdoors". And if your plants are indoors, the CO2 they will get >> will come from humans, not outside air (since the indoor habitat will do >> everyuthing to keep that nasty CO2 out). > > So it's not a problem to grow plants if you build a pressurized > greenhouse. Pretty much everyone knows that. It was even in book and > movie "The Maritain". > >> 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. > > So, just like the base at the South Pole. Note how long it's been > permanently staffed! > > Jeff There are no colonies at the South Pole and the research stations cost a lot of money to maintain but nowhere near what a research station on Mars would cost. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 06:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.326a7e4d95f0e7be989840@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #600798 |
In article <okk5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > > In article <57fdbe2c$0$34569$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>, > > jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says... > >> > >> On 2016-10-11 19:10, Jeff Findley wrote: > >> > >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. > >> > >> From a plant life point of view, it si doubtful you could get plants to > >> grow "outdoors". And if your plants are indoors, the CO2 they will get > >> will come from humans, not outside air (since the indoor habitat will do > >> everyuthing to keep that nasty CO2 out). > > > > So it's not a problem to grow plants if you build a pressurized > > greenhouse. Pretty much everyone knows that. It was even in book and > > movie "The Maritain". > > > >> 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. > > > > So, just like the base at the South Pole. Note how long it's been > > permanently staffed! > > > > Jeff > > There are no colonies at the South Pole and the research stations > cost a lot of money to maintain but nowhere near what a research > station on Mars would cost. We also had a nuclear power plant at Antartica in the past: Plaque Dedicated To Former McMurdo Nuclear Plant Marks Significant Moment In Antarctic History BY PETER REJCEK, ANTARCTIC SUN EDITOR Posted June 25, 2010 https://antarcticsun.usap.gov/features/contenthandler.cfm?id=2175 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 | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 12:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntr124$1hjr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600829 |
On 10/14/2016 6:32 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: > We also had a nuclear power plant at Antartica in the past: That Antarctica plant (PM-3A: 1.75 MW electric, plus heating and desalinization) seems to have been the best known of the Army "portable" reactor program, but there were several more sprinkled around the world, some operated within the USA borders. http://www.takepart.com/article/2011/05/23/antarcticas-failed-atomic-power-plant-still-deadly-30-years I believe there was only one of them that was seriously portable. That one was the ML1, rated at 300 KW. It was "portable", but was housed in more than one truck or train-sized containers. It wasn't terribly successful. It never reached its rated power and was only operated for a few hundred hours before decommissioning. The SL-1 reactor (from that program) was involved in a rather remarkable nuclear accident. When the operators manually withdrew a control rod too fast, the reactor literally blew it's top, impaling one poor soul to the ceiling of the containment building! I believe that three men ended up buried in lead coffins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program Be aware that we are talking about 1960s technology here! There have been some advances since then, but those Army reactors remain some of the best examples of what a "portable" nuclear power plant would look like. Vaughn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a9v7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600849 |
