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

Glorified igloos for Mars



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 9th 17, 05:29 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Glorified igloos for Mars

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 6:29:57 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 6:59:50 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 7:34:46 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 12:48:44 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-01-02 14:48, Jeff Findley wrote:

Also, I'm sure you'd have to inflate the inner structure to a fairly
high pressure (compared to Mars atmospheric pressure) so it's not
crushed by the weight of the water above it.

Since NASA said it might take 400 days to generate the water to fill it,
I would assume they would pour small amounts of water at a time and it
would freeze rapidly, so the inflated structure would only need to
suipport small amounts of water at any point in time since the rest
would be frozen and become rigid part of structure.

BTW, would CO2 ice provide any filtering for sun's radiation ? This
would be more readily available, but may present challenges to get in
into a dense enough packing to filter radiation out. (on Earth, at one 1
ATM, it is next to impossible, short of extremely cold temperatures to
have it in liquid state).


What magical insulation is supposed to exist to prevent heat from the
inside from melting the structure? Or are you assuming that humans
will live at dry ice temperatures? And CO2 doesn't work very well.

Note that the same 'heat' problem applies to water ice. They talk
about having a CO2 gas layer as 'insulation', but I just don't see
that as having all that much insulating capability.


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/docume...SA_TP_3079.pdf

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nlsc2008/pdf/2028.pdf

25 grams per cm2 provides total dose reduction.


I don't see that number in either of your sources. Where are you
finding it?

In this reference;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/docume...A_TP_3079..pdf


I asked a simple question. It only required a simple answer.


Pointing out a reference is about as simple as it gets.


No, Mook. That's why lawyers hand over warehouses full of **** during
disclosure. It's 'simple' (and obfuscatory).


I gave a single reference not a warehouse. It contained all the information you need to figure out the thickness of materials needed, from sand to water ice to carbon dioxide.



Propagation data section begins on page 7. Figure 9 shows how slab depth data from a single beam normally incicent to a slab can be used to calculate total reduction of isotropic radiation within a shell.

Symbols and abbreviations are given on page 2 column 2.


Irrelevant to the answer to the question


You must know what the symbols mean in order to read the charts that use them.


You pointing it out is still irrelevant.


Knowing what the symbols mean is important. For example BFO means blood forming organ - which is the bone marrow in humans. The amount of radiation is far less there, when compared to say Skin - so, these details are important in understanding the nature of exposure and what you must do to mitigate it.


are not talking about CO2 as radiation
shielding, which is what was being talked about in the article you
responded to).


The data on table 12 details the impact of CO2 sheilding from the Martian atmosphere. Dry ice varies from 1.2 g/cc to 1.6 g/cc in density. So, its pretty straightforward to figure out the amount needed from this data.


Uh, the last table in the document is Table 8.


Figure 12 genius at the top of page 8.





Figure 11 on page 8 shows the attenuation of the sum of major flare events recorded in 1989 on the blood forming organ in humans. 25 grams/cm2 of water according to this figure drops 300 REM per year to 5 REM per year which is the limit set by NASA.


You're talking about WATER as shielding, which
was never a question.


Water Ice is the solid form of water in case you didn't know. CO2 gas is the gaseous form of CO2 unless you didn't know. The stopping power of Aluminum, Water, Hydrogen are plotted together to show how atomic weight impacts stopping power on a g/cm2 basis. All the data is there to figure out whatever you need to make use of regolith, liquified or solidified gases, or solidified liquids found in-situ.


The question was about DRY ICE, you nitwit.


CO2 attenuation is given in g/cm2 as well.

In addition, even when we were talking about
water we were talking about water ICE, which is less effective than
liquid water (lower density; if you're talking ice thickness, density
is roughly 92% that of liquid water).


Site? I mentioned attenuation in terms of grams/cm2 - that remains virtually the same regardless of whether you're talking gaseous CO2, liquid CO2 or solid CO2, gaseous water vapor, liquid water, or solid water ice.


