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 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 21:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <d730dd-knm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58217 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>there is no reason for man to go to Mars. It is rocks and sand in a >>>>vaccum. no food, no water, no air. >>>> >>> >>> Absolutely ignorant. >>> >>>> >>>>send a robot. >>>> >>> >>> If people aren't going there's no reason to send a robot. >>> >> >>It is called research. >> > > Real research has some goal. Why research something you're never > going to get near or use for anything? Does the term "pure research" mean anything to you? >>Absent Star Trek technology, no human is going to go to most of the >>places we send research robots. >> > > So why are we sending them? Pure research obviously. Why did people build telescopes and look at the sky in the 18th Century? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 19:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntjtl0$j94$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58220 |
Le Oct/11/2016 à 5:46 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com a écrit : > In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. It is rocks and sand in a >>>>> vaccum. no food, no water, no air. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Absolutely ignorant. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> send a robot. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If people aren't going there's no reason to send a robot. >>>> >>> >>> It is called research. >>> >> >> Real research has some goal. Why research something you're never >> going to get near or use for anything? > > Does the term "pure research" mean anything to you? > >>> Absent Star Trek technology, no human is going to go to most of the >>> places we send research robots. >>> >> >> So why are we sending them? > > Pure research obviously. > > Why did people build telescopes and look at the sky in the 18th Century? Indeed. And it is quite often surprising how fast some "pure research" can become practical. The man who would later be the professor supervising me for my Ph.D. in computer fluid dynamics, did his own Ph.D. thesis in numerical fluid dynamics in the early 60s. At a time when the most powerful computer on Earth was about 3 order of magnitudes short of memory and of speed to be able to solve real computer fluid dynamics problem. At the time no one knew that computers would some day be able to solve those problems. So he was studying how some problems could be solved if you had a machine that was maybe impossible, totally theoretical. Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 20:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <joarvblla7qcvrmkffk1qj8oal5qjqvvat@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58220 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>there is no reason for man to go to Mars. It is rocks and sand in a
>>>>>vaccum. no food, no water, no air.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely ignorant.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>send a robot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If people aren't going there's no reason to send a robot.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It is called research.
>>>
>>
>> Real research has some goal. Why research something you're never
>> going to get near or use for anything?
>>
>
>Does the term "pure research" mean anything to you?
>
Yeah. It means we shouldn't be engaging in multi-billion dollar
projects to do it.
>>>Absent Star Trek technology, no human is going to go to most of the
>>>places we send research robots.
>>>
>>
>> So why are we sending them?
>>
>
>Pure research obviously.
>
A stupendous waste of resources, obviously.
>
>Why did people build telescopes and look at the sky in the 18th Century?
>
Ask them. I bet NONE of them say 'pure research'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 05:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <hnt0dd-dap.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58228 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>there is no reason for man to go to Mars. It is rocks and sand in a >>>>>>vaccum. no food, no water, no air. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Absolutely ignorant. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>send a robot. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If people aren't going there's no reason to send a robot. >>>>> >>>> >>>>It is called research. >>>> >>> >>> Real research has some goal. Why research something you're never >>> going to get near or use for anything? >>> >> >>Does the term "pure research" mean anything to you? >> > > Yeah. It means we shouldn't be engaging in multi-billion dollar > projects to do it. Non sequitur. Few pure research projects are multi-billion dollar projects. >>>>Absent Star Trek technology, no human is going to go to most of the >>>>places we send research robots. >>>> >>> >>> So why are we sending them? >>> >> >>Pure research obviously. >> > > A stupendous waste of resources, obviously. Yeah, I guess understanding the universe is a waste of time and resources. >> >>Why did people build telescopes and look at the sky in the 18th Century? >> > > Ask them. I bet NONE of them say 'pure research'. If it wasn't pure research, what was the practical application of looking at the sky in the 18th Century? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 12:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <kd5tvb1p8rhqreqqd9le27garukdnd1846@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58238 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>there is no reason for man to go to Mars. It is rocks and sand in a
>>>>>>>vaccum. no food, no water, no air.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely ignorant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>send a robot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If people aren't going there's no reason to send a robot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It is called research.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Real research has some goal. Why research something you're never
>>>> going to get near or use for anything?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Does the term "pure research" mean anything to you?
