When are we going to Mars??

qso1 · Mar 19, 2007

gunsandrockets: ” for space? Musk has an unconventional answer. “I think there’s some number of people in the US and other countries that would pay to move to Mars,” he claimed. Me: If it were some unknown advocating this, they'd just be called crazy. Of course, its Musk but even he is only saying people would pay rather than outright advocating the idea. People pay for all kinds of crazy stuff on E-bay too. This idea was discussed months ago in another thread and the biggest problem I had with one way trips is that if you can develop the means to get to mars, you can spring for the extra money it may take to develop return to earth capability. Otherwise, IMO, its not worth doing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

JonClarke · Mar 19, 2007

So what might be the “killer app” for space? Musk has an unconventional answer. “I think there’s some number of people in the US and other countries that would pay to move to Mars,” he claimed. “They would sell everything that they’ve got, and they would move to Mars.” If the cost of a one-way journey to Mars could be lowered to the “single-digit millions” of dollars, he said, “I think enough people would pay that to actually make the business plan quite viable. I think thousands of people a year would pay that.” Needless to say, that got a loud round of applause from the Mars Society conference attendees. Sorry, I don't buy it. Business leaders are just as prone to wishful thinking as the next person. Musk statement does not stand up when you analyse it. Sure there might be people who would pay for a one way trip to Mars if it were a million dollars a ticket. But it's going to be a long time before that happens. Especially when the technology capable to supporting people for a one way doesn't exist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

gunsandrockets · Mar 19, 2007

"...the biggest problem I had with one way trips is that if you can develop the means to get to mars, you can spring for the extra money it may take to develop return to earth capability..." Getting to Mars is pretty easy. It's getting back to Earth again that's hard. About four times as hard. "...Otherwise, IMO, its not worth doing." Maybe. That's a judgement call.

qso1 · Mar 19, 2007

Getting back has been made to sound hard by the folks who advocate one way trips. Show me the money in this case. Why is it so hard to get back? Show me why its 4 times as hard. Your biggest expense is the engineering that goes into the craft itself. The professional people who design and build the vehicles. Not so much the hardware itself. If one is trying to save money by eliminating the return leg, this implies there is an absolute limit to what can be spent. Meaning, if we cannot afford to bring back people from mars, we cannot afford to send more people on one ways to mars. Because if we can afford to send one ways to mars, we could take some of those trips and cancel them for the money to return visitors from the initial one way trips. More importantly, what good is sending people to mars to begin with if they will never be able to come back. We here on earth won't benefit. The really smart business person will figure out how to maximize potential martian profit by developing a two way method of going to and from mars. Musk is basically just saying some people will pay for anything. IMO, these people haven't really thought the idea through. As for judgement, my opinion won't make a difference one way or the other. I can't stop someone from making what is essentially a suicide journey. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

gunsandrockets · Mar 19, 2007

Ah, where to begin... "Getting back has been made to sound hard by the folks who advocate one way trips." Really? Who? That's news to me. "Show me the money in this case. Why is it so hard to get back? Show me why its 4 times as hard." It's because of the pitiless mathematics of rocketry, that's why. A one way trip takes X mass, a two way trip takes 4X mass. Why do you suppose an unmanned Mars sample return mission is so challenging that it hasn't even been attempted yet? The NASA baseline for a six man mission to Mars assumes a mass budget of 450+ tonnes lofted into space, and it's only that low because nuclear thermal propulsion and aerobraking at Mars are assumed. And even that plan throws away most of the equipment, so it's a one shot deal just like Apollo. The Mars Direct approach championed by Robert Zubrin, a cut throat 4-man mission, entails landing on the surface of Mars a rocket bigger than an empty Atlas I which has a 100 kilowatt nuclear power system. And Zubrin's mass assumptions are considered to be on the optimistic side. So yeah getting back from Mars is tough, very tough. "...if we can afford to send one ways to mars, we could take some of those trips and cancel them for the money to return visitors from the initial one way trips...More importantly, what good is sending people to mars to begin with if they will never be able to come back...I can't stop someone from making what is essentially a suicide journey." You are making all kinds of unrealistic assumptions. Obviously (well maybe not to you) one-way trips to Mars would be for the purpose of colonization, not suicide. And obviously we could choose to bring people back from Mars instead. The question is, which is a better investment of money -- returning people from Mars, or sending to Mars the neccessary cargo to enable permanent residence and colonization? It might actually be cheaper t

thalion · Mar 19, 2007

I think it's too early to predict when people will walk on Mars, except to say that it's safe to say that it's at least 20 years away--even that's up for debate. A lot of things can happen in two decades: budget crises, a change in political climate, a shift in scientific focus. I also think that when we go to Mars is strongly influenced by what we find with future probes, such as Phoenix, Mars Science Laboratory, ExoMars, and more yet that haven't been proposed. Very intriguing data may get us there sooner, while another Viking-style disappointment may delay it. Then there's the issue of a Mars sample-return--a possible huge mission that could further erode or support a future manned mission. In short, I think we'll be in a better position to predict when and if it will happen in another decade.

