|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary TransportSystem to Mars.
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 Jeff |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System to Mars.
In sci.physics Serigo wrote:
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. It is obviously possible to transport a reactor to Mars. The question is how is it to be done; lots of small assembled reactors, large reactors in pieces, something in between? Likely one would want to ship the fuel separately, perhaps all in one shipment to minimize the red tape of putting nuclear material on a rocket. -- Jim Pennino |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A smaller, faster version of the SpaceX Interplanetary TransportSystem to Mars.
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. 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. You are saying throw some dirt and water in a blender and watch the calcium carbonate pop out. Now show me. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |