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 13 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 19 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 00:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <lugddd-mh7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58429 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>>>>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for the US >>>>>> section at 120kw. >>>>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >>>>> >>>>> Sigh. >>>>> >>>>> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >>>>> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >>>>> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. >>>>> >>>>> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >>>>> 3,000 square meters of solar panels. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>>> Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In >>>> other words, it's TRIVIAL. >>>> >>> >>> square is not the problem, moron, >>> >> >> Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue? > > answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no > volumes, no costs, nothing > > no wonder you are lost. > >> >>> >>> it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels >>> >> >> They actually weigh very little > > WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables. > >> and you could just make them on Mars > > WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to > mfgr a panel ? > > > >> Dust is easly managed. > > WRONG, can't use WATER, only a Gas, cannot sweep it off either > >> The rovers show that the Martian >> winds are generally high enough and frequent enough to clean their >> solar arrays. > > WRONG. after rover plugged up it stayed that way for months, which means > you have to enlarge your solar array by a factor of 10 to 100. > > >> You could just build 'tented' arrays instead of laying >> them flat. > > WRONG. why have them shade each other ? Maximum energy is intercepted when the array is point south and angled at an angle equal to the latitude of the location. Anything other than that further reduces the available power per square meter by a factor related to the sine of beween the collector and normal to the sun. >> In addition to letting the dust just slide off them, > > WRONG, dust is so fine it sticks to the plastic and glass directly. A > slide does not clean. The periodic winds will blow most of the dust off, just as it does on the rovers. Just expect your already small power to be further reduced periodically. >> this >> has the added benefit of providing a flatter power profile through the >> day. > > > WRONG. They have to store the energy anyway. Wrong answer, it reduces the total daily power. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 20:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu1599$dul$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58429 |
Le Oct/16/2016 à 4:00 PM, Serigo a écrit : > On 10/15/2016 11:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/15/2016 5:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" >>>>> <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >>>>>> news:MPG.326a76e45028f09b98983c@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nor will you need one! I mean ISS provides its complete power for >>>>>> the US >>>>>> section at 120kw. >>>>>> So small reactor, or a bunch of relatively cheap solar panels. >>>>> >>>>> Sigh. >>>>> >>>>> Mars is much farther from the Sun than ISS and has an atmosphere, the >>>>> net results of which is that there is far less power available on the >>>>> surface of Mars than there is at the ISS. >>>>> >>>>> To get an average daily output of 120 kW on Mars you need about >>>>> 3,000 square meters of solar panels. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>>> Now do the math. That's a square around 55 meters on a side. In >>>> other words, it's TRIVIAL. >>>> >>> >>> square is not the problem, moron, >>> >> >> Then why does Jimp the Chimp keep raising it as THE issue? > > answer the question, you never have anthing specific, no weight, no > volumes, no costs, nothing > > no wonder you are lost. > >> >>> >>> it is shipping WEIGHT and DUST clogging solar panels >>> >> >> They actually weigh very little > > WRONG. 1# per sq foot, including mounts and cables. > >> and you could just make them on Mars > > WRONG. you got a cleanroom up there? how much WATER does it take to > mfgr a panel ? You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area. Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 05:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <u44edd-je9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58439 |
In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: <snip> > You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You > need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your > own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency > panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in > order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on > Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area. > > Alain Fournier As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels. Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 07:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu2bs6$dij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58447 |
Le Oct/17/2016 à 1:28 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com a écrit : > In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: > > <snip> > >> You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You >> need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your >> own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency >> panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in >> order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on >> Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area. >> >> Alain Fournier > > As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average > of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels. > > Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you > bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping > huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts? Low efficiency solar panels don't need "solar panel silicon". I saw a guy who was making solar panels in his basement. He had some kind of paste he made and he would basically paint his paste on, if I recall correctly, sheets of copper, then put a wire on the copper side and another wire on his pained side. That's all, it worked, not very efficiently but it worked. His panels had only about 30% the efficiency of commercial panels, but they were cheap. Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 18:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <uvgfdd-1ae.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58449 |
In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: > Le Oct/17/2016 ? 1:28 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com a ?crit : >> In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You >>> need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your >>> own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency >>> panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in >>> order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on >>> Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area. >>> >>> Alain Fournier >> >> As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average >> of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels. >> >> Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you >> bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping >> huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts? > > Low efficiency solar panels don't need "solar panel silicon". I saw a > guy who was making solar panels in his basement. He had some kind of > paste he made and he would basically paint his paste on, if I recall > correctly, sheets of copper, then put a wire on the copper side and > another wire on his pained side. That's all, it worked, not very > efficiently but it worked. His panels had only about 30% the efficiency > of commercial panels, but they were cheap. > > > Alain Fournier 40 W/m^2 is based on reasonably efficient solar panels. 30% of that means you get 12 W/m^2. That means you need 84,000 square meters of panel to generate 1 MW. Increasing the required area increases the number of support structures you have to build and concrete into the ground. You need a steel or aluminum mill and mines to provide the raw stock to build the support structures and a cement plant to install them. You also need a copper mine and mill to produce the sheet copper. You will not have any of those things until you have installed the very large amount of generating capacity it takes to run them. It would appear to me it would be far cheaper and easier to ship high efficiency stuff from earth until you have the power to build your own high efficiency panels and mounting structures. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <l5oa0c5ag4id6494d3eack6amsklc9ollg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58467 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> Le Oct/17/2016 ? 1:28 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com a ?crit :
>>> In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You
>>>> need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your
>>>> own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency
>>>> panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in
>>>> order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on
>>>> Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average
>>> of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels.
