New Poll: Moon Yes, Mars No

arobie · Nov 17, 2004

Mental Avenger, Hello. What are your reasons for wanting us to go to Mars? What benefits will we recieve from it? What good will it do for us?

commander_keen · Nov 17, 2004

[blockquote]Another reason Americans might favor the Moon is our short attention spans and our need for instant gratification. [blockquote] And responces like this just instills my long-held belief that people from the Mars societies are such NAZIs when it comes to their viewpoints that they will demonize/demean anyone who disagrees. The fact is, going to the moon is far more plausible, and unlike Mars, we can benefit from what it has in the way of recourses immediatly, and get us out of dire situations that we are facing now. Mars is not important for sending humans there now because: 1. The Terraforming process does not actually require humans 2. It has no immediate natural recourses to offer except for long term colonization We need to focus on the now in order to succeed, and Mars is little more then a dream. I'll bet you that once we have a few bases down on the moon, and we use it as a base for capture asteroids or harvesting its minerals, the same poll will show that people's attitudes on Mars will have changed. I am glad that most peple agree with me.

mental_avenger · Nov 17, 2004

If it were an either/or situation I would agree. However, if we were to start on building a 'safe haven' for the human race on Mars and at the same time we were to start building a asteroid defence network - which would we finish first? No contest. We could finish a self-supposrting viable human colony on Mars before we could build a 100% certain asteroid defense for Earth. However, you (inadvertently) do bring up an interesting point. What if we built the safe haven for humans on Mars and lost the Earth? That is why I have always advocated doing both. Since they are not mutually exclusive, it only makes sense to start the Mars colony as soon as practical. In addition to getting the colony started, it would be an excellent place to begin the asteroid defense system. It is unlikely that we will be hit by one of the objects that are currently orbiting exclusively between Earth and Mars. We need to be able to identify and track those objects that have highly eliptical orbits that bring them in (relatively) closer to the Sun where they are difficult, if not impossible to see. Those objects often swing out far past the orbit of Mars. In fact, some probably originate in the asteroid belt. Since these objects are virtually all within the plane of the ecliptic, Mars sweeps out through thier paths. Mars could be one of a dozen or so stations placed in Mars orbit, keeping a constant watch for objects at a distance that is far enough from Earth to give us significant warning. One of the functions of a Mars colony could be to manufacture, maintain, and monitor these stations. It could be thier way of paying for the cost of establishing the colony and supplying it until it became self-sufficient. Remember, asteroids and comets are often unpredictable because they are affected by unknown perturbations. Even known asteroids what we track often end up “off course”, and we don't know what caused t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 17, 2004

These materials, [aluminum, iron, titanium, silicon, magnesium, manganese, calcium, sodium] and the product of manufacturing with these materials will always be FAR more expensive to send off the Earth (or Mars, for that matter) than they will be to obtain them from the moon. Not true. The fact is, that until a great deal of very expensive machinery and infrastructure is established on the Moon, these materials will not even be available from the Moon, let alone cheaper. What most Moonies seem to ignore is that the cost of building this infrastructure, and the cost of manning the construction teams, will all have to be added into the cost of the materials along with the actual production costs. That will make materials from the Moon, far more expensive than the same materials sent from the Earth, for a very long time. It seems that the Moonies do not have a concept of just how complex and difficult mining, processing, and manufacturing finished material is. On the Earth is takes thousands of people, great investments in machinery, and lots of resources such as fuel, air, and water, to process these materials. When you see a description that starts: “All you have to do is....” you can be sure that person is out of touch with reality on that subject. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

