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 10 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 19 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 18:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ugj7dd-voh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58318 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <4rj5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> > In article <ntjvi8$brk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> >> >> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: >> >> > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> >> >> >> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. >> >> > >> >> > Opinion. >> >> >> >> Fact. Mars is Dead. >> > >> > Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural >> > resources. >> > >> >> >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. >> >> > >> >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. >> >> >> >> 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be >> >> used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air. >> > >> > Chemistry. CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and >> > oxygen for the return trip back to earth. Also, note people breathe >> > oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support. >> > >> > The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done >> > in the lab many times. We just need to send the necessary equipment to >> > Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase). >> >> Which would be a big industrial plant, a nuclear reactor to power it, >> and a shitload of support equipment. > > No, it's not "big". Mars reference missions include this because the > "plant" needed can be small, if you give it many months to do its work. > Hint: The life support equipment on ISS contains chemical "plants" as > well. The Russians have been using them for quite some time. And they > have the disadvantage that they had to work in zero gravity. Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big. If all you want is a research station, no need to produce anything locally. >> >> > If you >> >> > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but >> >> > even the moon looks to have water. >> >> >> >> "looks" => conjecture >> > >> > Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on >> > the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole). No >> > there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be >> > extracted and used. It's a natural resource despite your whining to the >> > contrary. >> >> Generally something is called a natural resource when it is concentrated >> and easy to extract. >> >> The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it. > > On earth, fossil fuels are still relatively cheap, given advances in > technologies like fracking. So, we simply won't ramp up on renewable > energy on earth until its cost effective to do so. On Mars, it would > likely be hideously expensive to try to mine fossil fuels, especially > since we have no idea if there are any fossil fuels on Mars. > > Jeff That is true enough, but people keep confusing a handfull of something with a natural resource. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 02:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <imt30ch30401cd4a37f8d1lase6nnkh5pk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58342 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <4rj5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>> > In article <ntjvi8$brk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>> >>
>>> >> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>> >> > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Opinion.
>>> >>
>>> >> Fact. Mars is Dead.
>>> >
>>> > Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural
>>> > resources.
>>> >
>>> >> >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one.
>>> >>
>>> >> 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be
>>> >> used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air.
>>> >
>>> > Chemistry. CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and
>>> > oxygen for the return trip back to earth. Also, note people breathe
>>> > oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support.
>>> >
>>> > The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done
>>> > in the lab many times. We just need to send the necessary equipment to
>>> > Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase).
>>>
>>> Which would be a big industrial plant, a nuclear reactor to power it,
>>> and a shitload of support equipment.
>>
>> No, it's not "big". Mars reference missions include this because the
>> "plant" needed can be small, if you give it many months to do its work.
>> Hint: The life support equipment on ISS contains chemical "plants" as
>> well. The Russians have been using them for quite some time. And they
>> have the disadvantage that they had to work in zero gravity.
>>
>
>Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big.
>
Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what
mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start
with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you
have to import (again over time).
>
>If all you want is a research station, no need to produce anything
>locally.
>
Sure there is, if you ever plan on having your researchers come home.
>>> >> > If you
>>> >> > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but
>>> >> > even the moon looks to have water.
>>> >>
>>> >> "looks" => conjecture
>>> >
>>> > Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on
>>> > the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole). No
>>> > there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be
>>> > extracted and used. It's a natural resource despite your whining to the
>>> > contrary.
>>>
>>> Generally something is called a natural resource when it is concentrated
>>> and easy to extract.
>>>
>>> The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it.
>>
>> On earth, fossil fuels are still relatively cheap, given advances in
>> technologies like fracking. So, we simply won't ramp up on renewable
>> energy on earth until its cost effective to do so. On Mars, it would
>> likely be hideously expensive to try to mine fossil fuels, especially
>> since we have no idea if there are any fossil fuels on Mars.
>>
>
>That is true enough, but people keep confusing a handfull of something
>with a natural resource.
