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 14 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 19 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 00:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <eek5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58291 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > 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 To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work during the day. If we had dilithium reactors, warp drive, replicators, and transporters the problem would be trivial. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 21:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntpd21$11h6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58307 |
On 10/13/2016 8:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you > would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work > during the day. We are a long way from being able to put a 50 MW nuke plant on Mars. Making 50 MW of heat isn't the hard part. The hard part is turning megawatts of heat into megawatts of electricity. Anything beyond a very few kilowatts requires some sort of heat engine, which means moving parts. In a compact nuke plant, those moving parts will likely be radioactive, and therefore not repairable. Would you want your life depending on something like that? Note that a Mars plant would need to produce heat to make electricity and also heat for other purposes, such as heating dwellings. To give you some idea of the present state of the art, NASA has done development work on a 40 KW unit. Here is an excellent rundown of the present state-of-the-art in space nukes. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 02:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <26u5dd-hbc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58311 |
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/13/2016 8:11 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you >> would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work >> during the day. > > We are a long way from being able to put a 50 MW nuke plant on Mars. > Making 50 MW of heat isn't the hard part. The hard part is turning > megawatts of heat into megawatts of electricity. Anything beyond a very > few kilowatts requires some sort of heat engine, which means moving > parts. In a compact nuke plant, those moving parts will likely be > radioactive, and therefore not repairable. Would you want your life > depending on something like that? I was talking about 50 MW of electrical power, not heat power. That is the sort of power you need to run things like industries synthesizing complex chemicals and making thngs like steel. > Note that a Mars plant would need to produce heat to make electricity > and also heat for other purposes, such as heating dwellings. Sure you can use the waste heat for other purposes assuming a heat transport mechanism, which is usually water. However that there is sufficient available water is currentyl conjecture; only traces of water have been found anywhere near where one would set up. > To give you some idea of the present state of the art, NASA has done > development work on a 40 KW unit. Here is an excellent rundown of the > present state-of-the-art in space nukes. > http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx So the present state of the art is sufficient to support a research station on Mars but nowhere capable of supporting a colony and industry. QED. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 10:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntqq6b$154p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58313 |
On 10/13/2016 10:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > I was talking about 50 MW of electrical power, not heat power. A small nuclear power plant of that capacity is orders of magnitude beyond the current state of the art. Building a small nuclear reactor with megawatts of capacity is doable with today's technology, but making a highly reliable heat engine to convert that heat into mechanical energy, and doing it in a suitably low mass and tiny package, is an entirely different matter. (NOTE: A nuclear reactor only makes heat. The only practical way we currently have to convert megawatts of heat into megawatts of electricity is with mechanical heat engines.) > > So the present state of the art is sufficient to support a research > station on Mars but nowhere capable of supporting a colony and industry. Agreed. Vaughn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 21:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ceu7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58327 |
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/13/2016 10:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> I was talking about 50 MW of electrical power, not heat power. > > A small nuclear power plant of that capacity is orders of magnitude > beyond the current state of the art. Building a small nuclear reactor > with megawatts of capacity is doable with today's technology, but making > a highly reliable heat engine to convert that heat into mechanical > energy, and doing it in a suitably low mass and tiny package, is an > entirely different matter. (NOTE: A nuclear reactor only makes heat. > The only practical way we currently have to convert megawatts of heat > into megawatts of electricity is with mechanical heat engines.) The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW reactor would be tiny by comparison. Nuclear power plants generate electricity by boiling water and running the steam to steam engines. Yes, we could not send even a 50 MW plant to Mars as one assembled piece. >> So the present state of the art is sufficient to support a research >> station on Mars but nowhere capable of supporting a colony and industry. > > Agreed. > > Vaughn > -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 19:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntronm$lf8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58351 |
