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
  #1  
Old October 16th 16, 02:25 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...

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

Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the
oxygen.

We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen.

Breathing pure oxygen is generally bad for humans.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-d...xygen-kill-you

But there is "fixed" nitrogen on Mars. Could be useful as fertilizer.
If not then the nitrogen would need to be extracted in other ways (i.e.
chemistry).

NASA's Curiosity Rover Finds Biologically Useful Nitrogen on Mars
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mars-nitrogen

Chemistry will solve many of these problems.

Doing chemistry takes lots of energy, particularly when you have to
synthesize just about everything complex.


Some Mars reference missions include a nuclear reactor so that the
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!

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.
  #2  
Old October 16th 16, 07:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.

In sci.physics 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

Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the
oxygen.

We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen.

Breathing pure oxygen is generally bad for humans.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-d...xygen-kill-you

But there is "fixed" nitrogen on Mars. Could be useful as fertilizer.
If not then the nitrogen would need to be extracted in other ways (i.e.
chemistry).

NASA's Curiosity Rover Finds Biologically Useful Nitrogen on Mars
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mars-nitrogen

Chemistry will solve many of these problems.

Doing chemistry takes lots of energy, particularly when you have to
synthesize just about everything complex.

Some Mars reference missions include a nuclear reactor so that the
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!

Jeff


Who said "not possible"?

It certainly wasn't me.

The closest thing to "not possible" I've said is that the following
are unknowns on Mars.

If water is available in quantity anywhere other than the poles.

If there are concentrated usefull mineral deposits in general and
concentrated calcium deposits in particular as all the concentrated
calcium deposits on Earth are the result of biology.


--
Jim Pennino
  #5  
Old October 17th 16, 01:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.

wrote:

In sci.physics 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

Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the
oxygen.

We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen.

Breathing pure oxygen is generally bad for humans.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-d...xygen-kill-you

But there is "fixed" nitrogen on Mars. Could be useful as fertilizer.
If not then the nitrogen would need to be extracted in other ways (i.e.
chemistry).

NASA's Curiosity Rover Finds Biologically Useful Nitrogen on Mars
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mars-nitrogen

Chemistry will solve many of these problems.

Doing chemistry takes lots of energy, particularly when you have to
synthesize just about everything complex.

Some Mars reference missions include a nuclear reactor so that the
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!

Jeff


Who said "not possible"?

It certainly wasn't me.


Yet that's the attitude everyone hears you having, Jimp.


The closest thing to "not possible" I've said is that the following
are unknowns on Mars.

If water is available in quantity anywhere other than the poles.


Not an unknown. We know there are huge subsurface ice deposits
elsewhere than the poles.


If there are concentrated usefull mineral deposits in general and


Not an unknown. We know there's hematite and other iron ores.


concentrated calcium deposits in particular as all the concentrated
calcium deposits on Earth are the result of biology.


Not an unknown. Calcium concentrations and minerals such as dolomite
and marble are one of the indications on Mars that there was surface
water.

So your problem appears to be your ignorance of the facts rather than
the facts themselves.


--
"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
  #6  
Old October 17th 16, 02:00 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 10/16/2016 7:17 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...


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!

Jeff


Who said "not possible"?

It certainly wasn't me.


Yet that's the attitude everyone hears you having,


you do not speak for everyone, you speak to yourself.



The closest thing to "not possible" I've said is that the following
are unknowns on Mars.

If water is available in quantity anywhere other than the poles.


Not an unknown. We know
.there are huge subsurface ice deposits
elsewhere than the poles.


no, you dont know that. it is only conjecture, not known.



If there are concentrated usefull mineral deposits in general and


Not an unknown. We know there's hematite and other iron ores.


Cite? where is your hematite mine ?

iron makes the planet red, but it is not know of any concentrated
mineral deposits.



concentrated calcium deposits in particular as all the concentrated
calcium deposits on Earth are the result of biology.


Not an unknown. Calcium concentrations and minerals such as dolomite
and marble are one of the indications on Mars that there was surface
water.


Cite ?



  #7  
Old October 17th 16, 06:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.

In sci.physics Serigo wrote:
On 10/16/2016 7:17 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...


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!

Jeff

Who said "not possible"?

It certainly wasn't me.


Yet that's the attitude everyone hears you having,


you do not speak for everyone, you speak to yourself.



The closest thing to "not possible" I've said is that the following
are unknowns on Mars.

If water is available in quantity anywhere other than the poles.


Not an unknown. We know
.there are huge subsurface ice deposits
elsewhere than the poles.


no, you dont know that. it is only conjecture, not known.


The latest thing from NASA that I have seen confirms small, as in
handfull, amounts of subsurface water ice on Mars and they were making
a huge deal out of the discovery.

If anyone has seen anything confirming large amounts of water other
than at the poles I would like to see it.

