Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.space.policy > #58054 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-27 15:41 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-03-16 20:19 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 380 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy
Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-09-27 15:41 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 21:05 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 04:15 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 16:07 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-01 09:55 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-01 17:33 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-10-01 15:49 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-10-01 15:54 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 22:39 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 11:20 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-02 15:02 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 15:47 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 15:39 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 18:44 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 19:58 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 22:48 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 03:55 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 12:13 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 16:17 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 20:43 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 00:12 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 13:19 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 00:39 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 11:28 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 15:57 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 21:47 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 04:06 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 12:20 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-02 10:06 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 11:00 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 10:58 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-01 20:29 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-01 23:03 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-02 10:11 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 09:28 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-02 14:28 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-03 06:35 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 11:16 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 16:52 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 22:14 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 04:25 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 12:39 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 21:21 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 11:17 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-02 09:59 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 10:16 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 10:57 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-02 14:53 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 18:24 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-10-10 00:50 +0200
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 19:32 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-10 02:38 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 10:12 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-10 06:21 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-10 16:14 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars dumpster4@hotmail.com - 2016-10-10 14:50 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 15:59 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-10-11 08:09 +0000
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 03:29 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-10-11 11:23 +0000
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 05:32 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-10-11 23:54 +0200
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 20:42 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-12 00:42 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 12:57 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 16:45 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-10-01 15:54 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 16:59 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 22:21 -0700
A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-10-10 21:29 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 05:39 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-11 08:45 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-10-11 14:57 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 10:21 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-11 18:54 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-10-11 19:05 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-10-11 22:56 +0300
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 10:13 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-11 18:56 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 12:44 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-11 21:46 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-11 19:46 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 20:18 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-12 05:19 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 12:59 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-11 19:10 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-11 19:19 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-11 20:51 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-11 20:50 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 20:58 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-12 05:23 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:09 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 17:42 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:03 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 19:40 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 01:20 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 21:26 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:15 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 19:05 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:13 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 13:36 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 11:02 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-14 12:40 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-16 09:21 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-16 19:32 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-18 08:53 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 11:36 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 18:54 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:49 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:10 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:07 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 14:39 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-10-16 22:13 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-16 19:27 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 17:21 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-18 08:46 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 08:45 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-18 17:18 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 21:44 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-19 07:14 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 08:23 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:10 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 23:48 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-14 06:09 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 18:03 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 02:27 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:14 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 17:52 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:28 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:10 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 14:44 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-16 09:25 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-16 18:29 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 17:17 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 20:00 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 05:19 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 05:51 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 14:03 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 23:40 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 07:30 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 10:01 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:45 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 20:49 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 05:28 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 14:48 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-16 23:45 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-18 08:48 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 10:07 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-19 07:15 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-19 09:02 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-19 16:29 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-19 19:38 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-19 19:27 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 18:57 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:08 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 12:15 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-12 02:37 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 21:02 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-12 05:23 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:11 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:17 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 23:54 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 10:52 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 13:07 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 20:50 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 08:50 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:16 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 17:45 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:05 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 19:43 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 01:22 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 19:20 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 20:48 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-12 01:21 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 08:53 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-10-12 19:18 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:06 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 06:26 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 00:01 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-14 06:14 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 18:07 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 02:35 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 14:50 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-16 23:54 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 18:21 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 07:12 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 06:50 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 17:00 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 23:47 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 07:31 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 12:16 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-10-17 13:40 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:24 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 00:00 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-16 09:32 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 10:58 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-12 02:36 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 21:01 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 08:56 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 14:12 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 17:49 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:06 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 19:45 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 21:08 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 11:48 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 10:42 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-12 00:38 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 08:59 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 14:14 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 17:52 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:13 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 20:02 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 21:18 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 08:05 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-13 09:38 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 00:06 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-13 21:26 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 02:51 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-14 06:01 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-14 07:25 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 07:29 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-14 10:20 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 11:30 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 13:48 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:08 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 02:57 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:16 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:11 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 14:53 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:25 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 03:46 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 04:15 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 04:27 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 04:39 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:04 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:02 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:18 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:23 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-16 15:00 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-16 19:30 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 00:00 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-16 20:17 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 05:28 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-17 07:15 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 18:13 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:53 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 04:48 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 06:47 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 16:50 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 