Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #567701 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-03 12:52 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-04-12 18:24 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 253 — 15 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.
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-04-03 12:52 -0400
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-03 17:07 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-04 15:20 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 18:35 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-04 12:14 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 12:58 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Jack Ryan <mixmaster@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2016-04-05 03:50 -0400
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-05 18:20 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 16:14 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-05 18:47 -0500
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 00:00 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-07 06:10 -0400
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 18:51 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-08 14:23 -0500
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 13:25 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-09 09:57 -0500
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 10:20 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 00:28 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-04-05 22:14 -0400
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 03:38 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 00:07 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-07 06:24 -0400
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 19:03 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-04-05 19:53 -0600
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 03:42 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-04-05 23:06 -0600
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 18:05 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 12:34 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-07 19:18 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 13:04 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-07 21:07 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 00:03 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-08 17:50 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 13:03 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-08 21:47 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 21:24 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-09 13:55 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-09 10:08 -0500
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 08:51 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 18:07 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 12:49 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 20:16 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 19:07 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 06:16 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 06:46 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:23 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 15:19 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 22:49 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 20:02 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 04:05 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 01:41 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:18 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:20 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-10 12:06 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 06:57 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-10 14:17 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 08:26 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-10 16:40 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 15:38 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-11 19:06 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:50 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 20:02 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 17:16 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:54 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 17:18 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 20:26 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 14:46 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:52 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 21:25 -0400
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 23:49 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:24 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 13:10 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 22:40 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 21:55 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 06:11 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 07:49 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 18:21 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 12:57 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 20:29 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 19:30 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-04-09 00:01 -0600
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-04-09 09:21 +0100
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 18:24 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-09 15:49 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 09:01 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 14:22 -0400
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 18:26 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 10:45 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 19:08 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:22 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 20:41 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 19:50 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-06 17:39 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 18:08 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 12:36 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 19:06 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 12:59 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 20:28 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 23:52 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:26 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 13:14 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 22:42 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 21:57 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 06:14 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 07:52 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-09 10:09 -0500
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 18:31 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:00 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 20:34 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 19:42 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-07 15:55 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 19:14 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-09 14:54 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 18:36 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:00 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 20:36 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 19:44 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 06:19 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 06:47 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-04-09 18:17 -0600
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 00:37 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-10 16:50 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:13 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-11 16:41 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:21 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-12 15:48 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 17:21 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-05 17:42 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-05 18:32 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:09 -0400
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-05 18:54 -0500
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-04-05 19:57 -0600
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-06 17:56 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 18:35 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 15:43 -0400
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 20:08 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 16:35 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 23:49 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 19:28 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 03:51 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 22:06 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 06:17 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 12:32 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 20:33 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 00:01 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:32 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 13:16 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 22:52 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 21:59 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 06:18 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 07:57 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 18:45 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:05 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 20:54 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 20:01 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:42 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 16:12 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 01:10 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 20:22 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 06:09 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:36 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:26 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:24 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 17:24 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 04:43 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 12:51 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 22:06 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 17:11 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 04:30 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 23:31 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 19:56 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 14:16 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:34 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 01:06 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:48 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 13:18 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 22:59 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 22:00 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 06:19 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 08:00 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 18:49 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:05 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 20:57 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 20:05 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:44 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 16:14 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 01:12 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 20:23 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 06:14 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:38 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:29 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:25 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 17:26 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-08 20:29 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 23:05 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 04:42 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-07 16:20 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 20:09 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 14:26 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:43 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 01:22 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:51 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 13:19 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 23:12 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 05:49 -0400
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 06:26 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 08:05 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 18:54 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:10 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 21:03 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 20:11 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 06:23 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 06:50 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:49 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 16:16 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 01:14 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 20:26 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 06:16 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:40 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:30 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:27 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 17:27 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 06:55 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:59 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-07 21:40 -0500
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-09 15:29 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 19:02 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:20 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 21:14 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 20:20 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:07 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 17:37 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 01:29 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 20:44 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 06:35 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:11 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:05 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:51 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:08 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-10 17:22 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:56 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 17:44 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 01:30 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 20:46 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 05:21 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 01:43 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-11 16:48 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-04-11 18:52 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:08 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-12 15:53 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:23 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:12 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:24 +0000
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 07:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g8dngb9kjetmmage34js5hkvfv1ag95pjc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569677 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, a true colony is totally different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It has families and kids and people growing old and living their entire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>life there, generation after generation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Here is a very small list of things a real colony needs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip silly list>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You mean all the silly things needed for babies and the elderly?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean all the shit that every other colony on Earth has managed to do
>>>>>>>>>>>> without.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Except they didn't do without them, they made them from local resources
>>>>>>>>>>>like trees.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except they didn't, now did they? They simply did without them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, they did not do without them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>They started making those things after the shelter was built, the well
>>>>>>>>>dug, and the crops planted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You really don't know shit about any of this, do you? No, they didn't
>>>>>>>> do that at all. Most of the things on your list are MODERN
>>>>>>>> CONVENIENCES that people simply did without in the 15th Century.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>First, colonization didn't take off until late in the 16th Century and
>>>>>>>mothers were putting diapers on babies long before that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So much for all that Spanish work with all that ROI you were touting
>>>>>> before. Now it never happened. And those diapers were called
>>>>>> 'cloth'. Most colonies didn't make the stuff themselves for a long
>>>>>> time but shipped it in, instead.
>>>>>
>>>>>In the early years the Spanish were busy with looting and plundering
>>>>>as I said before.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We've all learned by now that you saying things doesn't make them so.
>>>> You saying them multiple times seems to make them even less likely to
>>>> be so.
>>>
>>>You have learned nothing.
>>>
>>
>> I've learned you're a lying obstructionist twat and that seems to
>> cover the subject of Jimp the Chimp.
>>
>
>And I've learned you are a starry eyed, delusional space cadet with
>no respect for anyone with a viewpoint that conflicts with your
>beliefs.
>
If you want respect, act more mature than a two year old. Again we
see the 'chimps don't smell their own' problem...
>>>>>
>>>>>There were a lot of spinning wheels and looms in the colonies. Vist
>>>>>a museum.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lots of imported parts. Visit a lavatory.
>>>
>>>There were made of wood, space cadet fool.
>>>
>>
>> There were a whole complex supply chain, chimpshit.
>
>Not for the subject at hand, spittle dribbling space cadet.
>
The "subject at hand" is colonies and how all that stuff worked. Go
learn something, chimpshit.
>>>>>What was imported was the high end stuff like linen and silk.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go read up on colonial trade and mercantilism. A lot of it is written
>>>> for grade school kids, so it shouldn't be too far beyond you. It will
>>>> teach you that your preceding statement is simply wrong. In point of
>>>> fact, it was frequently illegal to buy 'locally produced' things even
>>>> if they COULD be locally produced. This is how the folks in Britain
>>>> running the colonial effort got their ROI.
>>>>
>>>> http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/market_to_market/pages/mercantilism_imports_and_e.htm
>>>
>>>So English law applied to all colonies in North and South America, space
>>>cadet fool?
>>>
>>
>> Certainly to practically every successful colony in North America.
>> Before you wanted to discount South America as 'not counting'. NOW
>> you want to dredge it up?
>>
>
>Right, try to change the subject when backed into a corner, space cadet.
>
Yes, that is precisely what you do. Spain and South America "don't
count as colonies" until you want them to. Your thinking is very
'conveeeeenient', chimpshit.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So we've never colonized anywhere on Earth, since no colony ever had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of the items on your silly list?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure they did, all the way back to the first settlers on the American
>>>>>>>>>>>>>continent. All of them can be made with 17th Century technology in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a place that has trees and can grow cotton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But they didn't have any of the shite on your silly list.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Sure they did, just not made of plastic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or made at all. Do you know ANYTHING?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Apparently a lot more than you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Have you ever been to a museum?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you ever looked at the dates on things?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Diapers go back to antiquity as do most of the things on the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Horseshit. Those 'diapers' were just pieces of cloth or hide. So
>>>>>> colonies need CLOTH. Most colonies didn't produce cloth for a long
>>>>>> time after they were started. It was shipped in, instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Gee a light just went on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You'll flicker back out almost immediately, if history is any guide.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, I agree you aren't too bright.
>>>
>>
>> Coming from someone who is usually completely dark, I consider that a
>> compliment.
>>
>
>Not enought spittle on the last insult; try again space cadet.
>
That's not an insult. It's an observation. You rarely flicker dimly
and the rest of the time you're completely in the dark.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Spinning wheels and looms were common items in the colonial period, as
>>>>>can be seen in most museums.
>>>>>
>>>>>What was shipped in was the high end stuff like linen and silk.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>>What an amazinhly complete review of facts and analysis, space cadet fool.
>>>
>>
>> Why bother when presenting facts and analysis to you provides you with
>> no illumination at all?
>
>Were you taught these evasion tactics at Space Cadet Academy?
>
Were you taught these evasion tactics in the zoo?
>>>
>>>So no factual response, space cadet?
>>>
>>
>> Already given elsewhere, dipshit. Even clothing for all the slaves
>> was imported and not locally produced.
>
>The slaves that had to make that stuff would take issue with that,
>space cadet.
>
Why don't you go ask them? Meanwhile, historical records say you're
full of shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The most technologically advanced item on the list waa hearing aids,
>>>>>>>>>>>which in colonial times was the ear trumpet, invented in the 17th
>>>>>>>>>>>Century.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So it was invented a couple of centuries AFTER a lot of
>>>>>>>>>> colonization...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The 17th Century was the 1600's, i.e. very early in colonization.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The 16th Century was mostly exploration, mapping, and plundering the
>>>>>>>>>idiginous poplulations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The first permanent European colony in North America wasn't until 1565.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what continent do you consider the Caribbean to be in? How about
>>>>>>>> South and Central America?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What about them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Answer the question, yammerhead. Which continent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Southern regions were mostly Spanish who were more interested in
>>>>>>>plunder than colonization.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit. The first thing Columbus did was start a colony (which
>>>>>> failed). Second trip, he tried again. Third trip was prisoners as
>>>>>> colonists. Fourth trip failed entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>>Spain, fool, Spain. Looting and plundering.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Columbus, Spain, colonies, chimp, see above.
>>>
>>>Columbus did not by any stretch of the imagination represent all Spain
>>>did, space cadet fool.
>>>
>>
>> So examples don't count, either, chimpshit?
>
>
>Valid ones due in a total context, space cadet.
>
Yeah, with Jimp the Chimp deciding what is 'valid'. How conVEEENient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>However 17th century politics has little to do when mothers started
>>>>>>>putting diapers on babies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean wrapping cloth around them? Not 'diapers' as diapers at all.
>>>>>> Just pieces of cloth. Which most colonies didn't make.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes cloth locally produced on spinning wheels and looms as can be seen
>>>>>in museums.
>>>>>
>>>>>Most of what was imported was high end stuff like linen and silk.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The more you repeat it the more obvious it is it's bullshit.
>>>
>>>The more you ignore it the more obvious your position is hopeless, space
>>>cadet fool.
>>>
>>
>> Who's ignoring it? You're a liar and it's wrong.
>
>
>Fuck off and die, space cadet.
>
Come make me, cowardly chimpshit.
>>>> Cotton, flannel, jersey fabric. All imported from Britain.
>>>
>>>So what were the women doing with all those spinning wheels and looms,
>>>space cadet fool?
>>>
>>
>> Not all that much, apparently. Read the cite, chimpshit.
>
>So the spinning wheels and looms were what, hat racks for importe hats,
>space cadet?
>
Read the cite, chimpshit.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tr6ttc-ji3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569700 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: <snip> >>And I've learned you are a starry eyed, delusional space cadet with >>no respect for anyone with a viewpoint that conflicts with your >>beliefs. >> > > If you want respect, act more mature than a two year old. Again we > see the 'chimps don't smell their own' problem... And if you want respect you might stop you habit of gratuitous insults EVERY TIME someone disagrees with you like your insults of the guy from the chemical industry attempting to educate you to the facts of the industry. <snip> >>So the spinning wheels and looms were what, hat racks for importe hats, >>space cadet? >> > > Read the cite, chimpshit. Where is your cite on spinning wheels and looms, space cadet? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 19:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ormogbhuhjnm26ddfkpcs7brnb6hhjqgnp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569767 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>And I've learned you are a starry eyed, delusional space cadet with
>>>no respect for anyone with a viewpoint that conflicts with your
>>>beliefs.
>>>
>>
>> If you want respect, act more mature than a two year old. Again we
>> see the 'chimps don't smell their own' problem...
>
>And if you want respect you might stop you habit of gratuitous insults
>EVERY TIME someone disagrees with you like your insults of the guy from
>the chemical industry attempting to educate you to the facts of the
>industry.
>
You mean the sarcastic guy who was unable to understand that
industries swap materials and capital and labour around depending on
local relative prices?
Hint: I don't need someone to tell me things I've known for 40+ years.
He does need someone to tell him things he's apparently never known
and appears unable to wrap his head around when explained.
>
><snip>
>
>>>So the spinning wheels and looms were what, hat racks for importe hats,
>>>space cadet?
>>>
>>
>> Read the cite, chimpshit.
>
>Where is your cite on spinning wheels and looms, space cadet?
