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 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 05:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8smpvbpqkljr6l3sek16i34tl29tn9je1j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58206 |
Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>Fred J McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>dumpster4@hotmail.com <dumpster4@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Astronauts flying to Mars are in danger of long-term brain damage and dementia
>>>> from the onslaught of radiation in galactic cosmic rays, according to a new
>>>> study.
>>>>
>>>> The paper, published today in Nature's Scientific Reports, raises alarm for
>>>> NASA?s future plans in long-term space travel."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Aren't people who stay on earth in the same danger?
>>>There are lots of things that can cause this, including posting on usenet
>>>newsgroups, reading too many studies, or even just living.
>>>
>>
>> The Earth's magnetic field shields most of that away from us (which is
>> why we have Van Allen belts around the planet). Go beyond the Van
>> Allens and you are outside that protection.
>>
>
>But brain damage and dementia can result from the above causes as well.
>
True, but that's rather like saying that since we can be injured in
many ways there is no point in trying to avoid injury.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 23:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntjn3i$1kt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58205 |
Le 11/10/2016 à 12:29, Fred J. McCall a écrit : > However, shielding is not that difficult. In principle. In practice we just do not know. No shielding has been tested in interplanetary space till now. The crew needs to be shielded on Mars too, but that could be easier if they went underground. A deep cave and you should be OK. But you shouldn't go out for extended periods since Mars offers no shielding from radiation from cosmic rays. The ultra thin atmosphere is no protection at all, and there is no planetary magnetic field. You have to stay as much as possible in the cave. Planet too small, gravity is one third of what is on earth. Consequences in terms of bone loss are unknown but probably not very good. Look, I am not at all against humans going out of the earth, to the contrary. But I see no need to sacrifice people just... for what? What can humans do that they couldn't do safely from earth? OK, driving rovers without a 15-30 minute time lag is a reason, maybe a valuable reason. But in that case is better to live in orbit rather than in a cave... Artificial gravity is easier to do in space than on the surface of mars. Better conditions are easier to realize in a station orbiting Mars than trying to scrap a living in the surface. Short trips to the surface could be done of course, but for the bulk of exploration just staying in orbit would be easier. Induced radioactivity because of cosmic rays bombardement during eons makes the surface of Mars slightly radioactive, and besides, it is stock full of substances that are very toxic for humans. Mars dust is very sticky, probably electrically charged. All those problems are avoided in orbit. Machines do not care about those hazards, resist very well decades of Mars conditions without any problems. Humans have a machine roving around in Mars since January 2004 and it is *still roving around*. Only problems are a stuck wheel and the flash memory that gave up the ghost some months ago. TWELVE YEARS! That proves that toasters have quite a good price/science ratio. Humans are very fragile, as you know. But it would be nice to go there, of course. As a thrill, or for scientific reasons, to study a planet and the biology there. All NASA missions point to a biology in Mars, and that will be surely one of the big discoveries of this century. But humans in Mars could swamp what that subterranean microbial life could tell us about ourselves. It is a second ecology. It seems that life in Mars was very similar to life on Earth since a microbiologist discovered formations that are identical to fossil formations in Earth. When Mars was wet and had an atmosphere, the microbes were very similar since they produced similar fossils. Mars is full of secrets, let's explore it wisely. Developing a technology that carries people to Mars will be done, but it will take decades. Biology will give us the solution. Genetic engineering of a space suit skin, redesigning the DNA repair machinery so that radioactivity and cosmic ray damage doesn't affect us as much would allow for less shielding. To design a body that can live in Mars easily. That will take some time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 20:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qtarvbho1jsoarf6bve8kv3qe6mrrg4rcl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58219 |
jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:
>Le 11/10/2016 à 12:29, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
>> However, shielding is not that difficult.
>
>In principle.
>
>In practice we just do not know.
>
Of course we do. We know what the radiation environment looks like.
>
>No shielding has been tested in
>interplanetary space till now.
>
But we know the radiation environment and the shielding properties of
various materials. This is NOT a hard problem. It just takes mass.