qso1 · Mar 21, 2007

gunsandrockets: Really? Who? That's news to me. Me: Getting back has been made to sound hard by whoever posted the thread here some months ago for one. Obviously Musk has taken notice of the idea. gunsandrockets: It's because of the pitiless mathematics of rocketry, that's why. A one way trip takes X mass, a two way trip takes 4X mass. Why do you suppose an unmanned Mars sample return mission is so challenging that it hasn't even been attempted yet? Me: Werhner Von Braun, Robert Zubrin, and Buzz Aldrin didn't seem to think getting back from mars is all that hard. Certainly its hard, tough, you name it but its not impossible. Not only that, the majority of human spaceflight cost is not in hardware or physics, its in personell. Do you honestly believe a one way mission will somehow be 50 or more percent...or even 30 percent less than a two way cost wise? gunsandrockets: The NASA baseline for a six man mission to Mars assumes a mass budget of 450+ tonnes lofted into space, and it's only that low because nuclear thermal propulsion and aerobraking at Mars are assumed. And even that plan throws away most of the equipment, so it's a one shot deal just like Apollo. Me: This is true though the original Von Braun plan did advocate reusable nuclear shuttles but that aside...If we are to send humans to mars, we should be prepared to pay the price. And just what is the price? The Von Braun plan would probably run about $450 billion in todays dollars. Zubrins plan as modified by NASA, probably $100 billion. Were worried about the added cost of bringing someone back from mars yet we spend $100 billion annually on Iraq? $250-400 annually on the deficit? gunsandrockets: Obviously (well maybe not to you) one-way trips to Mars would be for the purpose of colonization, not suicide. And obviously we could choose to bring people back from Mars instead. Me: I'm well aware the purpose...and in fa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Mar 21, 2007

gunsandrockets: Now I myself believe exploration should come first, not colonization. But if Elon Musk thinks there is a viable market for colonization, good for him. I hope Mars is colonized and Elon Musk makes a bundle of money supplying the needs of the colonists! Me: Here I agree with exploration before colonization. Although I think both could be done once the cost barrier is broken if ever. As for Musk, the whole point of private enterprise taking over traditionally NASA ground is that they can do the job better. Just look at all the comments about how much better private enterprise is than NASA before private enterprise has even sent the first human into orbit. Much less shown how much cheaper it can be done. Now we have Musk who essentially is saying "We give already" we don't have a cost effective solution for going to mars and returning, NASA was right all along...can't be done folks, at least not without spending those extra bucks that we wont use for nobler purposes. Ah well, I'm ranting again I guess. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

Swampcat · Mar 21, 2007

IMO, your argument against the one-way colonization-style approach to putting humans on Mars appears to have a strong bias against the possibility of it being done by other than a government sponsored agency. I would strongly agree with you that there is close to a zero possibility that any rational government would send humans to Mars without providing for their safe return. We might send our young men off to die for their country for some political purpose, but there is no political justification (at this time in history) for sending anyone to Mars on what most would consider a suicidal adventure. I would also agree with you that at some point having the means to travel back and forth between the two planets is highly desirable. Whether this capability is required to set up a colony and transport the initial population is another story. I'm willing to bet that, given the Earth's entire human population, there would be sufficient, qualified volunteers for a one-way trip to Mars. I think such an effort would have to be sufficiently planned and funded to give these colonists a reasonable expectation of living out long and fruitful lives on Mars. That, of course, is a big problem with the whole idea, but one in which enough resources and ingenuity could overcome. I also agree with you that it is premature to be making plans for any trip to Mars until the technology has matured and, especially with private enterprise, the capability to make it happen has been sufficiently demonstrated. I'm confident that, sooner or later, a private company will have that capability. Mr. Musk hopes that company will be SpaceX. He wants to send humans to Mars. He's thinking about ways to do it. I applaud him for the effort and look forward to seeing him put his thoughts into action. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

