Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

BWhite · 2005-06-05 16:23:28

Re-useable can also mean keeping the CEV in LEO after a mission is over. Even if you need to lift all your new propellant, the mass of the CEV need be lifted only once.

= = =

No manned transfer vehicle of any kind between Earth and Lunar orbit is nessarry as the capsule is big enough, plus it is the only practical option for immediate anytime emergency abort to Earth.

If small crew ferry capsules were used, you could dock with the CEV and bring them along docked to the CEV.

Edited By BWhite on 1118011716

reddragon · 2005-06-05 16:50:58

they are, after all, the only game in town.

Yes, but it would probably be best if they weren't. Thus while we must work with the large corporations in the short term, we should try to destroy the establishment in the long term by allowing more small companies to get in on the business. Stagnation is good for the big corporations since it means their products don't get outdated fast, but it will be best for space exploration if they have serious competition.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-05 17:26:32

Why would you do that Bill? The extra crew cabin space would be wasted, this isn't a luxury cruise, or is that what you meant?

Competition would be nice, but its more important that VSE contractors are competant first and foremost. At the moment, the American companies that are competant at the majority of the design, fabrication, and execution of mission vehicles is basically limited to the big name companies.

Actively trying to destroy big aerospace companies isn't a good idea either... if anything, try to give the AltSpace'ers a push into the big leauges, but nothing more.

RobertDyck · 2005-06-05 18:26:04

No, they're not the only game in town. KBKhA developed the RD-701 engine, they can develop the single chamber scaled-down version. Scaled Composites (Burt Rutan's company) can build the lifting body; they built the X-38. The 747 doesn't require any modification beyond connection points on its back. Michoud (managed by Lockheed Martin) makes the current aluminum-lithium tank for Space Shuttle, but the LOX tank for DC-XA was built by Energia. XCOR Aerospace is working on a fluoropolymer lined graphite/epoxy LOX tank. Last November I told them of Kel-F; it's lighter, stronger, and more impermeable to oxygen than Teflon-FEP. XCOR got a contract from NASA this April to develop it, I wonder if they're using my free advice. Composite tanks are lighter than aluminum-lithiuim. Langely did the work on HL-20, Glenn Research Center did the work on Carbon/Silicon-Carbide for rocket engines, Ames developed FRCI and DurAFRSI. Get the point? If I manage the project it can be done without major aerospace contractors. I would like to be the prime contractor, but I'm sure t/Space could do it as well.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-05 18:55:04

What? Oh come on now...

Russia wouldn't build a brand new rocket engine for free, and would also cost nine digits easy, but thats really irrelivent since NASA isn't allowed to pay them any money.

Scaled Composites DID NOT build the X-38, that is wholey untrue, they did no such thing. They only built mold-line mockups to near scale, and that was it. They did not build a spaceworthy airframe of any sort. The X-38 was never actually built.

Was the 747 designed to seperate with its carried vehicle in flight? I don't think so... there is alot of work that will have to be done to make sure that a safe seperation is even possible with an unpowerd giant rocket on top. You might even need to eliminate the verticle rudder.

Michoud could make the tank, but the tank itself would need to be developed from scratch most likly. And, if a Shuttle tank costs $60M a pop, you think your tank is going to cost lots and lots less?

XCOR is just making a proof of concept design, they aren't even making it space rated I bet, and just being able to make a plastic LOX tank doesn't mean you are skilled enough to make a reuseable spaceplane.

Langley did what little work on the HL-20 that was done, which was basically nothing beyond the aerodynamics and a little about the handling characteristics. You intend to scrap the cockpit anyway, and the radical change in mold lines and weight distribution with that multi-ton/multi-meter rocket engine in back will force you to throw out most of that work too.

NASA centers doing alot of the design work? Well hey, they are managed and to large degree operated with the help of big aerospace companies I bet. You know that Michoud place where your tanks will be built? Lockheed runs it.

If AltSpace firms tried to make something as complex as an HL-20 class space plane with its built-in main engine, they would fail miserably.