>
No, they don't. People keep denying the existence of things that are
known to exist. I'll ask you again, just how many TRILLION ACRE FEET
of water in the form of ice must exist before you accept it's a
'natural resource'?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 14:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu0llo$1981$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58366 |
On 10/15/2016 4:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> >> >> Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big. >> > > Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what > mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start > with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you > have to import (again over time). is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? your really not into this Mars thing are you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 23:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <phgddd-mh7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58427 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2016 4:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >>>> >>> >>> Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big. >>> >> >> Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what >> mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start >> with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you >> have to import (again over time). > > is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? > > your really not into this Mars thing are you. There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes weighs about 2 tons. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 18:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <4p980c9o6pjlqci2j23rhvufjmoama0muj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58437 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2016 4:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what
>>> mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start
>>> with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you
>>> have to import (again over time).
>>
>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ?
>>
>> your really not into this Mars thing are you.
>>
>
>There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction
>facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes
>weighs about 2 tons.
>
So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization
rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those
per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal.
--
"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 07:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu2f79$1rr4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58445 |
On 10/16/2016 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> >>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>> >>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. >>> >> >> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >> weighs about 2 tons. >> > > So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization > rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those > per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. > > in your imagination, "no big deal" what is the current failure rate of a Musk Mars Rocket ? 100%
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 06:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <2nl90cp00n6nj3pufio68v90vf68pt74dn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58451 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >On 10/16/2016 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >>>> >>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>>> >>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. >>>> >>> >>> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >>> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >>> weighs about 2 tons. >>> >> >> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization >> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those >> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. >> > >in your imagination, "no big deal" > It's not. I'm sorry you think 2% is a big deal, but it's just not. > >what is the current failure rate of a Musk Mars Rocket ? 100% > Don't be silly. Right now it's 0% since it has 0 failures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu3hma$1r1s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58459 |
On 10/17/2016 8:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 10/16/2016 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>>>> >>>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. > >>>> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >>>> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >>>> weighs about 2 tons. >>>> >>> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization >>> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those >>> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. >>> >> >> in your imagination, "no big deal" >> > > It's not. yes it is, nothing exists yet, and you say "no big deal" you are dominated by your imagination. I'm sorry you think 2% is a big deal, but it's just not. 2% of nothing, is still nothing. > >> >> what is the current failure rate of a Musk Mars Rocket ? 100% >> > > Right now it's 0% since it has 0 failures. yes, the reliability is 0%. Nothing. the failure rate is 100% as they have never been able to fly this rocket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 23:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ci4gdd-r2g.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58474 |
In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 10/17/2016 8:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/16/2016 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>>>>> >>>>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. >> >>>>> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >>>>> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >>>>> weighs about 2 tons. >>>>> > >>>> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization >>>> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those >>>> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. >>>> >>> >>> in your imagination, "no big deal" >>> >> >> It's not. > > yes it is, nothing exists yet, and you say "no big deal" > > you are dominated by your imagination. > > I'm sorry you think 2% is a big deal, but it's just not. > > 2% of nothing, is still nothing. That is 2% for 1 very tiny landscaper sized excavator. How many excavators are needed to mine ice, iron, calcium deposits, if they exist, aluminum, rock, etc. and dig foundatiions for buildings? How many trucks to haul the stuff the excavators dig up? How many trucks to haul the finished products? How many trucks to haul the waste products away? How many trucks to haul the building materials? How many rock crushing machines to crush all the stuff dug up? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 07:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <vgcc0cdkta0tdnh1fn3rsln0uup30rif0u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58484 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 10/17/2016 8:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/16/2016 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you.
>>>
>>>>>> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction
>>>>>> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes
>>>>>> weighs about 2 tons.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization
>>>>> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those
>>>>> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> in your imagination, "no big deal"
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not.
>>
>> yes it is, nothing exists yet, and you say "no big deal"
>>
>> you are dominated by your imagination.
>>
>> I'm sorry you think 2% is a big deal, but it's just not.
>>
>> 2% of nothing, is still nothing.
>
>That is 2% for 1 very tiny landscaper sized excavator.
>
>How many excavators are needed to mine ice, iron, calcium deposits, if
>they exist, aluminum, rock, etc. and dig foundatiions for buildings?
>
>How many trucks to haul the stuff the excavators dig up?
>
>How many trucks to haul the finished products?
>
>How many trucks to haul the waste products away?