>
>The crew needs to be shielded on Mars
>too, but that could be easier if they went underground. A deep cave and
>you should be OK.
>
Also a shallow cave. Or a trench with a few meters of dirt mounded
over it. Or...
>
>But you shouldn't go out for extended periods since Mars offers no
>shielding from radiation from cosmic rays. The ultra thin atmosphere is
>no protection at all, and there is no planetary magnetic field.
>
The "ultra thin atmosphere" is quite a lot of protection, actually,
and eliminates over 60% of the radiation.
>
>You have to stay as much as possible in the cave.
>
Not so much.
>
>Planet too small, gravity is one third of what is on earth. Consequences
>in terms of bone loss are unknown but probably not very good.
>
You can't equate total ignorance and then assume bad news.
>
>Look, I am not at all against humans going out of the earth, to the
>contrary. But I see no need to sacrifice people just... for what?
>
>What can humans do that they couldn't do safely from earth?
>
>OK, driving rovers without a 15-30 minute time lag is a reason, maybe a
>valuable reason. But in that case is better to live in orbit rather than
>in a cave...
>
But 'in orbit' gives you a much worse radiation environment to deal
with, you have no hope of in situ use of resources, etc.
>
>Artificial gravity is easier to do in space than on the surface of mars.
>Better conditions are easier to realize in a station orbiting Mars than
>trying to scrap a living in the surface. Short trips to the surface
>could be done of course, but for the bulk of exploration just staying in
>orbit would be easier.
>
No, because you want PEOPLE doing the exploring. A couple humans on
the surface with a small vehicle can explore more than a rover can do
in years.
>
>Induced radioactivity because of cosmic rays bombardement during eons
>makes the surface of Mars slightly radioactive,
>
Not enough to care about.
>
>and besides, it is stock
>full of substances that are very toxic for humans.
>
So is Earth.
>
>Mars dust is very
>sticky, probably electrically charged. All those problems are avoided in
>orbit. Machines do not care about those hazards, resist very well
>decades of Mars conditions without any problems.
>
Well, no. Your 'sticky dust' problem, if it exists, is a problem for
MACHINES, not people.
>
>Humans have a machine roving around in Mars since January 2004 and it is
>*still roving around*. Only problems are a stuck wheel and the flash
>memory that gave up the ghost some months ago.
>
And humans on site with a vehicle could accomplish more in a matter of
weeks than the toaster has in its whole existence.
>
>TWELVE YEARS!
>
>That proves that toasters have quite a good price/science ratio. Humans
>are very fragile, as you know.
>
It proves no such thing. If humans cost 100x but return 1,000x data,
humans are a better deal.
>
>But it would be nice to go there, of course. As a thrill, or for
>scientific reasons, to study a planet and the biology there.
>
Or just to live. You know, like we do in North America.
>
>All NASA missions point to a biology in Mars, and that will be surely
>one of the big discoveries of this century. But humans in Mars could
>swamp what that subterranean microbial life could tell us about
>ourselves. It is a second ecology.
>
>It seems that life in Mars was very similar to life on Earth since a
>microbiologist discovered formations that are identical to fossil
>formations in Earth. When Mars was wet and had an atmosphere, the
>microbes were very similar since they produced similar fossils.
>
So nothing new, then. You can't argue it both ways. Either there's
something new, in which case we'll be able to tell it from Earth life
when we find it, or there's nothing new and we don't need to worry
about contaminating it.
>
>Mars is full of secrets, let's explore it wisely. Developing a
>technology that carries people to Mars will be done, but it will take
>decades.
>
For some value of 'decades' that's approximately equal to between one
and two.
>
>Biology will give us the solution. Genetic engineering of a space suit
>skin, redesigning the DNA repair machinery so that radioactivity and
>cosmic ray damage doesn't affect us as much would allow for less shielding.
>
>To design a body that can live in Mars easily.
>
>That will take some time.