18:09 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 20:58 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-15 07:29 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 18:03 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:52 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:01 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 09:51 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:34 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 08:06 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 01:54 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:30 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 00:11 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 21:40 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 02:57 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 10:30 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:14 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 19:11 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 23:28 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 19:59 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 02:23 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 04:07 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 08:29 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 18:19 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 16:54 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:14 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-18 12:19 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:15 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-15 07:37 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:45 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:17 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-15 07:32 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-16 09:17 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-16 18:36 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 18:48 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 08:42 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:27 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 17:19 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-10-17 13:40 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:21 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-18 08:42 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 11:16 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 08:00 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-14 10:21 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 09:47 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-14 06:28 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:18 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:20 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 08:56 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 11:09 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-15 16:17 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-15 20:00 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 22:39 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 09:02 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 18:24 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 08:57 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 12:46 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 17:56 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:41 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 21:18 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 07:53 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 13:28 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 10:50 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-14 13:17 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 02:40 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:21 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-10-15 21:09 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 23:04 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 22:47 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 09:03 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:29 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:25 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-10-16 18:36 +0100
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-10-14 20:08 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 04:00 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 09:20 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:34 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 20:42 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-12 21:23 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 09:38 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 09:37 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 02:04 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 07:44 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 02:00 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 07:42 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-13 08:29 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 00:14 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-14 06:32 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 12:27 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:28 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 21:26 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 03:34 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-15 10:25 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-10-15 19:28 +0200
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 18:23 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 22:22 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 18:21 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-15 18:38 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 22:17 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-17 09:07 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 13:29 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-17 18:38 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 20:28 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-18 00:58 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 07:32 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 08:12 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-18 17:24 +0000
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:38 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:32 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-19 13:43 -0500
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-10-19 16:32 -0400
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 19:00 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 18:48 -0700
Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-10-18 11:15 -0400
ITS upper stage as an SSTO. (was Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-03-15 10:34 -0400
Triple cored ITS upper stage as a 1,000,000 lbs launcher.(was: Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-03-15 11:14 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars eaglesondouglas@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 11:12 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 14:15 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-03-15 20:36 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-16 00:57 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 23:00 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-16 13:31 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 16:12 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-03-16 20:26 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 17:38 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-03-16 20:47 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars nj_kruse@me.com (Niels Jørgen Kruse) - 2017-03-17 15:22 +0100
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 08:03 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-03-18 12:19 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-18 17:26 -0400
Re: Musk plans for mars Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 19:20 -0700
Re: Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-03-16 20:19 -0400
Page 12 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 19 Next page →
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 07:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntqj37$olt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58322 |
On 10/14/2016 6:25 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote: > "Jeff Findley" wrote in message > news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >> >> In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >> says... >>> > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to > >>> spread out >>> > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. >>> >>> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar >>> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. > > Nor necessary. > >>> >>> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million >>> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. > > That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7. > No one else is claiming that. > >>> >> >> So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it >> can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars >> anytime soon. >> >> Jeff > > > Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US > section at 120kw. > So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. > but ISS does not provide its own food, nor clean clothes, nor replacement water and N2 and only supports 3 people, 6 for short times below from; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station Atmospheric control systems A flowchart diagram showing the components of the ISS life support system. The interactions between the components of the ISS Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) The atmosphere on board the ISS is similar to the Earth's.[159] Normal air pressure on the ISS is 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi);[160] the same as at sea level on Earth. An Earth-like atmosphere offers benefits for crew comfort, and is much safer than the alternative, a pure oxygen atmosphere, because of the increased risk of a fire such as that responsible for the deaths of the Apollo 1 crew.[161] Earth-like atmospheric conditions have been maintained on all Russian and Soviet spacecraft.[162] The Elektron system aboard Zvezda and a similar system in Destiny generate oxygen aboard the station.[163] The crew has a backup option in the form of bottled oxygen and Solid Fuel Oxygen Generation (SFOG) canisters, a chemical oxygen generator system.[164] Carbon dioxide is removed from the air by the Vozdukh system in Zvezda. Other by-products of human metabolism, such as methane from the intestines and ammonia from sweat, are removed by activated charcoal filters.[164] Part of the ROS atmosphere control system is the oxygen supply, triple-redundancy is provided by the Elektron unit, solid fuel generators, and stored oxygen. The Elektron unit is the primary oxygen supply, O 2 and H 2 are produced by electrolysis, with the H 2 being vented overboard. The 1 kW system uses approximately 1 litre of water per crew member per day from stored water from Earth, or water recycled from other systems. MIR was the first spacecraft to use recycled water for oxygen production. The secondary oxygen supply is provided by burning O 2-producing Vika cartridges (see also ISS ECLSS). Each 'candle' takes 5–20 minutes to decompose at 450–500 °C, producing 600 litres of O 2. This unit is manually operated.[165] The US Orbital Segment has redundant supplies of oxygen, from a pressurised storage tank on the Quest airlock module delivered in 2001, supplemented ten years later by ESA built Advanced Closed-Loop System (ACLS) in the Tranquility module (Node 3), which produces O 2 by electrolysis.[166] Hydrogen produced is combined with carbon dioxide from the cabin atmosphere and converted to water and methane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 10:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <UJKdneM0AKJfdJ3FnZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #58323 |
"Serigo" wrote in message news:ntqj37$olt$1@gioia.aioe.org... > >On 10/14/2016 6:25 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote: >> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>> says... >>>> > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to > >>>> spread out >>>> > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. >>>> >>>> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar >>>> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. >> >> Nor necessary. >> >>>> >>>> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a >>>> million >>>> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. >> >> That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7. >> No one else is claiming that. >> >>>> >>> >>> So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it >>> can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars >>> anytime soon. >>> >>> Jeff >> >> >> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >> section at 120kw. >> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >> > >but ISS does not provide its own food, nor clean clothes, nor replacement >water and N2 and only supports 3 people, 6 for short times Actually the standard crew is 6, and there is talk of moving to 7 once Dragon 2 or CST starts flying on a regular basis. And my point is, even if you double or quadruple the total area of coverage, you'll still have plenty of power for early bases. After that, as Jeff proposes, start bringing small nuclear reactors with you. We have the plans, they probably need some debugging, but it's not really rocket science (the paperwork to get them launched is probably far worse.) ISS doesn't have the advantage of ANY native resources to draw from. A base, even a very early one, on Mars would. Simply having the atmosphere there is a huge help. And if you're really worried about water, land near the poles. And, if we had something like the ITS to launch a new space station into Earth orbit, I can pretty much guarantee we'd take a different approach and worry a lot less about mass. This means we can add more hardware and more redundancy. This is ultimately the single largest advantage you get by cheaper launch costs. You can throw mass at the problem. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 11:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ed820c1pmm8a0nb804him0rootj39lgntg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58323 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/14/2016 6:25 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>> says...
>>>> > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to >
>>>> spread out
>>>> > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar
>>>> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical.
>>
>> Nor necessary.
>>
>>>>
>>>> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million
>>>> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight.
>>
>> That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7.
>> No one else is claiming that.
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it
>>> can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars
>>> anytime soon.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US
>> section at 120kw.
>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.
