A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #13  
Old October 18th 16, 02:49 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Serigo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary TransportSystem to Mars.

On 10/17/2016 7:45 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Serigo wrote:

On 10/17/2016 7:51 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:





The issue is large, highly concentrated amounts and those only come
from biological action, so if any large concentrated amounts of
calcium based minerals were found on Mars, the headlines would be
screaming about proof of previous life found on Mars.


that is how limestone and marble formed on Earth, via biological action.


And yet marble and other calcium minerals are found on Mars. Explain.


Cite ? or are you making stuff up again. no marble on mars

Your assertion, you explain it. We understand if you cant....


You're simply wrong. All it takes to get areas with rocks having a
high concentration of calcium carbonate is for there to used to be
water there.


obviously wrong.


So reality is obviously wrong.


Trumps reality or Hiellarys ?



You are saying throw some dirt and water in a blender and watch the
calcium carbonate pop out.


No, YOU are saying that.


again, no thought, no chemistry background, you should have replied,
acidic water... but tooo Late, you have been judged by a jury of your
piers and found to be..... too general.



Now show me.


It's impossible to show me anything. There isn't enough dynamite in
the world to blow my head out of my ass.


dude, I take fiber daily. and you are projecting again.



  #14  
Old October 18th 16, 01:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.

In article , says...

On 10/16/2016 8:25 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...


In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

snip


return ship can produce liquid methane and LOX from the CO2 atmosphere
and H2 brought on the ship. If we end up going that route, just keep
leaving nuclear reactors on Mars brought from earth on the transport
ships.

Yes, just keep sending reactors until you have enough power, however
that is not going to be cheap.


Well, we've moved from "not possible" to "possible but not cheap".
Progress!


liar. YOU have not shown, nor demonstrated, that it is possible.

Try again, this time hire some intelligent people to help you, and lead
you.

https://saboteur365.files.wordpress...._screaming.jpg


You really are proving to be an annoying little troll, unwilling to even
look at the evidence (including cites) provided.

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.
  #17  
Old October 18th 16, 04:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Serigo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary TransportSystem to Mars.

On 10/18/2016 7:48 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 10/16/2016 8:25 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...


In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

snip


return ship can produce liquid methane and LOX from the CO2 atmosphere
and H2 brought on the ship. If we end up going that route, just keep
leaving nuclear reactors on Mars brought from earth on the transport
ships.

Yes, just keep sending reactors until you have enough power, however
that is not going to be cheap.

Well, we've moved from "not possible" to "possible but not cheap".
Progress!


liar. YOU have not shown, nor demonstrated, that it is possible.


Try again, this time hire some intelligent people to help you, and lead
you.

https://saboteur365.files.wordpress...._screaming.jpg

You really are proving to be an annoying little troll, unwilling to even
look at the evidence (including cites) provided.

Jeff


isn't that a great pix of Hiellary, your leader. [ugh]

She has already re-purposed the funding for the
"US Occupation of Planet Mars"
to her remodel of the "White House" into the "White Castle" with Throne
Room, and barracks for the subservient.
  #18  
Old October 19th 16, 12:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.

In article , says...

On 10/18/2016 7:48 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/16/2016 8:25 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

snip


return ship can produce liquid methane and LOX from the CO2 atmosphere
and H2 brought on the ship. If we end up going that route, just keep
leaving nuclear reactors on Mars brought from earth on the transport
ships.

Yes, just keep sending reactors until you have enough power, however
that is not going to be cheap.

Well, we've moved from "not possible" to "possible but not cheap".
Progress!

liar. YOU have not shown, nor demonstrated, that it is possible.


Try again, this time hire some intelligent people to help you, and lead
you.

https://saboteur365.files.wordpress...._screaming.jpg

You really are proving to be an annoying little troll, unwilling to even
look at the evidence (including cites) provided.

Jeff


isn't that a great pix of Hiellary, your leader. [ugh]

She has already re-purposed the funding for the
"US Occupation of Planet Mars"
to her remodel of the "White House" into the "White Castle" with Throne


You really are being a ass aren't you?

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.
  #19  
Old October 19th 16, 03:02 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Serigo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary TransportSystem to Mars.


isn't that a great pix of Hiellary, your leader. [ugh]

She has already re-purposed the funding for the
"US Occupation of Planet Mars"
to her remodel of the "White House" into the "White Castle" with Throne


You really are being a ass aren't you?

Jeff


well you're abrasive asshole, it is what you do, but that is expected as
you have little scientific/engineering facts to contribute.

your "Occupy Mars" idiocy is in with the Smoke-um Dope-um crowd.

and moronic "Lets build a STEEL PLANT on Mars"

try building one in the USA first, extremly hard to do because of all
the regulations,

and now you want to go pollute a entire pristeen planet ?

Space Elevator too ?
  #20  
Old October 19th 16, 09:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.

In article , says...

isn't that a great pix of Hiellary, your leader. [ugh]

She has already re-purposed the funding for the
"US Occupation of Planet Mars"
to her remodel of the "White House" into the "White Castle" with Throne


You really are being a ass aren't you?

Jeff


well you're abrasive asshole, it is what you do, but that is expected as
you have little scientific/engineering facts to contribute.


LOL, you mean like the cites provided that you've largely ignored?

your "Occupy Mars" idiocy is in with the Smoke-um Dope-um crowd.


Wrong crowd. I have an aerospace engineering degree and don't tend to
hang out with the "Smoke-um Dope-um crowd". More like the hang out with
other engineers at lunch on Friday and have one beer.

and moronic "Lets build a STEEL PLANT on Mars"


That wasn't me, but there is nothing fundamental which prevents doing
such a thing.

try building one in the USA first, extremly hard to do because of all
the regulations,


Mars is going to have the same regulations then?

and now you want to go pollute a entire pristeen planet ?


Who said anything about releasing waste from the process to pollute the
planet?

Space Elevator too ?


Once the materials are good enough and can be produced economically in
the quantities needed, why hell not? In the long run it would be a lot
better than chemical propulsion.

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary TransportSystem to Mars. Serigo Policy 11 October 19th 16 12:14 PM
A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary TransportSystem to Mars. Serigo Policy 14 October 18th 16 02:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.