arobie · Nov 17, 2004

Mental_Avenger, A Mars Colony: The Show-Stoppers 1) Money. In order to get a Mars Colony up and running, you need to have money. In fact, you will need ALOT of money. It will not be cheap, and most definitely will be more expensive than first said because of cost overruns NASA can't even put together a space station together in Earth Orbit with out huge cost-overruns. How are we going to be able to put up a Mars colony cost effectively? You will need to get this money (and more money) from congress. How likely is it that congress will jump into a plan to put a colony on Mars if there will be no ROI. The most we can get from Mars right now and for a long to come would be small sense of security for those cynics who think Earth might be destroyed by an asteroid or comet tomorrow (We'll more likely destroy ourselves than that anyway) and maby the knowlege that there is life on Mars if there is life. Congress won't buy into "An asteroid might hit us tomorrow, we need to go to Mars to watch for them." arguement. To possibly find life also isn't going to work for congress. There might not even be life there. 2) The Distance. Mars is simply to far away for us to be able to put a colony safely and not too expensively. I know you have heard this before, but any problems out there and well....their screwed. They would be too far away to be able to return to Earth because of a problem. They would be on their own with a bad lag time between transmitions with NASA. It will not be cheap to traverse the distance between Earth and Mars. That adds to the money problem. 3) No Return on Investment. Mars could not be used for resources or anything to help make up for the huge costs. Mars could not be used to help set up space infrastucture to help us expand. Focussing on Mars, we would develop technology for only that purpose, to get to Mars. It would be good for nothing after we accomplish our

volcanopele2 · Nov 17, 2004

I am in neither camp. I say, the moon is boring, Mars is like the mall on saturday, it's too crowded, so let's go to Io!! Io has mineral resources, great opportunities for tourism with its majestic mountains and beautiful volcanoes, and more Io-thermal than you can shake a stick at to sustain a colony. And I'm sure if we can go to Io and setup a colony, then we would be able to solve the radiation "problem". And if Io is just too beautiful for ya, there's Titan, which is just like Io, just bigger, drabbier, has methane instead of sulfur, and cryolava instead of ultramafic lava.

orzek · Nov 17, 2004

Oh dear me I see that Mental_Avenger has arrived again to give us some of his cherished wisdom!! I also see that nothing has really changed in his shaky extended view of reality. He is still obssessed with armageddon by an asteroid even though there is no evidence whatsoever that such an event will happen for a very looong time or that we need to worry. He still peddles his extremist views without any proper proof, views that if used as real reasons for going to mars will lead only to disaster not only to future missions to mars but also to other space activities. He still tries to rubbish any notion of value in the moon, in the hope I presume to make Mars and his views more attractive, even though it won't. Please Mental, stop trotting out the same old arguments that no one buys since if any of your views where used in the mainstream space community it will make ANY mission to mars or elsewhere impossible to get support for. Despite your trivial dismissial of exploiting the moons resources and equally dodgy assertions of the huge costs involved (despite the lack of evidence to support it- and no, mining on the moon will not be like on earth so you cannot use earth as an example!), the fact is the moon is getting more and more interest from the space community as a viable place to go to and exploit! And despite your derogatory use of the term moonies, most people who want to go back to the moon don't do it because they have a love affair with it but because they see it as the beginning of something bigger! If you really want a mars colony then the only way you are going to get it is to support space exploration in general including the moon and beyond. And lastly if there was anyone who I would put on the list of Mars Nazis to avoid, he'll be on the top of my LIST only because he is so rigid in his views!

mental_avenger · Nov 17, 2004

Orzek, It is interesting that anything that does not fit in with your belief system is “shaky”, “extremist”, or “obsession”. That attitude virtually defines extremist. He is still obssessed with armageddon by an asteroid even though there is no evidence whatsoever that such an event will happen for a very looong time or that we need to worry. Well, unlike you, I am not “obsessed” about it. However, I will point out that it is a fact that Earth has been hit in the past by objects large enough to either make mankind extinct, or drive us back to the stone age. That is a fact of geological history. As to your view that it will not happen for a “very looong time”, you don't know that either. But, while the interval between recorded strikes may tend to be rather long (millions of years), the actual occurance is quite arbitrary, and can happen at any time, tonight, tomorrow, next month, next year, next millenium, or a million years from now. What we DO know, is that there are planet-killer objects narrowly (in astronomicla terms) missing the Earth fairly often, perhaps 2-3 times per year. Some of those have passed within the orbit of the Moon. Many of those haven't even been seen until after they have passed. While you may take comfort in assuming that we will be lucky enough to escape simply because the odds are low, that is a rather foolish attitude if we are finally in the position to do something about it. Please Mental, stop trotting out the same old arguments I would ask that you do the same, but I know you won't. Despite your trivial dismissial of exploiting the moons resources and equally dodgy assertions of the huge costs involved (despite the lack of evidence to support it- What I have never seen on any site, is evidence that economical mining, processing, and manufac <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 17, 2004

Ok, I will make this short, basically because I am tired of arguing with people who are better at derrogatory remarks than they are at critical thinking. I have my own views, and they are not tied to anyone else, not Zubin, not anyone. I take information from all sources and process it to arrive at logical conclusions. The one major thing that the Lunatics seem unable to fathom is this. If we ever build mines, processing plants, and factories on the Moon, it will always be manned by contract people who live on Earth, and are ferried to the Moon for a tour of duty. It would always be a remote facility. Mars will eventually be a place where people move to live. Perhaps because of the lower gravity, perhaps to get a new start, maybe for scientific research. Whatever the reason, it will be a place where people call Home. Factories will be a natural result of that colonization, but they will be operated by people who live there, and have their families there. There is a major difference between creating factories on a moon for the sole purpose of supplying materials, and a colony building factories as part of their natural growth and advancement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

orzek · Nov 18, 2004

It is interesting that anything that does not fit in with your belief system is “shaky”, “extremist”, or “obsession”. That attitude virtually defines extremist. Fine I am the extremist and you are the "enlightened ONE". Well, unlike you, I am not “obsessed” about it. However, I will point out that it is a fact that Earth has been hit in the past by objects large enough to either make mankind extinct, or drive us back to the stone age. That is a fact of geological history. As to your view that it will not happen for a “very looong time”, you don't know that either. But, while the interval between recorded strikes may tend to be rather long (millions of years), the actual occurance is quite arbitrary, and can happen at any time, tonight, tomorrow, next month, next year, next millenium, or a million years from now. What we DO know, is that there are planet-killer objects narrowly (in astronomicla terms) missing the Earth fairly often, perhaps 2-3 times per year. Some of those have passed within the orbit of the Moon. Many of those haven't even been seen until after they have passed. While you may take comfort in assuming that we will be lucky enough to escape simply because the odds are low, that is a rather foolish attitude if we are finally in the position to do something about it. Well I don't know about you but that does seem a bit obsessed to me. Please Mental, stop trotting out the same old arguments I would ask that you do the same, but I know you won't. Well at least we share something in common. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> What I have never seen on any site, is evidence that economical mining, processing, and manufacturing can be done on the Moon. The only things I dismiss are unsupported claims about producing materials on the Moon for building spacesh

lowendfreq · Nov 18, 2004

Mental I agree with your views on this, however I think the word 'eventually' doesn't sit well with most people who want to see a strong human presence in space. Putting man on the moon again would do wonders for the space movement and interest both in the govt and private sectors grow with it. I think at the moment the man made tech out in space is all a bit to distant to fathom for most, I am generalizing somewhat, but people can't relate to satelites around Saturn and rovers on Mars, seeing man walk on the moon would inspire our race again. What time frame realistically would you put man on Mars? 20 + years? Too long for most peoples attention span / care factor.

orzek · Nov 18, 2004

Ok, I will make this short, basically because I am tired of arguing with people who are better at derrogatory remarks than they are at critical thinking. Hello??? Pot calling Kettle, anyone there..... I have my own views, and they are not tied to anyone else, not Zubin, not anyone. I take information from all sources and process it to arrive at logical conclusions. I have consistently asked you where you get your "info", and you never want to tell me. Anyone can say they have taken info from all kinds of places and claim they are an expert, your replies seem to imply that in spades but curiously lack any credibility. Your view is your "view" obviously but it doesn't mean it is correct, useful to anyone or even needs to be aired. That incidently happens to be my "view", and it also happens to be my view to express that "view" to people like you who have so called "views".