>>
>
>but ISS does not provide its own food, nor clean clothes, nor
>replacement water and N2 and only supports 3 people, 6 for short times
>
Uh, no. Normal crew on ISS is 6-7 people. You think we're shipping
up huge loads of WATER to ISS? That's really quite funny. In reality,
ISS gets about 2,000 litres a year of 'replacement water'. Most of
the water on ISS already comes from recycling. Note that water is
used to generate O2 on ISS. 'Replacement' N2 is a vanishingly small
amount.
Mars has lots of in situ water and nitrogen. On Mars you'd just wash
clothes.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 13:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntr9aa$1v1t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58345 |
On 10/14/2016 1:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/14/2016 6:25 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote: >>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>>> In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>> says... >>>>>> It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to > >>>>> spread out >>>>>> our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. >>>>> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar >>>>> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. >>> >>> Nor necessary. >>> >>>>> >>>>> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million >>>>> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. >>> >>> That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7. >>> No one else is claiming that. >>> >>>>> >>>> So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it >>>> can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars >>>> anytime soon. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>> >>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >>> section at 120kw. >>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >>> >> >> but ISS does not provide its own food, nor clean clothes, nor >> replacement water and N2 and only supports 3 people, 6 for short times >> > Uh, no. Normal crew on ISS is 6-7 people. You think we're shipping > up huge loads of WATER to ISS? That's really quite funny. In reality, > ISS gets about 2,000 litres a year of 'replacement water'. Most of > the water on ISS already comes from recycling. Note that water is > used to generate O2 on ISS. 'Replacement' N2 is a vanishingly small > amount. > > Mars has lots of in situ water and nitrogen. On Mars you'd just wash > clothes. > > Nasa says 0.43 gallons per day per person + 0.21 gallons for food per person, another NASA site says ISS uses 3 gallons per day per person ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it. what is needed is a way to "wash" clothes without water. https://cei.org/news-releases/federal-efficiency-rules-ruin-washing-machines
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <h3u7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58347 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/14/2016 1:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/14/2016 6:25 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote: >>>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> >>>>> In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>> says... >>>>>>> It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to > >>>>>> spread out >>>>>>> our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. > >>>>>> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar >>>>>> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. >>>> >>>> Nor necessary. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million >>>>>> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. >>>> >>>> That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7. >>>> No one else is claiming that. >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>> So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it >>>>> can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars >>>>> anytime soon. >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>> > >>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >>>> section at 120kw. >>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >>>> >>> >>> but ISS does not provide its own food, nor clean clothes, nor >>> replacement water and N2 and only supports 3 people, 6 for short times >>> > >> Uh, no. Normal crew on ISS is 6-7 people. You think we're shipping >> up huge loads of WATER to ISS? That's really quite funny. In reality, >> ISS gets about 2,000 litres a year of 'replacement water'. Most of >> the water on ISS already comes from recycling. Note that water is >> used to generate O2 on ISS. 'Replacement' N2 is a vanishingly small >> amount. >> >> Mars has lots of in situ water and nitrogen. On Mars you'd just wash >> clothes. >> >> > > Nasa says 0.43 gallons per day per person + 0.21 gallons for food per > person, another NASA site says ISS uses 3 gallons per day per person The AMA says the average person needs to consume about a gallon of water per day. Cooking food, cleaning eating utensils, and washing anything would be on top of that. > ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it. > > what is needed is a way to "wash" clothes without water. Not really as you need water for so many other things that if you have sufficient water for those you can also wash things. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 02:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <cfu30c15nnr5l83b65guu6n2b1fs1vndie@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58347 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/14/2016 1:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> but ISS does not provide its own food, nor clean clothes, nor
>>> replacement water and N2 and only supports 3 people, 6 for short times
>>>
>>
>> Uh, no. Normal crew on ISS is 6-7 people. You think we're shipping
>> up huge loads of WATER to ISS? That's really quite funny. In reality,
>> ISS gets about 2,000 litres a year of 'replacement water'. Most of
>> the water on ISS already comes from recycling. Note that water is
>> used to generate O2 on ISS. 'Replacement' N2 is a vanishingly small
>> amount.
>>
>> Mars has lots of in situ water and nitrogen. On Mars you'd just wash
>> clothes.
>>
>
>Nasa says 0.43 gallons per day per person + 0.21 gallons for food per
>person, another NASA site says ISS uses 3 gallons per day per person
>
You need to read further. They get most of it back and reuse it. I've
told you how much water is shipped up to them. Some water is used to
make oxygen.
>
>ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it.
>
Of course it does. They're for COOLING and are very occasionally
replaced when they get empty. Actual nitrogen storage for use inside
the station is kept in a couple of small tanks in the airlock.
Here. Educate yourself.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150010425.pdf
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 10:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntth8r$qss$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58368 |
On 10/15/2016 4:57 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> >> Nasa says 0.43 gallons per day per person + 0.21 gallons for food per >> person, another NASA site says ISS uses 3 gallons per day per person >> > > You need to read further. They get most of it back and reuse it. I've > told you how much water is shipped up to them. Some water is used to > make oxygen. no they dont. > >> >> ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it. >> > > Of course it does. They're for COOLING no it isnt. cooling is by radiation, NOT by venting GAS, idiot. > and are very occasionally > replaced when they get empty. Actual nitrogen storage for use inside > the station is kept in a couple of small tanks in the airlock. > <snip crap>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 21:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <5ev50c9urqau2bookgjlr765459sjj2ra0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58382 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/15/2016 4:57 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> Nasa says 0.43 gallons per day per person + 0.21 gallons for food per
>>> person, another NASA site says ISS uses 3 gallons per day per person
>>>
>>
>> You need to read further. They get most of it back and reuse it. I've
>> told you how much water is shipped up to them. Some water is used to
>> make oxygen.