>
Where is yours, chimpshit? You're the one who keeps bringing them up.
I'm talking about IMPORTS, so that's what my cites are about.
Trot out your cite that shows how spinning wheels and looms met the
textile and clothing requirements of the entire population, chimp.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 17:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njnvtc-24f.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569850 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>And I've learned you are a starry eyed, delusional space cadet with >>>>no respect for anyone with a viewpoint that conflicts with your >>>>beliefs. >>>> >>> >>> If you want respect, act more mature than a two year old. Again we >>> see the 'chimps don't smell their own' problem... >> >>And if you want respect you might stop you habit of gratuitous insults >>EVERY TIME someone disagrees with you like your insults of the guy from >>the chemical industry attempting to educate you to the facts of the >>industry. >> > > You mean the sarcastic guy who was unable to understand that > industries swap materials and capital and labour around depending on > local relative prices? No, I meant the polite guy who did not use ad hominem attacks, actually worked in an industy, and attempted to tell you how the industry actually works. > Hint: I don't need someone to tell me things I've known for 40+ years. > He does need someone to tell him things he's apparently never known > and appears unable to wrap his head around when explained. You apparently don't need anyone to tell you anything. >> >><snip> >> >>>>So the spinning wheels and looms were what, hat racks for importe hats, >>>>space cadet? >>>> >>> >>> Read the cite, chimpshit. >> >>Where is your cite on spinning wheels and looms, space cadet? >> > > Where is yours, chimpshit? You're the one who keeps bringing them up. > I'm talking about IMPORTS, so that's what my cites are about. > > Trot out your cite that shows how spinning wheels and looms met the > textile and clothing requirements of the entire population, chimp. I never said they did, space cadet, what I said was people could survive without imports. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 04:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ebed5f5-17fb-4759-9281-0d5fe66cda5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568386 |
BJ quacked jimp, everyone here believes Star Trek technology is real! ------------- Good job getting out in front of my ragging on your star treck beliefs. (Here Harlow holds up his hand, splits his fingers and says, "Live long and be prosperous")
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 12:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pdpagbpiq6jbpogg5g0hmkufo1phmpv90h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568347 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
>you?
>
You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock,
don't you?
>
>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.
>
This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you
didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins.
>
>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.
>
Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial
colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard.
>
>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>required to survive and do anything.
>
You need to be able to dig a hole.
>
>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
>them come from petroleum, so no plastics.
>
Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but
not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined
all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them.
Let me get you started:
http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/plastics.html
--
"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 | 2016-04-06 22:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <urdgtc-k7k.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568373 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement >>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't >>you? >> > > You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock, > don't you? Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone. >>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to >>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it. >> > > This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you > didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins. That is both childish and stupid. Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred miles on Mars and what would power that transport? >>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary >>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor. >> > > Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial > colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard. Really, where do you propose to get that power? Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2. Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in "The Martian". >>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into >>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings >>required to survive and do anything. >> > > You need to be able to dig a hole. Dig it with what and then what do you do with it? Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces at huge expense? >>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of >>them come from petroleum, so no plastics. >> > > Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but > not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined > all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them. No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be doing it or paying for it. The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rb7bgb97441198d76rommcgaru7tlci0og@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568411 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
>>>you?
>>>
>>
>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock,
>> don't you?
>
>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making
>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone.
>
You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested
the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and
they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the
calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of
limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with
calcium in them.
>
>>
>>>
>>>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
>>>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.
>>>
>>
>> This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you
>> didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins.
>>
>
>That is both childish and stupid.
>
Oh, look whose talking, Mr "They all believe Star Trek science and
economics are real" who does nothing but wave hands and make strawman
arguments.
>
>Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred
>miles on Mars and what would power that transport?
>
Truck. Hydrogen works. Yes, you have to plan on needing the truck.
You could crush and smelt to rough ingots (solar furnace works for
that) to lower the volume you need to drag to your factory.
Yes, that's not how we do it here on Earth, but we're not talking
about here on Earth anymore.
>
>>
>>>
>>>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
>>>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.
>>>
>>
>> Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial
>> colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard.
>>
>
>Really, where do you propose to get that power?
>
The same place all power comes from; the Sun. Crack water to get
hydrogen if you need a portable power source, take a bunch of small
reactors, RTGs, or whatever with you (along with a couple of big
reactors to get you started).
Go read the Mars Reference Mission, Chimp.
>
>Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface
>of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2.
>
Check your math. Your number is wrong.
>
>Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there
>is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in
>"The Martian".
>
Wrong again. Once again, please educate yourself on the issues before
flapping your arms and squawking. Again, let me help.
http://www.marspapers.org/papers/MAR98058.pdf
>
>>
>>>
>>>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
>>>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>>>required to survive and do anything.
>>>
>>
>> You need to be able to dig a hole.
>>
>
>Dig it with what and then what do you do with it?
>
Dig it with tools (they're this marvelous thing we've invented since
you looked at colonization of anywhere) and then seal it up and live
in it.
>
>Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces
>at huge expense?
>
Or instead you can pull your head out of your ass and seal it with
locally produced plastics. What you suggest will probably be how a
base would do it initially, but again this is a problem people have
thought about. You need to study up.
>
>>
>>>
>>>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
>>>them come from petroleum, so no plastics.
>>>
>>
>> Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but
>> not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined
>> all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them.
>>
>
>No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be
>doing it or paying for it.
>
Chimp, better people than you have thought about all the problems you
raise as things that are 'impossible' and it turns out they're just
not that hard if you plan for them.
>
>The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do
>something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including
>gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive.
>
Initially getting to North America was "horrendously expensive", too.
Just look at what those expeditions cost and adjust them for
inflation.
You keep arguing how things "aren't possible". If you want to argue
that it's not worth the money, that's a different issue.
--
"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 | 2016-04-07 04:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4c4htc-gem.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568437 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement >>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't >>>>you? >>>> >>> >>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock, >>> don't you? >> >>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making >>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone. >> > > You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested > the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and > they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the > calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of > limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with > calcium in them. Are there extensive calcium deposits on the Moon? >>>>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to >>>>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it. >>>> >>> >>> This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you >>> didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins. >>> >> >>That is both childish and stupid. >> > > Oh, look whose talking, Mr "They all believe Star Trek science and > economics are real" who does nothing but wave hands and make strawman > arguments. Like pointing out facts? >>Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred >>miles on Mars and what would power that transport? >> > > Truck. Hydrogen works. Yes, you have to plan on needing the truck. > You could crush and smelt to rough ingots (solar furnace works for > that) to lower the volume you need to drag to your factory. Where do you get the hydrogen and what do you do with it then? > Yes, that's not how we do it here on Earth, but we're not talking > about here on Earth anymore. Right, we are talking about a place with zero infrastructure, a thin atmosphere that is 95% CO2, and easily obtainable source of either oxygen or water. >>>>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary >>>>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor. >>>> >>> >>> Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial >>> colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard. >>> >> >>Really, where do you propose to get that power? >> > > The same place all power comes from; the Sun. Crack water to get > hydrogen if you need a portable power source, take a bunch of small > reactors, RTGs, or whatever with you (along with a couple of big > reactors to get you started). With a solar irradiance of less than 100 W/m^2 you are going to get very little power from solar sources unless your array is measured in kilometers. There is no known readily available source of water to crack. If you get the water somehow, you need to store both the hydrogen and the oxygen. Sure, all of this is theoretically posible. The current cost to build a reactor on Earth is about $9 billion. So what is the total cost to haul a reactor in pieces along with all the needed to put it together on Mars? What is the tranportation cost for the kilometers of solar panels? What is the tranportation cost for the machinery to dig out the ice we THINK is buried beneath the surface? What is the tranportation cost for the machinery crack water? The point is that all this crap is just too expensive for it to ever happen. > Go read the Mars Reference Mission, Chimp. Which is to establish a research station, not a colony. >> >>Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface >>of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2. >> > > Check your math. Your number is wrong. Not my math, The Univerity of Colorado's math. That was an average number adjusting for the presence of haze in the atmosphere. >> >>Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there >>is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in >>"The Martian". >> > > Wrong again. Once again, please educate yourself on the issues before > flapping your arms and squawking. Again, let me help. > > http://www.marspapers.org/papers/MAR98058.pdf It appears that this paper pretty much agrees with what I said. >>>>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into >>>>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings >>>>required to survive and do anything. >>>> >>> >>> You need to be able to dig a hole. >>> >> >>Dig it with what and then what do you do with it? >> > > Dig it with tools (they're this marvelous thing we've invented since > you looked at colonization of anywhere) and then seal it up and live > in it. How much to transport all those tools to Mars? Where do you get stuff to seal it unless you send it from Earth and what does that cost? >> >>Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces >>at huge expense? >> > > Or instead you can pull your head out of your ass and seal it with > locally produced plastics. What you suggest will probably be how a > base would do it initially, but again this is a problem people have > thought about. You need to study up. Again, you would need massive infrastructure already in place to make plastic on Mars. >>>> >>>>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of >>>>them come from petroleum, so no plastics. >>>> >>> >>> Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but >>> not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined >>> all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them. >>> >> >>No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be >>doing it or paying for it. >> > > Chimp, better people than you have thought about all the problems you > raise as things that are 'impossible' and it turns out they're just > not that hard if you plan for them. I never said anything about hard, I am talking about the cost. Again, the cost for all this pie in the sky is so horrendous it will never happen. >> >>The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do >>something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including >>gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive. >> > > Initially getting to North America was "horrendously expensive", too. > Just look at what those expeditions cost and adjust them for > inflation. And most of them were done at a profit from all the stuff the expeditions returned. There is nothing on Mars that is anywhere near the value of the transportation costs. > You keep arguing how things "aren't possible". If you want to argue > that it's not worth the money, that's a different issue. I have never said "aren't possible", that is the voices in your head. What I have said over and over again is that the cost of a colony on Mars is so horrendously expensive with zero economic return it will never happen absent the invention of techology that reduces the costs many orders of magnitude. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 23:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0qqbgb9dh2t2n6upd0c0dodc3luin9s8e0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568468 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
>>>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
>>>>>you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock,
>>>> don't you?
>>>
>>>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making
>>>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone.
>>>
>>
>> You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested
>> the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and
>> they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the
>> calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of
>> limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with
>> calcium in them.
>
>Are there extensive calcium deposits on the Moon?
>
Extensive enough. Is Google broken on your machine or what?
http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol3/lunacem1.htm
>>>>>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
>>>>>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you
>>>> didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is both childish and stupid.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, look whose talking, Mr "They all believe Star Trek science and
>> economics are real" who does nothing but wave hands and make strawman
>> arguments.
>>
>
>Like pointing out facts?
>
You have yet to point out any 'facts'. I've posted links to papers
and studies that explode any number of the falsehoods that seem to be
your stock in trade, though.
>>>Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred
>>>miles on Mars and what would power that transport?
>>>
>>
>> Truck. Hydrogen works. Yes, you have to plan on needing the truck.
>> You could crush and smelt to rough ingots (solar furnace works for
>> that) to lower the volume you need to drag to your factory.
>
>Where do you get the hydrogen and what do you do with it then?
>
I posted a link to a paper about this. Perhaps you should bother to
actually read things people point you to instead of insisting on
remaining ignorant?
Let's try again. READ IT THIS TIME, YAMMERHEAD!
http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/plastics.html
>> Yes, that's not how we do it here on Earth, but we're not talking
>> about here on Earth anymore.
>
>Right, we are talking about a place with zero infrastructure, a thin
>atmosphere that is 95% CO2, and easily obtainable source of either
>oxygen or water.
>
You really haven't kept up, have you? Turns out there's all sorts of
available water on Mars and there's even adequate amounts on the Moon.
That's why we send those probe things, you know.
>
>>>>>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
>>>>>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial
>>>> colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Really, where do you propose to get that power?
>>>
>>
>> The same place all power comes from; the Sun. Crack water to get
>> hydrogen if you need a portable power source, take a bunch of small
>> reactors, RTGs, or whatever with you (along with a couple of big
>> reactors to get you started).
>
>With a solar irradiance of less than 100 W/m^2 you are going to get
>very little power from solar sources unless your array is measured
>in kilometers.
>
Your number is low. Did you read the paper on power on Mars that I
pointed you to? Or did you just dishonestly delete the link?
>
>There is no known readily available source of water to crack.
>
Of course there is. Pull your head out of your ass and update your
knowledge.
>
>If you get the water somehow, you need to store both the hydrogen
>and the oxygen.
>
Well, gee, no shit! You know, we sort of know how to do that.
>
>Sure, all of this is theoretically posible.
>
>The current cost to build a reactor on Earth is about $9 billion.
>
You're talking about a multi-hundred megawatt power reactor that we'd
never build on Mars. A big chunk of that cost is environmental
studies and other bureaucratic bullshit that won't need to take place
on Mars.
>
>So what is the total cost to haul a reactor in pieces along with all
>the needed to put it together on Mars?
>
Why haul it in pieces? Again, we're not talking about the sort of
power reactor we build here on Earth.
>
>What is the tranportation cost for the kilometers of solar panels?
>
In situ resource.
>
>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery to dig out the ice
>we THINK is buried beneath the surface?
