The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-20 06:51:08

On the note of power here is an article Lunar colony to run on moon dust well not actually but it has been a SIMULATED moon dust component which has been used to make key component of a working solar cell. The idea of getting robotic rovers to build solar cells entirely out of lunar dust or "regolith" was put forth in an article in the New Scientist, 24 June 2000, p 14.

fine, grey powder is half silicon dioxide, with the remainder made up of a blend of oxides of 12 metals, including aluminium, magnesium and iron. The team reasoned that this mix contains all the elements necessary to build a solar panel, and suggested that robots trundling over the lunar surface could melt regolith, refine it and then lay down a glassy substrate on which solar cells could be deposited. The rover- solar-powered of course- would leave a trail of solar panels in its wake.
The team's experiment showed, for example, that the glassy re-formed regolith is smooth enough to serve as a substrate for the micrometre-thick layers of the solar cell, and tough enough not to crack. Such flaws in the base of a solar cell would wreck it by bringing oppositely charged electrodes into contact with each other, causing short circuits. For future tests, they plan to work out how to make the semiconductor parts of the solar cell using silicon extracted from the regolith.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-24 10:39:14

Follow on article from another source:
Lunar colony to run on moon dust and robots

John Creighton · 2005-01-24 11:12:00

Follow on article from another source:
Lunar colony to run on moon dust and robots

This is nice to know it can be done. It is too bad that they didn’t give any indication of how quickly these robots could produce electricity relative to the mass of the robot. Without such a comparison it is hard to know how competitive this will be with nuclear power in the short term. However, these robots help to demonstrate a lunar economy is possible and whether or whether not they are economical in the short term field tests of this technology will be a very valuable demonstration of what is possible in the future.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-24 11:59:14

And where do we get the simulant in sufficient quantities as to be able to answer these and other questions. Wanted: Fake Moon Dirt

But once upon a time there was

Tons of lunar simulant, called JSC-1, were produced years ago under the auspices of NASA’s Johnson Space Center, hence the name. Made from volcanic ash of basaltic composition, JSC-1’s composition mimicked many of the attributes of lunar mare soil samples.
But now supplies are largely gone, with some of the material even hoarded by some researchers due to its scarceness. And as a lunar return revs up, more investigators are in need of varying types of simulate to test out hardware and processes.

A NASA-sponsored “Lunar Regolith Simulant Materials Workshop” starts today, co-organized by the space agency’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama and the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
The three-day gathering of experts at the Marshall Institute in Huntsville will look into how best to make and dole out quality made-on-Earth specimens of the Moon -- a key step before humans replant footprints on that nearby neighborhood of a cratered world.

As the story goes it is not all that easy to make the real thing...

Martin_Tristar · 2005-01-25 00:56:07

Every group ( US, Russia, China, Europe, and private corporations ) are all looking for a base on the moon by the 2015-2050 timeline. The Workshop that NASA held last Nov, had representatives from each major space nation and them provided a forecast of the future and Russia looking at an automated lunar base by 2015-2020 in a crater on the surface.

The Russians are experts in robotic units and I wouldn't put it past them to meet their targets with the automated base start processing ore, and other deposits on the surface.

RobS · 2005-02-01 21:53:00

Take a look at the new website for the proposed private lunar transportation system (LTS):

http://www.lunartransportationsystems.c … fault.aspx

It's quite thoroughly thought through.

--RobS

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-01 22:19:16

No, not really. Plenty of detestable buzzwords and degrading on past work too.

Again, the same old same old flawed premise: break the payload up into pieces that are too small. The reasons why this is a bad idea ain't rocket science...

-Cube/Square Law vs Gravity: Space travel with chemical propellants is just barely possible at all, and as long as we use expendable rockets for launch, the empty mass of the vehicle is a paramount concern. In such a case, a larger vehicle has a clear edge over smaller ones in mass launched to orbit. The small size of the tanks in this instance is extremely inefficent.

-Duplicity of hardware: There is a minimum complexity of hardware needed even for a "dumb" fuel tank launched into LEO, and this minimum complexity is high enough that building dozens of them will be more expensive then building only a few.

Also, the bigger the launch vehicle the better (to a point), where one large engine is cheaper then several smaller ones, and since the ground crew only needs to assemble, test, and ready one rocket instead of many to similar reliability standards. This also aleiviates launch window constraints and fuel boiloff issues. It seems that in this example, they forgot that Hydrogen will boil off on its own entirely, since the tanks are sealed.