>
>no they dont.
>
>>
>>>
>>> ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it.
>>>
>>
>> Of course it does. They're for COOLING
>>
>
>no it isnt. cooling is by radiation, NOT by venting GAS, idiot.
>
Who said anything about venting gas, you lying twat?
>> and are very occasionally
>> replaced when they get empty. Actual nitrogen storage for use inside
>> the station is kept in a couple of small tanks in the airlock.
>>
><snip crap>
>
You were hungry?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 14:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu0lqv$1981$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58399 |
On 10/15/2016 11:11 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2016 4:57 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>>> Nasa says 0.43 gallons per day per person + 0.21 gallons for food per >>>> person, another NASA site says ISS uses 3 gallons per day per person >>>> >>> >>> You need to read further. They get most of it back and reuse it. I've >>> told you how much water is shipped up to them. Some water is used to >>> make oxygen. >> >> no they dont. >> >>> >>>> >>>> ISS has a N2 tank on the side of it. >>>> >>> >>> Of course it does. They're for COOLING >>> >> >> no it isnt. cooling is by radiation, NOT by venting GAS, idiot. >> > > Who said anything about venting gas, NASA, it is what they do, go read about it on the website. Im not going to educate you, the info is free on the internet. Quit trying to pick a fight here, pick your big nose instead, and go Cite yourself. > >>> and are very occasionally >>> replaced when they get empty. Actual nitrogen storage for use inside >>> the station is kept in a couple of small tanks in the airlock. >>> >> <snip crap> >> > > I were hungry? > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 21:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <517c0bd7-0e6d-4c39-898a-0ec7ecfbf584@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58347 |
Sufficient Water for the Good Life:
The United States uses 3.9 trillion gallons of water per month. This is 401.7 gallons per water per person per day. 176.0 gallons per person per day is used directly. The balance is used indirectly.
Producing Fresh Water from Dirty Water
It takes 32 kWh to purify 1000 gallons of water. That's 12.85 kWh/day. That's 535.6 Watts per person per day! With a 3 day supply, that's 1,205.1 gallons of storage.
Beaming Energy from Aerostationary Orbit to Users on Mars
Beaming energy from an aerostationary orbit 17,000 km above Mars surface uisng 70% efficient solar pumped laser setup, requires 1.3 sq meters to capture sunlight at 589 W/m2 1.524x the Earth's distance from the Sun.
Sunlight --> Laser light ---> Transmitter ---> Laser Beam ---> Receiver --> Power Plant
The Power Plant produces fresh water from dirty water, and recycles the dirt recovered from the water in the biosystem.
How much water is there?
A significant amount of surface water has been observed globally by the Mars Odyssey Neutron Spectrometer and Gamma Ray Spectrometer. Ice is both widespread and abundant on the modern Martian surface.
Below 60 degrees of latitude, ice is concentrated in several regional patches, particularly around the Elysium volcanoes, Terra Sabaea, and northwest of Terra Sirenum, and exists in concentrations up to 18% ice in the subsurface.
Above 60 degrees latitude, ice is highly abundant. Polewards on 70 degrees of latitude, ice concentrations exceed 25% almost everywhere, and approach 100% at the poles.
More recently, the SHARAD and MARSIS radar sounding instruments confirm which surface features are ice rich.
The Mars Odyssey neutron spectrometer observations indicate that a Water Equivalent Global layer (WEG) of at least ≈14 centimetres (5.5 in) per meter—in other words, the globally averaged Martian surface is approximately 14% water.
1,205.1 gallons is 4,561.8 litres. This much water is contained in 32.58 sq meters (350.6 sq ft) of surface processed to a depth of 1 meter (3.28 ft) on average. Less land is needed in water rich areas. More land is needed in water poor areas.
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=cadrc
Mars' atmosphere consists of;
Carbon dioxide.... 95.97%
Argon................... 1.93%
Nitrogen.............. 1.89%
Oxygen................ 0.146%
Carbon monoxide 0.0557%
The atmospheric pressure on Mars ranges from a low of 30 pascals (0.0044 psi; 0.30 mbar) on Olympus Mons's peak to over 1,155 pascals (0.1675 psi; 11.55 mbar) in the depths of Hellas Planitia. Mars's atmospheric mass of 25 trillion tonnes.
At 5,000 cubic feet per person (141.7 cubic meters per person) and 1.2 kg/m3 (0.0748 lb/ft3) a total of 380.3 lbs (172.9 kg) of air is needed. 134.9 kg (296.7 lbs) of nitrogen, 36.3 kg (79.9 lbs) of oxygen (one month's supply) and 1.7 kg (3.8 lbs) of water vapour in that space. That's a half gallon of water, and so is a small part of the over 1,200 gallons of water stored for each person.
Mars's atmosphere is about 11 grams/cubic meter - and of that 207.9 milligrams per cubic meter is nitrogen and 16.1 milligrams per cubic meter is oxygen. That means that each person must
648,869.6 cubic meters of Mars's atmosphere x 207.9 milligrams/m3 = 134.9 kg Nitrogen
2,254,658.4 cubic meters of Mars's atmosphere x 16.1 milligrams/m3 = 36.3 kg Oxygen
So, a 350.6 sq ft plot on the surface of Mars, with 714.3 sq ft of floor area per person with a 7.12 foot tall storey, (2 floors) - this is 78,615 people per square mile (30,328 people per sq km). Mining the air to a height of 63.2 km - extracts the oxygen from it, and 1/3rd the nitrogen from it.