halman · Nov 18, 2004

Mental_Avenger, While it is obvious that you are in favor of colonizing Mars immediately, I don't believe that I have declared that I am a proponent of exploiting all of the Solar System for the beneifit of the human race. Yes, that is right, exploiting. You are apparently motivated by the reasonable belief that the race could be destroyed by an impact on Earth of a large rock. I am motivated by the belief that the activities of the race will destroy the environment to the point that life on Earth will only be possible in pressurized, controlled habitats, unless some other theater for the industrial activities is found. To make it possible to remove industrial activities from Earth as rapidly as possible, I support the development of the resources of the Moon. To insure that financial support for extending the range of human activities is always available, I support encouraging Big Business to take over the mining and processing of Lunar resources as rapidly as possible. I believe that we might be able to learn to extract and process resources off-planet before the environmental costs of doing so on Earth prohibit the expansion of a technologicial society. You argue that the cost of producing Lunar resources will be prohibitive. I suggest that the North Slope of Alaska is a reasonable analogy, in that the cost of producing and transporting crude oil from there would have been prohibitive at 1952 crude oil prices, but by 1978, it was profitable. To carry that analogy further, the cost of crude oil has risen so high that it is considered likely that drilling 4 miles under the seabed in the Gulf Of Mexico will not be prohibitively expensive if crude can be produced from such wells. You are concerned that Homo Sapiens could become extinct if we do not get off of Earth immediately. I am concerned that Homo Sapiens may not be able to get off of Earth if we don't immediatly learn to use resources from off-planet. The ne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 18, 2004

Well I don't know about you but that does seem a bit obsessed to me. Interesting observation. I perfer to think of it as practical. Like most insurance we buy, we usually hope we never have to use it. However, it is usually devastating to find yourself in a position where the insurance, had you bothered to get it, would have saved you home,or your factory, or whatever. We may not get smacked with a planet buster for another million years. However, if one comes along, it will be too late to buy insurance. In the meantime, if we did set up the watcher/preventer system, it would probably put to good use for many other things in space, including, but not limited to, tracking all those spacecraft we keep hearing about. No one knows for sure how to do mining, processing and manufacturing on the moon since no one has actually tried it. It still doesn't mean your arguments are correct since there is no prove for or against, just ideas and assumptions. That depends on which of my arguments you are referring to. As far as I'm concerned, there is no doubt about the enormous cost of building mining, processing facilities on the Moon. We know how much it costs here. We know how much it costs to lift cargo into orbit, and thence to the Moon. We know the every bit of the equipment will have to be lifted to the Moon. That alone puts the initial cost of mining and processing at 1000 times what it would cost to start here on Earth. After all that, then factories, all the components of which will have to be lifted to the Moon, will have to be built to produce structural components. We know that building spacecraft requires tens of thousands of different parts, produced by thousands of workers in hundreds of specialized factories. ALL of that specialized equipment will have to be lifted to the Moon to make spacecraft, since only basic structural compone <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 18, 2004

Going to the moon is not just about factories and mining but also about tourism, making a home on the moon, science, exploration and so on. Sorry, but I just cannot see tourism on the Moon, no matter how I try. In addition, in view of the 1/6th gravity on the Moon, I don't beleive that men will live there long term. I may be wrong, and there is no way to tell for sure, but our experience in space so far tells me that 1/6th just isn't enough of long term health. Besides, living on the Moon would be an indoor sport. It is too hot in the Sunlight, and too cold in the shade. Heavy insulated suits would have to be worn outdoors, and time limited by radiation. Even the light atmosphere of Mars provides some protection from radiation, as well as the distance ensuring 1/2 the radiation that falls on the Moon. In addition, the equatorial climate on Mars is downright temperate compared to the Moon, allowing lightweight suits outdoors. To top it off, the nearly 24 hour day on Mars would make the transition very easy. You ignore the other reasons solely to prop up your argument that the moon is unnecessary Not at all, I just don't see them there. Let me put it this way. I can envision myself living on Mars, perhaps being buried there. I cannot see that with the Moon. I just cannot see that at all. BTW, it really doesn't matter what you call me, it will not change my attitude or my arguments. However, it would be nice if someday, someone could call me a Martian. Unfortunately, I am to old to ever achive that dream. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 18, 2004