>
You 'think'. The rest of us are more current and 'know', because that
free flowing water NASA probes have found evidence of has to come from
somewhere and I'm pretty sure little green men aren't shipping the
stuff in.
>
>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery crack water?
>
>The point is that all this crap is just too expensive for it to ever
>happen.
>
Well, nobody is going to throw a dart at a map of Mars and drop
Pittsburgh somewhere, true enough. Again (I don't know why I'm
bothering; you won't listen), you might want to read up on exploration
and colonization back in the 15th century or so and adjust the costs
by 600 years of inflation.
>
>> Go read the Mars Reference Mission, Chimp.
>
>Which is to establish a research station, not a colony.
>
Everything starts somewhere, Chimp. If you're waiting for us to be
able to drop Pittsburgh on Mars, you should just toddle back to your
Intel 8008-based computer. From the Mars Reference Mission "Goals and
Objectives":
"Goal IV+: Preparation for sustained human presence. MEPAG (2006) uses
the term “Goal IV” to describe preparation for the first human
explorers. By definition, this cannot be a goal for the first human
missions; by then the preparation would have to have been complete.
However, a goal of the first human missions is to prepare for the
subsequent future after that."
In case you don't get it yet, "sustained human presence" is the start
of a colony.
>>>
>>>Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface
>>>of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2.
>>>
>>
>> Check your math. Your number is wrong.
>
>Not my math, The Univerity of Colorado's math.
>
>That was an average number adjusting for the presence of haze in the
>atmosphere.
>
And counting hours of darkness and averaged over latitude, no doubt.
In other words, if you're STUPID that's the number you plan to and put
forward.
>>>
>>>Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there
>>>is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in
>>>"The Martian".
>>>
>>
>> Wrong again. Once again, please educate yourself on the issues before
>> flapping your arms and squawking. Again, let me help.
>>
>> http://www.marspapers.org/papers/MAR98058.pdf
>
>It appears that this paper pretty much agrees with what I said.
>
Then English isn't your first language.
You: Solar power is a non-starter.
Paper: "Solar power is readily available on Mars,..."
You: Wind power is a non-starter.
Paper: "Although the atmospheric density is about 100 times less than
the Earth, Mars has several advantages for successful wind power
applications..."
>>>>>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
>>>>>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>>>>>required to survive and do anything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need to be able to dig a hole.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Dig it with what and then what do you do with it?
>>>
>>
>> Dig it with tools (they're this marvelous thing we've invented since
>> you looked at colonization of anywhere) and then seal it up and live
>> in it.
>
>How much to transport all those tools to Mars?
>
As a percentage of mission cost, not much. And that's not how mission
costing for these things works anyway. You're sending the vehicle.
Cost is opportunity cost. Dollar cost once you are going to launch
the vehicle is irrelevant, since it doesn't cost you much less if you
leave out a few tons of stuff.
>
>Where do you get stuff to seal it unless you send it from Earth and
>what does that cost?
>
Which part of 'in situ plastics' is it that you missed?
>>>
>>>Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces
>>>at huge expense?
>>>
>>
>> Or instead you can pull your head out of your ass and seal it with
>> locally produced plastics. What you suggest will probably be how a
>> base would do it initially, but again this is a problem people have
>> thought about. You need to study up.
>
>Again, you would need massive infrastructure already in place to make
>plastic on Mars.
>
Not as massive as you seem to think, but in any case you build up to
it. First missions you do with inflatables that you bury. Digging
holes and throwing dirt on top of something is pretty low tech stuff.
Each mission brings more stuff and leaves it behind for the next
group. Eventually you're staying full time and you start getting that
critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Nobody sane thinks we're going to
up and put Pittsburgh somewhere on Mars as the first 'colonization'
mission and nobody sane thinks we have to.
>>>>>
>>>>>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
>>>>>them come from petroleum, so no plastics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but
>>>> not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined
>>>> all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be
>>>doing it or paying for it.
>>>
>>
>> Chimp, better people than you have thought about all the problems you
>> raise as things that are 'impossible' and it turns out they're just
>> not that hard if you plan for them.
>
>I never said anything about hard, I am talking about the cost.
>
No, you were talking about solar being impossible and wind being
impossible and everything else being impossible until you got swatted
back on that and NOW you want to raise cost.
>
>Again, the cost for all this pie in the sky is so horrendous it will
>never happen.
>
Good Lord, man, Isabella had to hock her jewels to pay for it! This
whole 'new world' pie in the sky has such horrendous costs that it
will never happen!
>>>
>>>The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do
>>>something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including
>>>gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive.
>>>
>>
>> Initially getting to North America was "horrendously expensive", too.
>> Just look at what those expeditions cost and adjust them for
>> inflation.
>
>And most of them were done at a profit from all the stuff the expeditions
>returned.
>
Go study some more.
>
>There is nothing on Mars that is anywhere near the value of the transportation
>costs.
>
Not the argument you've been trying to make, Chimp.
>> You keep arguing how things "aren't possible". If you want to argue
>> that it's not worth the money, that's a different issue.
>
>I have never said "aren't possible", that is the voices in your head.
>
And there's the Chimp that wonders why he gets bile and insults.
>
>What I have said over and over again is that the cost of a colony on
>Mars is so horrendously expensive with zero economic return it will
>never happen absent the invention of techology that reduces the costs
>many orders of magnitude.
>
Yeah, the New World wasn't worth it for a long time, either.
Trudge back to your cave, Chimp...
--
"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 | 2016-04-07 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3lqitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568486 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement >>>>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't >>>>>>you? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock, >>>>> don't you? >>>> >>>>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making >>>>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone. >>>> >>> >>> You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested >>> the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and >>> they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the >>> calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of >>> limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with >>> calcium in them. >> >>Are there extensive calcium deposits on the Moon? >> > > Extensive enough. Is Google broken on your machine or what? Are there cement factories on the Moon? What would it cost to build a cement factory on the Moon? > > http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol3/lunacem1.htm > >>>>>>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to >>>>>>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you >>>>> didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins. >>>>> >>>> >>>>That is both childish and stupid. >>>> >>> >>> Oh, look whose talking, Mr "They all believe Star Trek science and >>> economics are real" who does nothing but wave hands and make strawman >>> arguments. >>> >> >>Like pointing out facts? >> > > You have yet to point out any 'facts'. I've posted links to papers > and studies that explode any number of the falsehoods that seem to be > your stock in trade, though. > >>>>Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred >>>>miles on Mars and what would power that transport? >>>> >>> >>> Truck. Hydrogen works. Yes, you have to plan on needing the truck. >>> You could crush and smelt to rough ingots (solar furnace works for >>> that) to lower the volume you need to drag to your factory. >> >>Where do you get the hydrogen and what do you do with it then? >> > > I posted a link to a paper about this. Perhaps you should bother to > actually read things people point you to instead of insisting on > remaining ignorant? Unable to give a simple answer and prefer to be insulting? > Let's try again. READ IT THIS TIME, YAMMERHEAD! > > http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/plastics.html > >>> Yes, that's not how we do it here on Earth, but we're not talking >>> about here on Earth anymore. >> >>Right, we are talking about a place with zero infrastructure, a thin >>atmosphere that is 95% CO2, and easily obtainable source of either >>oxygen or water. >> > > You really haven't kept up, have you? Turns out there's all sorts of > available water on Mars and there's even adequate amounts on the Moon. > That's why we send those probe things, you know. Is there a water plant on the Moon or Mars? How much would it cost to build a water plant on the Moon or Mars? >>>>>>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary >>>>>>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial >>>>> colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Really, where do you propose to get that power? >>>> >>> >>> The same place all power comes from; the Sun. Crack water to get >>> hydrogen if you need a portable power source, take a bunch of small >>> reactors, RTGs, or whatever with you (along with a couple of big >>> reactors to get you started). >> >>With a solar irradiance of less than 100 W/m^2 you are going to get >>very little power from solar sources unless your array is measured >>in kilometers. >> > > Your number is low. Did you read the paper on power on Mars that I > pointed you to? Or did you just dishonestly delete the link? I read several articles on the available irradiance on the surface of Mars, all with wildly varying numbers from less than 100 W/m^2 average to as much as 500 W/m^2 average. The 100 W/m^2 number came from a paper taking great care to include atmospheric diffusion. >> >>There is no known readily available source of water to crack. >> > > Of course there is. Pull your head out of your ass and update your > knowledge. So you are saying there is a water plant on Mars all ready to go? Or would water plants have to be first built and at what cost? >> >>If you get the water somehow, you need to store both the hydrogen >>and the oxygen. >> > > Well, gee, no shit! You know, we sort of know how to do that. So what does it cost to build the water plant, the oxygen/hydrogen generation plant, and the power source for all of it? What does it cost to ship oxygen and hydrogen tanks to Mars? >> >>Sure, all of this is theoretically posible. >> >>The current cost to build a reactor on Earth is about $9 billion. >> > > You're talking about a multi-hundred megawatt power reactor that we'd > never build on Mars. A big chunk of that cost is environmental > studies and other bureaucratic bullshit that won't need to take place > on Mars. Most all the environmental savings will be offset by the one off cost of designing a reactor that will work on Mars. Also, there is a chicken and egg problem. Massive amounts of water will be required for you oxygen/hydrogen fuel and reactor cooling but you can't get that until you have a reactor. If you are talking about a real colony, then you do need that hundred megawatt reactor. If you are talking about a research station, you don't need any of that expensive infrastructure, you just need resupply. >> >>So what is the total cost to haul a reactor in pieces along with all >>the needed to put it together on Mars? >> > > Why haul it in pieces? Again, we're not talking about the sort of > power reactor we build here on Earth. We are if you are taling about a real colony with families and kids. >> >>What is the tranportation cost for the kilometers of solar panels? >> > > In situ resource. Last I heard the Chinese didn't have any solar panel plants on Mars, so there is yet another thing that would have to be built for a real colony. >> >>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery to dig out the ice >>we THINK is buried beneath the surface? >> > > You 'think'. The rest of us are more current and 'know', because that > free flowing water NASA probes have found evidence of has to come from > somewhere and I'm pretty sure little green men aren't shipping the > stuff in. Good way to ignore the question about the costs and throw in a gratuitous insult. >> >>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery crack water? >> >>The point is that all this crap is just too expensive for it to ever >>happen. >> > > Well, nobody is going to throw a dart at a map of Mars and drop > Pittsburgh somewhere, true enough. Again (I don't know why I'm > bothering; you won't listen), you might want to read up on exploration > and colonization back in the 15th century or so and adjust the costs > by 600 years of inflation. Wrong answer. In the 15th century or so all you had to transport was basic hand tools, seeds, clothes and a few other things. There was no requirement for things like pressure suits, oxygen, water, food and repair parts for high tech equiment just to stay alive for more than a few minutes. >>> Go read the Mars Reference Mission, Chimp. >> >>Which is to establish a research station, not a colony. >> > > Everything starts somewhere, Chimp. If you're waiting for us to be > able to drop Pittsburgh on Mars, you should just toddle back to your > Intel 8008-based computer. From the Mars Reference Mission "Goals and > Objectives": > > "Goal IV+: Preparation for sustained human presence. MEPAG (2006) uses > the term ?Goal IV? to describe preparation for the first human > explorers. By definition, this cannot be a goal for the first human > missions; by then the preparation would have to have been complete. > However, a goal of the first human missions is to prepare for the > subsequent future after that." > > In case you don't get it yet, "sustained human presence" is the start > of a colony. No, it is not. We have had "sustained human presence" in Antartica for a long time, but not a colony. >>>>Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface >>>>of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2. >>>> >>> >>> Check your math. Your number is wrong. >> >>Not my math, The Univerity of Colorado's math. >> >>That was an average number adjusting for the presence of haze in the >>atmosphere. >> > > And counting hours of darkness and averaged over latitude, no doubt. > In other words, if you're STUPID that's the number you plan to and put > forward. Nope, mid latitudes, ass hole. >>>>Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there >>>>is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in >>>>"The Martian". >>>> >>> >>> Wrong again. Once again, please educate yourself on the issues before >>> flapping your arms and squawking. Again, let me help. >>> >>> http://www.marspapers.org/papers/MAR98058.pdf >> >>It appears that this paper pretty much agrees with what I said. >> > > Then English isn't your first language. > > You: Solar power is a non-starter. > Paper: "Solar power is readily available on Mars,..." In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an actual colony. > > You: Wind power is a non-starter. > Paper: "Although the atmospheric density is about 100 times less than > the Earth, Mars has several advantages for successful wind power > applications..." In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an actual colony. >>>>>>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into >>>>>>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings >>>>>>required to survive and do anything. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You need to be able to dig a hole. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Dig it with what and then what do you do with it? >>>> >>> >>> Dig it with tools (they're this marvelous thing we've invented since >>> you looked at colonization of anywhere) and then seal it up and live >>> in it. >> >>How much to transport all those tools to Mars? >> > > As a percentage of mission cost, not much. And that's not how mission > costing for these things works anyway. You're sending the vehicle. > Cost is opportunity cost. Dollar cost once you are going to launch > the vehicle is irrelevant, since it doesn't cost you much less if you > leave out a few tons of stuff. Dollar cost is always relevant as someone has to come up with the dollars. Given a transport of some fixed size, the cost of transport is in how much fuel is required per pound to get the cargo somewhere. >> >>Where do you get stuff to seal it unless you send it from Earth and >>what does that cost? >> > > Which part of 'in situ plastics' is it that you missed? Which part of there are no plastic plants on Mars or the Moon have you missed? >>>> >>>>Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces >>>>at huge expense? >>>> >>> >>> Or instead you can pull your head out of your ass and seal it with >>> locally produced plastics. What you suggest will probably be how a >>> base would do it initially, but again this is a problem people have >>> thought about. You need to study up. >> >>Again, you would need massive infrastructure already in place to make >>plastic on Mars. >> > > Not as massive as you seem to think, but in any case you build up to > it. First missions you do with inflatables that you bury. Digging > holes and throwing dirt on top of something is pretty low tech stuff. > Each mission brings more stuff and leaves it behind for the next > group. Eventually you're staying full time and you start getting that > critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Nobody sane thinks we're going to > up and put Pittsburgh somewhere on Mars as the first 'colonization' > mission and nobody sane thinks we have to. The needs of a research station and a colony with families and kids are so horrendously different that you will never, even slowly, get to that critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Resupply would be far cheaper. >>>>>>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of >>>>>>them come from petroleum, so no plastics. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but >>>>> not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined >>>>> all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them. >>>>> >>>> >>>>No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be >>>>doing it or paying for it. >>>> >>> >>> Chimp, better people than you have thought about all the problems you >>> raise as things that are 'impossible' and it turns out they're just >>> not that hard if you plan for them. >> >>I never said anything about hard, I am talking about the cost. >> > > No, you were talking about solar being impossible and wind being > impossible and everything else being impossible until you got swatted > back on that and NOW you want to raise cost. You are listening to the voices in your head again. I never said ANYTHING was impossible, I said it was so horrendously expensive no one will be willing to pay for it. >> >>Again, the cost for all this pie in the sky is so horrendous it will >>never happen. >> > > Good Lord, man, Isabella had to hock her jewels to pay for it! This > whole 'new world' pie in the sky has such horrendous costs that it > will never happen! And Isabella got a huge return on her investment. There is no conceivable ROI for going to the Moon or Mars. >>>>The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do >>>>something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including >>>>gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive. >>>> >>> >>> Initially getting to North America was "horrendously expensive", too. >>> Just look at what those expeditions cost and adjust them for >>> inflation. >> >>And most of them were done at a profit from all the stuff the expeditions >>returned. >> > > Go study some more. Lke your example of Isabella which resulted in enormous wealth for Spain? >> >>There is nothing on Mars that is anywhere near the value of the transportation >>costs. >> > > Not the argument you've been trying to make, Chimp. Nope, not the arguement I am making but my response to why anyone would attempt to establish a real colony off the Earth. >>> You keep arguing how things "aren't possible". If you want to argue >>> that it's not worth the money, that's a different issue. >> >>I have never said "aren't possible", that is the voices in your head. >> > > And there's the Chimp that wonders why he gets bile and insults. You mean because you keep saying I said things I never said? >> >>What I have said over and over again is that the cost of a colony on >>Mars is so horrendously expensive with zero economic return it will >>never happen absent the invention of techology that reduces the costs >>many orders of magnitude. >> > > Yeah, the New World wasn't worth it for a long time, either. Right, it took a year or two from the time Columbus sailed until Isabella started seeing profits. > Trudge back to your cave, Chimp... Go back to your space cadet movies, dreamer. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 14:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1hdgbt7ctao531hqh9njvs1jvqbmu5kcj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568664 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
>>>>>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
>>>>>>>you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock,
>>>>>> don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making
>>>>>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested
>>>> the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and
>>>> they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the
>>>> calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of
>>>> limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with
>>>> calcium in them.