From Air and Water to Food
Algae when illuminated with 310 W/m2 continuously produces 9 grams of biomass per m2 per day. 2.564 kg/day of food is required for an adult American male each day.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/fig0903.gif
This requires 284.9 square meters of grow area and 88.3 kW of grow lights. At 65 mm depth per square meter, this is a volume of 18.5 cubic meters. A cube 2.7 meters on a side - illuminated with optical fibre - powered by LED grow lights, fed by laser beam from space.
The 88.3 kW is large in comparison to 0.6 kW for total water recycling! 225.3 square meters of solar concentrator on Aerosynchronous orbit 17,000 km above the Martian surface!
There are 200,000 varieties of algae - and these are selected for the nutrients they possess. Algae cells once grown are disrupted and nutrients enzymatically concentrated. These concentrates are then assembled to form Agar and other nutrient solutions to grow animal and plant cells in vitro. These cells are harvested and assembled with a 3D food printer into food items.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-grown-meat-is-in-your-future-and-it-may-be-healthier-than-the-real-stuff/2016/05/02/aa893f34-e630-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
http://3dprinting.com/food/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6_LCwu7dOg
Solar Concentrator Film
https://research.cems.umn.edu/macosko/papers_n_shows/gbo.pdf
A 0.01 millimeter thick film of plastic with a 1.6 g/cc density masses 16 grams per square meter. 300 square meters per person masses 4.8 kg of primary concentrator per person on Mars's surface. This supplies 117,600 Watts per person continuously. Most of this is for food, water purification is a small component. Water extraction from soil is another component.
At 2600 kg per cubic meter, and processing 33 cubic meters of dirt to get the water required, per person, process 85,800 kg. To break this dirt down into its component parts requires 15 megajoules per kg. That's 1.287 million megajoules. To process all this dirt into its essential elements requires 3,040 hours of 'beam time' which is sufficient to produce via chemical vapour deposition 85.8 tonnes of machinery and materials.
Now on a cruise ship each ton of displacement translates to about 100 cubic feet of usable volume. So, 5000 cubic feet by this standard translates to 50 tons of hardware. So, this balances.
* * *
So, for 200 people arriving at Mars, prior to entry into Mars' atmosphere, a one ton solar pumped laser satellite 277 meters (909 ft) in diameter, is deposited into an Aerostationary orbit above the landing point. Two smaller nano-satellites are located 120 degrees behind and 120 degrees ahead of the power satellite. This provides mars wide communications and communications with Earth.
After the spacecraft lands, a laser receiver is deployed, and energy is used to power a tractor that processes soil at 8 tons per hour - digging 1 meter (3.28 ft) deep and spiral outward from the landing point to create an area 400 feet in diameter - filled with two and three story structures made from materials extracted from Mars surface and atmosphere.
CO2 in the Martian Atmosphere as a resource
Water is electrolysed to form hydrogen and oxygen gases. Hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide to form methane. Methane is polymerised to form plastics.
plastic production from methane
6 H2O + energy ---> 6 H2 + 3 O2
2 CO2 + 8 H2 --> 2 CH4 + 4 H2O
2 CH4 + energy --> 2 H2 +2 CH2
1.286 kg of water and 60.8 MJ of energy is consumed to produce a kg of plastic from ice on Mars and CO2 in the Martian atmosphere. 703.7 Watts of power produce 1 kg of plastic per day from Martian resources. In the USA 139 kg/year is consumed. This is only 380 grams per day. That requires 268 Watts of power for the process described above. Of course, once sufficient plastic is accumulated in the economy waste plastic is recycled 100%.
179 litres of water 478 kg of CO2 is converted to 139 kg of plastic - providing a year's supply per person.
Martian settlers arriving in suspended animation, stay in suspended animation for 120 days following their arrival. This gives the crew time to start the equipment that builds the town. As the town grows, people are awakened in a specific order to maximise life quality and get all the components working and up to speed for all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 03:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <63bb3083-2ebd-4386-a018-609a156f2f65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58402 |
Compressors that compress 100,000 cubic meters of air (3.52 million cubic feet) 850x per hour already exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stjvbAO_6JQ Taking in 100,000 cubic meters per hour of Martian atmosphere means a system that size requires 40 minutes to extract enough nitrogen to fill 5,000 cubic feet of space to Earth normal conditions with nitrogen. Of course 33.6 kg of oxygen can also be obtained from the electrolysis of 37.8 litres of water, and combining the surplus hydrogen with carbon dioxide to make 29 kg of plastics or even sugars. At 11 grams per cubic meter of ambient Martian atmosphere a 100,000 cubic meter per hour compressor processes 1.1 metric tons of the low pressure gas. It takes less than 100 kW of power to maintain this rate of production. The Martian atmosphere is compressed from 6 millibar to 5.1 bar - a compression of 850 to 1. 100,000 cubic meters per hour at the lower pressure compressed to 117.6 cubic meters per hour at the higher pressure. The gas temperature is then cooled in a cryogenic fractionation column where the CO2 and the other gases are converted to successively to liquid, purifying and separating them using well defined industrial processes. - 57 C - Carbon Dioxide - 95.97% - 1,055.7 kg/hr -186 C - Argon - 1.93% - 21.2 kg/hr - 191 C - Carbon Monoxide - 0.0557% - 0.6 kg/hr -196 C - Nitrogen - 1.89% - 20.8 kg/hr -219 C - Oxygen - 0.146% - 1.6 kg/hr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUybtRlaLLw The nitrogen is sufficient to charge 22.2 cubic meters (783.4 cubic feet) of space with Earth normal atmosphere, which requires 5.9 kg/hr of oxygen. Since only 1.6 kg/hr of oxygen is produced by this process from Mars's air, 4.3 kg/hr of oxygen is extracted from 4.8 litres per hour of water - via electrolysis - using water extracted from the Martian soil. This leaves 0.54 kg/hr of hydrogen gas which can be used with carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide to produce a variety of products. Carbon monoxide and hydrogen can also be used to reduce hematite (common on Mars) to iron and steel directly for example. For a 200 person station with 5000 cubic feet per person, it takes a 100,000 cubic meter per hour unit 6.83 hours to extract sufficient nitrogen and oxygen in this way to fill a 5,000 cubic foot living space. 