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/14/2016 6:32 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: >> We also had a nuclear power plant at Antartica in the past: > > That Antarctica plant (PM-3A: 1.75 MW electric, plus heating and > desalinization) seems to have been the best known of the Army "portable" > reactor program, but there were several more sprinkled around the world, > some operated within the USA borders. > > http://www.takepart.com/article/2011/05/23/antarcticas-failed-atomic-power-plant-still-deadly-30-years > > I believe there was only one of them that was seriously portable. That > one was the ML1, rated at 300 KW. It was "portable", but was housed in > more than one truck or train-sized containers. It wasn't terribly > successful. It never reached its rated power and was only operated for > a few hundred hours before decommissioning. > > The SL-1 reactor (from that program) was involved in a rather remarkable > nuclear accident. When the operators manually withdrew a control rod > too fast, the reactor literally blew it's top, impaling one poor soul to > the ceiling of the containment building! I believe that three men ended > up buried in lead coffins. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program > > Be aware that we are talking about 1960s technology here! There have > been some advances since then, but those Army reactors remain some of > the best examples of what a "portable" nuclear power plant would look like. > > Vaughn It doesn't need to be portable, just transportable, which means some assembly may be required at the end point. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <06v7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #600829 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <okk5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> > In article <57fdbe2c$0$34569$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>, >> > jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says... >> >> >> >> On 2016-10-11 19:10, Jeff Findley wrote: >> >> >> >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. >> >> >> >> From a plant life point of view, it si doubtful you could get plants to >> >> grow "outdoors". And if your plants are indoors, the CO2 they will get >> >> will come from humans, not outside air (since the indoor habitat will do >> >> everyuthing to keep that nasty CO2 out). >> > >> > So it's not a problem to grow plants if you build a pressurized >> > greenhouse. Pretty much everyone knows that. It was even in book and >> > movie "The Maritain". >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> > So, just like the base at the South Pole. Note how long it's been >> > permanently staffed! >> > >> > Jeff >> >> There are no colonies at the South Pole and the research stations >> cost a lot of money to maintain but nowhere near what a research >> station on Mars would cost. > > We also had a nuclear power plant at Antartica in the past: > > Plaque Dedicated To Former McMurdo Nuclear Plant Marks Significant > Moment In Antarctic History > > BY PETER REJCEK, ANTARCTIC SUN EDITOR > Posted June 25, 2010 > https://antarcticsun.usap.gov/features/contenthandler.cfm?id=2175 > > Jeff So how much to put about 25 of these on Mars so you can convert dirt to structural steel? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 03:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <at040ct7dl2pkl6p3fh0j8tselosnm1g9d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #600897 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <okk5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>> > In article <57fdbe2c$0$34569$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>,
>>> > jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...
>>> >>
>>> >> On 2016-10-11 19:10, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one.
>>> >>
>>> >> From a plant life point of view, it si doubtful you could get plants to
>>> >> grow "outdoors". And if your plants are indoors, the CO2 they will get
>>> >> will come from humans, not outside air (since the indoor habitat will do
>>> >> everyuthing to keep that nasty CO2 out).
>>> >
>>> > So it's not a problem to grow plants if you build a pressurized
>>> > greenhouse. Pretty much everyone knows that. It was even in book and
>>> > movie "The Maritain".
>>> >
>>> >> 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.
>>> >
>>> > So, just like the base at the South Pole. Note how long it's been
>>> > permanently staffed!
>>> >
>>> > Jeff
>>>
>>> There are no colonies at the South Pole and the research stations
>>> cost a lot of money to maintain but nowhere near what a research
>>> station on Mars would cost.
>>
>> We also had a nuclear power plant at Antartica in the past:
>>
>> Plaque Dedicated To Former McMurdo Nuclear Plant Marks Significant
>> Moment In Antarctic History
>>
>> BY PETER REJCEK, ANTARCTIC SUN EDITOR
>> Posted June 25, 2010
>> https://antarcticsun.usap.gov/features/contenthandler.cfm?id=2175
>>
>
>So how much to put about 25 of these on Mars so you can convert dirt
>to structural steel?
>
Why in the hell would you need 32 MW of power to make steel? Total
power required to make a ton of steel from ore is around 5 MW-hrs.
You'd size your operation based on the power you had available and how
much steel you need.
