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

Grypd · 2005-03-11 11:46:00

I have seen proposals for similar. The plan is to have a Lunar Library which apart from storing genes would also hold all that man had so far learned electronically.

Basically a library of Alexandria set in a place where it would not burn. The library would pay for its self by being a record holder for buisness which would want to store digital information permanently and safely.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-03-22 05:13:28

as posted by Michael Bloxham
NASA has come out with some plans on Moon first

Quote
The Moon and Mars have a lot in common

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish … ml?2132005

see also the U today story
Science@NASA Article

SpaceNut · 2005-03-22 06:06:30

Thanks Yang Liwei Rocket

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, due to launch in 2008,

Trouble is that the current budget cut this money so no developement is on going. The saving grace may be the India moon probe has possible Nasa items planned for it at this point.(made not of these under space fairing Nations thread)

The goals of going back to the moon is not to design for just moon use but to created items that can be used on Mars as well. So if we need a Erv that is capable of being in space for the long journey back from Mars we design it now. I we need a large scale crew Habitat and Lander we design them with Mars in mind. Yes a lander for Mars is different in that there is no atmosphere on the moon so Mars requires heat shields and parachutes but that does not stop it from using engines to finish the landing.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-24 14:29:29

A New Way to Explore the Moon

In late January, the Robotic and Human Lunar Exploration Strategic Roadmap Committee met in Houston for the first time to consider recommendations to NASA on how to send astronauts back to the Moon.

The first option would send astronauts on expeditions to various parts of the Moon, before establishing a base at some appropriate location. The second option would start with a base from the start and concentrate exploration and other activity in the base’s vicinity. The third option would consist of a handful of expeditions, eschewing a permanent base.

These were sort of business as usual.

The fourth option proposes the creation of a Lunar Exploration and Development Authority (LEAD) to fund and build the lunar infrastructure needed. This would include data buys from commercial lunar missions and commercially developed lunar navigation and communication systems. The LEAD would also lease lunar infrastructure, such as habitation modules, from commercial firms. If commercial firms were not available or it was not feasible to develop resources commercially the LEAD would do it and then look at selling it off afterward.

Real infrastrucutre building..

SpaceNut · 2005-03-25 13:27:38

You would have thought that this study would have been done already since we have gone there before but better late than never.
NASA to Study Toxicity of Moon Dust

Direct quote follows:
NASA scientists are worried about just how toxic lunar dust might be to future Moonwalkers. How to prevent its potentially hazardous effects if a person is exposed to the material is on the space agency's need-to-know list.

A workshop on the biological effects of lunar dust is being held at month's end, co-sponsored by NASA Headquarters, NASA Ames Research Center and NASA Johnson Space Center.

Leading scientists and physicians will meet in Sunnyvale, California to review current knowledge about lunar dust and its medical risks. They'll be recommending strategies to obtain new information needed for medical and engineering experts to manage the particulate risk for lunar exploration.

"NASA is planning to begin human explorations of the moon between 2015 and 2020 in preparation for human expeditions to Mars," said Russell Kerschmann, chief of the Life Sciences Division at NASA Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley.

Kerschmann said the impact of lunar dust on crews and equipment is a high risk area. The upcoming workshop will focus on defining those hazards in order to assure the safety of astronauts returning to the Moon as part of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, he said.

RobS · 2005-03-29 14:46:54

Who says three's nothing left to study on the moon? This article should set that notion to rest:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 … birth.html

-- RobS

Dook · 2005-03-29 17:28:45

We are going to spend many years and many billions of dollars to look at cold traps? I am all for an aggressive space exploration program, automated rovers, radar mapping probes, comet impact probes, space telescopes, but all of that pales compared to humans setting foot on mars. Humans on the moon? Been there, done that, and we did it with 60's technology. Now someone wants to go back because we forgot to look in the cold traps? How can you set the bar that low?

Maybe there is something there, I don't know, it would be great if there was and we finally found it but the only way I will support a human mission to the moon is if it tests the hardware for a mars mission, the lander, maybe the pressurized rover, the earth return vehicle. I know you can't test the in-situ propellant production on the moon but the mars sample return mission should test that.

We need leaders with vision. A President who stands up in the year 2004 before the expecting world and says "We choose to go back to the moon" is just a damn shame.

Grypd · 2005-03-29 17:43:55

Im sorry Dook but what the Moon missions where have got a name they where Flag and footprints. We simply visited we did not really learn as much as we needed and that is why the Moon is back on the agenda.

We need to go back and learn all that we did not the first time, we need to learn to be able to stay. Just going to Mars is not enough we must go to stay and it we need to get to the Moon just so we know the questions to ask of Mars.