BOOOM! "Whoops, we forgot." Typical "the only problem is the details" AltSpace wannabe aerospace companies.

-Complexity: Having multiple smaller vehicles and payloads and modules means more failure modes and more complexity, minimizing the negative impact of both of these issues to an acceptable level is very expensive. The schema of this setup, with all the transfers involved, also adds large numbers of failure modes.

Its the same old story... and continues to be the wrong path. All the "AltSpace" naysayers will be put to rest when Shuttle is gone and there is enough money to do what should be done, brute force with larger rockets. As soon as we stop talking and start actually doing it, then the bigger-is-better concept will prove its superiority.

There is also a minimum useful payload size, that some things simply cannot be devided up into smaller chunks. This whole concept of "thimble full at a time" is invalidated by this requirement. Six metric tonnes, the maximum of this design, simply isn't saying much and that is following multiple refuelings. "Growth options" beyond this point are sketchy. If they require multiple refuelings with Delta-IV HLV to move real payloads, forget it.

Side note: Mentions of MEO refueling rendevous and pictures of Kistler's rocket implies more AltSpace fanboy flag-waving that their "hero" will come through for them, and NASA will fall in love with those people who still can't get their rocket more then half done.

John Creighton · 2005-02-01 23:26:17

No, not really. Plenty of detestable buzzwords and degrading on past work too.

I give you that. The introduction and motivation of the summery was week.

Again, the same old same old flawed premise: break the payload up into pieces that are too small. The reasons why this is a bad idea ain't rocket science...

Well, the idea if I understand correctly is to better utilize existing rockets thus bring down the cost. Thus the size of the rockets at least should be reasonable for what they were designed for. As far as using the stuff for the moon I guess it depends on how much of a cost all the remote docking and assembly takes up in terms of mass. How quickly the moduals can be cobbled together and how frequently the existing rockets can be launched.

-Cube/Square Law vs Gravity: Space travel with chemical propellants is just barely possible at all, and as long as we use expendable rockets for launch, the empty mass of the vehicle is a paramount concern. In such a case, a larger vehicle has a clear edge over smaller ones in mass launched to orbit. The small size of the tanks in this instance is extremely inefficent.

Oh, okay we are talking mass fraction here. That maybe be rellevent.

-Duplicity of hardware: There is a minimum complexity of hardware needed even for a "dumb" fuel tank launched into LEO, and this minimum complexity is high enough that building dozens of them will be more expensive then building only a few.

Can you back this up a little more? I can see automation bringing down the costs a lot of labor is the most significant cost. But perhaps materials make up a bigger cost?

Also, the bigger the launch vehicle the better (to a point), where one large engine is cheaper then several smaller ones, and since the ground crew only needs to assemble, test, and ready one rocket instead of many to similar reliability standards. This also aleiviates launch window constraints and fuel boiloff issues. It seems that in this example, they forgot that Hydrogen will boil off on its own entirely, since the tanks are sealed.

Some issues but not necessarily show stoppers. Why most every rocket be tested if you have a reliable assembly process. Boil off can be a problem. Perhaps the can launch the rockets quickly enough. Or perhaps they use a fuel that doesn’t boil off as easy. What is this hydrogen sluch you always talk about?

BOOOM! "Whoops, we forgot." Typical "the only problem is the details" AltSpace wannabe aerospace companies.

-Complexity: Having multiple smaller vehicles and payloads and modules means more failure modes and more complexity, minimizing the negative impact of both of these issues to an acceptable level is very expensive. The schema of this setup, with all the transfers involved, also adds large numbers of failure modes.

More complexity yes. More failure modes maybe. If a lot of the launches carry redundant compents then perhaps the reliability issue will be reversed.

Its the same old story... and continues to be the wrong path. All the "AltSpace" naysayers will be put to rest when Shuttle is gone and there is enough money to do what should be done, brute force with larger rockets. As soon as we stop talking and start actually doing it, then the bigger-is-better concept will prove its superiority.

I think large rockets are important and perhaps a few shuttle derived vehicles or similar payload vehicles will meat all the short term payload demand making this transportation system unnecessary. However, bringing down the cost of these launch vehicles though economies of scales will benefit more then the manned space program. If more capacity is needed then is provided by a few heavy lift launches a year perhaps this space transportation system could be away of reducing launch costs through economies of scale. This is obviously not a proven concept and I don’t think it is NASA responsibility to fund such an endeavor until they atleast have toughly tested out much of the hardware on earth and though simulations. I look forward to all developments that have the potential to lower the cost to space and I wish them the best of luck.