On 10/14/2016 5:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW > reactor would be tiny by comparison. Errr, do you mean the smallest commercial utility nuclear power plant? Because there are many nuclear reactors in the USA that are smaller than 479 MW. So really? You are saying that that a 50 MW nuke plant is "tiny" in comparison to a utility-sized power plant, so it must therefore be doable for us to build a MERE 50 MW plant on Mars? Really? Well hell, the ISS is "tiny" in comparison to NASA's massive Vehicle Assembly Building, so constructing the ISS should have been a fucking snap for NASA. > > Nuclear power plants generate electricity by boiling water and running > the steam to steam engines. Well, not all nuclear power plants work that way. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A) However, it would be far more correct to say that most nuclear power plants run a heat engine to convert heat energy to mechanical energy. (Hint: A steam engine is a heat engine, but not all heat engines are steam engines.) > > Yes, we could not send even a 50 MW plant to Mars as one assembled > piece. Did anyone say we should?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 23:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ia68dd-toj.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58355 |
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/14/2016 5:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW >> reactor would be tiny by comparison. > Errr, do you mean the smallest commercial utility nuclear power plant? > Because there are many nuclear reactors in the USA that are smaller than > 479 MW. Yes. I'm talking about things in production. > So really? You are saying that that a 50 MW nuke plant is "tiny" in > comparison to a utility-sized power plant, so it must therefore be > doable for us to build a MERE 50 MW plant on Mars? Really? I never said it could be done, would be afforadble, practical, or anything like that. What I am saying is a 50 MW plant is tiny in comparison to what runs the real world. > Well hell, the ISS is "tiny" in comparison to NASA's massive Vehicle > Assembly Building, so constructing the ISS should have been a fucking > snap for NASA. Irrelevant. >> Nuclear power plants generate electricity by boiling water and running >> the steam to steam engines. > Well, not all nuclear power plants work that way. > (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A) > > However, it would be far more correct to say that most nuclear power > plants run a heat engine to convert heat energy to mechanical energy. > (Hint: A steam engine is a heat engine, but not all heat engines are > steam engines.) All production nuclear power plants use steam. If you have something else that is in production and working, fine. >> Yes, we could not send even a 50 MW plant to Mars as one assembled >> piece. > > Did anyone say we should? No, but if the intent is a colony on Mars you need lots of power to do things like convert dirt into structural steel or dirt into structural aluminum (assuming there is any of either in recoverable amounts). -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 19:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntrrgl$og9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58356 |
On 10/14/2016 7:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 10/14/2016 5:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >> The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW >>> >> reactor would be tiny by comparison. >> > Errr, do you mean the smallest commercial utility nuclear power plant? >> > Because there are many nuclear reactors in the USA that are smaller than >> > 479 MW. > Yes. > > I'm talking about things in production. So naval nuclear power plants are not "in production"? > >> > So really? You are saying that that a 50 MW nuke plant is "tiny" in >> > comparison to a utility-sized power plant, so it must therefore be >> > doable for us to build a MERE 50 MW plant on Mars? Really? > I never said it could be done, would be afforadble, practical, or > anything like that. > > What I am saying is a 50 MW plant is tiny in comparison to what runs > the real world. > >> > Well hell, the ISS is "tiny" in comparison to NASA's massive Vehicle >> > Assembly Building, so constructing the ISS should have been a fucking >> > snap for NASA. > Irrelevant. Precisely! Your comparison between a utility-sized nuclear power plant and your proposed 50 MW plant is similarly irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 02:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <uhg8dd-rnk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58358 |
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/14/2016 7:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > On 10/14/2016 5:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >> The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW >>>> >> reactor would be tiny by comparison. >>> > Errr, do you mean the smallest commercial utility nuclear power plant? >>> > Because there are many nuclear reactors in the USA that are smaller than >>> > 479 MW. >> Yes. >> >> I'm talking about things in production. > > So naval nuclear power plants are not "in production"? Navy reactors are for the most part built for each ship it is to power, but no, that is not what I meant. Production as in connected to the grid. >>> > So really? You are saying that that a 50 MW nuke plant is "tiny" in >>> > comparison to a utility-sized power plant, so it must therefore be >>> > doable for us to build a MERE 50 MW plant on Mars? Really? >> I never said it could be done, would be afforadble, practical, or >> anything like that. >> >> What I am saying is a 50 MW plant is tiny in comparison to what runs >> the real world. >> >>> > Well hell, the ISS is "tiny" in comparison to NASA's massive Vehicle >>> > Assembly Building, so constructing the ISS should have been a fucking >>> > snap for NASA. > >> Irrelevant. > > Precisely! Your comparison between a utility-sized nuclear power plant > and your proposed 50 MW plant is similarly irrelevant. I proposed nothing. What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going to get from wind or solar on Mars. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 04:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <d3340c1u7anfifuic3o0cvec93siv0oru0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58362 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/14/2016 7:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 10/14/2016 5:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> >> The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW
>>>>> >> reactor would be tiny by comparison.