I have consistently asked you where you get your "info", and you never want to tell me. Several times I have listed the most prominent books I have read. If it is really that important to you, I will compile another list, just for you. However, I don't really see the relevence. It's not like you are considering changing your mind. Generally, when people ask for such references, it is so they can attempt to use isolated passages in those references to attack the lister's position. Life is tough enough without supplying ammunition to the enemy. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

xojackso · Nov 18, 2004

(was Tjackso) "Mental I agree with your views on this, however I think the word 'eventually' doesn't sit well with most people who want to see a strong human presence in space." Seems to me that the polls always used to favor Mars. One factor, since then, has been introduced: the successful flights of Space Ship One. Don't underestimate the impact those flights had on making the public aware of space as a potentially personal destination. And this awareness favors the Moon.

xojackso · Nov 18, 2004

"Sorry, but I just cannot see tourism on the Moon, no matter how I try. In addition, in view of the 1/6th gravity on the Moon, I don't beleive that men will live there long term. I may be wrong, and there is no way to tell for sure, but our experience in space so far tells me that 1/6th just isn't enough of long term health. Besides, living on the Moon would be an indoor sport." What I can't envision is a significant number of people taking two years out of their lives for a Mars vacation. I can certainly envision people taking a couple weeks off to go to the Moon. I don't see any significant number of people ever living in anything other than 1g, which excludes both the Moon and Mars. People will live in rotating space settlements at 1g. And an emphasis on the Moon brings us closer to space settlements than an emphasis upon Mars, precisely because of its weaker gravity (or, gravity well0, as well as its proximity to Earth. Earth-Moon teleoperation is possible in a way Earth-Mars teleoperation, with that half-hour time lapse, can never be.

dan_casale · Nov 18, 2004

>>These materials, [aluminum, iron, titanium, silicon, magnesium, manganese, calcium, sodium] and the product of >>manufacturing with these materials will always be FAR more expensive to send off the Earth (or Mars, for that >>matter) than they will be to obtain them from the moon. />Not true. The fact is, that until a great deal of very expensive machinery and infrastructure is established on the >Moon, these materials will not even be available from the Moon, let alone cheaper. What most Moonies seem to i>gnore is that the cost of building this infrastructure, and the cost of manning the construction teams, will all have to >be added into the cost of the materials along with the actual production costs. That will make materials from the >Moon, far more expensive than the same materials sent from the Earth, for a very long time. Mental: I completely agree with why you want to go to Mars. A lunar colony, most likely, would not survive the debris thrown up by a large asteroid striking earth. However, I do believe that the EXACT same equipment would be required to mine Mars as to mine the moon. Some of the differences would be: Mars equipment would be methane or nuclear powered. Lunar equipment would be hydrogen, nuclear, or electric powered. Cooling things on Mars is slightly easier due to the atmosphere. A small lunar miner prototype has been built by the Colorado School of Mines in Golden CO. (Last time I checked it had broken down and was not working.) A lunar mining/manufacturing base can be resupplied (personel and equipment) from earth in 4 days. The amount of propellent required to launch material from the moon would be much less than is needed to launch from Earth. The economics of mining propellents on the moon and delivering them to LEO have been detailed in several papers. Any hydrogen content greater than 1% is considered economical. />Not at

mental_avenger · Nov 18, 2004

However, I do believe that the EXACT same equipment would be required to mine Mars as to mine the moon. No doubt about it. The main difference would be that the equipment on Mars would be owned and opoerated by the colonists. Living quarters won't have to be arranged for the workers, because they will already live on Mars. Food won't have to be shipped in, because it can be grown on Mars. The workers won't have to be paid enourmous salaries, because working on Mars would be part of living on Mars. Just imagine what you would have to pay a man to work on the Moon, then imagine how much it will cost to keep him there. Does $1000 a day sound about right? Since it would cost nearly the same to ship the equipment to Mars, that doesn't figure into the problem. A lunar mining/manufacturing base can be resupplied (personel and equipment) from earth in 4 days Once it is up and running, a Mars mining/manufacturing base would be supplied from................itself. No time delay, no extra cost. Until then, cost of shipping is nearly the same. The amount of propellent required to launch material from the moon would be much less than is needed to launch from Earth. Are you suggesting that materials mined an manufactured on the Moon would be sold on Earth? Just checking, because that's what it sounds like. The economics of mining propellents on the moon and delivering them to LEO have been detailed in several papers. Any hydrogen content greater than 1% is considered economical. I never said that there were not some things that the Moon would be better for. Perhaps that is one. I think the moon would make a wonderful 2-week vacation spot. 3 days puking on the way to the moon, 1 week jumping around in 1/6 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 18, 2004