There is also a minimum useful payload size, that some things simply cannot be devided up into smaller chunks. This whole concept of "thimble full at a time" is invalidated by this requirement. Six metric tonnes, the maximum of this design, simply isn't saying much and that is following multiple refuelings. "Growth options" beyond this point are sketchy. If they require multiple refuelings with Delta-IV HLV to move real payloads, forget it.
Side note: Mentions of MEO refueling rendevous and pictures of Kistler's rocket implies more AltSpace fanboy flag-waving that their "hero" will come through for them, and NASA will fall in love with those people who still can't get their rocket more then half done.

I forget didn’t you say the Delta-IV was sufficient for a moon program or was it you said an upgraded version of one.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-02 07:11:52

The problem with using current rockets without massive upgrades, which makes this refueling scheme unnessesarry, that launching several smaller rockets (Delta-II, Delta-IV standard) will infact be more expensive then building just two bigger ones (Delta-IV+) or one big one ("Atlas-VI," Shuttle-C).

The cost of docking, transfer, and other operations this scheme uses will not add a huge amount of mass, but they will introduce reliability concerns which will take alot of money to ensure that they are reliable enough (backup systems, extra development, etc) which will take up real money per-unit that would not be spent with a simpler & bigger vehicle.

The fuel tanker ship in the link has its own power system, navigational system, flight computer, communications/docking beacon, RCS thrusters, small OMS engine(s), and a large turbopump engine (RL-10 derived)... for each and every little eight-tonne batch of fuel.

"Why most every rocket be tested if you have a reliable assembly process. Boil off can be a problem. Perhaps the can launch the rockets quickly enough. Or perhaps they use a fuel that doesn’t boil off as easy. What is this hydrogen sluch you always talk about?"

Some level of testing is required for integration, engine/tankage/control checkout, and range safety for most any liquid-fueled rocket that must be performed for every flight no matter the size of the vehicle. Doing this procedure to dozens of rockets, like the Delta-II, would obviously be more expensive then doing just a few for the big Delta-IV+ HLV.

Slush hydrogen is a mixture of solid and liquid hydrogen, which is about 25% more dense then liquid alone. It is infact even harder to store then the liquid, and doesn't get around any boiloff problems. The fact that these people at the link seemed to have forgotton entirely about boiloff leads me to believe they are more knowledgeable about web design then rocket design... Using the fuel quickly is vital to take advantage of Hydrogen's lighter weight, and in their schema it seems to call for either fairly rapid launch of small rockets or else on orbit vehicle storage for extended periods between launch opportunities.

Oh, then there is the issue that the tankers will need to use some of their own fuel to reach higher orbits of each "leg" of the trip in the maximum payload scheme... Which, from looking at it, looks awfully small by volume.

The economies of scale argument is not applicable to this scheme because it has the worst of all worlds, so to speak. It relies on expensive expendable rockets (Delta-II, Delta-IV standard) launched in great numbers to acrue any real payload where economies of scale are poor. The size and complexity of the many rockets will prevent any signifigant cost bennefit versus building a small number of larger rockets.

Two Delta-IV+ HLV rockets could place between four and six (perhaps more) times the payload of their Delta-II scheme on the Moon. For similar payload masses, that means you would need between twelve and eighteen Delta-II's. The standard Delta-IV HLV is a little bit too small, and would need about four launches by comparison, at around $150M each versus ~$200-250M for the "+" model.

Until there is a real working RLV vehicle, the economics of throwing away tens of millions of dollars per flight with an expendable rocket does not add up.

Euler · 2005-02-02 14:58:00

Experience shows that larger rockets trump massed produced small rockets in terms of cost/lb to LEO. This relative advantage grows if you want to go farther away from Earth than LEO. Even if you ignore the difficulty in managing a flotilla of small craft and the failure modes added by having three separate refueling per mission, I don't see how the swarm of small vehicles could be more economical than a large vehicle.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-02 15:08:44

The simple answer is that its not more economical, and that the LTS people don't intend to use small expendable rockets at all for the "production" model. The LTS system only makes sense with an RLV, like the Kistler KH-1 pictured on the website and is where the executives of LTS last worked.

Either the LTS people expect that their scheme scaled up for the Delta-IV in four or five launches will somehow be superior to a two-launch EOR mission with the Delta-IV+ as NASA is studying, in which case they are incompetant.