quasar2 · Mar 21, 2007

there are several reasons one-way has advantages. firstly, it would give incentives for rescue or resupply missions. & actually i don`t believe it`d be necessary for every member of a MarsCrew to entirely return completely to Earth. there seems to be a bit of rigidity concerning this. obviously & i don`t see any way around this; MarsCrew be would cruelly subjected to 1g upon their return. no matter if it were one-way, etc.. any MarsCrew would become atrophied. unless of course spindizzies were used. & i haven`t seen any long-term plans for those on a wide-scale basis. the only alternative is see to staying on The Martian Surface forever, & yes that would be cruel, is a trip to The Lunar Vicinity. ok, we have many precedents for trip-times, so please correct me if wrong here, 3 days from Earth to The Moon, 6 mos Earth/Mars. what about (& i`ve never gotten a straight answer on here), L1/Mars, Lunar Surface/Mars, Mars/L1, Phobos/L1, ad relatively infinitum? straight away, MarsCrew would have twice their strength roughly on Lunar Surface. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Mar 22, 2007

swampcat: IMO, your argument against the one-way colonization-style approach to putting humans on Mars appears to have a strong bias against the possibility of it being done by other than a government sponsored agency. Me: Let me clarify this...any bias was purely unintentional. I don't care if its NASA or private industry that gets us to mars. My whole thing against the idea of a one way trip is that at some point, a two way will become inevitable. That being the case, why not just spring for the extra bucks to build the necessary two way capability? I personally don't think we will ever get to mars without a major, compelling reason to drive us such as finding strong evidence of microbiological life. Depending on public mood, budget increases, Presidential support for humans to mars is a combination not likely to occur or be sustained long enough for successful completion of the initial stages of such a mission. And this is one reason I am actually for a private enterprise/industry effort. But P.I. depends on potential profits for the motivation. A rational private company would also be against sending a one way IMO, as any disaster associated with the mission reflects badly on the company. And then you have people like Burt Rutan who isn't too crazy about NASA. Its these folks who I think can show how to send people to mars...and return them. The ones advocating a one way trip are not thinking it through IMHO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Mar 22, 2007

quasar2: there are several reasons one-way has advantages. firstly, it would give incentives for rescue or resupply missions. & actually i don`t believe it`d be necessary for every member of a MarsCrew to entirely return completely to Earth. Me: Then its no longer a one way mission once rescue and resupply capability is established. As for every crew member returning. I agree. I wrote a graphic novel about establishing the first mars base and I have crew staying on mars up to two years with future four year and longer possibilities. But these people at least know that at certain times, they can, if they choose to, go back home to earth. Beyond the mars base comes the mars colonies which because of how any sort of colonization works, economics makes necessary...two way trade between mars and earth and that cannot happen without return capability. Further into the future it would be concievable to see a mars city in which some of the populace is born there and never goes to earth because the city becomes relatively self sustaining. Mars crews should actually adjust easier to earths 1 G after living in mars .38 G as opposed to coming home from months or years of zero G. But even here, selection of people who have demonstrated a predisposition to regular workout routines would be one way to reduce the problems associated with returning to 1 G living. Your are right as to the trip times to the moon and mars (3 days and 6 months respectively). For mars however, there are some propulsion options that might reduce trip times to as little as 3 months. L1 to mars would probably be the same depending on which propulsion choice...6 months NTR, 3 months nuclear electric/plasma theoretically of course. The main difference between L-1 and earth departure is less energy required to depart from L-1. Same applies to L1 Phobos because now were using less energy at arrival to land on Phobos. As has been <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Mar 22, 2007

swampcat: Mr. Musk hopes that company will be SpaceX. He wants to send humans to Mars. He's thinking about ways to do it. I applaud him for the effort and look forward to seeing him put his thoughts into action. Me: Mr Musk now needs to show private enterprise can do mars better than NASA can by demonstrating how to get there and back. Otherwise, he is actually caving into the NASA problem of budget consciousness to the point of offering no better solution than NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