>
>How many trucks to haul the building materials?
>
>How many rock crushing machines to crush all the stuff dug up?
>
Now figure out what you can ship with 1,000 tons of cargo for every
hundred people you send...
--
"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 12:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <nu5ld4$10li$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58507 |
On 10/18/2016 9:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. >>>>>>> There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >>>>>>> facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >>>>>>> weighs about 2 tons. >>>>>>> >>>>>> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization >>>>>> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those >>>>>> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> in your imagination, "no big deal" >>>>> >>>> It's not. >>> >>> yes it is, nothing exists yet, and you say "no big deal" >>> >>> you are dominated by your imagination. >>> >>> I'm sorry you think 2% is a big deal, but it's just not. >>> >>> 2% of nothing, is still nothing. >> >> That is 2% for 1 very tiny landscaper sized excavator. >> How many excavators are needed to mine ice, iron, calcium deposits, if >> they exist, aluminum, rock, etc. and dig foundatiions for buildings? >> >> How many trucks to haul the stuff the excavators dig up? >> How many trucks to haul the finished products? >> >> How many trucks to haul the waste products away? >> >> How many trucks to haul the building materials? >> >> How many rock crushing machines to crush all the stuff dug up? >> > > Now figure out what you can ship with 1,000 tons of cargo for every > hundred people you send... > > still no detail you have to launch it off earth, then land it on mars safely slowly, a HUGE amount of fuel. All those rockets landing on Mars will double their atmosphere, all unbreathable stuff. and they are all one way rockets, THe "US Occupation of Mars" will be led by Nancy Palosie and her poodle dog Obama-snowser, and as much socailists, democrats,and lefties we can stuff like sausages, into Muskrockets. Trump can go too, + tape Hiellary to the engine with ducktape, and BJ Bill. and their Foundation. time to buy stock in Alcoa (rocket are made of that stuff.) +time to take out the trash. (note: they are all politicians+lawyers)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 13:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <PM00053F0FAB1A1AD0@aca41283.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #58445 |
Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On 10/15/2016 4:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what >>>> mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start >>>> with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you >>>> have to import (again over time). >>> >>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ? >>> >>> your really not into this Mars thing are you. >>> >> >>There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction >>facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes >>weighs about 2 tons. >> > > So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization > rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those > per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal. Wouldn't redundancy make it a big deal? In a decade, 3D printers would be very useful. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <s8na0cl6r3tnapmior0i9n5hps8n6gar9n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58456 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2016 4:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what
>>>>> mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start
>>>>> with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you
>>>>> have to import (again over time).
>>>>
>>>> is that it ? start small and grow them ?? anything else ?
>>>>
>>>> your really not into this Mars thing are you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as small when talking about a steel prduction
>>>facility carried in a rocket. The smallest excavator John Deere makes
>>>weighs about 2 tons.
>>>
>>
>> So about 2% of the cargo lift to Mars of one of Musk's colonization
>> rockets, then. And he's talking about launching around 10 of those
>> per 100 people going to the colony. Hardly a big deal.
>>
>
>Wouldn't redundancy make it a big deal? In a decade, 3D printers
>would be very useful.