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. It means we shouldn't be engaging in multi-billion dollar
>> projects to do it.
>
>Non sequitur.
>
>Few pure research projects are multi-billion dollar projects.
>
Non sequitur.
Almost every major space probe (what we're talking about here) is a
multi-billion dollar project, when all is said and done.
>>>>>Absent Star Trek technology, no human is going to go to most of the
>>>>>places we send research robots.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So why are we sending them?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Pure research obviously.
>>>
>>
>> A stupendous waste of resources, obviously.
>
>Yeah, I guess understanding the universe is a waste of time and resources.
>
>>>
>>>Why did people build telescopes and look at the sky in the 18th Century?
>>>
>>
>> Ask them. I bet NONE of them say 'pure research'.
>
>If it wasn't pure research, what was the practical application of looking
>at the sky in the 18th Century?
>
Ask them. I bet NONE of them say 'pure research'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 19:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <MPG.32673b56a5c42320989832@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #58210 |
In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > > there is no reason for man to go to Mars. Opinion. > It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. If you want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but even the moon looks to have water. > no food, no water, no air. There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2 atmosphere. Food could be grown. > send a robot. Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science compared to a manned mission. > to hell with Musk and his gov funded R&D companies. Tell us how you really feel... Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 19:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntjvi8$brk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58221 |
On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. > > Opinion. Fact. Mars is Dead. > >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. > > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air. > If you > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but > even the moon looks to have water. "looks" => conjecture > >> no food, no water, no air. > > There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable. > and again a CO2 > atmosphere. Food could be grown. all moisture would leave the plant. Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants. Radiation will kill it off in a few years. > >> send a robot. > > Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science > compared to a manned mission. silly opinion. > >> to hell with Musk and his gov funded R&D companies. > > Tell us how you really feel... I dont want Gov stealing my money for dead ideas. > > Jeff >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 20:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntk1ed$smd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58223 |
On Oct/11/2016 at 8:19 PM, Serigo wrote : > On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: >> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >>> no food, no water, no air. >> >> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) > > conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable. Well, let's say it is a very strong conjecture. >> and again a CO2 >> atmosphere. Food could be grown. > > all moisture would leave the plant. > Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants. > Radiation will kill it off in a few years. You would do so in pressurized greenhouses. It can be done. Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 20:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntk4sd$ha1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58224 |
On 10/11/2016 7:51 PM, Alain Fournier wrote: > On Oct/11/2016 at 8:19 PM, Serigo wrote : >> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: >>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > >>> >>>> no food, no water, no air. >>> >>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) >> >> conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable. > > Well, let's say it is a very strong conjecture. but very little of it. > >>> and again a CO2 >>> atmosphere. Food could be grown. >> >> all moisture would leave the plant. >> Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants. >> Radiation will kill it off in a few years. > > You would do so in pressurized greenhouses. It can be done. > the greenhouse would be the equivelent of a large tank and the light would be dim due to outside dust. What atmosphere would you use ? you take up N2, must have that for breathing anyway. Plants cannot live on CO2 alone. They get their bulk from more solid substances like water and organic matter. This organic matter comes from decomposing plants and animals or from man made fertilizers. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat. > > Alain Fournier >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 20:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <vocrvb9lsppcf8fc3qbe0nmam876rs1aon@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58225 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/11/2016 7:51 PM, Alain Fournier wrote:
>> On Oct/11/2016 at 8:19 PM, Serigo wrote :
>>> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>
>>>>
>>>>> no food, no water, no air.
>>>>
>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions)
>>>
>>> conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable.
>>
>> Well, let's say it is a very strong conjecture.
>
>but very little of it.
>
Wrong again, bucko. There are trillions of acre-feet of water
available as ices on Mars.