>
Which is why we won't wait for any such silly thing.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 00:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57fdbf39$0$2542$b1db1813$79461190@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #58229 |
On 2016-10-11 23:42, Fred J. McCall wrote: > The "ultra thin atmosphere" is quite a lot of protection, actually, > and eliminates over 60% of the radiation. I read that lack of magnetic field was a far greater problem in terms of providing protection from radiation. Could we put a big magnet on each pole to replicate the Earth's magnetic field ? :-) The earth's core moves and as it has molten iron, it creates a magnetic field (or so I was explained). This also provides opportunities for geothermal energy (and volcanoes). Could a Mars colony dig deep to get geothermal energy ? Or has Mars cooled to a point where its core is no longer molten ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lp4tvbt84cprbtbrti5l3id9vmt98ttsg3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58236 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-10-11 23:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> The "ultra thin atmosphere" is quite a lot of protection, actually,
>> and eliminates over 60% of the radiation.
>>
>
>I read that lack of magnetic field was a far greater problem in terms of
>providing protection from radiation.
>
True. If Mars had a magnetic field like Earth's there would be orders
of magnitude less surface radiation.
>
>Could a Mars colony dig deep to get geothermal energy ? Or has Mars
>cooled to a point where its core is no longer molten ?
>
They could always drill to get geothermal energy, regardless of
whether the core is still molten or not. Temperature will always
increase with depth. However, that's a lot of trouble to go to. Solar
and nuclear are more likely power sources. Solar cells could probably
be produced locally. Nuclear fuel would probably have to be imported.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 16:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84f7e0a4-3910-46b2-b21e-80d468eb14c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58058 |
If the first stage described here is made into a common core element - and seven of them are attached in parallel, and fire at lift off, with propellant draining first from four of the seven elements, and they are dropped as a first stage, and then propellant is drained second from two of the remaining three elements, and they are dropped as the second stage when empty, and the single remaining element fires as a third stage, and all are recovered, then this seven element common core system, puts up 5,000,000 pounds of payload - not 800,000 pounds!
In that case, 3,209,738.2 pounds of propellant are carried in a 212,500.0 pound kick stage, to propel it and an added 1,577,761.8 pounds to Mars (double the capacity of the TSTO-RLV described previously).
6,708.1 Ve(atm) mph
7,826.1 Ve(vac) mph
20,571.4 dV+gravity & atm mph
11,835,438.6 LOX pounds
3,324,561.4 LNG pounds
15,160,000.0 Propellant pounds
840,000.0 Structure pounds
5,000,000.0 Payload pounds
117,000,000.0 Take Off Weight pounds
60,640,000.0 Propellant pounds
0.5183 Fraction dimensionless
4,899.7 dV mph
4,899.7 Total dV mph
53,000,000.0 Stage 2 Weight pounds
30,320,000.0 Stage 2 Propellant pounds
0.5721 Fraction dimensionless
6,642.8 dV(2) mph
11,542.5 Total dV mph
21,000,000.0 Stage 3 Weight pounds
15,160,000.0 Stage 3 Propellant pounds
0.7219 Fraction(3) dimensionless
10,015.8 dV(3) mph
21,558.3 Total dV mph
17,888.2 LEO velocity mph
3,670.1 Air+Gravity Losses mph
25,297.7 Escape Velocity mph
6,708.1 Hyperbolic Excess mph
26,172.0 Boost Velocity mph
8,283.8 Kick Stage dV mph
0.6419 Fraction(4) dimensionless
3,209,738.2 Propellant pounds
212,500.0 Structure pounds
1,577,761.8 Payload pounds
* * *
A solar power satellite that generates 10,000 Watts per pound of solar collector on orbit, and is capable of beaming it by laser or maser beam back to receivers on Earth, and uses solar power to drive ion engines that take it from LEO to GEO or beyond, will produce 50 billion watts of power! (without a chemical kick stage!)
So, 50 billion watts is 50 million kilowatts and at $0.11 per kWh the station generates $5.5 million per hour times 8,766 hours per year in free cash flow totals $48.2 billion per year! A 30 year life span discounted at 8.5% per year has a present value of $518.14 billion the day revenue starts!