gunsandrockets · Mar 22, 2007

"Getting back has been made to sound hard by whoever posted the thread here some months ago for one. Obviously Musk has taken notice of the idea." Oh, boy. The originator of the thread never said anything about it being hard to do a two way trip. He only said he would be willing to take a one-way trip. "Werhner Von Braun, Robert Zubrin, and Buzz Aldrin didn't seem to think getting back from mars is all that hard." Not true. "Certainly its hard, tough, you name it but its not impossible." No one has claimed it's impossible. "Not only that, the majority of human spaceflight cost is not in hardware or physics, its in personell. Do you honestly believe a one way mission will somehow be 50 or more percent...or even 30 percent less than a two way cost wise?" Asked and already answered. You just ignored my answer. Why should I repeat myself? "If we are to send humans to mars, we should be prepared to pay the price. And just what is the price? The Von Braun plan would probably run about $450 billion in todays dollars. Zubrins plan as modified by NASA, probably $100 billion. Were worried about the added cost of bringing someone back from mars yet we spend $100 billion annually on Iraq? $250-400 annually on the deficit?" That is completely irrrelevant to the issue of the cost effectiveness of one-way vs two way missions. "The reason the one way idea to mars has materialized is simple. What I call the cost barrier. The one barrier we have not been able to break. Cost is such a big concern to politicians and the public. This is reflected in the argument that money spent on space could be better spent on earth. This argument fails to realize that if we shut NASA down tomorrow, the government won't do a thing to improve earthly needs. How do I know? Its already happened. NASA has been on a budget roughly 50% of its Apollo heyday and since that time, what tangible societal improv

gunsandrockets · Mar 22, 2007

"Now we have Musk who essentially is saying "We give already" we don't have a cost effective solution for going to mars and returning, NASA was right all along...can't be done folks, at least not without spending those extra bucks that we wont use for nobler purposes." Not true in any sense, Musk has never said or implied any such thing, a strawman arguement.

qso1 · Mar 22, 2007

gunsandrockets: The originator of the thread never said anything about it being hard to do a two way trip. He only said he would be willing to take a one-way trip. Me: A lot of people say they are willing to do something off the cuff. But once thought through, usually have secondthoughts. Of course, maybe this person really wants to go and thats fine if someone eventually provides them with the means. gunsandrockets response to my Von Braun comment: "Werhner Von Braun, Robert Zubrin, and Buzz Aldrin didn't seem to think getting back from mars is all that hard." Not true. Me: Depends on the definition of hard. Mine being that I mentioned hard but not impossible and you agree that its not impossible so its just a variance of degree. I say its hard but not that hard. gunsandrockets: That is completely irrrelevant to the issue of the cost effectiveness of one-way vs two way missions. Me: Its relevant to me. The old argument that we can better spend money on earth instead of space is based largely on peoples perception that human spaceflight is a waste of money and in my years of looking at it, this perception is borne of media failing to make valid comparisons of budgets. I had to dig to find comparisons. And its also based on some misguided notion that if we cut NASAs budget to remedy social problems, the government will actually do that and show accountability for it. If its so irrelevant, why would the media and public be saying we can better spend the money on earth that we spend on humans in space thirty years after NASA took a 50% budget cut which reduced the budget to the level it still stands at today? That level being around 1% GDP since 1973-74 where it was from 2-4% GDP prior to those years. So hows that relate to what I said? The one way mission to the best of my understanding was proposed because someone somewhere down the line came up with the idea that the mis <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Mar 22, 2007

gunsandrockets: "Now we have Musk who essentially is saying "We give already" we don't have a cost effective solution for going to mars and returning, NASA was right all along...can't be done folks, at least not without spending those extra bucks that we wont use for nobler purposes." Not true in any sense, Musk has never said or implied any such thing, a strawman arguement. Me: Thats why I said essentially said...not a direct quote. Its not a strawman argument when the very industry that has people boasting that "Private industry will do better than NASA" cannot come up with return capability for mars missions. The whole idea behind "Private industry is better at this game than government" would really be reinforced if private industry can develop and demonstrate a two way capability to mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

gunsandrockets · Mar 22, 2007

like talking to a wall

gunsandrockets · Mar 22, 2007

"The one way mission to the best of my understanding was proposed because someone somewhere down the line came up with the idea that the mission would save money by eliminating the cost of developing return capability." No one anywhere at any time has said that except for you. It's an idea of your own creation. A strawman, easily knocked down.

spacester · Mar 22, 2007

I agree, guns, but I do not think qso1 is intentionally advancing a strawman. He is focused on the 'cost barrier', which is a valid analysis, but the question at hand requires broader thinking. More in a bit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Mar 22, 2007