>>>
>>> Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you
>>> bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping
>>> huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts?
>>
>> Low efficiency solar panels don't need "solar panel silicon". I saw a
>> guy who was making solar panels in his basement. He had some kind of
>> paste he made and he would basically paint his paste on, if I recall
>> correctly, sheets of copper, then put a wire on the copper side and
>> another wire on his pained side. That's all, it worked, not very
>> efficiently but it worked. His panels had only about 30% the efficiency
>> of commercial panels, but they were cheap.
>>
>
>40 W/m^2 is based on reasonably efficient solar panels. 30% of that means
>you get 12 W/m^2. That means you need 84,000 square meters of panel to
>generate 1 MW.
>
So about a 300 meter square, then. And note that Alan is talking
about cells someone made in their basement. It won't be hard for a
real foundry to do better than that.
>
>Increasing the required area increases the number of support structures
>you have to build and concrete into the ground.
>
>You need a steel or aluminum mill and mines to provide the raw stock to
>build the support structures and a cement plant to install them.
>
There are other ways to do it. Concrete is easy.
>
>You also need a copper mine and mill to produce the sheet copper.
>
Copper could potentially be a problem, as we haven't found any
concentrated copper deposits yet, but we have examined very little of
the Martian surface.
>
>You will not have any of those things until you have installed the
>very large amount of generating capacity it takes to run them.
>
For some moderate value of 'very large'. When did Earth humans start
using copper and how much installed power capacity did they have at
the sites where they used it? Both the copper age and the iron age
occurred before humans even started keeping records. Earth humans
made steel before the birth of Christ.
Yes, wholesale production of large pieces is harder, but you talk like
this is an insurmountable barrier and it quite obviously is not.
>
>It would appear to me it would be far cheaper and easier to ship high
>efficiency stuff from earth until you have the power to build your
>own high efficiency panels and mounting structures.