>>>> > Errr, do you mean the smallest commercial utility nuclear power plant?
>>>> > Because there are many nuclear reactors in the USA that are smaller than
>>>> > 479 MW.
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> I'm talking about things in production.
>>
>> So naval nuclear power plants are not "in production"?
>
>Navy reactors are for the most part built for each ship it is to
>power, but no, that is not what I meant.
>
>Production as in connected to the grid.
>
So you set an unreasonable criterion to start with. Unfortunately for
you, submarines have been 'connected to the grid' to provide power
during power plant failures. It's essentially 'shore power' but run
backwards.
>>>> > So really? You are saying that that a 50 MW nuke plant is "tiny" in
>>>> > comparison to a utility-sized power plant, so it must therefore be
>>>> > doable for us to build a MERE 50 MW plant on Mars? Really?
>>> I never said it could be done, would be afforadble, practical, or
>>> anything like that.
>>>
>>> What I am saying is a 50 MW plant is tiny in comparison to what runs
>>> the real world.
>>>
>>>> > Well hell, the ISS is "tiny" in comparison to NASA's massive Vehicle
>>>> > Assembly Building, so constructing the ISS should have been a fucking
>>>> > snap for NASA.
>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> Precisely! Your comparison between a utility-sized nuclear power plant
>> and your proposed 50 MW plant is similarly irrelevant.
>
>I proposed nothing.
>
Of course you did. That's why we're talking about a reactor that size
in the first place. Nobody else thinks it's necessary.
>
>What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or
>structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going
>to get from wind or solar on Mars.
>
Wrong. It doesn't require anything close to 50 MW. As I pointed out
elsewhere, producing a ton of steel from ore takes about 5 MW-hrs of
power, all told. Unless I need to produce 10 tons of steel per hour I
don't need a reactor anywhere near as big as what you keep proposing.
--
"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 08:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu2joe$5h5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58376 |
On 10/15/2016 6:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or
>> structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going
>> to get from wind or solar on Mars.
>>
>
> Wrong. It doesn't require anything close to 50 MW. As I pointed out
> elsewhere, producing a ton of steel from ore takes about 5 MW-hrs of
> power, all told. Unless I need to produce 10 tons of steel per hour I
> don't need a reactor anywhere near as big as what you keep proposing.
>
>
do you know how silly and insane that sounds ?
You are proposing to set up an entire steel factory on Mars, and use 5
MWhrs to produce 1 ton of steel from "ore".
so where did you get your coke ?
Iron Ore ?
Limestone ?
O2 ?
Manganese?
Phosphorous ?
Sulfer?
Silicon ?
How heavy is the container holding 1 ton of liquid steel ?
How big and heavy is your rolling mill ?
How big and heavy is your soaking pit ?
How big and heavy are your handling tools ?
how big and heavy are your processing tools and factory ?
Mars surface dirt is more radioactive than Earth's dirt, so will your
"Mars Steel" be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 18:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <dbhfdd-1ae.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58454 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2016 6:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or >>> structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going >>> to get from wind or solar on Mars. >>> >> >> Wrong. It doesn't require anything close to 50 MW. As I pointed out >> elsewhere, producing a ton of steel from ore takes about 5 MW-hrs of >> power, all told. Unless I need to produce 10 tons of steel per hour I >> don't need a reactor anywhere near as big as what you keep proposing. >> >> > > do you know how silly and insane that sounds ? > > You are proposing to set up an entire steel factory on Mars, and use 5 > MWhrs to produce 1 ton of steel from "ore". > > so where did you get your coke ? > Iron Ore ? > Limestone ? > O2 ? > Manganese? > Phosphorous ? > Sulfer? > Silicon ? > > How heavy is the container holding 1 ton of liquid steel ? > > How big and heavy is your rolling mill ? > > How big and heavy is your soaking pit ? > > How big and heavy are your handling tools ? > > how big and heavy are your processing tools and factory ? > > Mars surface dirt is more radioactive than Earth's dirt, so will your > "Mars Steel" be. It is 10-19 MW-hrs from ore to one ton of steel, not counting fabrication into usefull stock. A ton of steel is a tivial amount. I have over a half ton of steel just in the various things I have built around the house and I'm not building any buildings. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu3hb7$1q9m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58468 |