At $1,000 per pound - construction cost and cost to get to orbit - this is $5 billion cost - less than 1% of the value created!
Humanity uses about 18,000 billion watts of power. 360 satellites are required each separated by 1 degree of longitude.
A hyperefficient solar collector that operates at 73% efficiency is a disc 8 km in diameter! Building and launching 1 per day transforms the energy sector, and generates $17.35 trillion per year which is worth $186.5 trillion. This is sufficient to support a Mars colonisation effort, and the construction of a Bishop Ring Colony in the asteroid belt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 15:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7e12814-f9ad-455c-abc5-65e15c817d18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58054 |
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 3:41:42 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote: > Musk outlined some plans for mars colonisation. He says the plan is to > bring transport costs down by many orders of magnitudes so that the > ticket prices are closer to the cost of a home (so paople can move to > Mars easily). > > Musk plans to build mega rocket (bigger than Saturn 5) with 100 > passengers per trip. Musk looking at expanding to 200. Plan is to send 1 > million people to Mars. > Rocket should have ~10,000(t) compared to Saturn 5 ~3000 (t) > > Stage 1 would have 128MN of thurst at sea level, 42 Raptor engines. > > Landing the stage 1 back would cost about 7% of fuel. (down from current > use). > > Of the 42 engines, 7 in the centre would be gimballed, the rest would be > fixed. > > > 450 tonnes of cargo to Mars. Trip time caries betwene 80 and 140 days > depending on year/planet alignment. > > > > To achieve this, there are some concepts that need to be implemented: > > Full reusability > Since it takes so long for the return trip, Musk says about 12 re-uses > for the interplanetary ship lasting about 20-30 years. > > In-orbit refuelling > The interplanetary ship is launched without fuel, orbits earth after > launch. Second launch bring up fuel, docks to the first ship to transfer > fuel and then interplanetary ship departs. > > Tanker version of spacecraft will launch 3 to 5 times to transfer enough > fuel for each interplanetary ship and for each launch window, there > would be many interplanetary ship launched and fueled (so the launch pad > would be busy launching them and the refueling ones. > > Produce propellant on Mars > Loading propellant on earth for the return trip from mars costs way too > much. > > Right choice of propellant > This one is simple: methane. Hydrogen could also be produced on mars but > very hard to store and requires much bigger tanks. > > > Musk wants to R&D so that carbon fibre can be used for tanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 16:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <652fd010-dee2-4c49-8159-342913667629@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58066 |
I think with his two stage RLV design 400 tons is more achievable, but if he can get his structure fraction down to 3.5% from 4.2% - he can get another 50 tons out of the deal. They will likely go to Mars in stasis, in large fleets orbited over the entire synodic period. That way capital utilisation is maximised. Meanwhile, 'live' crews - mostly doctors - visit those in stasis. They're awakened on a schedule every 28 days - and surgeries cosmetic and other can be scheduled as well. People spend a day or two in awakened state - and assessed physically and psychologically. In this way over a 90 day to 120 day trip - people can enjoy a very fine luxury experience - at minimal cost in terms of weight or money. http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/IAC-15-A5.2.12%20100%20Person%20Torpor%2010162015.pdf This was presented at the 66th IAF conference - and Musk was there. Just saying. 200 t - 300 kW - 100 people. So, 400 t 600 kW - 200 people - is his payload. On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 11:54:41 AM UTC+13, bob haller wrote: > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 3:41:42 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote: > > Musk outlined some plans for mars colonisation. He says the plan is to > > bring transport costs down by many orders of magnitudes so that the > > ticket prices are closer to the cost of a home (so paople can move to > > Mars easily). > > > > Musk plans to build mega rocket (bigger than Saturn 5) with 100 > > passengers per trip. Musk looking at expanding to 200. Plan is to send 1 > > million people to Mars. > > Rocket should have ~10,000(t) compared to Saturn 5 ~3000 (t) > > > > Stage 1 would have 128MN of thurst at sea level, 42 Raptor engines. > > > > Landing the stage 1 back would cost about 7% of fuel. (down from current > > use). > > > > Of the 42 engines, 7 in the centre would be gimballed, the rest would be > > fixed. > > > > > > 450 tonnes of cargo to Mars. Trip time caries betwene 80 and 140 days > > depending on