>
Actually, it's probably cheaper initially to use nuclear power. DOE
has designed small (suitcase sized) reactors that would provide around
40 kW each. They're going to build the first one for testing next
year. Want a 160 kW nuke plant? It's the size of four suitcases.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 04:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <1103bda6-0742-4bec-a7ee-e512ce6bd93d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58447 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:31:05 PM UTC+13, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: > > <snip> > > > You don't need lots of water and a clean room to make solar panels. You > > need those to make high performance solar panel. If you manufacture your > > own panels on Mars, you would probably go for easy to do low efficiency > > panels at first. On Earth, people are willing to pay a little more in > > order to have 10 m^2 of panels instead of 500 m^2 of panels. But on > > Mars, the neighbours are far away and you can use lots of surface area. > > > > Alain Fournier > > As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average > of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels. Mars has a semi-major axis that is 1.524 AU. That means the average solar intensity normal to the rays from the Sun is 1368/(1.524^2) = 589 Watts/m2. Hyper-efficient solar panels, which I helped originate with the multi-junction solar cell, have today achieved 70% efficiency, and will soon attain 85% efficiency, their theoretical limit. At the lower level this is 412 W/m2. A sphere has 4x the surface area of a circle the same diameter. Thus, the average power output of a panel on the surface of Mars is 103 W/m2. Thin disc lasers of 70% efficiency are also possible. http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=29420 Here, sunlight is concentrated to an intensity of 2.18 MW/m2 and that is converted to usable laser energy that is beamed to a bandgap matched PV device to produce electrical energy on demand with 65% overall efficiency. A 610 meter diameter concentrator, made of GBO multi-layer polymer film http://science.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2451.full?siteid=sci Focuses light on to a 10 meter thin disc laser array, that beams energy 17,000 km to the Martian surface, from an aerostationary orbit. This 610 meter diameter disc intercepts 172.1 MW of solar energy and produces a laser beam 120.5 MW in intensity. That beam is focused on a 10 meter diameter receiver using conjugate optics, 17,000 km away. This receiver generates 111.9 MW of electrical power. The GBO multi-layer film is 0.005 mm thick and masses 80 grams per square meter. The entire disk masses 2.34 metric tons! An 0.8 mm thick wafer that's 10 meters in diameter, that forms the thin disc laser array, and active optical beam forming device, masses 180 kg. A total of 2.52 tonnes. This is easily deployed by the spacecraft prior to entry into Mars's atmosphere. > Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, Not really. Mars surface is 14% by weight water ice. So that's abundant! With very few clouds and a thin atmosphere, sunlight is abundant too. Of course laser beaming from space is highly efficient as well. Water is produced by solar electrolysis; 4 H2O + energy ---> 4 H2 + 2 O2 9 litres of water is broken down into 1 kg of hydrogen gas and 8 kg of oxygen gas using 142 megajoules of energy. The satellite described earlier could process 788 kg/second of hydrogen from 7.1 kilolitres of water per second. Hydrogen reduces CO2 extracted from the atmosphere to methane and water CO2 + 4 H2 --> CH4 + 2 H2O Here 4.3 kg of CO2 is combined with 0.788 kg of hydrogen per second to produce 1.576 kg of methane per second and 3.65 kilolitres of process water which is recycled. 15.48 metric tons per hour require 16 screw compressors each capable of compressing 100,000 cubic meters of Mars atmosphere per hour - each consuming 0.1 MW - so, a total of 1.6 MW is required to run these compressors - to raise pressure fro 6 millibar to 5.1 bar. The CO2 is then liquified, and purified, and processed further with microwaves to break the CH4 down into elemental carbon and hydrogen CH4 + energy ---> C + 2 H2 which costs another 2 MW to convert 1.576 kg/sec of methane into 1.182 kg of elemental carbon along with 0.394 kg of process hydrogen. This eliminates the need for fresh water, and reduces the energy consumption in the first step by half - or alternatively doubles the production rate for a given power input. Carbon is combined with silica to produce silicon and carbon monoxide. 2 C + SiO2 ---> 2 CO + Si 3.152 kg/sec of carbon + 7.880 kg/sec of silica equals 7.354 kg/sec of carbon monoxide and 3.678 kg/second of silicon metal. So, 111.9 MW of power produces 3.678 kg/sec of silicon metal from silica found on Mars. 30.48 MJ/kg. It takes 2 kg to cover a square meter with silicon panels. Silicon nanowires can be hydrogenated to adjust their bandgap energy directly, making hyper efficient solar panels possible that are 70% efficient. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.0427.pdf https://www.google.com/patents/WO2005026626A3?cl=en Of course, methane can be made into a wide range of plastics - including the GBO film described to allow operation of highly concentrating solar panels, improving mass efficiencies by reducing mass accordingly. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/from-methane-to-plastic-to-methane-without-waste/?_r=0 The cost per kg of plastic is about half that of silicon. Running at the concentration described above, 2.34 tonnes of plastic is required for each 0.18 tonnes of silicon. A system operating on the Martian surface generates 1/4 the power level, so the power is 28 MW - whilst the plastic has an energy cost of 35.1 gigajoules and the silicon has an energy cost of 5.4 gigajoules. An overall energy cost of 40.5 gigajoules to produce 28 MW of averaged power on the Martian surface. This is a replication time of 24 minutes! So, if we started with a dish 1128 mm in diameter, intercepting 1 sq meter of sunlight, that had a micro-scale process on board that took silica carbon dioxide and sunlight to make copies of itself, it would have a doubling time of less than half an hour. Let's say inefficiencies extend this time to an hour. The surface area of Mars is 144.37 trillion square meters. Starting with ONE square meter, with a doubling time of ONE HOUR. We have LN(144.37e12)/ln(2) = 47.036 ~ 48 hours. after landing a solar powered self replicating system would have the entire surface of Mars covered with solar panels. so how do you > bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping > huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts? A small one square meter self replicating system that is solar powered and uses CO2, H2O and SiO2 found on Mars to make GBO multi-layer plastic film reflector, and hydrogenated silicon nanowire with tuned photovoltaic systems, could cover the entire surface of Mars with solar panels in 2 days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptUj8JRAYu8 Once that were in place, the entire surface could then be transformed into habitats. 25 trillion tons of CO2 is converted into 6.8 trillion tons of carbon and 18.1 trillion tons of oxygen. There is also 500 billion tons of nitrogen. Enough nitrogen to fill 534 trillion cubic meters of space with atmosphere equivalent to Earth at sea level. This is sufficient to cover the entire Mars surface to a depth of 3.7 meters (12 ft) > > > -- > Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 06:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <uui90cp20441t0fffssfi24vj4qhoqucp7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58447 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average
>of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels.