RobertDyck · 2005-06-05 21:24:06

It's a pitty I didn't get the contract for the Next Generation Ion Engine. I did submit a Notice of Intent. The announcement said it was open to firms foreign and domestic, but when I was filling out the final bid I found the detailed package had fine print which said firms outside the US don't get paid. I asked the CSA to support me. Although the Glenn Research Center provided me with all details about the NSTAR ion engine there were permitted outside the US, the CSA's response initially was "how did you get this phone number?" When I went through my member of parliament I got to the director of technology who simply said "The CSA is not interested in propulsion." Hmph! When I didn't submit the final bid I got a call from NASA asking where it was. I told them at the time that my electrical engineer who would have worked on the power supply had quit engineering after 9/11 to go into social work; I located a replacement but not by the deadline. That was true but I didn't mention at the time that I felt there was no point if I didn't get paid. Since then a contractor who works at one of the NASA centers told me that the only way NASA would call me is if Sean O'Keefe (then head of NASA) told them to. Oh well, got'a keep trying. If I had landed that contract I would have been in business in 2002, we wouldn't be having this debate. By the way, since then I noticed NASA added a clause to every AO that states NASA reserves the right to accept bids after the deadline if they deam it in their best interest.

So details: the 747s (2 of them) were modified in the 1970s to air-launch the Space Shuttle orbiter to test its landing systems. It was so air launched several times before its first flight. Since then the 747s have been used to transport the orbiter, such as from the Salt Flats back to the Cape. However, the 747s have also been made available to air launch other vehicles, and have done so many times. There's a reason those 747s have an extra vertical stabilizer on the end of each of its horizontal sabilizers. Yes, it did cost money to modify them, but it's already done.

Yes, Lockheed has the contract to run Michoud. It would be easy to make the new tanks there, but expensive. Tanks could be built elsewhere, for example by SpaceDev or SpaceX or even XCOR.

Did you ever read the work done by Scaled Composites on SS1? They did engineering work with a small team of engineers, detailed computer simulations and computer analysis, then built the flight vehicle. There weren't any mock-ups or wind tunnel models. Computer aided design (CAD) has come that far. The flight vehicle was carefully tested with a series of tests that measured its performance. Compare that to the work done on HL-20 at Langely. They did engineering, computer aerodynamic analysis, the even built wind tunnel models to measure its performance at flight speed, and built a full size mock-up to test human factors. They also did engineering analysis and computer modelling of the heat shield during re-entry. That's more than was done for SS1 before building the flight vehicle. Development work for HL-20 was a lot more than a concept study. And, no, I'm not suggesting changing the mould lines of HL-20. In fact, that's why I want to reduce the diameter of the pressure hull; to retain the shape while reducing its size. It does have to be smaller, built with modern maternals to make it lighter, and a main engine added.

I also have to remind you, the total budget for X-38 from concept to having completed 2 flight vehicles, was $1.2 billion. The total budget for HL-20 was $2 billion. All that work (and I don't intend to change the lifting body shape) is still relevant reducing the amount of work that has to be done now. Developing a new main engine may be relatively expensive. Perhaps we should base the engine on RD-0750 instead of RD-701. RD-0750 is single chamber engine just a little smaller than I need.

BWhite · 2005-06-05 21:31:47

Why would you do that Bill? The extra crew cabin space would be wasted, this isn't a luxury cruise, or is that what you meant?
Competition would be nice, but its more important that VSE contractors are competant first and foremost. At the moment, the American companies that are competant at the majority of the design, fabrication, and execution of mission vehicles is basically limited to the big name companies.
Actively trying to destroy big aerospace companies isn't a good idea either... if anything, try to give the AltSpace'ers a push into the big leauges, but nothing more.

Why would I do that? Attach small t/Space or Soyuz DM sized capsules to a permanently on orbit CEV? Then go explorin'

It lets us keep tons of useful mass (a really big CEV) in LEO so it can be re-used without being re-launched AND its avoid your scenario where an emergency abort requires an orbital rendezvouz.