Or, after the first set of test flights launched by Delta-II, they will turn around and say "now all we need is an RLV, say how about the KH-1 from our old buddies at Kistler, it would be the perfect size!... Which would be very convienant for NASA to have roped itself into using a system that needed their rocket to work.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-02 21:21:19

I have been posting the developements of the Indian space moon probe under the space fairing nations thread for some time and noted the importance of not duplicating on going missions. That are schedueled before we would send ours, unless ours would yield better or high degree of data as needed before the US would send men back to the moon.

NASA Selects Moon Mapper for Mission of Opportunity

NASA chose the Moon Mineralogy Mapper
(M3) to fly as part of the scientific payload for the Indian Space Research Organization's (ISRO) Chandraayan-1 mission, slated for launch in 2007. The M3 is designed to create a mineral-resource map of the moon. It will be flown as part of the Chandraayan-1 mission if it is selected by ISRO in an
independent competition.

Grypd · 2005-02-03 14:40:59

At last, it has always astounded me that such a potential resource like the Moon has never been checked for materials which we would need to further advance mankind.

But will NASA share :laugh:

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-04 03:56:31

grypd,

Don't hold your breath !!!!

Firstly, All the Nations that go to the moon control their access to the resources via their moon facilities, and space vehicles, So the government will charge for mining leases or other fee structures to pay for the space and cost for vehicle useage and more.

The only way private enterprise will get access to resources on the moon or somewhere else in the solar system is to go for themselves.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-04 06:33:34

Doubtful. The government is pretty much forbidden from running their own mining operation like a business.

Once real RLVs start flying, then privatization is possible... with companies from the country that have landed at that site having preference.

Of course, the question is that is there anything profitable (financially or strateigicaly) enough in space that the government would be willing to spend several tens of billions of dollars to access.

Grypd · 2005-02-04 19:42:13

You do know that this replies are very depressing to me

Heres hoping someone can actually use the survey for what it is a mineral survey so allowing a bit more like a full access to space and its resources

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-04 21:51:22

GCNRevenger,

It doesn't stop governments as owners of resources and doesn't stop employing or sub-contracting the work to others but ultimately the resources could be controlled by a government for its uses and not for humanity in space uses.

That means if the chinese find resources that could benefit china they won't share with other countries and same goes with all other nations. And I do remember all the treaties , but they are paper and we are talking about the real life concerns of their people and they won't stop protecting the way of life for their citizens because it says we can't unless they back up the paper with actions.

Also when private enterprise goes out into space they will claim out a section for themselves and hold their resources until they can increase by creating alliances or merge with other private concerns or get taken over by government concerns, " brave new world in space ".

Grypd · 2005-02-06 10:21:10

GCNRevenger,
It doesn't stop governments as owners of resources and doesn't stop employing or sub-contracting the work to others but ultimately the resources could be controlled by a government for its uses and not for humanity in space uses.
That means if the chinese find resources that could benefit china they won't share with other countries and same goes with all other nations. And I do remember all the treaties , but they are paper and we are talking about the real life concerns of their people and they won't stop protecting the way of life for their citizens because it says we can't unless they back up the paper with actions.
Also when private enterprise goes out into space they will claim out a section for themselves and hold their resources until they can increase by creating alliances or merge with other private concerns or get taken over by government concerns, " brave new world in space ".

In this it does.

Currently it is only the goverment sponsored agencies able to afford with our current launch technology these challenges to enter space. We have some hope in the Alt space community but there is no funding there and as such most plans to enter Orbit or higher using there ideas remain that just ideas.

Currently, though there is tremendous potential to be gained by using space there does not appear to be of anything currently worth the considerable investment in making space cheaper. And it is unlikely that goverment will sponsor the small firms as the larger ones are giving them what they currently want and also are good taxpayers and have very good links into the decision makers.

You believe that if the Chinese goverment is able to enter space in enough capacity and to put the infrastructure up there to enable mineral etc utilisation they would claim the sights and areas they are using as theres. I agree they would and so would anyone else, the outer space and Moon treaties not withstanding. But it is for a legal decision to allow mineral rights I am hoping for rather than a "gunship" type solution where we have a standoff between armed parties in space.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-07 11:10:19

Though this is hidden under a budget article it does show mining image.

Space budget: the great unknown

"NASA can't carry this out without cannibalizing itself," Stern said. "The scientific community is rightfully concerned. Their budget looks like a steak dinner."