On 10/17/2016 1:19 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> On 10/15/2016 6:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or >>>> structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going >>>> to get from wind or solar on Mars. >>>> >>> Wrong. It doesn't require anything close to 50 MW. As I pointed out >>> elsewhere, producing a ton of steel from ore takes about 5 MW-hrs of >>> power, all told. Unless I need to produce 10 tons of steel per hour I >>> don't need a reactor anywhere near as big as what you keep proposing. >>> >>> >> do you know how silly and insane that sounds ? >> >> You are proposing to set up an entire steel factory on Mars, and use 5 >> MWhrs to produce 1 ton of steel from "ore". >> >> so where did you get your coke ? >> Iron Ore ? >> Limestone ? >> O2 ? >> Manganese? >> Phosphorous ? >> Sulfer? >> Silicon ? >> How heavy is the container holding 1 ton of liquid steel ? >> >> How big and heavy is your rolling mill ? >> >> How big and heavy is your soaking pit ? >> >> How big and heavy are your handling tools ? >> >> how big and heavy are your processing tools and factory ? >> Mars surface dirt is more radioactive than Earth's dirt, so will your >> "Mars Steel" be. > It is 10-19 MW-hrs from ore to one ton of steel, not counting fabrication > into usefull stock. > > A ton of steel is a tivial amount. I have over a half ton of steel just > in the various things I have built around the house and I'm not building > any buildings. > 1 ton of steel = 4 cubic feet, or 1 foot by 2 foot by 2 foot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <75pa0ch3p2chtvjggti0tv5b27uqhu1h49@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58468 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>It is 10-19 MW-hrs from ore to one ton of steel, not counting fabrication
>into usefull stock.
>
There seems to be some disagreement on these numbers.
http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/steel_energy_use.pdf
http://eande.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/publications/lbl-4836e-us-china-steeljune-2011.pdf
>
>A ton of steel is a tivial amount. I have over a half ton of steel just
>in the various things I have built around the house and I'm not building
>any buildings.
>
Well, let's look and see how many feet of steel beam is 'a trivial
amount'. Keeping in mind that we can use smaller beams on Mars (less
gravity)...
A foot of 24" steel beam weighs about 100 lbs. So a ton is around 20
feet, which sounds trivial indeed until we realize that two foot beams
are preposterously oversized for what a Mars colony will need to
build.
A foot of 7" steel beam weighs around 20 lbs. That gives 100 feet of
beam per ton of steel, which starts to look much better. And that's
probably still over specified for what they'll be used for on Mars.
A foot of 3" steel beam weighs 6 lbs. So if that's all I need I can
get 333 feet of beam out of a ton of steel. Starts to sound less and
less 'trivial', doesn't it?
So it all comes down to how 'fast' you can make steel. Given low
power reactors I can only make around a quarter ton of steel a day.
But throw together 10 'suitcase reactors' and I'm producing
comfortably over 2 tons per day. Even if I use Jimp's numbers, I can
make a ton a day.
That's a lot of steel beam...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 12:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu5liv$10sl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58485 |
On 10/17/2016 7:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> It is 10-19 MW-hrs from ore to one ton of steel, not counting fabrication >> into usefull stock. >> > > There seems to be some disagreement on these numbers. >> >> A ton of steel is a tivial amount. I have over a half ton of steel just >> in the various things I have built around the house and I'm not building >> any buildings. > > Well, let's look and see how many feet of steel beam is 'a trivial > amount'. Keeping in mind that we can use smaller beams on Mars (less > gravity)... > > A foot of 24" steel beam weighs about 100 lbs. So a ton is around 20 > feet, which sounds trivial indeed until we realize that two foot beams > are preposterously oversized for what a Mars colony will need to > build. > A foot of 7" steel beam weighs around 20 lbs. That gives 100 feet of > beam per ton of steel, which starts to look much better. And that's > probably still over specified for what they'll be used for on Mars. > > A foot of 3" steel beam weighs 6 lbs. So if that's all I need I can > get 333 feet of beam out of a ton of steel. Starts to sound less and > less 'trivial', doesn't it? > So it all comes down to how 'fast' you can make steel. Given low > power reactors I can only make around a quarter ton of steel a day. > But throw together 10 'suitcase reactors' and I'm producing > comfortably over 2 tons per day. Even if I use Jimp's numbers, I can > make a ton a day. > > That's a lot of steel beam... > > what are you smokin ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <4ela0cl39p2sj9v8i38fm0gmgti2608a5n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58454 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/15/2016 6:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or
>>> structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going
>>> to get from wind or solar on Mars.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. It doesn't require anything close to 50 MW. As I pointed out
>> elsewhere, producing a ton of steel from ore takes about 5 MW-hrs of
>> power, all told. Unless I need to produce 10 tons of steel per hour I
>> don't need a reactor anywhere near as big as what you keep proposing.
