XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
      
   In sci.physics Jeff Findley  wrote:   
   > In article , jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com   
   > says...   
   >>   
   >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley  wrote:   
   >> > In article , invalid@invalid.com says...   
   >> >>   
   >> >> there may not be any coal or oil on Mars if no huge plants growing in   
   >> >> its past like on earth. "=> no fuel on Mars"   
   >> >   
   >> > So you use solar and nuclear power.  And if fusion power ever becomes   
   >> > practical, you use that too.  Just because we're dependant on fossil   
   >> > fuels here on earth doesn't mean a Mars colony needs to be!   
   >>   
   >> To get the equivalent of a small 50 MW nuclear reactor on Mars, you   
   >> would need over a million square meters of solar panels which only work   
   >> during the day.   
   >   
   > So send a small reactor.  It doesn't even need to be 50 MW (smaller is   
   > acceptable).  So, just ship very small (less than 10 MW) modular nuclear   
   > reactors built in factories.  This is already being seriously considered   
   > for terrestrial use.  Given the size (and apparant mass given they'd be   
   > shipped by truck in one piece), shipping one on a SpaceX Mars Colonial   
   > Transport wouldn't seem to be impossible at all.   
      
   When someone mentions facts why do the dreamers always drag up the   
   word "impossible" as if someone said it?   
      
   No one said anything was impossible, just difficult, expensive and   
   in some cases not very practical.   
      
      
   --   
   Jim Pennino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)