>>>
>>>Are there extensive calcium deposits on the Moon?
>>>
>>
>> Extensive enough. Is Google broken on your machine or what?
>
>Are there cement factories on the Moon?
>
So colonization is impossible unless Pittsburgh already exists on
Mars?
>
>What would it cost to build a cement factory on the Moon?
>
A lot less than you apparently think. You don't need a huge factory
right off, after all. The Macedonians and Romans made and used
cement, after all.
>>
>> http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol3/lunacem1.htm
>>
>>>>>>>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
>>>>>>>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you
>>>>>> didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That is both childish and stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, look whose talking, Mr "They all believe Star Trek science and
>>>> economics are real" who does nothing but wave hands and make strawman
>>>> arguments.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Like pointing out facts?
>>>
>>
>> You have yet to point out any 'facts'. I've posted links to papers
>> and studies that explode any number of the falsehoods that seem to be
>> your stock in trade, though.
>>
>>>>>Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred
>>>>>miles on Mars and what would power that transport?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Truck. Hydrogen works. Yes, you have to plan on needing the truck.
>>>> You could crush and smelt to rough ingots (solar furnace works for
>>>> that) to lower the volume you need to drag to your factory.
>>>
>>>Where do you get the hydrogen and what do you do with it then?
>>>
>>
>> I posted a link to a paper about this. Perhaps you should bother to
>> actually read things people point you to instead of insisting on
>> remaining ignorant?
>
>Unable to give a simple answer and prefer to be insulting?
>
Unable to read a cite and prefer to remain an ignorant shite?
>> Let's try again. READ IT THIS TIME, YAMMERHEAD!
>>
>> http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/plastics.html
>>
>>>> Yes, that's not how we do it here on Earth, but we're not talking
>>>> about here on Earth anymore.
>>>
>>>Right, we are talking about a place with zero infrastructure, a thin
>>>atmosphere that is 95% CO2, and easily obtainable source of either
>>>oxygen or water.
>>>
>>
>> You really haven't kept up, have you? Turns out there's all sorts of
>> available water on Mars and there's even adequate amounts on the Moon.
>> That's why we send those probe things, you know.
>
>Is there a water plant on the Moon or Mars?
>
Again you insist that Pittsburgh must already exist on Mars before
colonization is possible?
>
>How much would it cost to build a water plant on the Moon or Mars?
>
Easy peasy. Lots of free vacuum and power.
>
>>>>>>>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
>>>>>>>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial
>>>>>> colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Really, where do you propose to get that power?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The same place all power comes from; the Sun. Crack water to get
>>>> hydrogen if you need a portable power source, take a bunch of small
>>>> reactors, RTGs, or whatever with you (along with a couple of big
>>>> reactors to get you started).
>>>
>>>With a solar irradiance of less than 100 W/m^2 you are going to get
>>>very little power from solar sources unless your array is measured
>>>in kilometers.
>>>
>>
>> Your number is low. Did you read the paper on power on Mars that I
>> pointed you to? Or did you just dishonestly delete the link?
>
>I read several articles on the available irradiance on the surface
>of Mars, all with wildly varying numbers from less than 100 W/m^2
>average to as much as 500 W/m^2 average. The 100 W/m^2 number came
>from a paper taking great care to include atmospheric diffusion.
>
No, it takes a lot more into account than that to get numbers that
low. Depending on what you take into account (like the day/night
cycle) you get numbers for Earth as low as 250 W/m^2 or so, so I guess
solar power won't work here, either.
>>>
>>>There is no known readily available source of water to crack.
>>>
>>
>> Of course there is. Pull your head out of your ass and update your
>> knowledge.
>
>So you are saying there is a water plant on Mars all ready to go?
>
Still insisting Pittsburgh must have already been dropped on Mars
before colonization is possible?
>
>Or would water plants have to be first built and at what cost?
>
Asked and answered. Water is the EASY part.
>>>
>>>If you get the water somehow, you need to store both the hydrogen
>>>and the oxygen.
>>>
>>
>> Well, gee, no shit! You know, we sort of know how to do that.
>
>So what does it cost to build the water plant, the oxygen/hydrogen
>generation plant, and the power source for all of it?
>
Look it up. All that stuff is included in all those studies you
refuse to look at because they don't describe dropping Pittsburgh on
Mars.
>
>What does it cost to ship oxygen and hydrogen tanks to Mars?
>
Unnecessary. What does it cost to get you to pull your head out of
your ass and actually think?
>>>
>>>Sure, all of this is theoretically posible.
>>>
>>>The current cost to build a reactor on Earth is about $9 billion.
>>>
>>
>> You're talking about a multi-hundred megawatt power reactor that we'd
>> never build on Mars. A big chunk of that cost is environmental
>> studies and other bureaucratic bullshit that won't need to take place
>> on Mars.
>
>Most all the environmental savings will be offset by the one off cost
>of designing a reactor that will work on Mars.
>
You don't just build one, you stupid shit. Incremental growth and all
that.
>
>Also, there is a chicken and egg problem. Massive amounts of water
>will be required for you oxygen/hydrogen fuel and reactor cooling
>but you can't get that until you have a reactor.
>
>If you are talking about a real colony, then you do need that hundred
>megawatt reactor.
>
No, what I need is a bunch of smaller ones that are gradually added.
We're not talking about instantly dropping a few million people on
Mars, after all. Well, perhaps YOU are in order to raise all the
objections you raise.
>
>If you are talking about a research station, you don't need any of
>that expensive infrastructure, you just need resupply.
>
And you're wrong about that, too. Perhaps you should actually READ
some of those studies I pointed you to rather than blindly insisting
they don't apply.
>>>
>>>So what is the total cost to haul a reactor in pieces along with all
>>>the needed to put it together on Mars?
>>>
>>
>> Why haul it in pieces? Again, we're not talking about the sort of
>> power reactor we build here on Earth.
>
>We are if you are taling about a real colony with families and kids.
>
Well, I'll agree that YOU are talking about that, but then you're
apparently not very smart. No one with sense is talking about
instantaneously needing to drop Pittsburgh on Mars.
>>>
>>>What is the tranportation cost for the kilometers of solar panels?
>>>
>>
>> In situ resource.
>
>Last I heard the Chinese didn't have any solar panel plants on Mars,
>so there is yet another thing that would have to be built for a
>real colony.
>
Yes, Chimp, colonies have to BUILD THINGS. Wow, I guess that's
impossible. Again, go read some of those papers I pointed you to.
>
>>>
>>>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery to dig out the ice
>>>we THINK is buried beneath the surface?
>>>
>>
>> You 'think'. The rest of us are more current and 'know', because that
>> free flowing water NASA probes have found evidence of has to come from
>> somewhere and I'm pretty sure little green men aren't shipping the
>> stuff in.
>
>Good way to ignore the question about the costs and throw in a gratuitous
>insult.
>
I 'ignored the question' because it's a stupid question. It's a
stupid question because we KNOW there is water on Mars. It's not a
gratuitous insult when you hop up and down acting like a stupid shit
and begging for it.
>>>
>>>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery crack water?
>>>
>>>The point is that all this crap is just too expensive for it to ever
>>>happen.
>>>
>>
>> Well, nobody is going to throw a dart at a map of Mars and drop
>> Pittsburgh somewhere, true enough. Again (I don't know why I'm
>> bothering; you won't listen), you might want to read up on exploration
>> and colonization back in the 15th century or so and adjust the costs
>> by 600 years of inflation.
>
>Wrong answer.
>
Go run the costs.
>
>In the 15th century or so all you had to transport was basic hand tools,
>seeds, clothes and a few other things.
>
>There was no requirement for things like pressure suits, oxygen, water,
>food and repair parts for high tech equiment just to stay alive for
>more than a few minutes.
>
Irrelevant. That was the high tech stuff of the time.
>
>>>> Go read the Mars Reference Mission, Chimp.
>>>
>>>Which is to establish a research station, not a colony.
>>>
>>
>> Everything starts somewhere, Chimp. If you're waiting for us to be
>> able to drop Pittsburgh on Mars, you should just toddle back to your
>> Intel 8008-based computer. From the Mars Reference Mission "Goals and
>> Objectives":
>>
>> "Goal IV+: Preparation for sustained human presence. MEPAG (2006) uses
>> the term ?Goal IV? to describe preparation for the first human
>> explorers. By definition, this cannot be a goal for the first human
>> missions; by then the preparation would have to have been complete.
>> However, a goal of the first human missions is to prepare for the
>> subsequent future after that."
>>
>> In case you don't get it yet, "sustained human presence" is the start
>> of a colony.
>
>No, it is not.
>
Yes it is too. Read the papers, you fucking idiot.
>
>We have had "sustained human presence" in Antartica for a long time,
>but not a colony.
>
Because colonies are prohibited by treaty.
>
>>>>>Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface
>>>>>of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Check your math. Your number is wrong.
>>>
>>>Not my math, The Univerity of Colorado's math.
>>>
>>>That was an average number adjusting for the presence of haze in the
>>>atmosphere.
>>>
>>
>> And counting hours of darkness and averaged over latitude, no doubt.
>> In other words, if you're STUPID that's the number you plan to and put
>> forward.
>
>Nope, mid latitudes, ass hole.
>
Wrong, dipshit.
>>>>>Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there
>>>>>is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in
>>>>>"The Martian".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong again. Once again, please educate yourself on the issues before
>>>> flapping your arms and squawking. Again, let me help.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.marspapers.org/papers/MAR98058.pdf
>>>
>>>It appears that this paper pretty much agrees with what I said.
>>>
>>
>> Then English isn't your first language.