year/planet alignment. > > > > > > > > To achieve this, there are some concepts that need to be implemented: > > > > Full reusability > > Since it takes so long for the return trip, Musk says about 12 re-uses > > for the interplanetary ship lasting about 20-30 years. > > > > In-orbit refuelling > > The interplanetary ship is launched without fuel, orbits earth after > > launch. Second launch bring up fuel, docks to the first ship to transfer > > fuel and then interplanetary ship departs. > > > > Tanker version of spacecraft will launch 3 to 5 times to transfer enough > > fuel for each interplanetary ship and for each launch window, there > > would be many interplanetary ship launched and fueled (so the launch pad > > would be busy launching them and the refueling ones. > > > > Produce propellant on Mars > > Loading propellant on earth for the return trip from mars costs way too > > much. > > > > Right choice of propellant > > This one is simple: methane. Hydrogen could also be produced on mars but > > very hard to store and requires much bigger tanks. > > > > > > Musk wants to R&D so that carbon fibre can be used for tanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 22:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7cq3vb1h4pj3omvqogqnqfocm4pqg32ibm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58091 |
William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I think with his two stage RLV design 400 tons is more achievable, but if he can get his structure fraction down to 3.5% from 4.2% - he can get another 50 tons out of the deal.
>
You have no idea what his actual structure fraction will be, so so far
you're just pulling numbers out of your ass.
>
>They will likely go to Mars in stasis, in large fleets orbited over the entire synodic period. That way capital utilisation is maximised. Meanwhile, 'live' crews - mostly doctors - visit those in stasis. They're awakened on a schedule every 28 days - and surgeries cosmetic and other can be scheduled as well. People spend a day or two in awakened state - and assessed physically and psychologically. In this way over a 90 day to 120 day trip - people can enjoy a very fine luxury experience - at minimal cost in terms of weight or money.
>
Except that's not what he says he's going to do or how he says it will
work. Musk plans on sending people long before 'stasis' is ready.
Perhaps you should let Musk talk for Musk and stop making shit up?
>
>http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/IAC-15-A5.2.12%20100%20Person%20Torpor%2010162015.pdf
>
>This was presented at the 66th IAF conference - and Musk was there. Just saying.
>
Except he was detailing things about his vision for Mars long before
that conference. No doubt lots of things were presented that he'll
make no use of at all.
>
>200 t - 300 kW - 100 people. So, 400 t 600 kW - 200 people - is his payload.
>
Numbers straight from Mookie's ass.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 21:29 -0400 |
| Subject | A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nthf8o$t7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58054 |
By using the ITS upper stage tanker instead as a first stage, we can get a smaller implementation of a Mars transport system. This would be useful as a first flight, exploratory mission crewed by professional astronauts, before colonization flights began. Moreover, since Elon says a demonstration upper stage could be ready in four years such an initial flight might even be ready then. A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-smaller-faster-version-of-spacex.html Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "JF Mezei" wrote in message news:57eacb75$0$43811$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com... Musk outlined some plans for mars colonisation. He says the plan is to bring transport costs down by many orders of magnitudes so that the ticket prices are closer to the cost of a home (so paople can move to Mars easily). Musk plans to build mega rocket (bigger than Saturn 5) with 100 passengers per trip. Musk looking at expanding to 200. Plan is to send 1 million people to Mars. Rocket should have ~10,000(t) compared to Saturn 5 ~3000 (t) Stage 1 would have 128MN of thurst at sea level, 42 Raptor engines. Landing the stage 1 back would cost about 7% of fuel. (down from current use). Of the 42 engines, 7 in the centre would be gimballed, the rest would be fixed. 450 tonnes of cargo to Mars. Trip time caries betwene 80 and 140 days depending on year/planet alignment. To achieve this, there are some concepts that need to be implemented: Full reusability Since it takes so long for the return trip, Musk says about 12 re-uses for the interplanetary ship lasting about 20-30 years. In-orbit refuelling The interplanetary ship is launched without fuel, orbits earth after launch. Second launch bring up fuel, docks to the first ship to transfer fuel and then interplanetary ship departs. Tanker version of spacecraft will launch 3 to 5 times to transfer enough fuel for each interplanetary ship and for each launch window, there would be many interplanetary ship launched and fueled (so the launch pad would be busy launching them and the refueling ones. Produce propellant on Mars Loading propellant on earth for the return trip from mars costs way too much. Right choice of propellant This one is simple: methane. Hydrogen could also be produced on mars but very hard to store and requires much bigger tanks. Musk wants to R&D so that carbon fibre can be used for tanks. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 05:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <fd187e85-1573-49b4-aa13-dcf38eb38ee1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58202 |