>
You have a point?
>
>Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you
>bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping
>huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts?
>
You've had this explained to you repeatedly. Initial power would come
from a number of relatively small nuclear reactors. The first two
down would provide power for a chemical plant making methane and
'hotel power' for an initial habitat. These are relatively small
reactors, so having lots of them with each assigned to a specific
application is not a major problem.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu3h2i$1pun$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58458 |
On 10/17/2016 8:47 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>
>> As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average
>> of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels.
>>
>
> You have a point?
yes he does, and you missed it.
low light = lots of panels => even more problems
got it ?
For extra Credit list the problems,
(hint, there are 8 major problems)
>
>>
>> Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you
>> bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping
>> huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts?
>>
>
> Initial power would come
> from a number of relatively small nuclear reactors. The first two
> down would provide power for a chemical plant making methane and
> 'hotel power' for an initial habitat. These are relatively small
> reactors, so having lots of them with each assigned to a specific
> application is not a major problem.
you're in dreamland again... Nothing real, none of that exists.
and WHY ? to collect rocks on Mars ? For Geology ?
f*ck that !!
take that 16 Billion and give Jobs to people in the USA building
factories here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 18:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <7eta0cp2nrb6si7jan0f0vskumomio8t3f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58472 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/17/2016 8:47 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average
>>> of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels.
>>>
>>
>> You have a point?
>>
>
>yes he does, and you missed it.
>
>low light = lots of panels => even more problems
>
>got it ?
>
Yeah. He had no point.
>
>For extra Credit list the problems,
>(hint, there are 8 major problems)
>
You don't get credit for listing problems, idiot. Go back to your
cave.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you
>>> bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping
>>> huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts?
>>>
>>
>> Initial power would come
>> from a number of relatively small nuclear reactors. The first two
>> down would provide power for a chemical plant making methane and
>> 'hotel power' for an initial habitat. These are relatively small
>> reactors, so having lots of them with each assigned to a specific
>> application is not a major problem.
>>
>
>you're in dreamland again... Nothing real, none of that exists.
>
DOE is building them now. DOH!
>
>and WHY ? to collect rocks on Mars ? For Geology ?
>
> f*ck that !!
>
I love how you make up the answers for other people.
>
>take that 16 Billion and give Jobs to people in the USA building
>factories here.
>
That won't help you. You still won't have a job.