>>
>>>> and again a CO2
>>>> atmosphere. Food could be grown.
>>>
>>> all moisture would leave the plant.
>>> Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants.
>>> Radiation will kill it off in a few years.
>>
>> You would do so in pressurized greenhouses. It can be done.
>>
>
> the greenhouse would be the equivelent of a large tank and the light
>would be dim due to outside dust.
>
Wrong.
>
>What atmosphere would you use ?
>
Whatever one I wanted.
>
>you take up N2, must have that for breathing anyway.
>
Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the
oxygen.
>
>Plants cannot live on CO2 alone. They get their bulk from more solid
>substances like water and organic matter. This organic matter comes from
>decomposing plants and animals or from man made fertilizers.
>
So?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 05:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <4vt0dd-dap.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58232 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the > oxygen. We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen. Breathing pure oxygen is generally bad for humans. http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-does-breathing-pure-oxygen-kill-you -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 13:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <pv5tvb1irllibv5jee2bc7r5mhjeiqcmo4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58239 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the
>> oxygen.
>
>We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen.
>
And what we breath out has the same amount of nitrogen in it, so you
don't need any more but to replace leakage. And nothing says you HAVE
to use nitrogen for the inert component of atmosphere or that you have
to run 15 psi.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 17:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntme9i$a00$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58251 |
On 10/12/2016 3:09 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the >>> oxygen. >> >> We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen. >> > > And what we breath out has the same amount of nitrogen in it, so you > don't need any more but to replace leakage. And nothing says you HAVE > to use nitrogen for the inert component of atmosphere or that you have > to run 15 psi. > > what else are you going to use ? do you have any ideas ? N2 is the only practical one. and you have to take a lot of it, all in *high pressure heavy* tanks. do you have an alternate inert gas in mind ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 17:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <gchtvbtveqe614485ngtmcbbnub2qc5c6b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58256 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 3:09 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the
>>>> oxygen.
>>>
>>> We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen.
>>>
>>
>> And what we breath out has the same amount of nitrogen in it, so you
>> don't need any more but to replace leakage. And nothing says you HAVE
>> to use nitrogen for the inert component of atmosphere or that you have
>> to run 15 psi.
>>
>
>what else are you going to use ? do you have any ideas ?
>
You can use anything you like, as long as it's non-toxic. Or you can
use nothing at all.
>
>N2 is the only practical one.
>
No, but it's probably the simplest and cheapest.
>
>and you have to take a lot of it,
>
Not really. After all, it's not consumed so you really just need
enough to fill the people spaces plus a little left over for 'make up
gas'. There's nitrogen on Mars, so you don't need to haul it all in.
Or you could just use pure oxygen, if you're willing to accept the
fire danger.
>
>all in *high pressure heavy* tanks.
>
Oh, don't be silly.
>
>do you have an alternate inert gas in mind ?