>>
>>
>
> do you know how silly and insane that sounds ?
>
>You are proposing to set up an entire steel factory on Mars, and use 5
>MWhrs to produce 1 ton of steel from "ore".
>
Eventually.
>
>so where did you get your coke ?
>
It's just carbon. The atmosphere is full of it and breaking that
stuff down to get oxygen is probably something we'd want to do
eventually anyway.
>
>Iron Ore ?
>
Hematite.
>
>Limestone ?
>
Don't need limestone. I need calcium oxide. Easily made from various
calcium deposits.
>
>O2 ?
>
Made from air and/or water. Need to be able to make it to breath
anyway.
>
>Manganese?
>
Dig it up. Rovers have found ore structures.
>
>Phosphorous ?
>
Dig it up. Rovers have found it.
>
>Sulfer?
>
Mars has lots of sulfur. Rovers have found it.
>
>Silicon ?
>
Easy, since the stuff is everywhere.
It's a whole planet, dude, and rovers have found high concentrations
of all that stuff even in the tiny area they've 'explored'.
>
>How heavy is ...
>
Who cares? You can make it in however small a lot size you need to.
Nothing says you have to make it tons at a time. And a single cargo
vessel brings in 100 tons of stuff.
>
>Mars surface dirt is more radioactive than Earth's dirt, so will your
>"Mars Steel" be.
>
You keep raising this like it matters. It's insignificant and only
applies to 'dirt'; not so much to rocks under the 'dirt'.
--
"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 | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 07:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <-c2dnXtbraphiZ_FnZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #58362 |
wrote in message news:uhg8dd-rnk.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/14/2016 7:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > On 10/14/2016 5:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >> The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a >>>>> >> 50 MW >>>>> >> reactor would be tiny by comparison. >>>> > Errr, do you mean the smallest commercial utility nuclear power >>>> > plant? >>>> > Because there are many nuclear reactors in the USA that are smaller >>>> > than >>>> > 479 MW. >>> Yes. >>> >>> I'm talking about things in production. >> >> So naval nuclear power plants are not "in production"? > >Navy reactors are for the most part built for each ship it is to >power, but no, that is not what I meant. Actually, if anything Naval reactors are closer to "standardized" than commercial ones, especially here in the US. Look at the number of commercial reactors designed and built in the US vs. naval reactors. I'll give you a hint: submarine nuclear reactors are standard enough that pretty much all training occurs in one place here in the US about 50 miles from my house. I'd ask my friend more about the training, but when push comes to shove he simply smiles and changes the subject. > >Production as in connected to the grid. > >>>> > So really? You are saying that that a 50 MW nuke plant is "tiny" in >>>> > comparison to a utility-sized power plant, so it must therefore be >>>> > doable for us to build a MERE 50 MW plant on Mars? Really? >>> I never said it could be done, would be afforadble, practical, or >>> anything like that. >>> >>> What I am saying is a 50 MW plant is tiny in comparison to what runs >>> the real world. >>> >>>> > Well hell, the ISS is "tiny" in comparison to NASA's massive Vehicle >>>> > Assembly Building, so constructing the ISS should have been a fucking >>>> > snap for NASA. >> >>> Irrelevant. >> >> Precisely! Your comparison between a utility-sized nuclear power plant >> and your proposed 50 MW plant is similarly irrelevant. > >I proposed nothing. > >What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or >structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going >to get from wind or solar on Mars. > So, First as others have pointed out, you're not going to build Rome in a day. And even then, hell, most cities in the US don't have steel production capabilities. The ship it in. On Mars, for a long time a lot will be shipped there, and a lot recycled. > -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 03:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <qk140c18920mqtj30bcsh317rsgfn0idl4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58356 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/14/2016 5:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW
>>> reactor would be tiny by comparison.