I assume you mean 'cite'. The thickness required to get a g/cc is
different for ice than for water, you nitwit.


No substantial differences - which is why they put it in terms of g/cm2 not thickness per cm2.

However, let's look at your numbers.


They're not my numbers they're the numbers given in the article.


You put them forward. They're yours.


No, they're the numbers provided by Simonsen and Nealy at the Langley Research Center.

A shield thickness of 25 g/cm2
looks more like 8 REM to me rather than 5


Well, the authors of the article mention 16 g/cm2 but I guess you didn't see that.


Did you look at the bloody chart, you nitwit?


I did. It's obvious you didn't.

(and it's still unclear what
you mean by "total dose reduction").


Its described in the article.

However, even assuming 5 REM
annual BFO dose and ignoring that annual dose limits for eyes and skin
are lower, you still have a huge problem.



Ah, here comes the MookSpew...

snip MookSpew


And bear in mind that the career limit assumes a 3% excess risk of
cancer death.


5 REM per year takes 120 years to reach the career limit of 600 REM.


But you're not getting down to 5 REM.


With sufficiently thick walls you do. Recall, 5 REM/yr is the annual dose permitted by radiation workers, 50 REM/year is the limit for astronauts on active duty.

FLARES down to 5 REM.


Sure if you're looking at Figure 12.

Then you die from GCR.


Only if you're stupid and don't provide sufficient thickness.

Once again we see
Mookie not understanding what he reads.


Hahaha.. you don't understand what is being said, and blame the person who says it. You always do that.



So your 'conservative' number might be OK for
exploration missions, but if you plan on living there it's not nearly
good enough.


Nonsense.


Do the math, nitwit.


I have.

Mars surface radiation flux is 30 uSv/hr.


The actual absorbed dose measured by the RAD is 76 mGy/yr at the surface - that's 7.6 REM per year or 8.7 micro-Sieverts per hour. The reality is 29% as intense as you falsely assert here.

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/4...13_FINAL.pd f

It
takes 7 cm of water to cut radiation in half.


The half value layer of water at the particle energy spectrum found on Mars is 5.1 cm. You are using a HVL for higher energy spectrum of particles found near nuclear power plants, but not on the surface of Mars.

8.7 uSv/hr * (0.5^(25/5.1)) = 0.290 uSv/hr --- 2.55 mSv/year = 0.255 REM/year

Your conservative 25 cm
of will cut it down to around 1/13 (assuming pure water and being
generous with rounding). That gets you down to around 2.3 uSv/hr.


Your figure is nearly 10x too high. That's because you didn't use valid data for the martian radiation or the appropriate HVL for water against that radiation.

Multiply it out and you get an annual exposure of around 0.02 Sv/yr.
Assuming you're living there and a lifespan of 100 years, you're over
your 3% excess cancer death limit (and WAY over NRC industrial
limits).


2.3 uSv/yr - your figure is too high.

And you've got your NASA limit wrong. It's 0.5 Sv/yr or 50 REM (not
5).


You're confusing the NASA limit with the NRC limit which I've quoted for you above to avoid confusion.


I'm not confusing anything.


You are confusing many things and have gotten other things fundamentally wrong.


I read the words where you claimed to be
using the NASA limit.


NASA Johnson Space Center reports the dose limits.

50 REM per year is the NASA limit, 5 REM per year is the NRC limit.

The surface is 7.6 REM per year - and with 25 g/cm2 of ice (water or CO2) you cut it back to less than 0.3 REM per year.

https://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/spaceradiation/faq/faq.cfm

If you're using some other limit than the one
you say, that isn't confusion on the part of the listener; it's
incoherence on the part of the writer.


You're the only one making a hash of a pretty simple statement - namely, 25 g/cc of water ice or CO2 ice - about 10 inches to 12 inches of thickness - gets you pretty safe. Given the low surface gravity of Mars, and the abundance of glaciers all over its surface - its pretty sure bet that people will be building large ice domes and inflating pressure domes under them.

