XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
      
   >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?   
   >   
      
   When SOME people mention some facts (or even non-facts) their phrasing   
   indicates 'impossible'.  Some of those people have such overweaning   
   egos that they cannot stand being corrected.   
      
      
   --   
   "Yet here I sit, years of evildoing under my belt, and still a   
    happy camper."   
                             -- Alan Shore, "Boston Legal"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)