--
"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 10:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ntthqd$rt8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #600974 |
On 10/15/2016 5:34 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> So how much to put about 25 of these on Mars so you can convert dirt >> to structural steel? >> > > Why in the hell would you need 32 MW of power to make steel? Total > power required to make a ton of steel from ore is around 5 MW-hrs. > You'd size your operation based on the power you had available and how > much steel you need. > > Wrong again. you skipped over the part where you get ore from dirt, how much energy is that ? AND you skipped over the fact that the steel making facility is built and operated in a vacuum, add in those costs in terms of energy, and cleaning the air inside from fumes, that cost. your responces to posts here are simplistic, from 100,000 feet high with no reality, a salesman from Musk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 19:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <58026725$0$1800$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> |
| In reply to | #601000 |
On 15.10.16 17:25, Serigo wrote: > On 10/15/2016 5:34 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >>> >>> So how much to put about 25 of these on Mars so you can convert dirt >>> to structural steel? >>> >> >> Why in the hell would you need 32 MW of power to make steel? Total >> power required to make a ton of steel from ore is around 5 MW-hrs. >> You'd size your operation based on the power you had available and how >> much steel you need. >> >> > > Wrong again. you skipped over the part where you get ore from dirt, how > much energy is that ? > > AND you skipped over the fact that the steel making facility is built > and operated in a vacuum, add in those costs in terms of energy, and > cleaning the air inside from fumes, that cost. > > your responces to posts here are simplistic, from 100,000 feet high with > no reality, a salesman from Musk. > Steel production in Mars atmosphere may be much easier. First:less heat-loss (almost no conduction to air) second:molten iron will not start burning(no oxygen in air) So quality steel might be produced there with less energy(compared to earth). So on Mars by all means USE the opportunities provided by a near vacuum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 18:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sp8add-p9q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #601001 |
In sci.physics Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: > On 15.10.16 17:25, Serigo wrote: >> On 10/15/2016 5:34 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>>> So how much to put about 25 of these on Mars so you can convert dirt >>>> to structural steel? >>>> >>> >>> Why in the hell would you need 32 MW of power to make steel? Total >>> power required to make a ton of steel from ore is around 5 MW-hrs. >>> You'd size your operation based on the power you had available and how >>> much steel you need. >>> >>> >> >> Wrong again. you skipped over the part where you get ore from dirt, how >> much energy is that ? >> >> AND you skipped over the fact that the steel making facility is built >> and operated in a vacuum, add in those costs in terms of energy, and >> cleaning the air inside from fumes, that cost. >> >> your responces to posts here are simplistic, from 100,000 feet high with >> no reality, a salesman from Musk. >> > Steel production in Mars atmosphere may be much easier. > First:less heat-loss (almost no conduction to air) > second:molten iron will not start burning(no oxygen in air) > So quality steel might be produced there with > less energy(compared to earth). > So on Mars by all means USE the opportunities provided > by a near vacuum. Steel is made by blowing oxygen through the pig iron. I have no clue where you are going to get either the burnt lime or dolomite that is required. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 22:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <se360c1fc8tkl5gcn70uejorfumth4aleh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601012 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
>> On 15.10.16 17:25, Serigo wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2016 5:34 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So how much to put about 25 of these on Mars so you can convert dirt
>>>>> to structural steel?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why in the hell would you need 32 MW of power to make steel? Total
>>>> power required to make a ton of steel from ore is around 5 MW-hrs.
>>>> You'd size your operation based on the power you had available and how
>>>> much steel you need.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong again. you skipped over the part where you get ore from dirt, how
>>> much energy is that ?
>>>
>>> AND you skipped over the fact that the steel making facility is built
>>> and operated in a vacuum, add in those costs in terms of energy, and
>>> cleaning the air inside from fumes, that cost.
>>>
>>> your responces to posts here are simplistic, from 100,000 feet high with
>>> no reality, a salesman from Musk.
>>>
>> Steel production in Mars atmosphere may be much easier.
>> First:less heat-loss (almost no conduction to air)
>> second:molten iron will not start burning(no oxygen in air)
>> So quality steel might be produced there with
>> less energy(compared to earth).
>> So on Mars by all means USE the opportunities provided
>> by a near vacuum.
>>
>
>Steel is made by blowing oxygen through the pig iron.
>
True. What's your point?
>
>I have no clue where you are going to get either the burnt lime or
>dolomite that is required.
>
From the ground on Mars. The little tiny rovers have found dolomite,
so it's presumably fairly ubiquitous. Burnt lime is calcium oxide.
That shit's everywhere.