The point of this chart is that solar flare radiation (which is
mostly heavy particles) is pretty much stopped by 30cm or so of water.


30 g/cm2 you mean.


Same thing. You know the density of water, right?


It changes with temperature and condition. Ice is less dense than liquid water you know.

This is shown in Figure 21, which shows the radiation from a flare
reduced to essentially nothing once you get very far over 20 cm of
water.


20 g/cm2 you mean.


Same thing. You know the density of water, right?


The density of things change with temperature and state.

GCR and such are much harder to stop.


Correct which is why they are charted differently. That goes to the quality of the radiation being discussed.


So you'll stop a flare and die of GCR.


Nonsense. You talk as if we didn't know the precise radiation conditons on the surface of Mars. WE DO! From this we can see that ice blocks a foot thick cut from a glacer can be made into an adequate radiation shelter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47Vpyn7tjUE


On page 13 figure 21 shows the impact of varying shield thickness for both galactic cosmic rays and flare events. A 50 rem/year limit requires 18 g/cm2 at a minimum. I quoted 25 g/cm2 as a conservative value.


And your 'limit' suddenly jumped to 10x what it was


No, it went to the NASA annual limit quoted in the article. I you actually read the article and understood what was being discussed, you wouldn't have these confusions.


You switched limits from 5 REM to 50 REM. If you would stop waving
your arms and squawking like a chicken what you write might be more
comprehensible.


NASA has a different limit than the NRC. You are the one who mentioned living on Mars versus working on the surface. Fact is, surface radiation is less than 8 REM per year, and living under a foot of ice in an igloo is 0.3 REM per year. Which is perfectly doable.

With inflatable concentrators and optical fibers, you can bring light into the massive domes possible on Mars' surface with its tiny surface gravity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q59f2LPHX3g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpvDFuKBnXE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGll5N32QnE


(because you had
it wrong before).


No, no, no... lol. Use the NRC limit of 5 REM per year in discussing habitation on Mars' surface, and the NASA 50 REM limit for flight between worlds.


Ah, I see where you've messed up.


Not at all. NASA allows 50 REM per year for astronauts. NRC allows 5 REM per year for radiation workers. Mars surface exposes you to 8 REM per year and living under a foot of ice reduces that to 0.3 REM per year.

You know that a lot of what you get
on Mars surface is GCR, right?


I know exactly what you get based on rover data reported by researchers at Caltech, which I referenced above.

Of course, that charge is for free space (which is
why I keep pointing to you not understanding what you read).


Obviously you don't understand what is being read in your eagerness to spout bull****. Fact is NASA's limit for astronauts is applied for people in transit (50 REM per year) and NRC's limits for radiation workers is applied for long-term habitation (5 REM per year). What you perceive as a sudden jump is that way only in your imagination. The article talks about resource utilisation by people living on the Moon and Mars and people in transit using propellants and other material in transit. In each case you use an appropriate exposure limit.


Specious bull****.


No, its a fact. I have given a pointer to the Johnson Space Center Radiation Group earlier.

Either one limit or the other applies.


That's right, depending on what you're doing. If you're an astronaut in space, you are allowed a higher exposure than if you're a radiation worker on the ground.

When you
flip back and forth as you please in no comprehensible way, you just
look stupid.


Your inability to actually read the limits that apply to each situation is the only thing that's stupid.

That's OK, since you are stupid, but you then want to
blame the reader.


That's you're forte not mine. The fact is someone sitting on the surface of Mars is exposed to less than 8 REM per year, and someone sitting under a foot of ice in a large igloo illuminated by concentrated sunlight via optical fiber from the outside, is exposed to less than 0.3 REM per year. So, 2,958 hours per year can be spent 'outside' and still remain under 5 REM per year for habitation on the surface.

snip repetitious BS
  #2  
Old January 9th 17, 10:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Glorified igloos for Mars

William Mook wrote:

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 6:29:57 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 6:59:50 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 7:34:46 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 12:48:44 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-01-02 14:48, Jeff Findley wrote:

Also, I'm sure you'd have to inflate the inner structure to a fairly
high pressure (compared to Mars atmospheric pressure) so it's not
crushed by the weight of the water above it.