The fact is that we have to be able to use the materials that are present on the Moon and we are not even too sure what materials are present as we did not do enough of a job the first time. The bounding gaps in our knowledge are astounding and it is unfortunate that for all intents we have had a hiatus in our learning. We have done a lot with our limited samples but we need to go back to finish the job and learn not about the Moon but in what created our Earth in the first place and even better how likely is there to be other worlds in the universe like Earth and just how likely life is to be.

Not to mention that on the Moon we have the materials present to expand our space industry to actually allow us to begin to become a multi world species. So in effect we use the Moon as or factory.

That is why we go to the Moon first. Because we can and because we need to.

Dook · 2005-03-29 19:30:40

The Apollo missions to the moon were much more than flag and footprints. They were an incredible success for humankind. "We can do anything!"

But I'm sure you will point to something that we did not do when we were there. Maybe this time we can land a woman on the moon! Yeah, lets go back just to do that! There is always going to be something that we haven't done on the moon but then we still haven't had a woman pilot the space shuttle so maybe we should stick with that for another 20 or 30 years until we've done everything possible even though the public is completely put to sleep by it and the scientists are pulling out their hair. We don't need to go back to a completely dead place and we certainly do not need to learn to stay there, at least not for another 50-100 years. Sigh...moononites.

We've been sending probes to mars for years learning things about the planet so all of a sudden now we need to go back to the moon to learn what else to look for? That's crazy, it's like walking backwards, sure you can do it, but why would you?

Why do we need to learn to use the materials that are present on the moon? Why? So we can build giant battlestar galactica ships to move the entire human population off the earth as soon as possible? Pure insanity.

Your idea to use the moon as a space resource may be plausible but what you don't realize is that mars gets you the moon but the moon does not get you mars! If it is possible to terraform mars, only then can we use a moon base. If it proves impossible to terraform mars then the moon never becomes anything more than a weekend adventure that we would soon tire of. Having a base on the moon is like having the ISS, it's exactly the same. A costly burden that gives us a small science benefit and prevents us from the really exciting, ground breaking, public pleasing, space exploration.

RobS · 2005-03-29 21:29:41

The article referred to a lot more than cold traps. There's a lot of very good science that needs to be done on the moon. If you want to make comparisons, there is probably a lot more science to do in the Jovian system than on Mars: after all, you have Jupiter itself with its incredibly dynamic atmosphere and complex chemistry and then four large worlds, one with complex volcanoes and geology, the other three with cryovolcanoes, subsurface oceans, and possible life.

Mars has a lot of attractiveness because it is Mars; in other words, because of myth and emotion. These things move me incredibly; much of my imaginative life has been set on Mars (I have been writing science fiction novels 41 years, since I was 10, and my third novel, when I was 10, was set on Mars). But let us not forget that myth and emotion do not move some people, in fact it may infurate their rational side.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-29 21:37:35

"Your idea to use the moon as a space resource may be plausible but what you don't realize is that mars gets you the moon but the moon does not get you mars! If it is possible to terraform mars, only then can we use a moon base."

What? No way, thats nonsense.

The Moon has atoms that the Earth doesn't in any real supply, platinum, platinum-group rare metals, and the elusive Helium-3... All of which we will need if there is going to be a revolution in the production and deployment of energy a step beyond what is possible today.

The Moon also has a few other things going for it, that its close to Earth so that a manned presence is easy to maintain. Its gravity is actually a plus versus asteroids in many ways, because it is easier to operate, build, and mine when you have some gravity to keep everything on the ground. It also has plenty of dirt for making radiation "bunkers" which is also convienantly full of Oxygen. The lack of an atmosphere and strong gravity make flights from the Moon pretty easy too, especially with Lunar LOX as oxidizer.

The Moon has alot going for it as an industrial site when the Earth starts to run out of these precious materials. The amount of He3 on Earth isn't enough for practical wide-scale fusion to begin with, and most of our PGMs come from the remnants of a crashed meteor in Africa... and won't last alot longer. The Moon also would be a great site for a next-next generation observatory, since placing it on the Moon's far side would block out all the radio/optical/thermal noise from Earth, and provide a fixed, dark, icey cold two-week night in which to operate. How would you like a picture of an exo-solar planet? I bet the public would like one of those too...

Michael Bloxham · 2005-03-29 22:31:48

Bloody hell people! This isn't about long-term possibilities, this is about NASA's actual short-term ability and agenda. We will not be going to the moon in the near-term to extract any useful resource, period.