Meanwhile Boeing delays CST http://aviationweek.com/space/boeing-delays-cst-100-still-targets-2018-iss-mission?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20161011_AW-05_297&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000002554730&utm_campaign=7294&utm_medium=email&elq2=0b678ea282674b6d8e25e6c29b4190c5 On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 2:29:14 PM UTC+13, Robert Clark wrote: > By using the ITS upper stage tanker instead as a first stage, we can get a > smaller implementation of a Mars transport system. This would be useful as a > first flight, exploratory mission crewed by professional astronauts, before > colonization flights began. Moreover, since Elon says a demonstration upper > stage could be ready in four years such an initial flight might even be > ready then. > > > A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to > Mars. > http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-smaller-faster-version-of-spacex.html > > Bob Clark > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > launchers, to 'flying cars'. > This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: > > Nanotech: from air to space. > https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "JF Mezei" wrote in message > news:57eacb75$0$43811$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com... > > Musk outlined some plans for mars colonisation. He says the plan is to > bring transport costs down by many orders of magnitudes so that the > ticket prices are closer to the cost of a home (so paople can move to > Mars easily). > > Musk plans to build mega rocket (bigger than Saturn 5) with 100 > passengers per trip. Musk looking at expanding to 200. Plan is to send 1 > million people to Mars. > Rocket should have ~10,000(t) compared to Saturn 5 ~3000 (t) > > Stage 1 would have 128MN of thurst at sea level, 42 Raptor engines. > > Landing the stage 1 back would cost about 7% of fuel. (down from current > use). > > Of the 42 engines, 7 in the centre would be gimballed, the rest would be > fixed. > > > 450 tonnes of cargo to Mars. Trip time caries betwene 80 and 140 days > depending on year/planet alignment. > > > > To achieve this, there are some concepts that need to be implemented: > > Full reusability > Since it takes so long for the return trip, Musk says about 12 re-uses > for the interplanetary ship lasting about 20-30 years. > > In-orbit refuelling > The interplanetary ship is launched without fuel, orbits earth after > launch. Second launch bring up fuel, docks to the first ship to transfer > fuel and then interplanetary ship departs. > > Tanker version of spacecraft will launch 3 to 5 times to transfer enough > fuel for each interplanetary ship and for each launch window, there > would be many interplanetary ship launched and fueled (so the launch pad > would be busy launching them and the refueling ones. > > Produce propellant on Mars > Loading propellant on earth for the return trip from mars costs way too > much. > > Right choice of propellant > This one is simple: methane. Hydrogen could also be produced on mars but > very hard to store and requires much bigger tanks. > > > Musk wants to R&D so that carbon fibre can be used for tanks. > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 08:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58202 |
there is no reason for man to go to Mars. It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. no food, no water, no air. send a robot. to hell with Musk and his gov funded R&D companies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 14:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvpvei.b0d.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #58210 |
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. > > send a robot. Indeed. However, I always wonder why they don't equip those robots with brushes to wipe the solar panels and camera's. That would not be a problem when men go along, but it would be an expensive way to achieve the same thing. (wiping the thing clean after a duststorm)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 10:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <on7qvbpt17rsvf5jo14i1ilsbdslgjre2c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58211 |
Rob <nomail@example.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.