200 people at this density requires 53.2 days to charge the atmosphere. Continuous operation of a compressor/separator allows 1.8% loss per day to be recharged and maintained. This requires 99.6 kW of power. Or about 500 Watts/person. About the same amount as recycling the dirty water to ultra-pure clean water each day per person. Over 120 kW of energy is beamed from a solar power satellite per person, located in an aerosynchronous orbit 17,000 km above the station. The satellite is released prior to the ship's landing. Large long-lasting air stabilised structures exist on Earth; http://www.southerninflatables.net/air-supported-structures A 300 foot diameter two story envelope is buried beneath 3.3 feet of Martian regolith, covered with dirt and fashioned into a small community for 200 people. An automated soil processing unit is deployed from the ship after landing. This consists of a 7.2 ft (2.2 m) wide by 7.2 ft (2.2 m) tall borer that digs a 7.2 ft (2.2m) wide by 3.3 ft (1.0 m) deep trench in a spiral pattern from the centre - around the landed spacecraft. So, a crawler with a borer head, that crushes rock which then falls to conveyor for further processing, using intense 30 MW laser beams into elemental materials. This rock process is combined with a powerful air compressor and air fractionation unit that fills a pressurised tube 9,818 ft (2,993 m) long - with a 7.2 ft (2.2 m) wide by 18 ft (5.5 m) tall cross section with Earth normal air. An airlock at the centre is near the rocket ship. http://g03.s.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1_eGEGFXXXXX2XVXXq6xXFXXXO/221126004/HTB1_eGEGFXXXXX2XVXXq6xXFXXXO.jpg The crushed rock is processed by a 30 MW laser beam that processes the rock to its elemental form - allowing the crusher to advance at a rate of 1.25 meters (4.1 ft) per hour. 2,395 hours (100 days) of continuous operation - processes 13,700 metric tons (15,000 short tons) of rock into elemental materials that are available to be assembled into any product using 3D printer technology. The most important detail is the 1.92 million litres of water (507,210 US gallons) is extracted from the rock and held along with the other materials for further processing. A 7.2 ft (2.2 m) wide by 18 ft (5.5 m) tall tube is unrolled behind the boring machine. The tube has several chambers. The top most chamber holds waste materials in an argon atmosphere. The next layer down, consists of several materials, also in an argon atmosphere, containing a wide range of raw materials extracted from rock, available through feed lines at periodic locations through the length of the tube. The next layer down is deionised water charged with a nitrogen atmosphere. This forms the 'roof' of the tube, and is 7.2 ft (2.2 m) wide and 3.3 ft (1.0 m) tall. This provides radiation protection to items below. The major part of the tube consists of a 7.2 ft (2.2 m) wide by 14.7 ft (4.5 m) tall atmospheric section. When the tube is completed, it forms a spiral with about 20 turns that is 300 feet wide after 100 days of digging. The walls of adjoining tube segments press together. Since all volumes are connected over their length, punching a hole through both walls while heat bonding the edges together, and clipping the edges to a metal tension ring to control stress, allows the creation of a large open space in the tube interior. Behind the digging borer fly quad-rotor style drones in the Earth normal atmosphere inside the tube. They cut away the tube structure opening the space to form a uniform structure within. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/diy/video-watch-flying-robots-build-a-6-meter-tower Another robot crawls along the interior within this enlarged space, drawing materials from the raw material stored above, and using a portable 3D printer, prints building components using that material to install a floor and erect homes offices and items above a floor it installs inside the enlarged pressure dome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpD5H1EH0go The 3D printer is self replicating, and periodically through the large space stationary 3D printers are completed and installed drawing on the stored materials. Recycling units are also installed to process waste materials, once they are available. http://inhabitat.com/worlds-first-self-replicating-3d-printer-assembles-in-just-30-minutes/ Algae tanks and food cell cultures are built - and located in the central are located 78 ft (25 m) diameter section. Over 2000 varieties of cells are held in cryogenic storage. They are withdrawn and inoculate the cell banks. They double in mass every 33 hours - and 1 kg of food turns into 720 kg of food in two weeks. It then produces sufficient food for 200 people indefinitely. The algae is illuminated by a mix of laser light that is ideally suited to support photosynthesis. Algae is harvested, and the cells disrupted. The various biomolecules are extracted through an enzyme process, and combined to form nutrient solutions to feed other cell cultures, of more conventional cells. Meat cells, plant cells. These are harvested and assembled using a 3D food printer into food items. These are then assembled by robot into freshly cooked foods on demand. Waste water is processed, as described previously, and the wastes are further processed into nutrients that feed the algae. Cotton production is 26.3 pounds (12.0 kg) per person per year. Leather production is less. Wood production, more. These are supported by their own 3D printers. http://3dprinting.com/news/3d-printer-can-print-clothes/ https://www.cnet.com/news/bigrep-3d-printer-can-print-whole-pieces-of-furniture/ Settlers arrive in suspended animation and after the first 50 days, they are animated four per day by the active crew, and move into the finished and growing space. By the 100th day, all 200 settlers are animated, and trained, and moved into their new homes. The ship then leaves, with a portion of the precious materials extracted from the 350 foot wide mining site. The mobile 3D printer, borer, and other hardware is still available but with the requirement to keep the algae farms blooming, the power available is reduced to 6 MW