SpaceNut · 2005-02-09 11:56:47

An ugly grind: NASA's budget shows how tough it will be to transform the agency for moon-Mars

As NASA heads in earnest toward its moon-Mars mission, Brevard County and space advocates nationwide had better strap themselves in tight for one tough ride.
The agency's 2006 budget, unveiled Monday by the Bush administration, shows the difficult road ahead as priorities are set on refocusing NASA to met it's new goal.
While there's immediate good news -- NASA's proposed $16.5 billion budget is a small increase, and represents a win compared to steep cuts the White House wants in other programs -- the big picture is harsh.

The articles opinion is that Nasa needs to change and that some of what it has already started into motion will in the long help it come around to make possible the grand dream of the moon, mars and beyound .

SpaceNut · 2005-02-15 08:06:41

Well not back to the mines but more knowlegde of working with the soils is a must before we go to colonize and to stay on either the moon or mars.

It's a dirty job, but NASA's got to do it:Soil research key to landings on moon, Mars

Great picture of the rovers tracks by the way.

edit:
sort of related article from the apollo era.

Scientists Find Deeper Meaning for Moon Rumblings

The lunar landers for Apollo 11 through 16 carried seismometers, the same type of instruments that measure earthquakes on Earth, designed to be left behind and to continue to radio back data after the astronauts left. Apollo 11 left a prototype that failed after a month, and Apollo 13, which was almost lost when its oxygen tank exploded, never made it to the lunar surface. But the four other seismometers, from Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 16, recorded some 12,500 seismic events through 1977, when NASA turned the network off.

I wonder could some of these devices still work if reactivated?

site of moon quakes

The lunar landers for four Apollo missions left behind seismometers to radio back data after the astronauts left the Moon.
15moon.2.184.jpg

Grypd · 2005-02-15 11:11:53

Some Moon quakes are likely the result of impacts from meteors but not all, we have to accept that the Moon is not geologically dead like many believe. We have seen that there are sporadic instances of gas flare outs and we may if we ever do a real deep geological survey still find heat from the time of the Moons creation.

But still it really is time we actually did go back and do some real research into all those things we did not do before. And there is a lot to learn still and the Moon can still really surprise us yet. But it means we have to go the way of rovers and geological survey satelites as this will give us what we need to actually go back to stay.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-15 12:32:39

Actually sending the rovers and satelite probes first will also lessen, what we would also need to send men to explore as well.

Grypd · 2005-02-15 15:07:50

Yes but we have to use the People we send with intelligence and with that we use Telerobotic robots and Satelites to find, prepare and Guide in the Men and Women who come later.

This means we get the people to who we send to actually do what they are best at and leave the mundane technician and building jobs to Guided telerobots from Earth. But it will be started by Robots as it can be done cheaper if we use robots at first to prepare the ground. This will also allow us to use the poor financial resources we will have to the best use and allow missions to get done faster. It will also provide places for the future missions to come down and land safely. It will also help if we have a clue where we want people to start looking.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-11 06:21:24

Well we have touched on this topic only briefly but it is of importance as we do go forth to the other worlds of the galaxy. The need to set aside a bank of genetic material, seeds and the information petaining to mans civilization here on Earth. Sort of a Noah's arc if you will for the future.

The opening senerio is a little of for why do this and the conjecture stops after impact.

Could a Lunar Gene Bank Save Our Species? Some Argue It's Time to Start Preparing for the Worst.

Imagine if an asteroid plunged into Earth, killing all life in a giant fireball, or hostile aliens from a far-away planet launched an invasion and wiped out all life on our planet? Or what if a mutant, deadly plague spread from person to person and animal to animal and caused a vast extinction?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2005-01-20 06:51:08

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#227 2005-01-24 10:39:14

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#228 2005-01-24 11:12:00

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#229 2005-01-24 11:59:14

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#230 2005-01-25 00:56:07

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#231 2005-02-01 21:53:00

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#232 2005-02-01 22:19:16

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#233 2005-02-01 23:26:17

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#234 2005-02-02 07:11:52

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#235 2005-02-02 14:58:00

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#236 2005-02-02 15:08:44

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#237 2005-02-02 21:21:19

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#238 2005-02-03 14:40:59

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#239 2005-02-04 03:56:31

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#240 2005-02-04 06:33:34

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#241 2005-02-04 19:42:13

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#242 2005-02-04 21:51:22

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#243 2005-02-06 10:21:10

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#244 2005-02-07 11:10:19

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#245 2005-02-09 11:56:47

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#246 2005-02-15 08:06:41

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#247 2005-02-15 11:11:53

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#248 2005-02-15 12:32:39

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#249 2005-02-15 15:07:50

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#250 2005-03-11 06:21:24

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Board footer

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.