>
So ship two. Musk is talking about roughly 10 cargo launches per 100
settlers. That's 1,000 tons of 'stuff'. How many excavators do you
need per 100 people. And yes, being able to make parts locally with
3-D printers will be useful, but you'll still have to ship the 'ink'
for a good long while.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 00:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <8129d206-f582-40fb-9088-0b4d1b189bb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58318 |
You need surplus oxygen as well as fuel. On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 11:14:10 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <4rj5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... > > > > In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > > > In article <ntjvi8$brk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > > >> > > >> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: > > >> > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > > >> >> > > >> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. > > >> > > > >> > Opinion. > > >> > > >> Fact. Mars is Dead. > > > > > > Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural > > > resources. > > > > > >> >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. > > >> > > > >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. > > >> > > >> 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be > > >> used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air. > > > > > > Chemistry. CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and > > > oxygen for the return trip back to earth. Also, note people breathe > > > oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support. > > > > > > The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done > > > in the lab many times. We just need to send the necessary equipment to > > > Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase). > > > > Which would be a big industrial plant, a nuclear reactor to power it, > > and a shitload of support equipment. > > No, it's not "big". Mars reference missions include this because the > "plant" needed can be small, if you give it many months to do its work. > Hint: The life support equipment on ISS contains chemical "plants" as > well. The Russians have been using them for quite some time. And they > have the disadvantage that they had to work in zero gravity. > > > >> > If you > > >> > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but > > >> > even the moon looks to have water. > > >> > > >> "looks" => conjecture > > > > > > Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on > > > the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole). No > > > there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be > > > extracted and used. It's a natural resource despite your whining to the > > > contrary. > > > > Generally something is called a natural resource when it is concentrated > > and easy to extract. > > > > The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it. > > On earth, fossil fuels are still relatively cheap, given advances in > technologies like fracking. So, we simply won't ramp up on renewable > energy on earth until its cost effective to do so. On Mars, it would > likely be hideously expensive to try to mine fossil fuels, especially > since we have no idea if there are any fossil fuels on Mars. > > Jeff > -- > All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. > These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, > employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 09:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <MPG.326d4b6ba1953a69989845@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #58363 |
In article <8129d206-f582-40fb-9088-0b4d1b189bb7@googlegroups.com>, mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > You need surplus oxygen as well as fuel. Yes Mook, but that's part of the Sabatier reaction you would use to get the methane in the first place. I'll even provide a cite: http://www.geoffreylandis.com/propellant.html From above: 4H2 + CO2 --> CH4 + 2H2O The water (H2O) produced by the reaction is then electrolyzed to produce oxygen and hydrogen; the hydrogen is re-used to produce more methane. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 10:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <2s620cp88e8jcpvpe96g4e7uc7cauldicl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58305 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <ntjvi8$brk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>
>>> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>> > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>> >>
>>> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.
>>> >
>>> > Opinion.
>>>
>>> Fact. Mars is Dead.
>>
>> Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural
>> resources.
>>
>>> >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.
>>> >
>>> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one.
>>>
>>> 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be
>>> used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air.
>>
>> Chemistry. CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and
>> oxygen for the return trip back to earth. Also, note people breathe
>> oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support.
>>
>> The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done
>> in the lab many times. We just need to send the necessary equipment to
>> Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase).
>
>Which would be a big industrial plant, a nuclear reactor to power it,
>and a shitload of support equipment.
>
Nope. It only needs a "big industrial plant" if you need to produce
millions of tons of the stuff quickly. Otherwise a small industrial
plant works quite well. After all, 21st century Earth society didn't
just spring full grown from the forehead of Zeus...
>>> > If you
>>> > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but
>>> > even the moon looks to have water.
>>>
>>> "looks" => conjecture
>>
>> Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on
>> the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole). No
>> there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be
>> extracted and used. It's a natural resource despite your whining to the
>> contrary.
>
>Generally something is called a natural resource when it is concentrated
>and easy to extract.
>
Yes. Ice on Mars is a natural resource.
>
>The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it.
>
We didn't used to try to recover fresh water from it, either. Times
change.
>>> >> no food, no water, no air.
>>> >
>>> > There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions)
>>>
>>> conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable.
>>
>> Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence for water on the Mars too.
>
>But not in usefull amounts or convienient places.
>
Jesus, Chimp, will you go learn something that was printed in the last
couple of centuries. How many trillion acre-feet of water do you need
for you to consider it a 'useful amount'?
>>> > and again a CO2
>>> > atmosphere. Food could be grown.
>>>
>>> all moisture would leave the plant.
>>> Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants.
>>> Radiation will kill it off in a few years.
>>
>> Hydroponic greenhouses pressurized to 1 atmosphere of pressure (or
>> nearly so since plants grow at lesser pressures right here on earth).
>> Ever see how they grow tomatoes in Canada or the hydroponics garden at
>> Disney Epcot? Pretty much just like that.
>>
>>> >> send a robot.
>>> >
>>> > Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science
>>> > compared to a manned mission.
>>>
>>> silly opinion.
>>
>> Fact, not opinion. Look at the science returns from Apollo (e.g. kg of
>> samples returned, experiments performed, and equipment set up). Look at
>> how far the manned lunar rovers drove compared to the robotic rovers on
>> Mars. Facts you are apparently either ignorant of, or are ignoring.