Very cool! I was hoping the thread would develop as it has. Good discussion, gents. I am replying to swampcat because his position is closest to mine. For those with a couple of days to kill, the Mars Settlement threads here went into quite a bit of detail. Here is a recent discussion that should lead to many others. You guys have very quickly covered the main issues here, with minimal animosity and negativity. I just cannot commend you all enough. Anyway, to the subject at hand. I have tried many many times to make a distinction between 'Colonization' and 'Settlement'. Most people seem to think it is an esoteric or semantic difference. I think it is a critical difference. It shapes the thinking of the whole endeavor. qso1, you have done your homework well. You understand about trip times and the basic orbital mechanics that disallow going there and back whenever we want to. So I would submit to you that there is no such thing as a rescue mission from Mars. I ask you to purge it from your thinking. Return trips are regularly scheduled events, using hardware that has been pre-positioned and presumably pre-provisioned years ahead of time (the previous cycle). I also agree with guns that you are not grasping the real idea behind one-way Settlement. You focus on your 'cost barrier' a bit too much. Not everything is derivative of that analysis. In the context of this discussion so far, 'Settlement' means this: that folks are going there as *precursors* to Colonization. They are going there to see if Colonization is practical. They are going there to see if they can be Martians for the rest of their lives. This is clearly a major step beyond the 'expedition' or 'e <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Mar 22, 2007

spacester: qso1, you have done your homework well. You understand about trip times and the basic orbital mechanics that disallow going there and back whenever we want to. So I would submit to you that there is no such thing as a rescue mission from Mars. I ask you to purge it from your thinking. Me: Your right about the rescue thing. I used rescue in error in response to rescue being mentioned by gunsandrockets IIRC. spacester: You focus on your 'cost barrier' a bit too much. Me: Actually, its me who focused on the cost barrier. I used that term in a book I wrote a few years back and it was mainly a way to illustrate the advances in aerospace such as breaking the sound barrier, the man in space barrier, etc. but not the cost barrier. Will this barrier remain in place for private industry/enterprise as well? Only time will tell. I do expect and hope one day that this barrier will be broken. spacester: I hope you can readily see that the difference between an Encampment and a Settlement is huge. Me: Good terms, the terms I used were outpost, base, colonization to sort of show the difference in scale of a small outpost as compared to a base or a colonization. I doubt anyone will seriously propose an F&F mission because of the sheer time demand. Its kind of like proposing that we send a human mission to simply orbit mars as Apollo 8 did the moon. Proximity of mars makes such an orbital mission highly impractical just as it does an F&F mission. spacester: They will take your carefully crafted essay on the cost barrier and crumple it up and laugh at you and throw it in your face. That doesn't make you 'wrong' or really take anything away from you, it just means that they have found another way to skin the cat. Me: Thats true. It is in fact the reason I created such a term. A way to show there is a barrier for some entreprenurial thinker to break. I look forward <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

Swampcat · Mar 22, 2007

spacester, thank you for the clarification of views. I was trying not to be so long-winded <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> in my posts, but sometimes sound bites don't get a point across as well as verbosity can <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />. I don't disagree at all with qso1's cost barrier. It's real and a factor in the commercialization of human space travel. But I'm more an optimist, like you, and IMO, the cost barrier will become irrelevant or circumvented in some innovative way...determined humans will find a way. It probably won't be government that finds this way. They have no incentive to do so. They get taxpayer's money afterall. And though Mr. Musk is willing to spend his fortune on acheiving whatever goals he's contemplating, I'm sure he would like to use that money wisely toward the accomplishment of those goals. He has a incentive to lower costs, whether he wishes to make a profit on Mars colonization or not. I agree that the intention of your endeavour guides your approach. Colonists will have no intention of returning while scientists at a research base expect it...a completely different mindset. Earth return capability would be highly desirable in any paradigm, but not a show stopper...at least in the early stages. Man, am I glad to see you write about people with money who seem to be more interested in doing something eventful than amassing another fortune. It's refreshing. Your analysis is spot on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

alokmohan · Mar 22, 2007

Werhner Von Braun, Robert Zubrin, and Buzz Aldrin didn't seem to think getting back from mars is all that hard. Certainly its hard, tough, you name it but its not impossible. Not only that, the majority of human spaceflight cost is not in hardware or physics, its in personell. Do you honestly believe a one way mission will somehow be 50 or more percent...or even 30 percent less than a two way cost wise? Unless return vehicle is ready how can you venture?

j05h · Mar 22, 2007

> But P.I. depends on potential profits for the motivation... A rational private company would also be against sending a one way IMO, as any disaster associated with the mission reflects badly on the company. Depends on your definition of "private". If the Mormons, Hassids or another church decide that God is on Mars, they might go, stay, and never worry about profits. Alternatively, maybe a rich artist decides that making Mars trinkets and shipping them back (instead of self) is where it's at. You are creating a very Either-Or situation between NASA and SpaceX (etc) and Flags-Footprints Vs OneWay, while the truth is that SpaceX wants to help satisfy other people's "space" interests, which are wildly varied. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

When are we going to Mars??

qso1

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

qso1

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

thalion

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

quasar2

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

qso1

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

j05h

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page