>>
>> You: Solar power is a non-starter.
>> Paper: "Solar power is readily available on Mars,..."
>
>In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an
>actual colony.
>
Not what it says.
>>
>> You: Wind power is a non-starter.
>> Paper: "Although the atmospheric density is about 100 times less than
>> the Earth, Mars has several advantages for successful wind power
>> applications..."
>
>In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an
>actual colony.
>
Not what it says.
>>>>>>>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
>>>>>>>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>>>>>>>required to survive and do anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to be able to dig a hole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dig it with what and then what do you do with it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dig it with tools (they're this marvelous thing we've invented since
>>>> you looked at colonization of anywhere) and then seal it up and live
>>>> in it.
>>>
>>>How much to transport all those tools to Mars?
>>>
>>
>> As a percentage of mission cost, not much. And that's not how mission
>> costing for these things works anyway. You're sending the vehicle.
>> Cost is opportunity cost. Dollar cost once you are going to launch
>> the vehicle is irrelevant, since it doesn't cost you much less if you
>> leave out a few tons of stuff.
>
>Dollar cost is always relevant as someone has to come up with the dollars.
>
But it's not relevant the way you're trying to use it. Dollar cost is
relevant FOR THE ENTIRE PAYLOAD but not relevant FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
PIECES because removing a piece doesn't change your cost.
>
>Given a transport of some fixed size, the cost of transport is in how
>much fuel is required per pound to get the cargo somewhere.
>
But the cost doesn't change if you delete part of the cargo because
the cost is PER LAUNCH, not PER POUND.
>>>
>>>Where do you get stuff to seal it unless you send it from Earth and
>>>what does that cost?
>>>
>>
>> Which part of 'in situ plastics' is it that you missed?
>
>Which part of there are no plastic plants on Mars or the Moon have
>you missed?
>
Which part of having to build shit instead of just moving in have you
missed?
>>>>>
>>>>>Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces
>>>>>at huge expense?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or instead you can pull your head out of your ass and seal it with
>>>> locally produced plastics. What you suggest will probably be how a
>>>> base would do it initially, but again this is a problem people have
>>>> thought about. You need to study up.
>>>
>>>Again, you would need massive infrastructure already in place to make
>>>plastic on Mars.
>>>
>>
>> Not as massive as you seem to think, but in any case you build up to
>> it. First missions you do with inflatables that you bury. Digging
>> holes and throwing dirt on top of something is pretty low tech stuff.
>> Each mission brings more stuff and leaves it behind for the next
>> group. Eventually you're staying full time and you start getting that
>> critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Nobody sane thinks we're going to
>> up and put Pittsburgh somewhere on Mars as the first 'colonization'
>> mission and nobody sane thinks we have to.
>
>The needs of a research station and a colony with families and kids
>are so horrendously different that you will never, even slowly,
>get to that critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Resupply would be
>far cheaper.
>
Wrong. Both ways.
>
>>>>>>>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
>>>>>>>them come from petroleum, so no plastics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but
>>>>>> not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined
>>>>>> all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be
>>>>>doing it or paying for it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chimp, better people than you have thought about all the problems you
>>>> raise as things that are 'impossible' and it turns out they're just
>>>> not that hard if you plan for them.
>>>
>>>I never said anything about hard, I am talking about the cost.
>>>
>>
>> No, you were talking about solar being impossible and wind being
>> impossible and everything else being impossible until you got swatted
>> back on that and NOW you want to raise cost.
>
>You are listening to the voices in your head again.
>
You are listening to the rumbling of your bowels around your head
again.
>
>I never said ANYTHING was impossible, I said it was so horrendously
>expensive no one will be willing to pay for it.
>
You vacillate. What is your threshold of unacceptable cost?
>>>
>>>Again, the cost for all this pie in the sky is so horrendous it will
>>>never happen.
>>>
>>
>> Good Lord, man, Isabella had to hock her jewels to pay for it! This
>> whole 'new world' pie in the sky has such horrendous costs that it
>> will never happen!
>
>And Isabella got a huge return on her investment.
>
Eventually.
>
>There is no conceivable ROI for going to the Moon or Mars.
>
Wrong again. Your lack of imagination is your problem, not mine.
>>>>>The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do
>>>>>something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including
>>>>>gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Initially getting to North America was "horrendously expensive", too.
>>>> Just look at what those expeditions cost and adjust them for
>>>> inflation.
>>>
>>>And most of them were done at a profit from all the stuff the expeditions
>>>returned.
>>>
>>
>> Go study some more.
>
>Lke your example of Isabella which resulted in enormous wealth for Spain?
>
Eventually.
>>>
>>>There is nothing on Mars that is anywhere near the value of the transportation
>>>costs.
>>>
>>
>> Not the argument you've been trying to make, Chimp.
>
>Nope, not the arguement I am making but my response to why anyone would
>attempt to establish a real colony off the Earth.
>
So your head is up and locked and you're just wasting everyone's time.
Got it.
>
>>>> You keep arguing how things "aren't possible". If you want to argue
>>>> that it's not worth the money, that's a different issue.
>>>
>>>I have never said "aren't possible", that is the voices in your head.
>>>
>>
>> And there's the Chimp that wonders why he gets bile and insults.
>
>You mean because you keep saying I said things I never said?
>
I mean because you keep spewing bile and insults and then are
surprised when they're returned to you. Please visit your
psychiatrist, as that sort of thinking is symptomatic of many types of
mental illness. Perhaps they can help you with appropriate medication
so you recognize your own behaviour.
>>>
>>>What I have said over and over again is that the cost of a colony on
>>>Mars is so horrendously expensive with zero economic return it will
>>>never happen absent the invention of techology that reduces the costs
>>>many orders of magnitude.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, the New World wasn't worth it for a long time, either.
>
>Right, it took a year or two from the time Columbus sailed until Isabella
>started seeing profits.
>
Bullshit. Go read up on the history of failed colonies, mutiny, etc.
>> Trudge back to your cave, Chimp...
>
>Go back to your space cadet movies, dreamer.
>
Go back to your cave and stop making up lies, Chimp.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 22:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ct3jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568707 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement >>>>>>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't >>>>>>>>you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock, >>>>>>> don't you? >>>>>> >>>>>>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making >>>>>>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested >>>>> the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and >>>>> they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the >>>>> calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of >>>>> limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with >>>>> calcium in them. >>>> >>>>Are there extensive calcium deposits on the Moon? >>>> >>> >>> Extensive enough. Is Google broken on your machine or what? >> >>Are there cement factories on the Moon? >> > > So colonization is impossible unless Pittsburgh already exists on > Mars? Once again the voices in your head are telling you I said something that I never said. >> >>What would it cost to build a cement factory on the Moon? >> > > A lot less than you apparently think. You don't need a huge factory > right off, after all. The Macedonians and Romans made and used > cement, after all. Yep, on Earth with food, air, charcol, and water, but no pressure suits. Have you ever seen an actual cement plant? >>> http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol3/lunacem1.htm >>> >>>>>>>>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to >>>>>>>>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you >>>>>>> didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>That is both childish and stupid. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh, look whose talking, Mr "They all believe Star Trek science and >>>>> economics are real" who does nothing but wave hands and make strawman >>>>> arguments. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Like pointing out facts? >>>> >>> >>> You have yet to point out any 'facts'. I've posted links to papers >>> and studies that explode any number of the falsehoods that seem to be >>> your stock in trade, though. >>> >>>>>>Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred >>>>>>miles on Mars and what would power that transport? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Truck. Hydrogen works. Yes, you have to plan on needing the truck. >>>>> You could crush and smelt to rough ingots (solar furnace works for >>>>> that) to lower the volume you need to drag to your factory. >>>> >>>>Where do you get the hydrogen and what do you do with it then? >>>> >>> >>> I posted a link to a paper about this. Perhaps you should bother to >>> actually read things people point you to instead of insisting on >>> remaining ignorant? >> >>Unable to give a simple answer and prefer to be insulting? >> > > Unable to read a cite and prefer to remain an ignorant shite? Pefer to remain an insulting asshole? >>> Let's try again. READ IT THIS TIME, YAMMERHEAD! >>> >>> http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/plastics.html >>> >>>>> Yes, that's not how we do it here on Earth, but we're not talking >>>>> about here on Earth anymore. >>>> >>>>Right, we are talking about a place with zero infrastructure, a thin >>>>atmosphere that is 95% CO2, and easily obtainable source of either >>>>oxygen or water. >>>> >>> >>> You really haven't kept up, have you? Turns out there's all sorts of >>> available water on Mars and there's even adequate amounts on the Moon. >>> That's why we send those probe things, you know. >> >>Is there a water plant on the Moon or Mars? >> > > Again you insist that Pittsburgh must already exist on Mars before > colonization is possible? Again that is the voices in your head telling you I said something I did not say. >> >>How much would it cost to build a water plant on the Moon or Mars? >> > > Easy peasy. Lots of free vacuum and power. Nope, no power until you build a power plant and you still have to have machinery and power for the machinery to dig. Or, in other words, a huge amount of money. >>>>>>>>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary >>>>>>>>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial >>>>>>> colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Really, where do you propose to get that power? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The same place all power comes from; the Sun. Crack water to get >>>>> hydrogen if you need a portable power source, take a bunch of small >>>>> reactors, RTGs, or whatever with you (along with a couple of big >>>>> reactors to get you started). >>>> >>>>With a solar irradiance of less than 100 W/m^2 you are going to get >>>>very little power from solar sources unless your array is measured >>>>in kilometers. >>>> >>> >>> Your number is low. Did you read the paper on power on Mars that I >>> pointed you to? Or did you just dishonestly delete the link? >> >>I read several articles on the available irradiance on the surface >>of Mars, all with wildly varying numbers from less than 100 W/m^2 >>average to as much as 500 W/m^2 average. The 100 W/m^2 number came >>from a paper taking great care to include atmospheric diffusion. >> > > No, it takes a lot more into account than that to get numbers that > low. Depending on what you take into account (like the day/night > cycle) you get numbers for Earth as low as 250 W/m^2 or so, so I guess > solar power won't work here, either. And it doesn't is a lot of places. >>>> >>>>There is no known readily available source of water to crack. >>>> >>> >>> Of course there is. Pull your head out of your ass and update your >>> knowledge. >> >>So you are saying there is a water plant on Mars all ready to go? >> > > Still insisting Pittsburgh must have already been dropped on Mars > before colonization is possible? What is it with the voices in your head that keep telling you I am using the words "possible" and "impossible" when I am not? >> >>Or would water plants have to be first built and at what cost? >> > > Asked and answered. Water is the EASY part. I could care less about easy, how much would it COST? > >>>> >>>>If you get the water somehow, you need to store both the hydrogen >>>>and the oxygen. >>>> >>> >>> Well, gee, no shit! You know, we sort of know how to do that. >> >>So what does it cost to build the water plant, the oxygen/hydrogen >>generation plant, and the power source for all of it? >> > > Look it up. All that stuff is included in all those studies you > refuse to look at because they don't describe dropping Pittsburgh on > Mars. None of the stuff you refered to has anything to do with establishing a real colony, with families and kids. And it would take a LOT more than just Pittsburgh. >> >>What does it cost to ship oxygen and hydrogen tanks to Mars? >> > > Unnecessary. What does it cost to get you to pull your head out of > your ass and actually think? So you do not need tanks to hold the generated oxygen and hydrogen? Are all your machines going to run on long rubber hoses? >>>>Sure, all of this is theoretically posible. >>>> >>>>The current cost to build a reactor on Earth is about $9 billion. >>>> >>> >>> You're talking about a multi-hundred megawatt power reactor that we'd >>> never build on Mars. A big chunk of that cost is environmental >>> studies and other bureaucratic bullshit that won't need to take place >>> on Mars. >> >>Most all the environmental savings will be offset by the one off cost >>of designing a reactor that will work on Mars. >> > > You don't just build one, you stupid shit. Incremental growth and all > that. I see you know nothing about economies of scale or manufacturing actual things. >> >>Also, there is a chicken and egg problem. Massive amounts of water >>will be required for you oxygen/hydrogen fuel and reactor cooling >>but you can't get that until you have a reactor. >> >>If you are talking about a real colony, then you do need that hundred >>megawatt reactor. >> > > No, what I need is a bunch of smaller ones that are gradually added. > We're not talking about instantly dropping a few million people on > Mars, after all. Well, perhaps YOU are in order to raise all the > objections you raise. You don't have a real colony until you can accept and support migration in numbers much bigger than 2 or 3 per year. All you are talkiing about is a bigger and better research station. >>If you are talking about a research station, you don't need any of >>that expensive infrastructure, you just need resupply. >> > > And you're wrong about that, too. Perhaps you should actually READ > some of those studies I pointed you to rather than blindly insisting > they don't apply. I did. None of them talk about a real colony, just a bigger and better research station. >>>>So what is the total cost to haul a reactor in pieces along with all >>>>the needed to put it together on Mars? >>>> >>> >>> Why haul it in pieces? Again, we're not talking about the sort of >>> power reactor we build here on Earth. >> >>We are if you are taling about a real colony with families and kids. >> > > Well, I'll agree that YOU are talking about that, but then you're > apparently not very smart. No one with sense is talking about > instantaneously needing to drop Pittsburgh on Mars. There go those voice in your head again. I said nothing about instantaneously but I have