It avoids the need for an LEO station for crew transfer. Small taxi up to CEV and then go exploring. No ISS-like transfer station.

The monetary cost of pushing the extra mass attached to CEV is offset by avoiding numerous launches of big heavy replacement CEVs and by avoiding the need to maintain a permanent LEO station.

With the t/Space air launch idea, a CVX could handle variable launch windows with ease, in order to meet up with that really big CEV wherever it was parked in LEO.

= = =

Big aerospace? Well t/Space ain't nothing but a Soyuz DM and a clever gimmick for lanching. If Boeing put its mind to it, I betcha they could send 4 crew to LEO on a Delta II for $25 million.

There's just more profit if NASA can be persuaded that is a bad idea. :;):

All t/Space has done is apply the "form follows function" principle to attaining LEO and stripped away all the frills and extras that get salesmen the big commissions.

BWhite · 2005-06-05 21:39:04

I see a basic principle here.

Earth to LEO is expensive. Therefore, we bring back down to Earth as little as can be managed from what we take up.

And, we re-use as much as possible whatever we take up there, until we need to throw it away or bring it down for another reason.

Therefore, design the CEV for YEARS of active duty in space and avoid atmospheric re-entry of CEV except in dire emergency.

If your re-entry capsules are as lightweight as feasible and you carry them with you both conditions are satisfied.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-06 05:38:01

I don't think you've really got a clue just how hard it would be to build such a vehicle Robert. This thing is not like the X-38, it would simply have to be an order of magnetude more complex. And the SS1 "rubber rocket Cessna" is a pitiful toy, and another order of magnetude in complexity and performance removed from a real orbital space plane.

If the same groups of people that built SS1 tried to make something as complex as HL-20, they would simply fail, because they do not have the skills nor the reasources to accomplish such a task. At the moment, only large aerospace companies do, and that is the simple cold reality of the situation.

Scaled Composites did not build the X-38. They did not do any such thing. The only thing they built were aerodynamic mockups, not space-rated airframes. In either event, lets review just what X-38 program would have needed to become a real orbital spaceplane...:
-Build a brand new space-rated airframe, capable of handling launch and reentry dynamics multiple times, $$$, basically building a brand new (and heavier) vehicle with the same shape.
-Powerd by batteries, only sufficent for 9hrs
-Bottled oxygen LSS, only sufficent for 9hrs
-No cockpit
-No windows
-No liquid-fueled OMS engine, deorbit only, no orbital maneuverability
-No docking alignment hardware
-No lidar/radar
-No launch vehicle adapter
-No launch vehicle escape mechanism
-Low performance cold gas RCS, limited maneuverability
-No reuseable heat shield (X-38 never even got far enough to have a heat shield)
-Flimsy landing gear
-Not built to withstand multiple uses
-(No big rocket engine in the back to deal with either)
-(No 747 attach points through the heat shield to deal with either)

And that was all for that $1.2Bn... for such a little amount of work, Scaled Composites really must not be much cheaper then Lockheed or Boeing. HL-20, even its optimistic price, would cost around $5-6Bn in today's world I bet, and your vehicle will be MORE complicated, not less, despite its smaller size.

"I'm not suggesting changing the mould lines of HL-20... and I don't intend to change the lifting body shape"

You have to, there is no room for a big rocket engine in the back otherwise. All the aerodynamics have to recertified. And if that Russian engine is too small, then you can't use it can you? This is not a situation for a little dinky RL-10 sized engine, you need something of the same class as the big SSME, the size and mass of which will force you to throw out all the preceeding aerodynamic work on similar vehicles... This vehicle is already too small by my estimation, and you can't afford to "do what AltSpace does best" and try to shrink it down and lower the bar even more so you can reach, since you can't make the pilots & passengers any smaller.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-06 06:27:19