>
>The Mars rovers ran for years 24/7.
>
And 'explored' in all those years an area that humans could do in a
week or so and do better than the toaster.
>
>How long was the longest stay for humans on the Moon?
>
>How far away from the landing site did the lunar rovers go compared to
>the Martian rovers?
>
>The Martian rovers don't need to return rocks to Earth, they can analyze
>them on the spot.
>
But not very well.
>>> >> to hell with Musk and his gov funded R&D companies.
>>> >
>>> > Tell us how you really feel...
>>>
>>> I dont want Gov stealing my money for dead ideas.
>>
>> Capitalistic competition between SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, Boeing, and
>> etc. is *far* better than throwing money down the glorious socialist
>> SLS/Orion "rocket to nowhere" rat-hole. That program has spent many
>> billions of dollars and flown zero times. At least SpaceX is "pushing
>> the envelope" and lowering launch costs. High launch costs are arguably
>> the biggest roadblock for any manned mission beyond LEO.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>Well that and basic survival.
>
Only if you're stupid (so I see why you would worry about it).
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 02:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <17k0dd-vco.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #58221 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. > > Opinion. > >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. > > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. If you > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but > even the moon looks to have water. > >> no food, no water, no air. > > There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2 > atmosphere. Food could be grown. Not without horrendous effort. >> send a robot. > > Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science > compared to a manned mission. Wrong. Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7 without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 21:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <u8drvb5sk6pq5pq55lsu85houv3jsf1fdh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58226 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>
>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.
>>
>> Opinion.
>>
>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.
>>
>> False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. If you
>> want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but
>> even the moon looks to have water.
>>
>>> no food, no water, no air.
>>
>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2
>> atmosphere. Food could be grown.
>
>Not without horrendous effort.
>
For some small value of 'horrendous'.
>>> send a robot.
>>
>> Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science
>> compared to a manned mission.
>
>Wrong.
>
No, he's right and we know that for a fact.
>
>Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7
>without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep.
>
And humans working ordinary shifts can cover more ground and
accomplish more in a few weeks than your toaster can do in years.
Humans can also deal with things 'outside' the program by reacting to
the data as they collect it.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 08:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <ntlfdr$iea$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58233 |
On 10/11/2016 11:01 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >>>> >>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars. >>> >>> Opinion. >>> >>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum. >>> >>> >>>> no food, no water, no air. >>> >>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2 >>> atmosphere. Food could be grown. >> Not without horrendous effort. >> > > For some small value of 'horrendous'. > >>>> send a robot. >>> Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science >>> compared to a manned mission. >> >> Wrong. >> > > No, he's right and we know that for a fact. > >> Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7 >> without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep. >> > > And humans working ordinary shifts can cover more ground and > accomplish more in a few weeks than your toaster can do in years. > Humans can also deal with things 'outside' the program by reacting to > the data as they collect it. silly. remember that any human on Mars must stay below surface 95% of the time to avoid radiation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 14:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars. |
| Message-ID | <qh6tvbtu53b0i1fvrnjbgq6hi38s7q04i0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #58244 |
Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 10/11/2016 11:01 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <ntiqdi$7gt$3@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.
>>>>
>>>> Opinion.
>>>>
>>>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.
>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>>> no food, no water, no air.
>>>>
>>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2
>>>> atmosphere. Food could be grown.
>
>>> Not without horrendous effort.
>>>
>>
>> For some small value of 'horrendous'.
>>
>>>>> send a robot.
>
>>>> Been there, done that. They're s-l-o-w and return very little science
>>>> compared to a manned mission.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>
>> No, he's right and we know that for a fact.
>>
>
>>> Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7
>>> without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep.
>>>
>>
>> And humans working ordinary shifts can cover more ground and
>> accomplish more in a few weeks than your toaster can do in years.
>> Humans can also deal with things 'outside' the program by reacting to
>> the data as they collect it.
>
>silly.
> remember that any human on Mars must stay below surface 95% of the
>time to avoid radiation.
>
Bullshit, troll. Shielding vehicles is easy.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web