Since NASA said it might take 400 days to generate the water to fill it,
I would assume they would pour small amounts of water at a time and it
would freeze rapidly, so the inflated structure would only need to
suipport small amounts of water at any point in time since the rest
would be frozen and become rigid part of structure.

BTW, would CO2 ice provide any filtering for sun's radiation ? This
would be more readily available, but may present challenges to get in
into a dense enough packing to filter radiation out. (on Earth, at one 1
ATM, it is next to impossible, short of extremely cold temperatures to
have it in liquid state).


What magical insulation is supposed to exist to prevent heat from the
inside from melting the structure? Or are you assuming that humans
will live at dry ice temperatures? And CO2 doesn't work very well.

Note that the same 'heat' problem applies to water ice. They talk
about having a CO2 gas layer as 'insulation', but I just don't see
that as having all that much insulating capability.


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/docume...SA_TP_3079.pdf

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nlsc2008/pdf/2028.pdf

25 grams per cm2 provides total dose reduction.


I don't see that number in either of your sources. Where are you
finding it?

In this reference;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/docume...SA_TP_3079.pdf


I asked a simple question. It only required a simple answer.


Pointing out a reference is about as simple as it gets.


No, Mook. That's why lawyers hand over warehouses full of **** during
disclosure. It's 'simple' (and obfuscatory).


I gave a single reference not a warehouse. It contained all the information you need to figure out the thickness of materials needed, from sand to water ice to carbon dioxide.


You gave a single reference, flapped your arms like a chicken, and
said "it's in there (somewhere)". You just make yourself look like a
buffoon when you do that.




Propagation data section begins on page 7. Figure 9 shows how slab depth data from a single beam normally incicent to a slab can be used to calculate total reduction of isotropic radiation within a shell.

Symbols and abbreviations are given on page 2 column 2.


Irrelevant to the answer to the question

You must know what the symbols mean in order to read the charts that use them.


You pointing it out is still irrelevant.


Knowing what the symbols mean is important. For example BFO means blood forming organ - which is the bone marrow in humans. The amount of radiation is far less there, when compared to say Skin - so, these details are important in understanding the nature of exposure and what you must do to mitigate it.


You will do anything just to hear yourself natter on, won't you?


are not talking about CO2 as radiation
shielding, which is what was being talked about in the article you
responded to).

The data on table 12 details the impact of CO2 sheilding from the Martian atmosphere. Dry ice varies from 1.2 g/cc to 1.6 g/cc in density. So, its pretty straightforward to figure out the amount needed from this data.


Uh, the last table in the document is Table 8.


Figure 12 genius at the top of page 8.


Oh, I see. You insult ME because YOU don't know the difference
between 'Table' and 'Figure'. I had assumed you could read, even if
you didn't understand it. I'll revise that and just assume you can't
read in future.





Figure 11 on page 8 shows the attenuation of the sum of major flare events recorded in 1989 on the blood forming organ in humans. 25 grams/cm2 of water according to this figure drops 300 REM per year to 5 REM per year which is the limit set by NASA.


You're talking about WATER as shielding, which
was never a question.

Water Ice is the solid form of water in case you didn't know. CO2 gas is the gaseous form of CO2 unless you didn't know. The stopping power of Aluminum, Water, Hydrogen are plotted together to show how atomic weight impacts stopping power on a g/cm2 basis. All the data is there to figure out whatever you need to make use of regolith, liquified or solidified gases, or solidified liquids found in-situ.


The question was about DRY ICE, you nitwit.


CO2 attenuation is given in g/cm2 as well.


Nope.