said a lot about total cost. And it would take a lot more than just Pittsburgh. >>>> >>>>What is the tranportation cost for the kilometers of solar panels? >>>> >>> >>> In situ resource. >> >>Last I heard the Chinese didn't have any solar panel plants on Mars, >>so there is yet another thing that would have to be built for a >>real colony. >> > > Yes, Chimp, colonies have to BUILD THINGS. Wow, I guess that's > impossible. Again, go read some of those papers I pointed you to. There go those voice in your head again. I said nothing about impossible. And again, none of them talk about a real colony, just a bigger and better research station. >>>> >>>>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery to dig out the ice >>>>we THINK is buried beneath the surface? >>>> >>> >>> You 'think'. The rest of us are more current and 'know', because that >>> free flowing water NASA probes have found evidence of has to come from >>> somewhere and I'm pretty sure little green men aren't shipping the >>> stuff in. >> >>Good way to ignore the question about the costs and throw in a gratuitous >>insult. >> > > I 'ignored the question' because it's a stupid question. It's a > stupid question because we KNOW there is water on Mars. It's not a > gratuitous insult when you hop up and down acting like a stupid shit > and begging for it. Still ignoring the cost questions? I guess you have to, otherwise you would realize your starry eyed dream of space colonies is not economical. >>>> >>>>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery crack water? >>>> >>>>The point is that all this crap is just too expensive for it to ever >>>>happen. >>>> >>> >>> Well, nobody is going to throw a dart at a map of Mars and drop >>> Pittsburgh somewhere, true enough. Again (I don't know why I'm >>> bothering; you won't listen), you might want to read up on exploration >>> and colonization back in the 15th century or so and adjust the costs >>> by 600 years of inflation. >> >>Wrong answer. >> > > Go run the costs. > >> >>In the 15th century or so all you had to transport was basic hand tools, >>seeds, clothes and a few other things. >> >>There was no requirement for things like pressure suits, oxygen, water, >>food and repair parts for high tech equiment just to stay alive for >>more than a few minutes. >> > > Irrelevant. That was the high tech stuff of the time. Irrelevant. There was no need for high tech stuff. >>>>> Go read the Mars Reference Mission, Chimp. >>>> >>>>Which is to establish a research station, not a colony. >>>> >>> >>> Everything starts somewhere, Chimp. If you're waiting for us to be >>> able to drop Pittsburgh on Mars, you should just toddle back to your >>> Intel 8008-based computer. From the Mars Reference Mission "Goals and >>> Objectives": >>> >>> "Goal IV+: Preparation for sustained human presence. MEPAG (2006) uses >>> the term ?Goal IV? to describe preparation for the first human >>> explorers. By definition, this cannot be a goal for the first human >>> missions; by then the preparation would have to have been complete. >>> However, a goal of the first human missions is to prepare for the >>> subsequent future after that." >>> >>> In case you don't get it yet, "sustained human presence" is the start >>> of a colony. >> >>No, it is not. >> > > Yes it is too. Read the papers, you fucking idiot. You mean the papers that talk about bigger and better research stations, space cadet? >> >>We have had "sustained human presence" in Antartica for a long time, >>but not a colony. >> > > Because colonies are prohibited by treaty. Only since 1959 yet in the nearly 500 years between 1492 and 1959 no interest in colonies. >>>>>>Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface >>>>>>of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Check your math. Your number is wrong. >>>> >>>>Not my math, The Univerity of Colorado's math. >>>> >>>>That was an average number adjusting for the presence of haze in the >>>>atmosphere. >>>> >>> >>> And counting hours of darkness and averaged over latitude, no doubt. >>> In other words, if you're STUPID that's the number you plan to and put >>> forward. >> >>Nope, mid latitudes, ass hole. >> > > Wrong, dipshit. Bite me, ass hole. >>>>>>Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there >>>>>>is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in >>>>>>"The Martian". >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wrong again. Once again, please educate yourself on the issues before >>>>> flapping your arms and squawking. Again, let me help. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.marspapers.org/papers/MAR98058.pdf >>>> >>>>It appears that this paper pretty much agrees with what I said. >>>> >>> >>> Then English isn't your first language. >>> >>> You: Solar power is a non-starter. >>> Paper: "Solar power is readily available on Mars,..." >> >>In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an >>actual colony. >> > > Not what it says. Yes, exactly what it says. >>> >>> You: Wind power is a non-starter. >>> Paper: "Although the atmospheric density is about 100 times less than >>> the Earth, Mars has several advantages for successful wind power >>> applications..." >> >>In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an >>actual colony. >> > > Not what it says. Yes, exactly what it says. > >>>>>>>>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into >>>>>>>>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings >>>>>>>>required to survive and do anything. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to be able to dig a hole. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Dig it with what and then what do you do with it? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dig it with tools (they're this marvelous thing we've invented since >>>>> you looked at colonization of anywhere) and then seal it up and live >>>>> in it. >>>> >>>>How much to transport all those tools to Mars? >>>> >>> >>> As a percentage of mission cost, not much. And that's not how mission >>> costing for these things works anyway. You're sending the vehicle. >>> Cost is opportunity cost. Dollar cost once you are going to launch >>> the vehicle is irrelevant, since it doesn't cost you much less if you >>> leave out a few tons of stuff. >> >>Dollar cost is always relevant as someone has to come up with the dollars. >> > > But it's not relevant the way you're trying to use it. Dollar cost is > relevant FOR THE ENTIRE PAYLOAD but not relevant FOR THE INDIVIDUAL > PIECES because removing a piece doesn't change your cost. There go those voice in your head again. I did not say anything about payload. >>Given a transport of some fixed size, the cost of transport is in how >>much fuel is required per pound to get the cargo somewhere. >> > > But the cost doesn't change if you delete part of the cargo because > the cost is PER LAUNCH, not PER POUND. The cost is the cost of the vehicle, which may be amortized if it is reusable, the cost of the cargo and crew, and the cost of the fuel to get from point A to point B. >>>> >>>>Where do you get stuff to seal it unless you send it from Earth and >>>>what does that cost? >>>> >>> >>> Which part of 'in situ plastics' is it that you missed? >> >>Which part of there are no plastic plants on Mars or the Moon have >>you missed? >> > > Which part of having to build shit instead of just moving in have you > missed? Which part of having to pay for something have you missed? It doesn't matter if it is an O-ring or an O-ring manufacturing plant. It has to be payed for to be acquired and payed for to be transported. You may including building costs in the acquistion cost for the plant if you so desire. >>>>>>Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces >>>>>>at huge expense? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Or instead you can pull your head out of your ass and seal it with >>>>> locally produced plastics. What you suggest will probably be how a >>>>> base would do it initially, but again this is a problem people have >>>>> thought about. You need to study up. >>>> >>>>Again, you would need massive infrastructure already in place to make >>>>plastic on Mars. >>>> >>> >>> Not as massive as you seem to think, but in any case you build up to >>> it. First missions you do with inflatables that you bury. Digging >>> holes and throwing dirt on top of something is pretty low tech stuff. >>> Each mission brings more stuff and leaves it behind for the next >>> group. Eventually you're staying full time and you start getting that >>> critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Nobody sane thinks we're going to >>> up and put Pittsburgh somewhere on Mars as the first 'colonization' >>> mission and nobody sane thinks we have to. >> >>The needs of a research station and a colony with families and kids >>are so horrendously different that you will never, even slowly, >>get to that critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Resupply would be >>far cheaper. >> > > Wrong. Both ways. Really? Does a research station need schools, playgrounds, toys, diaper production facilities, matenity wards, nipples and bottles for infants? >>>>>>>>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of >>>>>>>>them come from petroleum, so no plastics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but >>>>>>> not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined >>>>>>> all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be >>>>>>doing it or paying for it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chimp, better people than you have thought about all the problems you >>>>> raise as things that are 'impossible' and it turns out they're just >>>>> not that hard if you plan for them. >>>> >>>>I never said anything about hard, I am talking about the cost. >>>> >>> >>> No, you were talking about solar being impossible and wind being >>> impossible and everything else being impossible until you got swatted >>> back on that and NOW you want to raise cost. >> >>You are listening to the voices in your head again. >> > > You are listening to the rumbling of your bowels around your head > again. You are dreaming of plots in sifi novels again. >> >>I never said ANYTHING was impossible, I said it was so horrendously >>expensive no one will be willing to pay for it. >> > > You vacillate. What is your threshold of unacceptable cost? In the low tens of billions per year for the US, like maybe $20 billion for the ENTIRE space program. Budget you colony building accordingly. I could care less what anyone else cares to kick in as it isn't my tax money. > >>>> >>>>Again, the cost for all this pie in the sky is so horrendous it will >>>>never happen. >>>> >>> >>> Good Lord, man, Isabella had to hock her jewels to pay for it! This >>> whole 'new world' pie in the sky has such horrendous costs that it >>> will never happen! >> >>And Isabella got a huge return on her investment. >> > > Eventually. Yep, shortly after Columbus returned. >>There is no conceivable ROI for going to the Moon or Mars. >> > > Wrong again. Your lack of imagination is your problem, not mine. So demonstrate your imagination, what could possibly have a ROI? Most things are valuable because they are rare. If you, for example, find a huge deposit of platinum, the price will drop because of increased supply and there goes the ROI. >>>>>>The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do >>>>>>something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including >>>>>>gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Initially getting to North America was "horrendously expensive", too. >>>>> Just look at what those expeditions cost and adjust them for >>>>> inflation. >>>> >>>>And most of them were done at a profit from all the stuff the expeditions >>>>returned. >>>> >>> >>> Go study some more. >> >>Lke your example of Isabella which resulted in enormous wealth for Spain? >> > > Eventually. Yep, almost right after Columbus got back. >>>> >>>>There is nothing on Mars that is anywhere near the value of the transportation >>>>costs. >>>> >>> >>> Not the argument you've been trying to make, Chimp. >> >>Nope, not the arguement I am making but my response to why anyone would >>attempt to establish a real colony off the Earth. >> > > So your head is up and locked and you're just wasting everyone's time. > Got it. And you are a starry eyed space cadet raised on scifi novels that has never built anything, does not understand what it takes to build things. and has no concept of cost and ROI. >> >>>>> You keep arguing how things "aren't possible". If you want to argue >>>>> that it's not worth the money, that's a different issue. >>>> >>>>I have never said "aren't possible", that is the voices in your head. >>>> >>> >>> And there's the Chimp that wonders why he gets bile and insults. >> >>You mean because you keep saying I said things I never said? >> > > I mean because you keep spewing bile and insults and then are Only when YOU start it, ass hole. > surprised when they're returned to you. Please visit your > psychiatrist, as that sort of thinking is symptomatic of many types of > mental illness. Perhaps they can help you with appropriate medication > so you recognize your own behaviour. > >>>> >>>>What I have said over and over again is that the cost of a colony on >>>>Mars is so horrendously expensive with zero economic return it will >>>>never happen absent the invention of techology that reduces the costs >>>>many orders of magnitude. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, the New World wasn't worth it for a long time, either. >> >>Right, it took a year or two from the time Columbus sailed until Isabella >>started seeing profits. >> > > Bullshit. Go read up on the history of failed colonies, mutiny, etc. Irrelevant to YOUR example of Columbus. >>> Trudge back to your cave, Chimp... >> >>Go back to your space cadet movies, dreamer. >> > > Go back to your cave and stop making up lies, Chimp. Fuck off and die, space cadet. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 01:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m8megb9bpbeans26sscu16bmnkvd22i6tt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568735 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement >>>>>>>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't >>>>>>>>>you? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock, >>>>>>>> don't you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making >>>>>>>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested >>>>>> the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and >>>>>> they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the >>>>>> calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of >>>>>> limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with >>>>>> calcium in them. >>>>> >>>>>Are there extensive calcium deposits on the Moon? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Extensive enough. Is Google broken on your machine or what? >>> >>>Are there cement factories on the Moon? >>> >> >> So colonization is impossible unless Pittsburgh already exists on >> Mars? > >Once again the voices in your head are telling you I said something >that I never said. > Once again you don't even understand the gist of your own arguments. > >>> >>>What would it cost to build a cement factory on the Moon? >>> >> >> A lot less than you apparently think. You don't need a huge factory >> right off, after all. The Macedonians and Romans made and used >> cement, after all. > >Yep, on Earth with food, air, charcol, and water, but no pressure suits. > The point, which you stupidly miss, is that this is like 2000 year old technology and so not hard. > >Have you ever seen an actual cement plant? > Have you ever actually solved a problem? >>>> http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol3/lunacem1.htm >>>> >>>>>>>>>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to >>>>>>>>>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you >>>>>>>> didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That is both childish and stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, look whose talking, Mr "They all believe Star Trek science and >>>>>> economics are real" who does nothing but wave hands and make strawman >>>>>> arguments. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Like pointing out facts? >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have yet to point out any 'facts'. I've posted links to papers >>>> and studies that explode any number of the falsehoods that seem to be >>>> your stock in trade, though. >>>> >>>>>>>Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred >>>>>>>miles on Mars and what would power that transport? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Truck. Hydrogen works. Yes, you have to plan on needing the truck. >>>>>> You could crush and smelt to rough ingots (solar furnace works for >>>>>> that) to lower the volume you need to drag to your factory. >>>>> >>>>>Where do you get the hydrogen and what do you do with it then? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I posted a link to a paper about this. Perhaps you should bother to >>>> actually read things people point you to instead of insisting on >>>> remaining ignorant? >>> >>>Unable to give a simple answer and prefer to be insulting? >>> >> >> Unable to read a cite and prefer to remain an ignorant shite? > >Pefer to remain an insulting asshole? > Prefer to not know how to read or think? >>>> Let's try again. READ IT THIS TIME, YAMMERHEAD! >>>> >>>> http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/plastics.html >>>> >>>>>> Yes, that's not how we do it here on Earth, but we're not talking >>>>>> about here on Earth anymore. >>>>> >>>>>Right, we are talking about a place with zero infrastructure, a thin >>>>>atmosphere that is 95% CO2, and easily obtainable source of either >>>>>oxygen or water. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You really haven't kept up, have you? Turns out there's all sorts of >>>> available water on Mars and there's even adequate amounts on the Moon. >>>> That's why we send those probe things, you know. >>> >>>Is there a water plant on the Moon or Mars? >>> >> >> Again you insist that Pittsburgh must already exist on Mars before >> colonization is possible? > >Again that is the voices in your head telling you I said something I did >not say. > Again that is you not understanding the gist of your own arguments. >>> >>>How much would it cost to build a water plant on the Moon or Mars? >>> >> >> Easy peasy. Lots of free vacuum and power. > >Nope, no power until you build a power plant and you still have to >have machinery and power for the machinery to dig. > Go read the papers I've pointed you to. You bring the first power plant with you. Everything is incremental. There is no presto gigawatt power plant and million person city. > >Or, in other words, a huge amount of money. > Nothing is free unless you're a fan of Bernie Sanders. > >>>>>>>>>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary >>>>>>>>>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial >>>>>>>> colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Really, where do you propose to get that power? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The same place all power comes from; the Sun. Crack water to get >>>>>> hydrogen if you need a portable power source, take a bunch of small >>>>>> reactors, RTGs, or whatever with you (along with a couple of big >>>>>> reactors to get you started). >>>>> >>>>>With a solar irradiance of less than 100 W/m^2 you are going to get >>>>>very little power from solar sources unless your array is measured >>>>>in kilometers. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your number is low. Did you read the paper on power on Mars that I >>>> pointed you to? Or did you just dishonestly delete the link? >>> >>>I read several articles on the available irradiance on the surface >>>of Mars, all with wildly varying numbers from less than 100 W/m^2 >>>average to as much as 500 W/m^2 average. The 100 W/m^2 number came >>>from a paper taking great care to include atmospheric diffusion. >>> >> >> No, it takes a lot more into account than that to get numbers that >> low. Depending on what you take into account (like the day/night >> cycle) you get numbers for Earth as low as 250 W/m^2 or so, so I guess >> solar power won't work here, either. > >And it doesn't is a lot of places. > So you build it places where it does. Just like you would on Mars. I think you just (by extension of your Mars argument) proved that solar power doesn't work here on Earth. >>>>> >>>>>There is no known readily available source of water to crack. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course there is. Pull your head out of your ass and update your >>>> knowledge. >>> >>>So you are saying there is a water plant on Mars all ready to go? >>> >> >> Still insisting Pittsburgh must have already been dropped on Mars >> before colonization is possible? > >What is it with the voices in your head that keep telling you I am >using the words "possible" and "impossible" when I am not? > What is it with the ignorance you adamantly maintain along with the failure to understand the implications of your own arguments? >>> >>>Or would water plants have to be first built and at what cost? >>> >> >> Asked and answered. Water is the EASY part. > >I could care less about easy, how much would it COST? > It's free. You need the power plant anyway for other things. Stills are so simple even a monkey like you could build one. >> >>>>> >>>>>If you get the water somehow, you need to store both the hydrogen >>>>>and the oxygen. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, gee, no shit! You know, we sort of know how to do that. >>> >>>So what does it cost to build the water plant, the oxygen/hydrogen >>>generation plant, and the power source for all of it? >>> >> >> Look it up. All that stuff is included in all those studies you >> refuse to look at because they don't describe dropping Pittsburgh on >> Mars. > >None of the stuff you refered to has anything to do with establishing >a real colony, with families and kids. > So "real colony, with families and kids" doesn't require power, water, air, housing, chemicals, food, ... Good to know you think that. > >And it would take a LOT more than just Pittsburgh. > So colonization is impossible, both in space AND on Earth, according to the Chimp. Good to know you think that. >>> >>>What does it cost to ship oxygen and hydrogen tanks to Mars? >>> >> >> Unnecessary. What does it cost to get you to pull your head out of >> your ass and actually think? > >So you do not need tanks to hold the generated oxygen and hydrogen? > >Are all your machines going to run on long rubber hoses? > Gee, how many gas tanks do they have to ship you from Detroit for you to refuel your car? >>>>>Sure, all of this is theoretically posible. >>>>> >>>>>The current cost to build a reactor on Earth is about $9 billion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You're talking about a multi-hundred megawatt power reactor that we'd >>>> never build on Mars. A big chunk of that cost is environmental >>>> studies and other bureaucratic bullshit that won't need to take place >>>> on Mars. >>> >>>Most all the environmental savings will be offset by the one off cost >>>of designing a reactor that will work on Mars. >>> >> >> You don't just build one, you stupid shit. Incremental growth and all >> that. > >I see you know nothing about economies of scale or manufacturing actual >things. > I see you know nothing about economies, period, or designing and manufacturing things for where they're actually going to be used. >>> >>>Also, there is a chicken and egg problem. Massive amounts of water >>>will be required for you oxygen/hydrogen fuel and reactor cooling >>>but you can't get that until you have a reactor. >>> >>>If you are talking about a real colony, then you do need that hundred >>>megawatt reactor. >>> >> >> No, what I need is a bunch of smaller ones that are gradually added. >> We're not talking about instantly dropping a few million people on >> Mars, after all. Well, perhaps YOU are in order to raise all the >> objections you raise. > >You don't have a real colony until you can accept and support migration >in numbers much bigger than 2 or 3 per year. > So there were never colonies in the New World, either, since it took a decade and more to get settlements with just a few hundred people in them. > >All you are talkiing about is a bigger and better research station. > Wrong. Having had your 'impossible' arguments exploded and your 'too costly' argument unproven, you now want to try to define your problem away by changing what 'colony' means. > >>>If you are talking about a research station, you don't need any of >>>that expensive infrastructure, you just need resupply. >>> >> >> And you're wrong about that, too. Perhaps you should actually READ >> some of those studies I pointed you to rather than blindly insisting >> they don't apply. > >I did. > So you're a liar, then? Good to know. > >None of them talk about a real colony, just a bigger and better research >station. > Keep trying to define your way out of your silly position... >>>>>So what is the total cost to haul a reactor in pieces along with all >>>>>the needed to put it together on Mars? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why haul it in pieces? Again, we're not talking about the sort of >>>> power reactor we build here on Earth. >>> >>>We are if you are taling about a real colony with families and kids. >>> >> >> Well, I'll agree that YOU are talking about that, but then you're >> apparently not very smart. No one with sense is talking about >> instantaneously needing to drop Pittsburgh on Mars. > >There go those voice in your head again. I said nothing about instantaneously >but I have said a lot about total cost. > So "real colony, with families and kids" doesn't require power, water, air, housing, chemicals, food, ... Good to know you think that. > >And it would take a LOT more than just Pittsburgh. > So colonization is impossible, both in space AND on Earth, according to the Chimp. Good to know you think that. >>>>> >>>>>What is the tranportation cost for the kilometers of solar panels? >>>>> >>>> >>>> In situ resource. >>> >>>Last I heard the Chinese didn't have any solar panel plants on Mars, >>>so there is yet another thing that would have to be built for a >>>real colony. >>> >> >> Yes, Chimp, colonies have to BUILD THINGS. Wow, I guess that's >> impossible. Again, go read some of those papers I pointed you to. > >There go those voice in your head again. I said nothing about impossible. > >And again, none of them talk about a real colony, just a bigger and better >research station. > Keep trying to define your way out of your silly position... >>>>> >>>>>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery to dig out the ice >>>>>we THINK is buried beneath the surface? >>>>> >>>> >>>> You 'think'. The rest of us are more current and 'know', because that >>>> free flowing water NASA probes have found evidence of has to come from >>>> somewhere and I'm pretty sure little green men aren't shipping the >>>> stuff in. >>> >>>Good way to ignore the question about the costs and throw in a gratuitous >>>insult. >>> >> >> I 'ignored the question' because it's a stupid question. It's a >> stupid question because we KNOW there is water on Mars. It's not a >> gratuitous insult when you hop up and down acting like a stupid shit >> and begging for it. > >Still ignoring the cost questions? > Yes, it seems you are. > >I guess you have to, otherwise you would realize your starry eyed dream >of space colonies is not economical. > There you go, living in that fantasy in your head again. >>>>> >>>>>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery crack water? >>>>> >>>>>The point is that all this crap is just too expensive for it to ever >>>>>happen. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, nobody is going to throw a dart at a map of Mars and drop >>>> Pittsburgh somewhere, true enough. Again (I don't know why I'm >>>> bothering; you won't listen), you might want to read up on exploration >>>> and colonization back in the 15th century or so and adjust the costs >>>> by 600 years of inflation. >>> >>>Wrong answer. >>> >> >> Go run the costs. >> >>> >>>In the 15th century or so all you had to transport was basic hand tools, >>>seeds, clothes and a few other things. >>> >>>There was no requirement for things like pressure suits, oxygen, water, >>>food and repair parts for high tech equiment just to stay alive for >>>more than a few minutes. >>> >> >> Irrelevant. That was the high tech stuff of the time. > >Irrelevant. There was no need for high tech stuff. > Bullshit. Or are you trying to tell us that no colonies failed? >>>>>> Go read the Mars Reference Mission, Chimp. >>>>> >>>>>Which is to establish a research station, not a colony. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Everything starts somewhere, Chimp. If you're waiting for us to be >>>> able to drop Pittsburgh on Mars, you should just toddle back to your >>>> Intel 8008-based computer. From the Mars Reference Mission "Goals and >>>> Objectives": >>>> >>>> "Goal IV+: Preparation for sustained human presence. MEPAG (2006) uses >>>> the term ?Goal IV? to describe preparation for the first human >>>> explorers. By definition, this cannot be a goal for the first human >>>> missions; by then the preparation would have to have been complete. >>>> However, a goal of the first human missions is to prepare for the >>>> subsequent future after that." >>>> >>>> In case you don't get it yet, "sustained human presence" is the start >>>> of a colony. >>> >>>No, it is not. >>> >> >> Yes it is too. Read the papers, you fucking idiot. > >You mean the papers that talk about bigger and better research stations, >space cadet? > I mean the papers I pointed you to that you apparently now want to define away because you have no reasonable response. >>> >>>We have had "sustained human presence" in Antartica for a long time, >>>but not a colony. >>> >> >> Because colonies are prohibited by treaty. > >Only since 1959 yet in the nearly 500 years between 1492 and 1959 no >interest in colonies. > Actually not true. Lots of countries wanted to claim pieces of the Antarctic. >>>>>>>Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface >>>>>>>of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Check your math. Your number is wrong. >>>>> >>>>>Not my math, The Univerity of Colorado's math. >>>>> >>>>>That was an average number adjusting for the presence of haze in the >>>>>atmosphere. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And counting hours of darkness and averaged over latitude, no doubt. >>>> In other words, if you're STUPID that's the number you plan to and put >>>> forward. >>> >>>Nope, mid latitudes, ass hole. >>> >> >> Wrong, dipshit. > >Bite me, ass hole. > Osculate my crimson posterior, slut boy. >>>>>>>Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there >>>>>>>is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in >>>>>>>"The Martian". >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong again. Once again, please educate yourself on the issues before >>>>>> flapping your arms and squawking. Again, let me help. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.marspapers.org/papers/MAR98058.pdf >>>>> >>>>>It appears that this paper pretty much agrees with what I said. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then English isn't your first language. >>>> >>>> You: Solar power is a non-starter. >>>> Paper: "Solar power is readily available on Mars,..." >>> >>>In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an >>>actual colony. >>> >> >> Not what it says. > >Yes, exactly what it says. > So English is not your first language. I'm not surprised. >>>> >>>> You: Wind power is a non-starter. >>>> Paper: "Although the atmospheric density is about 100 times less than >>>> the Earth, Mars has several advantages for successful wind power >>>> applications..." >>> >>>In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an >>>actual colony. >>> >> >> Not what it says. > >Yes, exactly what it says. > So English is not your first language. I'm not surprised. >> >>>>>>>>>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into >>>>>>>>>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings >>>>>>>>>required to survive and do anything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You need to be able to dig a hole. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dig it with what and then what do you do with it? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dig it with tools (they're this marvelous thing we've invented since >>>>>> you looked at colonization of anywhere) and then seal it up and live >>>>>> in it. >>>>> >>>>>How much to transport all those tools to Mars? >>>>> >>>> >>>> As a percentage of mission cost, not much. And that's not how mission >>>> costing for these things works anyway. You're sending the vehicle. >>>> Cost is opportunity cost. Dollar cost once you are going to launch >>>> the vehicle is irrelevant, since it doesn't cost you much less if you >>>> leave out a few tons of stuff. >>> >>>Dollar cost is always relevant as someone has to come up with the dollars. >>> >> >> But it's not relevant the way you're trying to use it. Dollar cost is >> relevant FOR THE ENTIRE PAYLOAD but not relevant FOR THE INDIVIDUAL >> PIECES because removing a piece doesn't change your cost. > >There go those voice in your head again. I did not say anything about >payload. > What do you think 'cost' relates to, yammerhead? >>>Given a transport of some fixed size, the cost of transport is in how >>>much fuel is required per pound to get the cargo somewhere. >>> >> >> But the cost doesn't change if you delete part of the cargo because >> the cost is PER LAUNCH, not PER POUND. > >The cost is the cost of the vehicle, which may be amortized if it is >reusable, the cost of the cargo and crew, and the cost of the fuel to >get from point A to point B. > Fuel cost for something like Falcon 9 is on the order of $200K. That's peanuts. It's pretty much the same regardless of how 'full' the payload is, which is the point I'm making and you're ignoring. Falcon Heavy fuel cost per launch is way under $1M per launch. >>>>> >>>>>Where do you get stuff to seal it unless you send it from Earth and >>>>>what does that cost? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which part of 'in situ plastics' is it that you missed? >>> >>>Which part of there are no plastic plants on Mars or the Moon have >>>you missed? >>> >> >> Which part of having to build shit instead of just moving in have you >> missed? > >Which part of having to pay for something have you missed? > >It doesn't matter if it is an O-ring or an O-ring manufacturing plant. > >It has to be payed for to be acquired and payed for to be transported. > >You may including building costs in the acquistion cost for the plant >if you so desire. > How many o-rings do you think you need as your colony starts? This is rather the same question as how many axe heads your colony in the 15th century needed. >>>>>>>Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces >>>>>>>at huge expense? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Or instead you can pull your head out of your ass and seal it with >>>>>> locally produced plastics. What you suggest will probably be how a >>>>>> base would do it initially, but again this is a problem people have >>>>>> thought about. You need to study up. >>>>> >>>>>Again, you would need massive infrastructure already in place to make >>>>>plastic on Mars. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not as massive as you seem to think, but in any case you build up to >>>> it. First missions you do with inflatables that you bury. Digging >>>> holes and throwing dirt on top of something is pretty low tech stuff. >>>> Each mission brings more stuff and leaves it behind for the next >>>> group. Eventually you're staying full time and you start getting that >>>> critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Nobody sane thinks we're going to >>>> up and put Pittsburgh somewhere on Mars as the first 'colonization' >>>> mission and nobody sane thinks we have to. >>> >>>The needs of a research station and a colony with families and kids >>>are so horrendously different that you will never, even slowly, >>>get to that critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Resupply would be >>>far cheaper. >>> >> >> Wrong. Both ways. > >Really? > Really. > >Does a research station need schools, playgrounds, toys, diaper production >facilities, matenity wards, nipples and bottles for infants? > Most colonies in the 15th century here on Earth didn't have those things. >>>>>>>>>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of >>>>>>>>>them come from petroleum, so no plastics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but >>>>>>>> not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined >>>>>>>> all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be >>>>>>>doing it or paying for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chimp, better people than you have thought about all the problems you >>>>>> raise as things that are 'impossible' and it turns out they're just >>>>>> not that hard if you plan for them. >>>>> >>>>>I never said anything about hard, I am talking about the cost. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, you were talking about solar being impossible and wind being >>>> impossible and everything else being impossible until you got swatted >>>> back on that and NOW you want to raise cost. >>> >>>You are listening to the voices in your head again. >>> >> >> You are listening to the rumbling of your bowels around your head >> again. > >You are dreaming of plots in sifi novels again. > You are hallucinating from methane overdose. >>> >>>I never said ANYTHING was impossible, I said it was so horrendously >>>expensive no one will be willing to pay for it. >>> >> >> You vacillate. What is your threshold of unacceptable cost? > >In the low tens of billions per year for the US, like maybe $20 billion >for the ENTIRE space program. > Project Apollo cost around $110 billion in current dollars. So you just 'proved' that we couldn't go to the Moon back then because it was too expensive. Congratulations. > >Budget you colony building accordingly. > >I could care less what anyone else cares to kick in as it isn't my >tax money. > Congratulations. You've proven you can starve any effort to death if you try hard enough, including things that we've historically accomplished. >> >>>>> >>>>>Again, the cost for all this pie in the sky is so horrendous it will >>>>>never happen. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Good Lord, man, Isabella had to hock her jewels to pay for it! This >>>> whole 'new world' pie in the sky has such horrendous costs that it >>>> will never happen! >>> >>>And Isabella got a huge return on her investment. >>> >> >> Eventually. > >Yep, shortly after Columbus returned. > Wrong. >>>There is no conceivable ROI for going to the Moon or Mars. >>> >> >> Wrong again. Your lack of imagination is your problem, not mine. > >So demonstrate your imagination, what could possibly have a ROI? > Space infrastructure (if you can build with lunar resources, things like solar power satellites get cheaper, for example). Transhipment and supply point for asteroid mining. Telecommunications hubs. Yes, none of those are 3 month ROIs. But then, they didn't get that in the 15th Century, either. > >Most things are valuable because they are rare. If you, for example, >find a huge deposit of platinum, the price will drop because of increased >supply and there goes the ROI. > Gee, so I guess telecommunications satellites and GPS have no value at all, since they return no physically rare resources. >>>>>>>The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do >>>>>>>something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including >>>>>>>gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Initially getting to North America was "horrendously expensive", too. >>>>>> Just look at what those expeditions cost and adjust them for >>>>>> inflation. >>>>> >>>>>And most of them were done at a profit from all the stuff the expeditions >>>>>returned. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Go study some more. >>> >>>Lke your example of Isabella which resulted in enormous wealth for Spain? >>> >> >> Eventually. > >Yep, almost right after Columbus got back. > Wrong. >>>>> >>>>>There is nothing on Mars that is anywhere near the value of the transportation >>>>>costs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not the argument you've been trying to make, Chimp. >>> >>>Nope, not the arguement I am making but my response to why anyone would >>>attempt to establish a real colony off the Earth. >>> >> >> So your head is up and locked and you're just wasting everyone's time. >> Got it. > >And you are a starry eyed space cadet raised on scifi novels that has >never built anything, does not understand what it takes to build things. >and has no concept of cost and ROI. > Poor Jimp. He doesn't understand that most engineers were "raised on scifi novels", which is why we're the ones that build thing in the real world while people like him get in the way and whine about how it can never work. >>> >>>>>> You keep arguing how things "aren't possible". If you want to argue >>>>>> that it's not worth the money, that's a different issue. >>>>> >>>>>I have never said "aren't possible", that is the voices in your head. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And there's the Chimp that wonders why he gets bile and insults. >>> >>>You mean because you keep saying I said things I never said? >>> >> >> I mean because you keep spewing bile and insults and then are > >Only when YOU start it, ass hole. > Yeah, you foxes never smell your own. >> surprised when they're returned to you. Please visit your >> psychiatrist, as that sort of thinking is symptomatic of many types of >> mental illness. Perhaps they can help you with appropriate medication >> so you recognize your own behaviour. >> >>>>> >>>>>What I have said over and over again is that the cost of a colony on >>>>>Mars is so horrendously expensive with zero economic return it will >>>>>never happen absent the invention of techology that reduces the costs >>>>>many orders of magnitude. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, the New World wasn't worth it for a long time, either. >>> >>>Right, it took a year or two from the time Columbus sailed until Isabella >>>started seeing profits. >>> >> >> Bullshit. Go read up on the history of failed colonies, mutiny, etc. > >Irrelevant to YOUR example of Columbus. > Nope. His first colony failed. He was faced with a mutiny during the crossing. His second colony had an actual mutiny, where colonists took ships from him and went back to Spain. His third expedition was a penal colony because conditions at the New World colonies were so bad they couldn't get people to volunteer to go anymore (some ROI, that). His fourth expedition ended with him losing his ship and being stranded on Jamaica. >>>> Trudge back to your cave, Chimp... >>> >>>Go back to your space cadet movies, dreamer. >>> >> >> Go back to your cave and stop making up lies, Chimp. > >Fuck off and die, space cadet. > Come make me, twat. But be advised that you've now threatened to kill me, so I am in fear for my life should I ever see you... -- You are What you do When it counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m1bltc-637.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568868 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement >>>>>>>>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't >>>>>>>>>>you? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock, >>>>>>>>> don't you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making >>>>>>>>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested >>>>>>> the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and >>>>>>> they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the >>>>>>> calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of >>>>>>> limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with >>>>>>> calcium in them. >>>>>> >>>>>>Are there extensive calcium deposits on the Moon? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Extensive enough. Is Google broken on your machine or what? >>>> >>>>Are there cement factories on the Moon? >>>> >>> >>> So colonization is impossible unless Pittsburgh already exists on >>> Mars? >> >>Once again the voices in your head are telling you I said something >>that I never said. >> > > Once again you don't even understand the gist of your own arguments. Once again you don't understand the magnitude of either the endeavor or the cost. You talk of dropping Pittsburgh on Mars, but Pittsburgh is a drop in the bucket to what would be required to be anywhere near self sustaining for a "colony" requiring 21st Century technology just to survive. Of the first 92 elements of the periodic table, you need mines for almost all of those elements. Then you need refiners for them. Then you need foundaries to produce all the various alloys and raw stock. Then you need factories to convert raw stock into piece parts. Then you need... And the same plants that make stainless steel 8-32 screws is not going to be making phosphor bronze relay contacts. What you need to drop in is most of the Earth. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ge4ggb1nufhrn8q0l9oggeek12otr7mt6b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569041 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
>>>>>>>>>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
>>>>>>>>>>>you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock,
>>>>>>>>>> don't you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making
>>>>>>>>>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested
>>>>>>>> the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and
>>>>>>>> they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the
>>>>>>>> calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of
>>>>>>>> limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with
>>>>>>>> calcium in them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are there extensive calcium deposits on the Moon?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Extensive enough. Is Google broken on your machine or what?
>>>>>
>>>>>Are there cement factories on the Moon?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So colonization is impossible unless Pittsburgh already exists on
>>>> Mars?
>>>
>>>Once again the voices in your head are telling you I said something
>>>that I never said.
>>>
>>
>> Once again you don't even understand the gist of your own arguments.
>
>Once again you don't understand the magnitude of either the endeavor or
>the cost.
>
>You talk of dropping Pittsburgh on Mars, but Pittsburgh is a drop in the
>bucket to what would be required to be anywhere near self sustaining
>for a "colony" requiring 21st Century technology just to survive.
>
>Of the first 92 elements of the periodic table, you need mines for almost
>all of those elements.
>
>Then you need refiners for them.
>
>Then you need foundaries to produce all the various alloys and raw stock.
>
>Then you need factories to convert raw stock into piece parts.
>
>Then you need...
>
>And the same plants that make stainless steel 8-32 screws is not going to
>be making phosphor bronze relay contacts.
>
>What you need to drop in is most of the Earth.
>
Utter bullshit. By your 'definitions' there has never been a 'colony'
anywhere on Earth at any time.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 22:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gnpltc-fb8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569071 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>What you need to drop in is most of the Earth. >> > > Utter bullshit. By your 'definitions' there has never been a 'colony' > anywhere on Earth at any time. Wrong again, space cadet. That sort of infrastructure is not needed in a place where cotton and trees will grow, i.e. a place where you don't need 21st Century techonology just to survive for more than a few minutes. Also your we can get all the raw materials we need on Mars is siplistic nonsese. Likely you can, but like Earth, they are probably spread all over the planet so now you also need a huge transportation system to gather them. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 22:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n13hgbl0qnhe6shr8qe98ci752c15utfpe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569101 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>>What you need to drop in is most of the Earth.
>>>
>>
>> Utter bullshit. By your 'definitions' there has never been a 'colony'
>> anywhere on Earth at any time.
> >
>
>Wrong again, space cadet.
>
Yeah, me and Elon Musk. So how are you doing, Chimp?
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 06:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <igjmtc-mua.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569137 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>>What you need to drop in is most of the Earth. >>>> >>> >>> Utter bullshit. By your 'definitions' there has never been a 'colony' >>> anywhere on Earth at any time. >> > >> >>Wrong again, space cadet. >> > > Yeah, me and Elon Musk. So how are you doing, Chimp? I'm doing just fine, starry eyed ass hole. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 08:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <p36igb53iba35lupre0bhhjq8sfrsv6fld@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569197 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>What you need to drop in is most of the Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Utter bullshit. By your 'definitions' there has never been a 'colony'
>>>> anywhere on Earth at any time.
>>> >
>>>
>>>Wrong again, space cadet.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, me and Elon Musk. So how are you doing, Chimp?
>>
>
>I'm doing just fine, starry eyed ass hole.
>
Just toddle on back to your cave, Chimp, while us "starry-eyed ass
holes" build the future for you.
--
"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]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web