from 30 MW - and production rate is dropped to 20% of the original rate. The derated borer and printer have a far longer life, and produce 23 tonnes of raw materials per person per year! So, the spiral continues, however, the air volume does not continue to increase. The next major construction is a maglev launcher 239 km long - that accelerates at 3 gees - to attain orbital velocity. http://www.universetoday.com/127356/hyperloop-on-mars/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop At 95.4 tonnes of material per kilometre it takes one year after arrival to build this track. The point of the system is to launch low mass solar power satellites to expand the size of the village and the living standard. Its also possible to refuel spacecraft on orbit for Earth return, and bring down more settlers than a direct descent and ascent can do. An orbiting hotel on Diemos or Phobos might also pay dividends, particularly if a power satellite factory and fuel factory can be built at either of these sites. http://www.nss.org/settlement/manufacturing/SM11.091.DiemosWaterCompany.pdf Expanding the space 5 fold provides a far superior living standard, and allows traditional gardening and farming to take place - to augment the advanced 3d food printing technology with luxury items and flowering plants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 04:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <8ffc8536-face-412f-a66c-ae64d66d9886@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58413 |
A 66 ft diameter (20 m diameter) tunnel boring machine is built near the 200 person village, after the 239 km long hyperloop is constructed. This hyperloop launches simple spacecraft that may be magnetically levitated over the simple track into mars orbit at 3 gee, which then use aerobraking to land at high speed again on the hyperloop, where they are then slowed to a stop. http://www.nss.org/settlement/manufacturing/SM11.091.DiemosWaterCompany.pdf Solar power satellites are built from materials processed on Diemos and Phobos - which power heavy industry on Mars. The tunnel boring machine begins tunnelling outside the 300 foot diameter circle of the original station enlarges the village into a city. A 66 ft diameter boring machine processes 1,634.8 metric tons per hour of rock into useful materials, whilst advancing a 2 meters per hour - covering 16 km per year. The borer consumes 6.8 billion watts of power beamed continuously from space. In 11.25 years the boring machine processes 180 km of rock, forming a spiral 7,020 ft across around the original station. Creating a space larger than the nation of Monaco! This deep station consumes all the power of the original borer and supplies a superior life style for over 57,600 people! To sustain this rate of growth requires that 5,120 people per year arrive! That's 21 ships the size of the original - each year. Or 44 ships each synodic period. Quite a fleet! Yet, only one Mars ship need be placed into parking orbit every 17.4 days, to achieve this. With passengers and crew in suspended animation, its really quite easy to wait until the launch window to Mars opens and have the entire fleet depart for Mars at that time - traveling together. They all arrive on orbit together, and are awakened at Diemos. There they take shuttles down to the surface. Over the 11.25 year period 161.2 million tons of rock is processed, 22.57 billion litres of water released,and a substantial amount of valued materials are produced. Valued materials are shipped at low cost back to Earth in the returning vehicles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 04:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <96b782e9-335b-4a14-b64c-ce6639ce455e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58414 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 12:15:13 AM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
> A 66 ft diameter (20 m diameter) tunnel boring machine is built near the 200 person village, after the 239 km long hyperloop is constructed. This hyperloop launches simple spacecraft that may be magnetically levitated over the simple track into mars orbit at 3 gee, which then use aerobraking to land at high speed again on the hyperloop, where they are then slowed to a stop.
>
> http://www.nss.org/settlement/manufacturing/SM11.091.DiemosWaterCompany.pdf
>
> Solar power satellites are built from materials processed on Diemos and Phobos - which power heavy industry on Mars.
>
> The tunnel boring machine begins tunnelling outside the 300 foot diameter circle of the original station enlarges the village into a city.
>
> A 66 ft diameter boring machine processes 1,634.8 metric tons per hour of rock into useful materials, whilst advancing a 2 meters per hour - covering 16 km per year.
>
> The borer consumes 6.8 billion watts of power beamed continuously from space. In 11.25 years the boring machine processes 180 km of rock, forming a spiral 7,020 ft across around the original station. Creating a space larger than the nation of Monaco!
>
> This deep station consumes all the power of the original borer and supplies a superior life style for over 57,600 people! To sustain this rate of growth requires that 5,120 people per year arrive! That's 21 ships the size of the original - each year. Or 44 ships each synodic period. Quite a fleet! Yet, only one Mars ship need be placed into parking orbit every 17.4 days, to achieve this. With passengers and crew in suspended animation, its really quite easy to wait until the launch window to Mars opens and have the entire fleet depart for Mars at that time - traveling together. They all arrive on orbit together, and are awakened at Diemos. There they take shuttles down to the surface.
>
> Over the 11.25 year period 161.2 million tons of rock is processed, 22.57 billion litres of water released,and a substantial amount of valued materials are produced. Valued materials are shipped at low cost back to Earth in the returning vehicles.
To fill the 66 ft diameter cylinder with Earth normal air, compressed from Mars air, requires 3 MW of power to process 3,000,000 cubic meters per hour - of Mars's atmosphere. With 0.2% loss per day, every 18 months, another compressor station must be added to sustain continued growth - 8 compressor stations are built after 12 years of sustained growth.
74,313,200 O
45,458,400 Si
This is mostly glass!
13,266,760 Al
9,075,560 Fe
Important metals!
6,689,800 Ca
3,804,320 Na
3,369,080 K
3,755,960 Mg
Important minerals for plants
902,720 Ti
Another important metal.