--
"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 | 2016-10-17 20:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu3vk7$bgf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58490 |
On 10/17/2016 8:09 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/17/2016 8:47 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> As high efficiency solar panel on Mars would only deliver a daily average >>>> of about 40 W/m^2, low efficieny panels means a LOT of panels. >>>> >>> >>> You have a point? >>> >> >> yes he does, and you missed it. >> >> low light = lots of panels => even more problems >> >> got it ? >> > > Yeah. He had no point. you are unable to think outside your very limited small teeny-tiny box. you still missed it. you dont have much on this topic do you? > >> >> For extra Credit list the problems, >> (hint, there are 8 major problems) >> > > You don't get credit for listing problems, idiot. problems are solved by engineering, you do not even have the depth to list the obvious problems, > >> >>> >>>> >>>> Making solar panel silicon is very energy intensive, so how do you >>>> bootstrap a solar panel plant other than with a reactor or shipping >>>> huge amounts of panels, mounting hardware, and cement for the posts? >>>> >>> >>> Initial power would come >>> from a number of relatively small nuclear reactors. The first two >>> down would provide power for a chemical plant making methane and >>> 'hotel power' for an initial habitat. These are relatively small >>> reactors, so having lots of them with each assigned to a specific >>> application is not a major problem. >>> >> >> you're in dreamland again... Nothing real, none of that exists. >> > > DOE is building them now. no they are not. They are funding studies. got a URL ? > >> >> and WHY ? to collect rocks on Mars ? For Geology ? >> >> f*ck that !! >> > > I love how you make up the answers for other people. wrong again. it is => THE ANSWER for MARS. > >> >> take that 16 Billion and give Jobs to people in the USA building >> factories here. >> > > That won't help you. you keep insulting people, instead of providing solutions, here is a HUGE political problem, and all you have is SNOT .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 07:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <9bidnWz6WZNjj5_FnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #58349 |
wrote in message news:3st7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >> 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. > Umm... yeah... your point? Hell I'm seeing HOUSES down the street near me that have nearly that much (seriously there's one house that a quick ball-park estimate suggests they probably have about 2x the panels they need). Quick googling shows that I can get a 2 square meters of panels at $218. So that's $327,000. For a mission cost in the millions, that's pretty cheap. Heck, even with delivery costs (let's assume $1K/kg, but I believe Musk is shooting much lower), we're under $5M. Not to bad Hell, at that cost, maybe I'll splurge and by 4000 square meters.) Point being, it's a very solvable problem for a small Mars mission. And as you grow, you start to look at small nukes or just keep adding in more panels. Not a big problem. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 18:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <9l7add-p9q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58377 |
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: > wrote in message news:3st7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> >>> 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. >> > > Umm... yeah... your point? Hell I'm seeing HOUSES down the street near me > that have nearly that much (seriously there's one house that a quick > ball-park estimate suggests they probably have about 2x the panels they > need). > Quick googling shows that I can get a 2 square meters of panels at $218. So > that's $327,000. For a mission cost in the millions, that's pretty cheap. > Heck, even with delivery costs (let's assume $1K/kg, but I believe Musk is > shooting much lower), we're under $5M. Not to bad Hell, at that cost, maybe > I'll splurge and by 4000 square meters.) > > Point being, it's a very solvable problem for a small Mars mission. And as > you grow, you start to look at small nukes or just keep adding in more > panels. > > Not a big problem. Nope, not a big problem for a small research station but a huge problem if you are talking about a real colony building things. Turning dirt into industrial steel or industrial aluminum to build things takes lots of energy and you are not going to be building log cabins on Mars. It takes 20-25 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of iron from iron ore. It takes 20-50 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of steel from iron. So that is 40-75 MJ/kg of steel from dirt. It takes 227-342 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of aluminum from bauxite. It takes 7,590-7,755 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of electronic grade silicon. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 21:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <9j060cp0npcjvs2dm0j82qn1se5kphfcsv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58388 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>> wrote in message news:3st7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Umm... yeah... your point? Hell I'm seeing HOUSES down the street near me
>> that have nearly that much (seriously there's one house that a quick
>> ball-park estimate suggests they probably have about 2x the panels they
>> need).
>> Quick googling shows that I can get a 2 square meters of panels at $218. So
>> that's $327,000. For a mission cost in the millions, that's pretty cheap.
>> Heck, even with delivery costs (let's assume $1K/kg, but I believe Musk is
>> shooting much lower), we're under $5M. Not to bad Hell, at that cost, maybe
>> I'll splurge and by 4000 square meters.)
>>
>> Point being, it's a very solvable problem for a small Mars mission. And as
>> you grow, you start to look at small nukes or just keep adding in more
>> panels.
>>
>> Not a big problem.
>>
>
>Nope, not a big problem for a small research station but a huge problem
>if you are talking about a real colony building things.
>
Not really.
>
>Turning dirt into industrial steel or industrial aluminum to build
>things takes lots of energy and you are not going to be building
>log cabins on Mars.
I love how you pick joules for your unit to make the numbers sound big
and forbidding.
>
>It takes 20-25 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of iron from iron ore.
>
>It takes 20-50 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of steel from iron.
>
>So that is 40-75 MJ/kg of steel from dirt.
>
Let me see. I know it takes 5 MW-hrs to make a ton of steel from ore.
Your numbers are much higher. Where did you get these numbers?