>
You don't absolutely need an inert gas, but you could just take both
the nitrogen and argon out of the Martian atmosphere and use that. Or
you could get nitrogen from nitrogenous regolith.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 19:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntml60$hiv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58261 |
On 10/12/2016 7:03 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/12/2016 3:09 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the >>>>> oxygen. >>>> >>>> We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen. >>>> >>> >>> And what we breath out has the same amount of nitrogen in it, so you >>> don't need any more but to replace leakage. And nothing says you HAVE >>> to use nitrogen for the inert component of atmosphere or that you have >>> to run 15 psi. >>> >> >> what else are you going to use ? do you have any ideas ? >> > > You can use anything you like, as long as it's non-toxic. wrong criteria. name a gas, and I will show you the problems with it. > Or you can > use nothing at all. you have to use something, nothing is pure O2 and that makes plastics into explosives. > >> >> N2 is the only practical one. >> > > No, but it's probably the simplest and cheapest. if no, name a gas. > >> >> and you have to take a lot of it, >> > > Not really. After all, it's not consumed so you really just need > enough to fill the people spaces plus a little left over for 'make up > gas'. There's nitrogen on Mars, it is a rare gas on Mars, less than 0.002% so you are going to haul up an air liquifying plant to Mars ? > so you don't need to haul it all in. > Or you could just use pure oxygen, if you're willing to accept the > fire danger. cannot use pure O2, google Apollo 1 fire. and try to keep up, more reading of books > >> >> all in *high pressure heavy* tanks. >> > > Oh, don't be silly. what does N2 come in ? > >> >> do you have an alternate inert gas in mind ? >> > > You don't absolutely need an inert gas, if it is not inert, the gas reacts with materials, and people you dont seem to know much. ... > but you could just take both > the nitrogen and argon out of the Martian atmosphere and use that. Or > you could get nitrogen from nitrogenous regolith. such as... try naming them there are no piles of bat shit on Mars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 01:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <6343dd-b93.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58265 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2016 7:03 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/12/2016 3:09 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>> Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the >>>>>> oxygen. >>>>> >>>>> We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And what we breath out has the same amount of nitrogen in it, so you >>>> don't need any more but to replace leakage. And nothing says you HAVE >>>> to use nitrogen for the inert component of atmosphere or that you have >>>> to run 15 psi. >>>> >>> >>> what else are you going to use ? do you have any ideas ? >>> >> >> You can use anything you like, as long as it's non-toxic. > > wrong criteria. name a gas, and I will show you the problems with it. > >> Or you can >> use nothing at all. > > you have to use something, nothing is pure O2 and that makes plastics > into explosives. Breathing oxygen in high concentrations is generally harmfull to humans. http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-does-breathing-pure-oxygen-kill-you You HAVE to cut it with something. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 21:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <1q2uvbliqtpcvf8fe057sqoomncsigdsj7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58272 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2016 7:03 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2016 3:09 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the
>>>>>>> oxygen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And what we breath out has the same amount of nitrogen in it, so you
>>>>> don't need any more but to replace leakage. And nothing says you HAVE
>>>>> to use nitrogen for the inert component of atmosphere or that you have
>>>>> to run 15 psi.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what else are you going to use ? do you have any ideas ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can use anything you like, as long as it's non-toxic.
>>
>> wrong criteria. name a gas, and I will show you the problems with it.
>>
>>> Or you can
>>> use nothing at all.
>>
>> you have to use something, nothing is pure O2 and that makes plastics
>> into explosives.
>
>Breathing oxygen in high concentrations is generally harmfull to humans.
>
Only if you're stupid enough to breath it at excessive pressures.
>
>http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-does-breathing-pure-oxygen-kill-you
>
>You HAVE to cut it with something.
>
No, you don't. From your own cite, the problems occur when you have
oxygen partial pressures of 0.5 bars (around 7.25 psi) or higher. Note
that these problems will occur when you get to those sorts of O2
partial pressures whether you have 'cut the O2' with something else or
not.
Normal partial pressures of O2 in the atmosphere are around 3 psi. A
3 psi pure oxygen atmosphere won't hurt you, since it's the same
partial pressure of O2 that you get at sea level on Earth. Pretty
much ALL US space missions before the Shuttle (the exception is
Skylab) were flown with pure O2 atmospheres.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 08:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <MPG.326944f3a305a97c989837@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #58283 |
In article <1q2uvbliqtpcvf8fe057sqoomncsigdsj7@4ax.com>, fjmccall@gmail.com says... > No, you don't. From your own cite, the problems occur when you have > oxygen partial pressures of 0.5 bars (around 7.25 psi) or higher. Note > that these problems will occur when you get to those sorts of O2 > partial pressures whether you have 'cut the O2' with something else or > not. > > Normal partial pressures of O2 in the atmosphere are around 3 psi. A > 3 psi pure oxygen atmosphere won't hurt you, since it's the same > partial pressure of O2 that you get at sea level on Earth. Pretty > much ALL US space missions before the Shuttle (the exception is > Skylab) were flown with pure O2 atmospheres. > And Skylab used a 74-percent oxygen and 26-percent nitrogen breathing mixture at 5 pounds per square inch (versus 14.7 pounds per square inch on Earth). Cite: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-400/ch2.htm So you do *not* need a "breathable" atmosphere that is mostly N2. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 19:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <odqtvb5egqbgki838ro4odk20gkp195fm3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58265 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2016 7:03 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2016 3:09 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the
>>>>>> oxygen.