What I can't envision is a significant number of people taking two years out of their lives for a Mars vacation. I can certainly envision people taking a couple weeks off to go to the Moon. See my above comments about a vacation on a space station instead of the Moon. Much better. I have often wondered about the people who advocate Mars for a vacation, not very practical. However, it would be a great place for a two or three year “exchange” program in a variety of fields. Imagine a geologist taking a three year course in Martian Geology at MU. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I don't see any significant number of people ever living in anything other than 1g, No reason not to, if the gravity is sufficient for good health. In fact, low gravity living may well be prescribed for certain people, just like Arizona living is now prescribed for lung conditions etc. In any case, I know I would love it if things were only 1/3 their present weight. We currently spend a great deal of money, using exotice and expensive materials, just to make some things ligher. Imagine bowling on Mars, 38% of the weight, 100% of the momentum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

xojackso · Nov 18, 2004

"However, it would be a great place for a two or three year “exchange” program in a variety of fields. Imagine a geologist taking a three year course in Martian Geology at MU." It would wonderful, Mental. And I would agree that for scientific research-the sort of trip a geologist would make-Mars is superior. But for commercial purposes? Even granting the superiority of a space station to the lunar surface, that station would be vastly more viable, commercially speaking, in cislunar space than in Mars orbit. Discussion always has value, but in a way we're arguing a closed issue. What we'll be facing, in the real world of politics, is a situation in which even Moon-to-Mars is going to have to fight for its life for budget dollars during a deficit and wartime. To propose something still more expensive is, I'm afraid, pipe-dreaming. To propose that a business would found itself on a two-year excursion as compared to a two-week excursion is more of the same. In light of this, to propose a Mars mission on the basis of scientific value (getting back to our geologist) would be to propose a nearly complete divorce between the government and the private manned space efforts. Let the private sector do LEO while NASA does the Moon. Then let the private sector do the Moon while NASA does Mars. This seems to be a common-sense solution.

thecolonel · Nov 18, 2004

There can be endless debate on the subject Moon vs. Mars but the answer of "Why the Moon?" is quite simple... we're looking to ramp up our space legs and the closest destination is the Moon... hence it is only logical that it come first.

mental_avenger · Nov 18, 2004

Even granting the superiority of a space station to the lunar surface, that station would be vastly more viable, commercially speaking, in cislunar space than in Mars orbit. I can't imagine how you thought I meant Mars orbit. The station would be in Earth orbit, of course. To propose something still more expensive is, I'm afraid, pipe-dreaming. As I pointed out, Mars really isn't that much more expensive than the Moon, at least for the cargo which would be most of the payloads. In some respects, Mars will be less expensive, especially in the long term. To propose that a business would found itself on a two-year excursion as compared to a two-week excursion is more of the same. I haven't heard of anyone proposing that, certainly not me. Two year study programs would be a side benefit of the colony on Mars, not the business of it. In light of this, to propose a Mars mission on the basis of scientific value (getting back to our geologist) would be to propose a nearly complete divorce between the government and the private manned space efforts. Again, I cannot imagine how you read that into my posts. I wasn't talking about a “mission”. Later on, after the colony is established enough to have its own University (remember, MU?) then candidates might ride along on a colony ship to Mars. I often wonder how I can be misunderstood, considering that I take such great care in making certain that my posts are clear. I just don't get it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 18, 2004

You ©an grãb a ¢omma ƒrom the “symbol” section of thé “Insert” function of your word ¶rocessor, if ¥oµ rea££y want one. Do you use a wo®d processor to create posts¿ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

New Poll: Moon Yes, Mars No

arobie

Guest

commander_keen

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

arobie

Guest

volcanopele2

Guest

orzek

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

orzek

Guest

lowendfreq

Guest

orzek

Guest

halman

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

xojackso

Guest

xojackso

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

xojackso

Guest

thecolonel

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page