>> Errr, do you mean the smallest commercial utility nuclear power plant?
>> Because there are many nuclear reactors in the USA that are smaller than
>> 479 MW.
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>I'm talking about things in production.
>
You're not thinking again. The reason there are relatively few small
commercial power reactors here on Earth is economies of scale. Those
are going to be different if you have to ship the things to Mars.
>
>> So really? You are saying that that a 50 MW nuke plant is "tiny" in
>> comparison to a utility-sized power plant, so it must therefore be
>> doable for us to build a MERE 50 MW plant on Mars? Really?
>
>I never said it could be done, would be afforadble, practical, or
>anything like that.
>
>What I am saying is a 50 MW plant is tiny in comparison to what runs
>the real world.
>
OK. Per capita power consumption of very high power users here on
Earth is around 2 kw. So your 50 MW plant can produce power for
millions of people. Again, just how big are you assuming the colony
is to require that big a power reactor?
>> Well hell, the ISS is "tiny" in comparison to NASA's massive Vehicle
>> Assembly Building, so constructing the ISS should have been a fucking
>> snap for NASA.
>
>Irrelevant.
>
That's rather his point about your 50 MW reactor.
>>> Nuclear power plants generate electricity by boiling water and running
>>> the steam to steam engines.
>> Well, not all nuclear power plants work that way.
>> (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A)
>>
>> However, it would be far more correct to say that most nuclear power
>> plants run a heat engine to convert heat energy to mechanical energy.
>> (Hint: A steam engine is a heat engine, but not all heat engines are
>> steam engines.)
>
>All production nuclear power plants use steam.
>
>If you have something else that is in production and working, fine.
>
>>> Yes, we could not send even a 50 MW plant to Mars as one assembled
>>> piece.
>>
>> Did anyone say we should?
>
>No, but if the intent is a colony on Mars you need lots of power to
>do things like convert dirt into structural steel or dirt into
>structural aluminum (assuming there is any of either in recoverable
>amounts).
>
But you don't need anything close to 50 MW for that unless you're
assuming we're immediately going to start off with a colony of
millions of people.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 03:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <1pv30c9qhp9ohhrj7or9j8fc8nktpmd73u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58351 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW
>reactor would be tiny by comparison.
>
But there are lots of reactors much smaller than that. Some of them
were even used in commercial power plants, like the Shippingport
Atomic Power Station reactor, which at 60 MW was close to your 50 MW
size. There have been a number of others
There are many smaller reactors which are not used for commercial
power production here on Earth (economies of scale being what they
are).
>
>Nuclear power plants generate electricity by boiling water and running
>the steam to steam engines.
>
>Yes, we could not send even a 50 MW plant to Mars as one assembled
>piece.
>
Nor would we want to, because we're probably not going to want a steam
plant. Use something more like a space reactor (which is the current
plan).
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 07:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <6oadnfg5aJtxjp_FnZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #58351 |
wrote in message news:ceu7dd-5si.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/13/2016 10:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> I was talking about 50 MW of electrical power, not heat power. >> >> A small nuclear power plant of that capacity is orders of magnitude >> beyond the current state of the art. Building a small nuclear reactor >> with megawatts of capacity is doable with today's technology, but making >> a highly reliable heat engine to convert that heat into mechanical >> energy, and doing it in a suitably low mass and tiny package, is an >> entirely different matter. (NOTE: A nuclear reactor only makes heat. >> The only practical way we currently have to convert megawatts of heat >> into megawatts of electricity is with mechanical heat engines.) > >The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW >reactor would be tiny by comparison. Yes, because for economy of scale that's what makes sense on Earth for a commercial nuclear reactor. But hey, go with the French Rubis class submarine reactor at 48MW. Or look at any of the designed and proposed small modular reactors. NuScale has a design for about 45MW. > >Nuclear power plants generate electricity by boiling water and running >the steam to steam engines. > >Yes, we could not send even a 50 MW plant to Mars as one assembled >piece. > So assemble it there. >>> So the present state of the art is sufficient to support a research >>> station on Mars but nowhere capable of supporting a colony and industry. >> >> Agreed. >> >> Vaughn >> > -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web