>>>>>
>>>>> We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what we breath out has the same amount of nitrogen in it, so you
>>>> don't need any more but to replace leakage. And nothing says you HAVE
>>>> to use nitrogen for the inert component of atmosphere or that you have
>>>> to run 15 psi.
>>>>
>>>
>>> what else are you going to use ? do you have any ideas ?
>>>
>>
>> You can use anything you like, as long as it's non-toxic.
>>
>
>wrong criteria. name a gas, and I will show you the problems with it.
>
No, it's exactly the right criteria. Argon.
>
>> Or you can
>> use nothing at all.
>
>you have to use something, nothing is pure O2 and that makes plastics
>into explosives.
>
Ridiculous claim. What do you think they make oxygen masks out of?
>
>>
>>>
>>> N2 is the only practical one.
>>>
>>
>> No, but it's probably the simplest and cheapest.
>
>if no, name a gas.
>
Helium.
>
>>
>>>
>>> and you have to take a lot of it,
>>>
>>
>> Not really. After all, it's not consumed so you really just need
>> enough to fill the people spaces plus a little left over for 'make up
>> gas'. There's nitrogen on Mars,
>>
>
>it is a rare gas on Mars, less than 0.002% so you are going to haul up
>an air liquifying plant to Mars ?
>
Oh, don't be stupid. Nitrogen is 2.7% of the Martian atmosphere.
There are also minerals that are over 25% nitrogen by weight.
>
>> so you don't need to haul it all in.
>> Or you could just use pure oxygen, if you're willing to accept the
>> fire danger.
>
>cannot use pure O2, google Apollo 1 fire.
>
>and try to keep up, more reading of books
>
That was only because they were doing a ground test, which meant they
had pure oxygen at over 15 PSI. Pure oxygen was used for Mercury,
Gemini, and Apollo, both before and after the Apollo 1 fire.
and try to keep up, learn some actual facts.
>
>>
>>>
>>> all in *high pressure heavy* tanks.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, don't be silly.
>>
>
>what does N2 come in ?
>
The atmosphere. Various minerals.
>
>>
>>>
>>> do you have an alternate inert gas in mind ?
>>>
>>
>> You don't absolutely need an inert gas,
>>
>
>if it is not inert, the gas reacts with materials, and people
>you dont seem to know much.
>
You don't need anything but oxygen. You don't seem to know much.
>...
>
>
>> but you could just take both
>> the nitrogen and argon out of the Martian atmosphere and use that. Or
>> you could get nitrogen from nitrogenous regolith.
>>
>
>such as... try naming them
>
Almost any silicate, for example. Lots of silicates on Mars.
>
>there are no piles of bat shit on Mars.
>
But there are apparently large piles of bat shit between your ears.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 08:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3269446650866a7b989836@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #58256 |
In article <ntme9i$a00$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > > On 10/12/2016 3:09 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >>> Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the > >>> oxygen. > >> > >> We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen. > >> > > > > And what we breath out has the same amount of nitrogen in it, so you > > don't need any more but to replace leakage. And nothing says you HAVE > > to use nitrogen for the inert component of atmosphere or that you have > > to run 15 psi. > > > > > > what else are you going to use ? do you have any ideas ? > > N2 is the only practical one. > > and you have to take a lot of it, > > all in *high pressure heavy* tanks. > > do you have an alternate inert gas in mind ? Yes, already tested. Actually, look at the Skylab atmosphere. It used a a 74-percent oxygen and 26-percent nitrogen breathing mixture at a mere 5 psi instead of the "normal" 14.7 psi, which is earth sea level pressure. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-400/ch2.htm 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 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web