In fact, according to NASA, we will be going to look for water in cold spots, which will help sustain us on our way to search for more water in cold spots, apparently... Oh, and also to study dust.

Don't you see? It's pointless; hopeless. Your wishfull thinking will destroy any chance we have of doing something which may actually be useful, i.e contributing to real science.

The Moon also has a few other things going for it, that its close to Earth so that a manned presence is easy to maintain. Its gravity is actually a plus versus asteroids in many ways, because it is easier to operate, build, and mine when you have some gravity to keep everything on the ground. It also has plenty of dirt for making radiation "bunkers" which is also convienantly full of Oxygen. The lack of an atmosphere and strong gravity make flights from the Moon pretty easy too, especially with Lunar LOX as oxidizer.

Yes, the moon is easier because it is closer. Greenland is closer to Spain (and it had been explored before), so why didn't Columbus go there instead? It would have been a lot quicker. And settlement would have been easier to maintain from England...

This is just ridiculous, and it has to stop.

Grypd · 2005-03-30 05:38:30

Yes, the moon is easier because it is closer. Greenland is closer to Spain (and it had been explored before), so why didn't Columbus go there instead? It would have been a lot quicker. And settlement would have been easier to maintain from England...

Columbus frankly got LOST that is why he did what he did he wanted to go to India and China and someone stuck a continent in his way. But the vikings went the other way they explored greenland before vineland. And there was a large amounts of politics involved too like Spain having a large blooded army that after finishing the Arab domination of the Spanish mainland was looking for something to do. And conquest of the Americas sort of looked like a good idea.

Don't you see? It's pointless; hopeless. Your wishfull thinking will destroy any chance we have of doing something which may actually be useful, ie contributing to real science

So what do you call science. Science is a very broad description, Going to the Moon and being able to utilise resources there is called material science. Going and creating a means to eat food that can grow within the 14 day lunar day is biology. Building a lunar observatory that can actually look in depth at worlds circling distant stars is astronomy. And of course just getting to the Moon and actually doing things is Physics. Add that our observation of the Moon may be the only way to tell us how the Earth was formed is that not geology. But what is most important about going to the Moon is that as we learn and develop the earths satelite we get to learn new things so that we can then use them on the Earth.

Bloody hell people! This isn't about long-term possibilities, this is about NASA's actual short-term ability and agenda. We will not going to the moon in the near-term to extract any useful resource, period.

Sorry but that is not true, just to contemplate a return to the Moon is to envisage a long term approach to Earths Moon and we do plan to use resources pretty much as soon as we go in that we want to crack Oxygen out of the rocks. Initial missions will scale up in what is called the spiral process and with each spiral giving more capability. But what is important to mention it is all based on an ISRU approach in that we utilise the Moons resources immediately. Looking for water in the cold traps is an important search for a strategic resource that would ease base construction and permanent prescence on the Moon. We envisage using lunar materials to increase the power capability on the Moon and that is also a strategic resource that we need to maintain a foothold on another planet.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-30 06:03:02

Bloody hell people! This isn't about long-term possibilities, this is about NASA's actual short-term ability and agenda. We will not going to the moon in the near-term to extract any useful resource, period.

I think you are somewhat right in that Nasa willl not be looking at the long term goal's of insitu material use and colonization but I believe that private industry might and should be.

It will be Nasa's role to make any long term exploration possible for the private industry. But this can not be done by billion dollar ships or mission costs. It needs to be done lots cheaper than that.

The bad side of private industry trying to do science on the moon is that there is no profit so if that is the only reason for private industry to go then it will not happen. So we have this problem of transition from Nasa's exploration to coporate profit making though Colonization, Mining, Manufacturing,
and so many other catogories... that will need a steady cash flow and fleets of vehicles in order to do the job of making money.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-30 08:01:08

Bloody hell people! This isn't about long-term possibilities, this is about NASA's actual short-term ability and agenda. We will not be going to the moon in the near-term to extract any useful resource, period.
In fact, according to NASA, we will be going to look for water in cold spots, which will help sustain us on our way to search for more water in cold spots, apparently... Oh, and also to study dust.
Don't you see? It's pointless; hopeless. Your wishfull thinking will destroy any chance we have of doing something which may actually be useful, i.e contributing to real science.
The Moon also has a few other things going for it, that its close to Earth so that a manned presence is easy to maintain. Its gravity is actually a plus versus asteroids in many ways, because it is easier to operate, build, and mine when you have some gravity to keep everything on the ground. It also has plenty of dirt for making radiation "bunkers" which is also convienantly full of Oxygen. The lack of an atmosphere and strong gravity make flights from the Moon pretty easy too, especially with Lunar LOX as oxidizer.
Yes, the moon is easier because it is closer. Greenland is closer to Spain (and it had been explored before), so why didn't Columbus go there instead? It would have been a lot quicker. And settlement would have been easier to maintain from England...
This is just ridiculous, and it has to stop.