If there are concentrated usefull mineral deposits in general and


Not an unknown. We know there's hematite and other iron ores.


Cite? where is your hematite mine ?


I can find handfulls of just about anything in the local mountains.

That does not mean that there is enough concentration of anything
to be usefull.

iron makes the planet red, but it is not know of any concentrated
mineral deposits.


I would say that it is likely thay do exist, however that has not
been confirmed and obviously if they exist we don't know where they
are.

At this point they could be anywhere between a few meters and 10,000 km
from any planned Mars colony site.

concentrated calcium deposits in particular as all the concentrated
calcium deposits on Earth are the result of biology.


Not an unknown. Calcium concentrations and minerals such as dolomite
and marble are one of the indications on Mars that there was surface
water.


Cite ?


Minor amounts of dolomite can be found just about anywhere on Earth
as calcium is the fifth most abundant element on the planet and hardly
a surprise on Mars.

The same can be said of marble.

Both can be formed in diffuse and scattered quantites by geologic
action alone.

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.


--
Jim Pennino
  #8  
Old October 17th 16, 01:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.

Serigo wrote:

And argument that things that rovers and probes have actually found
don't actually exist...

On 10/16/2016 7:17 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...


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!

Jeff

Who said "not possible"?

It certainly wasn't me.


Yet that's the attitude everyone hears you having,


you do not speak for everyone, you speak to yourself.



The closest thing to "not possible" I've said is that the following
are unknowns on Mars.

If water is available in quantity anywhere other than the poles.


Not an unknown. We know
.there are huge subsurface ice deposits
elsewhere than the poles.


no, you dont know that. it is only conjecture, not known.



If there are concentrated usefull mineral deposits in general and


Not an unknown. We know there's hematite and other iron ores.


Cite? where is your hematite mine ?

iron makes the planet red, but it is not know of any concentrated
mineral deposits.



concentrated calcium deposits in particular as all the concentrated
calcium deposits on Earth are the result of biology.


Not an unknown. Calcium concentrations and minerals such as dolomite
and marble are one of the indications on Mars that there was surface
water.


Cite ?


  #9  
Old October 17th 16, 01:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.

wrote:

Jimp's argument seems to be that since we haven't sent a bunch of
people in to verify the existence of things there is no point in
sending a bunch of people. Just a little circular...

In sci.physics Serigo wrote:
On 10/16/2016 7:17 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...


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!

Jeff

Who said "not possible"?

It certainly wasn't me.


Yet that's the attitude everyone hears you having,


you do not speak for everyone, you speak to yourself.



The closest thing to "not possible" I've said is that the following
are unknowns on Mars.

If water is available in quantity anywhere other than the poles.


Not an unknown. We know
.there are huge subsurface ice deposits
elsewhere than the poles.


no, you dont know that. it is only conjecture, not known.


The latest thing from NASA that I have seen confirms small, as in
handfull, amounts of subsurface water ice on Mars and they were making
a huge deal out of the discovery.


Perhaps you should get out more. Peer reviewed research...
]
http://www.space.com/30502-mars-gian...overy-mro.html


If anyone has seen anything confirming large amounts of water other
than at the poles I would like to see it.


Just what are you willing to accept as 'confirmation'?

If there are concentrated usefull mineral deposits in general and


Not an unknown. We know there's hematite and other iron ores.


Cite? where is your hematite mine ?


I can find handfulls of just about anything in the local mountains.

That does not mean that there is enough concentration of anything
to be usefull.


So until we have people go in and mine it there's no point in sending
people to go in and mine it?

To INITIALLY colonize, there are large areas of hematite nodules
pretty much just lying around on the surface. Hematite is where we
get iron. You don't even have to mine these; just scoop 'em up.

Again, how much has to be 'verified' for you? How big do you think a
colony starts out?


iron makes the planet red, but it is not know of any concentrated
mineral deposits.


I would say that it is likely thay do exist, however that has not
been confirmed and obviously if they exist we don't know where they
are.


Except we DO know where there is enough to support an initial colony.


At this point they could be anywhere between a few meters and 10,000 km
from any planned Mars colony site.


Just like on Earth. Golly gee...

concentrated calcium deposits in particular as all the concentrated
calcium deposits on Earth are the result of biology.


Not an unknown. Calcium concentrations and minerals such as dolomite
and marble are one of the indications on Mars that there was surface
water.


Cite ?


Minor amounts of dolomite can be found just about anywhere on Earth
as calcium is the fifth most abundant element on the planet and hardly
a surprise on Mars.

The same can be said of marble.

Both can be formed in diffuse and scattered quantites by geologic
action alone.


Also in concentrated forms. Calcium is stupidly prevalent on Mars.
Holding out a lack of calcium as a 'problem' just sounds silly.


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.


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.


--
"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
 




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 08:35 PM.


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.