>>
>> send a robot.
>
>Indeed. However, I always wonder why they don't equip those robots
>with brushes to wipe the solar panels and camera's. That would not
>be a problem when men go along, but it would be an expensive way to
>achieve the same thing. (wiping the thing clean after a duststorm)
>
Hardly the main reason to send people. In fact, not a reason at all.
--
"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 | 2016-10-11 18:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <k3pvcd-5ll.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58211 |
In sci.physics Rob <nomail@example.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. >> >> send a robot. > > Indeed. However, I always wonder why they don't equip those robots > with brushes to wipe the solar panels and camera's. That would not > be a problem when men go along, but it would be an expensive way to > achieve the same thing. (wiping the thing clean after a duststorm) Because the equipment to do it would have been big and heavy. Also absent water to wash off the dust, there would be the very real danger of cumulative scratching due to abrasion being much worse than the dust. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 19:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvqdvd.cbv.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #58214 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Rob <nomail@example.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. >>> >>> send a robot. >> >> Indeed. However, I always wonder why they don't equip those robots >> with brushes to wipe the solar panels and camera's. That would not >> be a problem when men go along, but it would be an expensive way to >> achieve the same thing. (wiping the thing clean after a duststorm) > > Because the equipment to do it would have been big and heavy. > > Also absent water to wash off the dust, there would be the very real > danger of cumulative scratching due to abrasion being much worse than > the dust. As I understand it, at least for the Spirit/Opportunity rovers the predicted operational time was limited by dust accumulation on the solar panels, and indeed power output of the panels was decreasing all the time. Then they got lucky and there was a breeze of wind, and it cleared the panels starting operations as if it had just landed. Apparently, for extended operation you need either luck or some dedicated method to clear panels and camera lenses, just as it is here on earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 22:56 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <e64uf7F8lasU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58216 |
On 16-10-11 22:05 , Rob wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>> In sci.physics Rob <nomail@example.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.
>>>>
>>>> send a robot.
>>>
>>> Indeed. However, I always wonder why they don't equip those robots
>>> with brushes to wipe the solar panels and camera's. That would not
>>> be a problem when men go along, but it would be an expensive way to
>>> achieve the same thing. (wiping the thing clean after a duststorm)
>>
>> Because the equipment to do it would have been big and heavy.
>>
>> Also absent water to wash off the dust, there would be the very real
>> danger of cumulative scratching due to abrasion being much worse than
>> the dust.
>
> As I understand it, at least for the Spirit/Opportunity rovers the
> predicted operational time was limited by dust accumulation on the
> solar panels, and indeed power output of the panels was decreasing
> all the time. Then they got lucky and there was a breeze of wind,
> and it cleared the panels starting operations as if it had just landed.
There have been multiple such cleaning events
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleaning_event). Here are charts showing
how the energy production of Opportunity's solar panels has gone down
and up over the years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_(rover)#Power
> Apparently, for extended operation you need either luck or some
> dedicated method to clear panels and camera lenses, just as it is
> here on earth.
Cleaning events, although random, seem to be frequent and strong enough
that dust on the panels does not prevent extended operation. However,
the frequency and strength of cleaning events may depend on
areographical (right word?) location; perhaps Opportunity was lucky in
this respect.
Still, some method of cleaning the panels on command would increase the
average power output and avoid occasional unpredictable long periods of
depressed power output between cleaning events.
--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 10:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <5a7qvbljnjiij8tamqva7r8n7i4sgqfs01@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58210 |
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. > >to hell with Musk and his gov funded R&D companies. > Go back under your bridge, twat. -- You are What you do When it counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 18:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <i7pvcd-5ll.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58212 |
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. Absent Star Trek technology, no human is going to go to most of the places we send research robots. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 12:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <h6gqvb135td68bt48vmeg2mpee401oaqqo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58215 |
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?
>
>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?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web