You having no idea how to do the obvious is not surprising to me.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 18:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ul8add-p9q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #601000 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2016 5:34 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >>> >>> So how much to put about 25 of these on Mars so you can convert dirt >>> to structural steel? >>> >> >> Why in the hell would you need 32 MW of power to make steel? Total >> power required to make a ton of steel from ore is around 5 MW-hrs. >> You'd size your operation based on the power you had available and how >> much steel you need. >> >> > > Wrong again. you skipped over the part where you get ore from dirt, how > much energy is that ? It actually takes 10-19 MW to turn iron ore into steel, not counting the energy required to dig out, transport, and crush the ore. http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/what-is-the-embodied-energy-of-materials.html > AND you skipped over the fact that the steel making facility is built > and operated in a vacuum, add in those costs in terms of energy, and > cleaning the air inside from fumes, that cost. Making steel requires a lot of oxygen. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 18:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <um9add-niq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #601011 |
In sci.physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> On 10/15/2016 5:34 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>>> So how much to put about 25 of these on Mars so you can convert dirt >>>> to structural steel? >>>> >>> >>> Why in the hell would you need 32 MW of power to make steel? Total >>> power required to make a ton of steel from ore is around 5 MW-hrs. >>> You'd size your operation based on the power you had available and how >>> much steel you need. >>> >>> >> >> Wrong again. you skipped over the part where you get ore from dirt, how >> much energy is that ? > > It actually takes 10-19 MW to turn iron ore into steel, not counting > the energy required to dig out, transport, and crush the ore. Slight error there; that should be 10-19 MW-hr per kilogram and also does not include the energy required to make the steel into structural raw stock. > http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/what-is-the-embodied-energy-of-materials.html > >> AND you skipped over the fact that the steel making facility is built >> and operated in a vacuum, add in those costs in terms of energy, and >> cleaning the air inside from fumes, that cost. > > Making steel requires a lot of oxygen. > -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 22:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2360cp587u8mcvqokbcabfq7c3kg4pile@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #601011 |
You know, Chimp, you're an intellectual coward. If you want to reply
to me, REPLY TO ME, not to some troll quoting me.
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2016 5:34 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> So how much to put about 25 of these on Mars so you can convert dirt
>>>> to structural steel?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why in the hell would you need 32 MW of power to make steel? Total
>>> power required to make a ton of steel from ore is around 5 MW-hrs.
>>> You'd size your operation based on the power you had available and how
>>> much steel you need.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wrong again. you skipped over the part where you get ore from dirt, how
>> much energy is that ?
>
>It actually takes 10-19 MW to turn iron ore into steel, not counting
>the energy required to dig out, transport, and crush the ore.
>
Nope. National averages run around 5.5 MW-hr per tonne.
>
>http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/what-is-the-embodied-energy-of-materials.html
>
Note that your numbers don't even match those of your source.
>
>> AND you skipped over the fact that the steel making facility is built
>> and operated in a vacuum, add in those costs in terms of energy, and
>> cleaning the air inside from fumes, that cost.
>
>Making steel requires a lot of oxygen.
>
Yes, it does. So?
--
"Der Feige droht nur, wo er sicher ist."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 09:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu2lu9$99g$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #601071 |
On 10/16/2016 12:17 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > You know, Chimp, you're an intellectual coward. If you want to reply > to me, REPLY TO ME, not to some troll quoting me. > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On 10/15/2016 5:34 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> So how much to put about 25 of these on Mars so you can convert dirt >>>>> to structural steel? >>>>> >>>> Why in the hell would you need 32 MW of power to make steel? Total >>>> power required to make a ton of steel from ore is around 5 MW-hrs. >>>> You'd size your operation based on the power you had available and how >>>> much steel you need. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Wrong again. you skipped over the part where you get ore from dirt, how >>> much energy is that ? >> >> It actually takes 10-19 MW to turn iron ore into steel, not counting >> the energy required to dig out, transport, and crush the ore. >> > > Nope. National averages run around 5.5 MW-hr per tonne. Wrong. >> >> Making steel requires a lot of oxygen. >> > > Yes, it does. So? Mars does not have any O2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web