Why would you do that Bill? The extra crew cabin space would be wasted, this isn't a luxury cruise, or is that what you meant?
Competition would be nice, but its more important that VSE contractors are competant first and foremost. At the moment, the American companies that are competant at the majority of the design, fabrication, and execution of mission vehicles is basically limited to the big name companies.
Actively trying to destroy big aerospace companies isn't a good idea either... if anything, try to give the AltSpace'ers a push into the big leauges, but nothing more.
Why would I do that? Attach small t/Space or Soyuz DM sized capsules to a permanently on orbit CEV? Then go explorin'
It lets us keep tons of useful mass (a really big CEV) in LEO so it can be re-used without being re-launched AND its avoid your scenario where an emergency abort requires an orbital rendezvouz.
It avoids the need for an LEO station for crew transfer. Small taxi up to CEV and then go exploring. No ISS-like transfer station.
The monetary cost of pushing the extra mass attached to CEV is offset by avoiding numerous launches of big heavy replacement CEVs and by avoiding the need to maintain a permanent LEO station.
With the t/Space air launch idea, a CVX could handle variable launch windows with ease, in order to meet up with that really big CEV wherever it was parked in LEO.
= = =
Big aerospace? Well t/Space ain't nothing but a Soyuz DM and a clever gimmick for lanching. If Boeing put its mind to it, I betcha they could send 4 crew to LEO on a Delta II for $25 million.
There's just more profit if NASA can be persuaded that is a bad idea. :;):
All t/Space has done is apply the "form follows function" principle to attaining LEO and stripped away all the frills and extras that get salesmen the big commissions.

"Go explorin?" Where? You don't need the big CEV for Lunar missions, but its too small for Martian ones. What was that about form and function and such? A healthy sized space capsule is large enough to carry the crew all the way from the Cape' to Lunar orbit and back... its just three days for goodness sakes.

Nooo, the problem with reuseability isn't brining vehicles back down to Earth's surface, the problem is bringing them back to Earth orbit (or Lunar or Martian orbit, and trying to refurbish them there) at all. If you have to lug your propellant from Earth for the return trip, then reuseable-anything doesn't make much sense, because the payload penalty for carrying the return fuel just obliterates the bennefit of reuseability as you would need multiple trips to send the same payload (in smaller, harder to manage chunks no less). And you NEED that payload to make a Lunar/Martian fuel factory big enough to take advantage of reuseability for a reasonable sum and time.

And what T/Space has done is Blatantly Ignore "form follows function," because VSE isn't about the most efficent way to LEO, its the most efficent and safest way to the Moon first and Mars later. Their aproach is neither as efficent nor safe as a conventional Saturn-IV EOR style mission for Lunar missions, and their CEV isn't big enough for Mars... I doubt it could aerobrake either.

Edit: Oh, and there is no way in heck that Boeing would stick a Soyuz or similar on top of a Delta-II for only $25M. Even if they could, it would be too small to realisticly seat four, much less future growth to six.

BWhite · 2005-06-06 07:56:08

And what T/Space has done is Blatantly Ignore "form follows function," because VSE isn't about the most efficent way to LEO, its the most efficent and safest way to the Moon first and Mars later. Their aproach is neither as efficent nor safe as a conventional Saturn-IV EOR style mission for Lunar missions, and their CEV isn't big enough for Mars... I doubt it could aerobrake either.

Fair enough.

Except t/Space's plans aren't really about the VSE. t/SPace is really after the orbital tourism market. As clark wrote (or implied) getting NASA to pay for t/Space development would give Gump a free rocket to sell to tourists.

Thus, the political question becomes "what is the proper objective for the VSE?" - - might tweaking the VSE's goals & objectives result in more science and an expanded commercial presence in space all for less money?

= = =

Is the goal to perpetuate or shatter the paradigm that says: "Spaceflight = NASA and NASA = spaceflight?"

How does (or should) the VSE fit into that question?

= = =

Add: Rick Tumlinson frames the question exactly the right way, IMHO:

Are we von Braun-ians, Sagan-auts or O'Neill-ians?

And that is a purely political question. What do we want or seek from space exploration?