In addition, even when we were talking about
water we were talking about water ICE, which is less effective than
liquid water (lower density; if you're talking ice thickness, density
is roughly 92% that of liquid water).

Site? I mentioned attenuation in terms of grams/cm2 - that remains virtually the same regardless of whether you're talking gaseous CO2, liquid CO2 or solid CO2, gaseous water vapor, liquid water, or solid water ice.


I assume you mean 'cite'. The thickness required to get a g/cc is
different for ice than for water, you nitwit.


No substantial differences - which is why they put it in terms of g/cm2 not thickness per cm2.


"No substantial differences" in the density of water vs the density of
ice? Yeah, right.

However, let's look at your numbers.

They're not my numbers they're the numbers given in the article.


You put them forward. They're yours.


No, they're the numbers provided by Simonsen and Nealy at the Langley Research Center.


Yes, you put them forward. They're yours.

A shield thickness of 25 g/cm2
looks more like 8 REM to me rather than 5

Well, the authors of the article mention 16 g/cm2 but I guess you didn't see that.


Did you look at the bloody chart, you nitwit?


I did. It's obvious you didn't.


Have you always been an asshat or did you have a stroke at some point?

(and it's still unclear what
you mean by "total dose reduction").

Its described in the article.

However, even assuming 5 REM
annual BFO dose and ignoring that annual dose limits for eyes and skin
are lower, you still have a huge problem.


Ah, here comes the MookSpew...

snip MookSpew


And bear in mind that the career limit assumes a 3% excess risk of
cancer death.

5 REM per year takes 120 years to reach the career limit of 600 REM.


But you're not getting down to 5 REM.


With sufficiently thick walls you do. Recall, 5 REM/yr is the annual dose permitted by radiation workers, 50 REM/year is the limit for astronauts on active duty.


You specified your thickness. Moving the goalposts AGAIN, Mookie?

FLARES down to 5 REM.


Sure if you're looking at Figure 12.


Make sure you are. Do you see ANY of those curves getting down to 5
REM/yr? I don't.

Then you die from GCR.


Only if you're stupid and don't provide sufficient thickness.


As I said, then YOU die from GCR.

Once again we see
Mookie not understanding what he reads.


Hahaha.. you don't understand what is being said, and blame the person who says it. You always do that.


Typical Mookie projection. Rubber/Glue/Waaaa!!!!



So your 'conservative' number might be OK for
exploration missions, but if you plan on living there it's not nearly
good enough.

Nonsense.


Do the math, nitwit.


I have.

Mars surface radiation flux is 30 uSv/hr.


The actual absorbed dose measured by the RAD is 76 mGy/yr at the surface - that's 7.6 REM per year or 8.7 micro-Sieverts per hour. The reality is 29% as intense as you falsely assert here.

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/4...13_FINAL.pd f


Doesn't match other reports of data that Curiosity has provided over
its lifetime. It comes in around an average of 27 uSv/hr.

http://www.space.com/23875-mars-radi...d-mission.html

"RAD's data show that astronauts exploring the Martian surface would
accumulate about 0.64 millisieverts of radiation per day."

The number in your report is also the rate at solar maximum, which
means it's less than half the dose rate at solar minimum (seems
counter intuitive, doesn't it, but GCRs drop during solar maximum and
GCRs are most of what gets to the surface). From the report you cite:

"GCRs are high energy particles (10 MeV/nuc to 10 GeV/nuc) which are
modulated by the heliosphere and anti-correlated with solar activity."

and

"Figure 1 shows the radiation dose rate measured by RAD on the Mars
surface during the first 300 Sols on Mars, near the maximum of Solar
Cycle 24."

So your 8.7 uSv/hr number is the MINIMUM radiation at Mars surface. If
you're talking about safety, you want to use the MAXIMUM (around 27
uSv/hr).