I think you've let your cynical attitude get the better of you...

There are useful things to be done on the Moon purely for science, like building a super telescope on the dark side, or finding bits and pieces of primordial Earth just scatterd on the surface. The Moon itself and its surface is worth some attention... But you can't do any of these things efficently without people.

I would like to remind you though of one thing... space travel isn't just about science. The Moon has a real potential to contribute otherwise dwindling or unattainable reasources here to the Home Planet. In order to get them though, a manned presence will be required to carry out work efficently.

And in order to place humans and send/return mass to the Moon efficently, having a source of rocket fuel would be really nice. Water ice would be lots easier and superior then trying to crack metal oxides in the Moon dust. A good place to store cryogenic fuels too.

But in order to use these fuels or build a mine, we'll need some kind of base... and to have that, we'll need to be able to send crews for short stays on the surface with little/no Lunar support... Just like VSE aims to do.

BWhite · 2005-03-30 08:19:14

But in order to use these fuels or build a mine, we'll need some kind of base... and to have that, we'll need to be able to send crews for short stays on the surface with little/no Lunar support... Just like VSE aims to do.

Actually, the VSE has very little form or substance at this point. It consists of

Comments made by President Bush in January 2004; and
Aldridge Commission Report (which has been widely ignored).

Almost everything about the VSE remains open for discussion, right? Even shuttle retirement after 2010 (31 December 2010?) is being questioned by influential Seantors of the President's own party.

As of today, the VSE is essentially a statement of intent and encouragement with the substance remaining "to be determined" - - and that is what we are all arguing about. And about whether the substance will intend meet the promise.

= = =

Is it fair to say that the January 2004 comments from President Bush constitute the only portion of the VSE that can be considered as "settled" ground?

Edited By BWhite on 1112192467

Dook · 2005-03-30 08:28:27

I would support a telescopic array on the dark side of the moon but I am afraid that we won't get to it for another 50-100 years. That means a human mission to mars is even farther away.

Everything pales in significance when compared to the search for life on other planets and the chance for humans to terraform mars.

Everything.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-30 09:31:53

More Bush Bashing, Bill?

VSE entails the transformation of NASA by nessesity, that in itself speaks much more then you give credit for.

Palomar · 2005-03-30 09:47:26

Dook: But I'm sure you will point to something that we did not do when we were there. Maybe this time we can land a woman on the moon! Yeah, lets go back just to do that!

*Been there, done that. Yes, I went to the Moon in my spacecraft (which was a table with a blanket thrown over it). First female on the Moon here! Teehee.

I would support a telescopic array on the dark side of the moon but I am afraid that we won't get to it for another 50-100 years. That means a human mission to mars is even farther away.
Everything pales in significance when compared to the search for life on other planets and chance for humans to terraform mars.
Everything.

As for your other statements, Dook: I agree. Won't rehash points I've already made, but I just don't understand the Moon being more interesting than Mars. :-\ Hands down, there's no comparison. The gravity issue, zero atmosphere, etc.

--Cindy

(Hmmm...come to think of it, I'm also the youngest astronaut to go to the Moon: 4 years old in July 1969!) :;):

SpaceNut · 2005-03-30 09:50:02

Students compete to produce lunar oxygen-producing tool; Florida Tech group a finalist in NASA contest

Nasa requirements for the contst:
Have a mass of no more than 50 kilograms (110 pounds)
Use no more than 100 watts of energy
Survive for a month on the moon as part of a rover

Four schools were finalists in the In-Situ Resource Utilization University Design Competition. Each has to adhere to strict weight and power guidelines for a robotic tool that would be used to extract oxygen from lunar soil.

The Florida Tech design calls for a tiny robot arm, about a foot long, to scoop up lunar soil. Its six motors are each about the size of an inkjet cartridge. A furnace would heat the soil to extract oxygen from its silicates.

"Whatever we have has to be tiny, basically, and strong," said Chris Malone, a senior majoring in astrophysics and physics. "And we also had to fit under the power consumption, which is 100 watts for everything."

BWhite · 2005-03-30 10:41:32

More Bush Bashing, Bill?
VSE entails the transformation of NASA by nessesity, that in itself speaks much more then you give credit for.

I support the Bush vision announced in January 2004. Very little has happened since.

= = =

PS - - Once January 2009 arrives, George Bush becomes irrelevant.