225,680 H
Mostly from water
169,260 P
153,140 Mn
94,302 F
68,510 Ba
32,240 C
59,644 Sr
56,420 S
26,598 Zr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 04:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <c10ce919-306e-45be-b3c3-5ca7a0986ce0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58415 |
Axial compressors have 2.2x per stage and are 92% efficient when operating subsonically. To obtain an 850x compression requires 9 stages - which is 47.2% overall efficiency. So, the 100 kW screw compressor becomes a 211 kW axial compressor. The axial compressor is far lighter than the screw compressor, but it is far more prone to failure when in continuous use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <3st7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58322 |
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: > "Jeff Findley" wrote in message > news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >> >>In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>says... >>> > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to >>> > spread out >>> > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain. >>> >>> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar >>> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical. > > Nor necessary. > >>> >>> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million >>> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight. > > That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7. > No one else is claiming that. > >>> >> >>So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it >>can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars >>anytime soon. >> >>Jeff > > > Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US > section at 120kw. > So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. Sigh. Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the net results of which is that there is far less power available on the surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about 3,000 square meters of solar panels. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 03:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <0jv30cdskauhbb7efoukjm607qc2kajndv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58349 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>In article <npt5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>says...
>>>> > It's not like we're constrained on how much space we are going to
>>>> > spread out
>>>> > our solar panels over. No neighbors are going to complain.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, sure it would be possible to cover half of Mars with solar
>>>> panels and get lots of power but that is not practical nor economical.
>>
>> Nor necessary.
>>
>>>>
>>>> To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you need well over a million
>>>> square meters of solar panels that only work during daylight.
>>
>> That's nice, you're the one claiming that you want 50 MW of power 24/7.
>> No one else is claiming that.
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>So bring a nuclear reactor, but you'll be constrained as to how bit it
>>>can be, so I seriously doubt you're going to see a 50 MW reactor on Mars
>>>anytime soon.
>>>
>>>Jeff
>>
>>
>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US
>> section at 120kw.
>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.
>
>Sigh.
>
>Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the
>net results of which is that there is far less power available on the
>surface of Mars than there is at the ISS.
>
>To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about
>3,000 square meters of solar panels.
>
Sigh.
Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In
other words, it's TRIVIAL.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 10:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntthbr$qss$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58369 |
On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>> >>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >>> section at 120kw. >>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >> >> Sigh. >> >> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. >> >> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >> 3,000 square meters of solar panels. >> > > Sigh. > > Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In > other words, it's TRIVIAL. > > square is not the problem, moron, it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 21:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <tgv50ch0nma5lpta0afj882fv6b3qvq2lh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58383 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>>>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US
>>>> section at 120kw.
>>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels.
>>>
>>> Sigh.
>>>
>>> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the
>>> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the
>>> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS.
>>>
>>> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about
>>> 3,000 square meters of solar panels.
>>>
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In
>> other words, it's TRIVIAL.
>>
>
>square is not the problem, moron,
>
Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue?
>
> it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels
>
They actually weigh very little and you could just make them on Mars
(which is why you start with nuclear reactors for your high power
sources). Dust is easly managed. The rovers show that the Martian
winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their
solar arrays. You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying
them flat. In addition to letting the dust just slide off them, this
has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the
day.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 15:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu0m89$1aff$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58400 |
On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>>>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>>>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >>>>> section at 120kw. >>>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >>>> >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>>> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >>>> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >>>> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. >>>> >>>> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >>>> 3,000 square meters of solar panels. >>>> >>> >>> Sigh. >>> >>> Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In >>> other words, it's TRIVIAL. >>> >> >> square is not the problem, moron, >> > > Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue? answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no volumes, no costs, nothing no wonder you are lost. > >> >> it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels >> > > They actually weigh very little WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables. > and you could just make them on Mars WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to mfgr a panel ? > Dust is easly managed. WRONG, can't use WATER, only a Gas, cannot sweep it off either > The rovers show that the Martian > winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their > solar arrays. WRONG. after rover plugged up it stayed that way for months, which means you have to enlarge your solar array by a factor of 10 to 100. > You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying > them flat. WRONG. why have them shade each other ? > In addition to letting the dust just slide off them, WRONG, dust is so fine it sticks to the plastic and glass directly. A slide does not clean. > this > has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the > day. WRONG. They have to store the energy anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <8vmdnadRNso2kJnFnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #58429 |
"Serigo" wrote in message news:nu0m89$1aff$1@gioia.aioe.org... > >On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" >>>>> <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>>>>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the >>>>>> US >>>>>> section at 120kw. >>>>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >>>>> >>>>> Sigh. >>>>> >>>>> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >>>>> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >>>>> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. >>>>> >>>>> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >>>>> 3,000 square meters of solar panels. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>>> Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In >>>> other words, it's TRIVIAL. >>>> >>> >>> square is not the problem, moron, >>> >> >> Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue? > >answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no >volumes, no costs, nothing > >no wonder you are lost. > >> >>> >>> it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels >>> >> >> They actually weigh very little > >WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables. Compared to the cost of other items, that's not much. And as Musk is bringing down the cost, the mass is easy. > >> and you could just make them on Mars > >WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to mfgr >a panel ? > > > > > Dust is easly managed. > >WRONG, can't use WATER, only a Gas, cannot sweep it off either Why can't you sweep it off? And if you want to use a gas... hmm.. funny thing, you've got this whole ATMOSPHERE there. > >> The rovers show that the Martian >> winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their >> solar arrays. > >WRONG. after rover plugged up it stayed that way for months, which means >you have to enlarge your solar array by a factor of 10 to 100. Cite on staying that way for months? And remember, the rovers didn't have anyone who could go out there and brush them off if needed. A base of people will have.. you know, PEOPLE to do so. > > >> You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying >> them flat. > >WRONG. why have them shade each other ? > > >> In addition to letting the dust just slide off them, > >WRONG, dust is so fine it sticks to the plastic and glass directly. A slide >does not clean. > >> this >> has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the >> day. > > >WRONG. They have to store the energy anyway. Which is what batteries are for. This is independent of the angle of the panels. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web