>
>It takes 227-342 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of aluminum from bauxite.
>
This number seems preposterously high, as well. It takes about 14.5
GJ per tonne. Your numbers seem to be over an order of magnitude too
high. Again, where did you get them?
http://bauxite.world-aluminium.org/refining/energy-efficiency.html
>
>It takes 7,590-7,755 MJ to produce 1 kilogram of electronic grade silicon.
>
Your number is a little over 2 MW-hr for a kilogram of electronic
grade silicon. Once again your number seems to be an order of
magnitude too large. Where did you get it?
http://pyrometallurgy.co.za/Pyro2011/Papers/083-Xakalashe.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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <5mt7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58316 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > 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. >> >> 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. >> > > 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 Likely not but since life would depend on reacotrs running, having several avoids single point of failure issues so probably makes more sense. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 09:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <i0320ch6hcpbo4lo22juc6lgssdj7o6soq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58293 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 11:18 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Wrong. I seem to know a lot more about this (and everything) than you
>> do, troll. For any reasonable amount you can produce as much as you
>> want.
>>
>>> >
>>> >If you’re looking for a rough estimate rather than an entirely accurate
>>> >one; a hundred cubic foot of gas is between 2 and 3 kWh, depending upon
>>> >the conversion factors which are used.
>>> >
>> I'm the one who was looking for an 'estimate'.
>
>try reading;
>
>can YOU generate 1 ton of poop to power your computer for a day ?
>
>no!
>
Try reading. Why would I want to? Only an idiot (you) is going to
try to produce methane from your poop rather than simply making it out
of water and CO2. Only a fuckwitted moron is going to burn methane
for power on Mars.
<snip TrollPoop>
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 08:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <MPG.326949745a2664c498983b@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #58271 |
In article <ntmmft$ipv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > > On 10/12/2016 7:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/12/2016 4:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in > >>>> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars" > >>>> > >>> > >>> True, but your typical space colony won't be burning coal. Methane is > >>> easily produced. > >>> > >> > >> 1 how much methane does it take to generate 1 watt hour ? > >> > > > > A little over 3 cubic feet. Why does it matter? You can produce as > > much as you need. > > wrong, you are unfamiliar with sizing a problem, determining the bounds > or limits. > > If you?re looking for a rough estimate rather than an entirely accurate > one; a hundred cubic foot of gas is between 2 and 3 kWh, depending upon > the conversion factors which are used. > > > > > >> > >> 2 how many watt hours does your computer take ? (assume you use it for 1 > >> hour) > >> > > > > Who the fuck knows or cares? > > look at your power supply, or turn over your computer, it is on the > label, know how to read ? My Raspberry Pi 3 single board computers (quad core ARM running at 1 gigahertz) that I use to run Linux and "set top box" software each have a 5 volt 1 Amp power supply, so 5 watts. Where will we get the power to run our (energy efficient) computers? Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 08:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nto0s8$k69$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58292 |
On 10/13/2016 7:34 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <ntmmft$ipv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> On 10/12/2016 7:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/12/2016 4:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> 2 how many watt hours does your computer take ? (assume you use it for 1 >>>> hour) >>>> >>> >>> Who the fuck knows or cares? >> >> look at your power supply, or turn over your computer, it is on the >> label, know how to read ? > > My Raspberry Pi 3 single board computers (quad core ARM running at 1 > gigahertz) that I use to run Linux and "set top box" software each have > a 5 volt 1 Amp power supply, so 5 watts. Where will we get the power to > run our (energy efficient) computers? > > Jeff > Rasberry Pi 3 are fantastic,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 01:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <l363dd-7g3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58259 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2016 4:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in >>> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars" >>> >> >> True, but your typical space colony won't be burning coal. Methane is >> easily produced. >> >> > > 1 how much methane does it take to generate 1 watt hour ? > > 2 how many watt hours does your computer take ? (assume you use it for 1 > hour) > > 3 how much poop does it take to generate the methane needed in 1 above ? It would be silly to burn anything on Mars when there is no free oxygen. Methane would be more useful as a seed product for making other things such as plastics. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 08:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3269487de9fafa7298983a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #58245 |
In article <ntlfkp$ipl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > > there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in > its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars" So you use solar and nuclear power. And if fusion power ever becomes practical, you use that too. Just because we're dependant on fossil fuels here on earth doesn't mean a Mars colony needs to be! Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web