Edited By BWhite on 1112200957

SpaceNut · 2005-03-30 11:19:34

Help Wanted: Space Colonist Need To Be More Than Astronauts

Had trouble finding an electrician, a carpenter, a bricklayer, or any one of a number of other skilled craftspeople for that little project you just can’t handle yourself? Probably.
What’s that got to do with space?
Who is going to build them? Maintain them? Repair them when they break?

So how long is exploration before switching modes to start colonization and what would it take to get these types of people qualified for exploration?

Grypd · 2005-03-30 11:44:49

I would support a telescopic array on the dark side of the moon but I am afraid that we won't get to it for another 50-100 years. That means a human mission to mars is even farther away.
Everything pales in significance when compared to the search for life on other planets and the chance for humans to terraform mars.
Everything.

Why must it take as long as that dook, A space telescope can be put down by telerobotic rovers easily enough and fabricated on Earth. Actually to make the best type we will need about 10 of the same type, 9 to do the job and 1 spare.

Why is finding life so important. For a Scientist it is but the general public will be ecstatic for a day or two but after that it will be a case of oh bacteria on Mars ok, whats the football score. This is what happened to the appollo programme it became a non event for the public, it did not involve them you see.

But when we build a base on the Moon and use it to start supplying the Earth with what it lacks then it becomes a different matter this touches people personally every day they are involved. And after the Initial base becomes larger and we have a permanent manned prescence on the Moon and space then it may mean there children can become astronauts.

And the Moon can become what we need which is a source of Helium 3 for fusion and more importantly platinum group metals which we desperatly need down here. Add to this that we can use lunar material to increase our capacity in space then going to the Moon will do one thing for you it will give us Mars sooner rather than later. Even if it is just to give us the confidence to try.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-30 11:46:59

Well along with the previous post of : Students compete to produce lunar oxygen-producing tool;
Florida Tech group a finalist in NASA contest.

There is the need for an available quantity of moon simulant.
Moon research leads scientists to Labrador

The moon may not be made of green cheese, but it is composed of a type of rock found in abundance in northern Labrador.

With NASA planning for a return mission to the moon, interest in anorthosite is rising. Anorthosite covers most of the lunar landscape. Earlier NASA missions collected samples of the stones and dust found on the moon's surface, but not enough to aid NASA as it prepares for a possible mission. Anorthosite is rare on Earth, except in Canada, where it can be found in both Ontario and Labrador.

anorthosite -- A type of igneous rock composed almost entirely of feldspar, a group of minerals that make up about 60% of the Earth's crust.

feldspar -- A group of rock-forming minerals that make up about 60% of the Earth's crust.

These are not very good discription of the real chemistry of each IMO.

RobS · 2005-03-30 16:21:06

You should be able to Google the words for a chemical formula. Feldspar comes in three end types: calcium, sodium, and potassium feldspars. Some feldspars are a mix of two of the three (sodium grades into potassium because they are both +1 valence; sodium grades into calcium because they're of similar size and fit the same crystal structure; but calcium and potassium do not grade into each other). Calcium feldspar is common on the moon but not so much on the Earth. It tends to be dark in color (bluish-black).

-- RobS

P.S.: I should add that there are other rarer types of feldspar,such as lithium feldspar. I can't recall the exact formula; I think a typical example is CaSi3O6 or NaAlSi2O6. I think it's basically made up of SiO3 units, with an Al thrown in sometimes replacing an Si, with either Na, Ca, or K at the beginning. But I haven't looked at a feldspar formula in 15 years!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2005-03-11 11:46:00

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

#252 2005-03-22 05:13:28

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

#253 2005-03-22 06:06:30

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

#254 2005-03-24 14:29:29

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

#255 2005-03-25 13:27:38

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

#256 2005-03-29 14:46:54

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

#257 2005-03-29 17:28:45

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

#258 2005-03-29 17:43:55

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

#259 2005-03-29 19:30:40

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

#260 2005-03-29 21:29:41

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

#261 2005-03-29 21:37:35

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

#262 2005-03-29 22:31:48

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

#263 2005-03-30 05:38:30

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

#264 2005-03-30 06:03:02

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

#265 2005-03-30 08:01:08

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

#266 2005-03-30 08:19:14

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

#267 2005-03-30 08:28:27

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

#268 2005-03-30 09:31:53

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

#269 2005-03-30 09:47:26

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

#270 2005-03-30 09:50:02

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

#271 2005-03-30 10:41:32

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

#272 2005-03-30 11:19:34

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

#273 2005-03-30 11:44:49

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

#274 2005-03-30 11:46:59

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

#275 2005-03-30 16:21:06

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.