Edited By BWhite on 1118066391

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-06 09:03:36

Orbital tourism? Even "Gumps'" pressure-fed air-launched liquid methane rocket won't be cheap enough for all but the richest tourists, so you aren't going to have a big enough market for that.

And where are you going to fly it to?

BWhite · 2005-06-06 09:40:23

Orbital tourism? Even "Gumps'" pressure-fed air-launched liquid methane rocket won't be cheap enough for all but the richest tourists, so you aren't going to have a big enough market for that.
And where are you going to fly it to?

The t/SPace proposal makes no business sense whatsoever unless they plan on selling lots of flights.

Other than tourists, who do they contemplate as customers?

BWhite · 2005-06-06 10:19:58

Orbital tourism? Even "Gumps'" pressure-fed air-launched liquid methane rocket won't be cheap enough for all but the richest tourists, so you aren't going to have a big enough market for that.
And where are you going to fly it to?

To answer my own question, the average Hollywood movie costs over $100 million to make and market.

Loft a space hotel and I see no difficulty in selling two or more flights per year to movie studios for making the next James Bond action adventure. Or Bourne sequel. The movie studios might even invest $50 million or $100 million to buy a time share slice of a genuine LEO hotel.

If carried by Proton, how much might a two module Bigelow style hotel actually cost to deploy? $500 million?

clark · 2005-06-06 10:31:20

Hollywood dosen't work like that Bill. :laugh:

SpaceNut · 2005-06-06 11:54:07

Dividing up the spoils

We can go for the tourism but there is little or no profit to be made. We can go to explore and do the science of discovery but again there is no profit. We can go to colonize but how do you pay for resupplies.

So unless the land is owned then there is no reason to stay for anything other than just to say we could and can do so for a few footprint, a flag or two but little else.

So how can we make space profitable if you can not own...

BWhite · 2005-06-06 12:10:16

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/386/1] Dividing up the spoils
We can go for the tourism but there is little or no profit to be made. We can go to explore and do the science of discovery but again there is no profit. We can go to colonize but how do you pay for resupplies.
So unless the land is owned then there is no reason to stay for anything other than just to say we could and can do so for a few footprint, a flag or two but little else.
So how can we make space profitable if you can not own...

When I first joined this board, long, long ago but still in this galaxy, I recall that clark tended to quote Rousseau rather frequently.

Do I remember correctly?

Anyway, waiting for government(s) to grant land rights to celestial objects may result in a long wait. Someone needs to just follow Rousseau's advice:

Go out there. Build a fence. Say "this is mine" and see who objects.

= = =

PS - - Pay for it by selling the televison rights.

Edited By BWhite on 1118081490

SpaceNut · 2005-06-06 12:30:57

Then it becomes a question of might not right and the military has the upperhand due to cash flow...

clark · 2005-06-06 12:37:02

Yes, the memory hasn't failed yet.

Go out there. Build a fence. Say "this is mine" and see who objects.

That's a multi-billion dollar gamble. Most people/groups with the resources to pull off something like this would not want to gamble on such a huge unknown.

Even if there was an ostenible national recognition scheme for 3rd party commercial interests, those nations without access, but with means to disrupt commerce, may very well prove to be a destabilizing factor.

How do you think a bunch of third world nations are going to react when the heavens start getting carved up and they get left in the cold?

Fledi · 2005-06-06 13:03:53

Then it becomes a question of might not right and the military has the upperhand due to cash flow...

So you expect them to go after the colonists? For what, just to get them back? That would cost a lot more than just going there...

Third world nations might be angry about it, but they also lack the means to make such a big difference through commercial pressure. Might be the best for everyone if they just joined in.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-06 13:19:43

No you have misinterupted, meaning that only the military has the resource to colonize and defend its claimed territory.
Private colonization only has bodies and not the cash resource.