Bored now with your constant misinterpretation of things and insults
when you don't understand...

big snip unread


--
"So many women. So little charm."
-- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing
  #3  
Old January 10th 17, 01:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Glorified igloos for Mars

The Martian surface is exposed to 7.6 REM per year - and with 25 g/cm2 of ice (water or CO2) you cut it back to less than 0.26 REM per year. Ice igloos are easily made from available resources with the interior lit to Earth normal levels throughout the day using concentrators and optical fibers.

Solar hybrid lighting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqb1ONw_FVA

Ice domes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3w6jMR3crM

Martian surface radiation
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/4...13_FINAL.pd f

Indoor farming
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/05/wo...ndoor-farming/

Solar conditions on Mars
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9890018252.pdf

With a surface gravity that's 37.7% that of Earth, dome sizes can be far larger than on Earth, making very large structures possible.





  #4  
Old January 10th 17, 05:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Glorified igloos for Mars

William Mook wrote:


The Martian surface is exposed to 7.6 REM per year


If you're only there during deep solar minimums and staying in a hole
so that you get extra atmospheric shielding. THIS is what's wrong
with you, Mook. You go scavenge up a source, don't understand what it
says and what conditions it's under, then make entirely stupid
pronouncements. Average annual exposure at datum height will be 11
REM at solar maximum and 38 REM at solar minimum. If you plan on
being there all the time you need to plan on at least 30 uSv per hour.


- and with 25 g/cm2 of ice (water or CO2) you cut it back to less than 0.26 REM per year.


Bull****. Worse than bull****; it's an outright and transparent lie.
Shielding of dry ice against GCRs (which are mostly what reaches Mars'
surface) is much poorer than water ice. GCRs are stopped best by
hydrogen rich compounds like water. They are stopped much more poorly
by hydrogen poor compounds like CO2.


--
"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
  #5  
Old January 10th 17, 03:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Glorified igloos for Mars

I obviously understand that NASAs analysis is superior to the rants made on this thread by clueless people who enjoy being rude to others. Recall NASA said ice could be used for shielding. Ice domes have been made on Earth and will be made on Mars. Glaciers have been identified and methods used in the arctic to build ice shelters are directly applicable to Mars. Obviously given the low gravity of Mars we can build far larger domes and illuminate them with inflatable concentrators using optical fibers.

  #6  
Old January 11th 17, 02:04 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Glorified igloos for Mars

William Mook wrote:

I obviously understand that NASAs analysis is superior to the rants made on this thread by clueless people who enjoy being rude to others. Recall NASA said ice could be used for shielding. Ice domes have been made on Earth and will be made on Mars. Glaciers have been identified and methods used in the arctic to build ice shelters are directly applicable to Mars. Obviously given the low gravity of Mars we can build far larger domes and illuminate them with inflatable concentrators using optical fibers.


This is how you know Mook has gotten his ass handed to him for his
screwups. He removes all context and simplifies his claims.

If he hadn't started out with the gratuitous insult I'd have just let
this one stand, since he's removed all the screwups he injected, but
if he's that determined to be an ass he's just begging to get spanked.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
  #7  
Old January 11th 17, 09:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Glorified igloos for Mars

Ice igloos on Mars provide adequate radiation protection and are easily built using a variety of methods.

https://eventdome.wordpress.com/lake...dome-in-japan/



 




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
The Existence of God, glorified & exalted is He islam Amateur Astronomy 4 September 27th 09 05:47 PM
Mars Express radar reveals complex structure in ionosphere of Mars(Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 December 1st 05 06:25 AM
Buried craters and underground ice -- Mars Express uncovers depthsof Mars (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 December 1st 05 06:20 AM
Finally, southern hemisphere clouds on Mars![ Polarized clouds on Mars, further evidence for liquid water in Solis Lacus, Mars?] Robert Clark Astronomy Misc 0 August 16th 05 04:45 PM
Polarized clouds on Mars, further evidence for liquid water in Solis Lacus, Mars? Robert Clark Astronomy Misc 6 January 15th 05 03:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 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.