BWhite · 2005-06-06 14:46:08

Yes, the memory hasn't failed yet.
Go out there. Build a fence. Say "this is mine" and see who objects.
That's a multi-billion dollar gamble. Most people/groups with the resources to pull off something like this would not want to gamble on such a huge unknown.
Even if there was an ostenible national recognition scheme for 3rd party commercial interests, those nations without access, but with means to disrupt commerce, may very well prove to be a destabilizing factor.
How do you think a bunch of third world nations are going to react when the heavens start getting carved up and they get left in the cold?

I didn't say it would be easy, but until someone takes a chance and makes a claim why will any government stick its neck out to assert a right to recognize property rights?

Go mine an asteroid and see who tries to stop you from selling the products. Having a good public relations team will be mission-critical since global public opinion will eventually control that which is recognized as legitimate.

Property may be theft and it may be sacred (or both) but it does exist (as property) only in our collective minds.

clark · 2005-06-06 14:51:28

Go mine an asteroid and see who tries to stop you from selling the products. Having a good public relations team will be mission-critical since global public opinion will eventually control that which is recognized as legitimate.

Sorry to burst the balloon...

Public opinion is irrelevant. Yukos is a good example.

Burt Rutan is popular, but that popularity does not mean Uncle Sam is going to look the other way when profits or national interest are at stake.

Besides, the magnitudes of wealth we bat about- imagine how destabilizing concentrated wealth of these magnitudes are within a democracy (or any government really) [shrug]

Chicken and egg.

BWhite · 2005-06-06 14:59:40

Go mine an asteroid and see who tries to stop you from selling the products. Having a good public relations team will be mission-critical since global public opinion will eventually control that which is recognized as legitimate.
Sorry to burst the balloon...
Public opinion is irrelevant. Yukos is a good example.
Burt Rutan is popular, but that popularity does not mean Uncle Sam is going to look the other way when profits or national interest are at stake.
Besides, the magnitudes of wealth we bat about- imagine how destabilizing concentrated wealth of these magnitudes are within a democracy (or any government really) [shrug]
Chicken and egg.

So we need a rich shrewd gambler with good political skills and the ability to play brass knuckle hardball when needed.

Remind me again why I believe Abram/Abraham's journey from Ur to Canaan is the best historical precedent for humanity becoming spacefaring?

Dook · 2005-06-06 15:33:40

So we need a rich shrewd gambler with good political skills and the ability to play brass knuckle hardball when needed.
Remind me again why I believe Abram/Abraham's journey from Ur to Canaan is the best historical precedent for humanity becoming spacefaring?

Ridiculous.

First of all we don't need anything from an asteroid. PGM's? If it's on the moon then no one is going to go to a stupid asteroid to get it.

Even if you were able to get some kind of ship to an asteroid and obtain some kind of resource then return it to the earth your investors will have lost interest on their money for all of those years.

Interest rates vary from an annual low of 3% to a high of maybe 6%. 3% a year on $500 billion is $15 billion. Your plan is certain to take at least 10 years so you need to profit $150 billion. That's a total of $650 billion you must earn from your crazy scheme just to provide a minimum return to your investors.

Abraham didn't have to worry about cost vs profit margins.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-06-05 16:23:28

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#77 2005-06-05 16:50:58

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#78 2005-06-05 17:26:32

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#79 2005-06-05 18:26:04

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#80 2005-06-05 18:55:04

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#81 2005-06-05 21:24:06

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#82 2005-06-05 21:31:47

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#83 2005-06-05 21:39:04

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#84 2005-06-06 05:38:01

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#85 2005-06-06 06:27:19

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#86 2005-06-06 07:56:08

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#87 2005-06-06 09:03:36

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#88 2005-06-06 09:40:23

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#89 2005-06-06 10:19:58

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#90 2005-06-06 10:31:20

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#91 2005-06-06 11:54:07

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#92 2005-06-06 12:10:16

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#93 2005-06-06 12:30:57

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#94 2005-06-06 12:37:02

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#95 2005-06-06 13:03:53

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#96 2005-06-06 13:19:43

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#97 2005-06-06 14:46:08

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#98 2005-06-06 14:51:28

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#99 2005-06-06 14:59:40

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#100 2005-06-06 15:33:40

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

Board footer