What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

Dook · 2004-05-02 22:08:07

Who doesn't have anger towards terrorists who purposely attack innocent civilians, women, and children, in other lands rather than attempting to create a better place in their own country. Rich arab governments give $25,000 to each Palestinian suicide bomber. Why not give it in food, or building supplies, or school supplies instead? Westerners have done so much for the arab countries and we are repayed with not just hate but suicide squads. They couldn't even get the oil out of the ground until we showed them how. Everything they have is because of western invention and business and believe me they have a lot more than they would have if they were on their own. It's a good thing there was oil under their land but when the supply runs out in 50 years they are going to be in need of continuous aid just to eat.

I have been to a rich middle east country and I have seen the luxurious homes the arabs live in and the Mercedes they drive while the workers imported from poor nations (India, Indonesia, Tibet) live in shack villages and are trucked around the country to perform manual labor in 125 degree heat for 10 Dinars ($28.50) a day. My roomate and I once gave $5 Dinar each ($28 total) tip to an Indian lady who cleaned our hotel room. She thanked us and cried because it meant that she and her husband could have something to eat along with the plain rice.

Okay, I will explain how dropping two atomic weapons saved lives. First of all the bombs were dropped on military/industrial targets and not population centers. We could have wiped out Tokyo if that was our goal. Also, they could have and should have surrendered after the first one but they gambled thinking that we had used our only one. After the U.S. invaded Okinawa we realized that every Japanese, not just soldiers but civilians as well, would fight to the death. Rather than be captured alive women holding their children leapt from the Okinawa cliffs. The estimated cost in lives to invade the mainland was 1,000,000 Americans and MILLIONS of Japanese. In the end Nagasaki cost 70,000 lives immediately and another 70,000 died of bomb related illness' later. Hiroshima cost 140,000 lives. Thus at least 720,000 lives were saved, likely millions. And the war ended in days rather than months or years.

http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm]http … panww2.htm

You twist, spin, my words. If you look back at the forum posts you will see that I have said that if a person is a member of a group and has a different opinion then you should express it. But, if you are going to side with Saddam Hussein rather than the American President, with insurgents/Al-Qaeda/Taliban rather than the U.S. military then you invite a heated response. You said you do not support the U.S. military yet you freely use all the freedoms it provides.

The prisoner abuse scandal, those who committed those crimes will be punished. Do you think Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, have a system that punishes those in their organizations? Of course not, they purposely target the most innocent people. Yet you still side with them.

Initially I respected that you would not kill another person. You do not have to fight, the police and military, others, will give their limbs and their lives so you can benefit even though they have never met you. They do it because you are a fellow American and it is their duty. You do not have to respect that, but if you don't, you get no respect from me.

If you haven't heard people praise the US for our involvement in Korea, just go there and visit. I have been there for short business trips on two separate occasions. Vietnam was an incredible mistake, good intentions with terrible execution. We learned a lot from that. If you've ever read any of the books about the U.S. generals who led the Persian Gulf War then you would know that. The military does not need to justify their budget. The threat posed by North Korea, China, and Iran, do that on their own.

RobS · 2004-05-02 23:27:03

The title of this thread is "What the heck is taking so long?" I guess the answer is, the Mars community would rather argue about war than talk about Mars.

-- RobS

idiom · 2004-05-03 03:29:11

Mars means war right? sort of...?

oh dear.

deagleninja · 2004-05-03 09:26:56

Dook- the military provides no freedom for me, zilch, zip, nada. If anything, it costs me freedom. As I have stated, I have had to defend myself from four seperate attacks because people can be rather fanatical when I question the benefits of spending trillions of dollars in wars that don't defend our country.

As you mention, correctly, we had to show the Arab world how to draw oil from the ground. This money has benefited a select few. Kuiwatt is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet most of its people live in poverty. The common Arab person would naturally resent us for showing intrest in their oil before the people. Yes, since then we have tried to aid these people in general but the humanitarian effort is small by comparison and comes much later than our intrest in their oil.

We are far from perfect or the ideal form of government. Our government ordered the extermination of Native Americans. Soilders shot them from passing trains as target practice. We gave disease ridden blankets to them intentionally to kill them off. Later we allowed people to be bought and sold as property. During WW2 we relocated thousands of Japanesse-Americans to concentration camps because of their skin color and appearance. Women have had the right to vote less than 100 years and as late as 1980, women in NYC couldn't file rape charges against their husband. Recently, the current administration proposed a constitutional amendment to keep homosexuals from getting married.

Before you continue singing the praises of this great freedom that everyone supposedly has, look and see who is free and who isn't. As white males we enjoy much more freedom than most in this country.

And for the record, I never said I support Saddam. I just can't justify this country spending so much on such a small threat. We still haven't found, and likely never will, find all those weapons that our leaders led us to believe existed. And so far we've lost over 750 of our soilders, not to mention our allies losses. We are getting pretty close to the number of lost lives from 9-11. How many of our bright young minds is it worth to get our revenge? And all this time Bin Laden is out there somewhere plotting another attack while we play house in Iraq.

Bill White · 2004-05-03 10:16:00

The title of this thread is "What the heck is taking so long?" I guess the answer is, the Mars community would rather argue about war than talk about Mars.
-- RobS

Thumbs up! to RobS - - Hey guys, get a chat room.

I like to argue politics also but this is the wrong thread.

clark · 2004-05-03 10:37:43

You want to flame, flame me.

The reason it's taking so long for humanity to mount a human mission to Mars is simply because it ain't worth it.

You all talk about war, well, at least a plausible reason can be posited that seems to convince a majority of people (which is surprisingly effective in a democracy, imagine that) that we need to spend the blood and resources to do that thing. Do you all understand? People are willing to sacrifice their husbands, wives, children, and siblings because they believe it either necessary, or worthwhile.

Now why the hell don't we see the same commitment from the same populace over an issue that most here feel is just, if not more so, as important as protecting our way of life and spreading the beacon light of democracy? Because most non-mars nuts don't see it our way. They see a dead lifeless rock that a bunch of sci-fi writers got us into believing would be a virtual paradise of excitement and adventure.

We're all running around saying the moon is made of cheese and things will only get better, if only we go visit this red speck in the sky, spending billions upon billions, so a few individuals can determine if a vacuum-frozen-dirt-mono-colored-radiated-dust-bowl once had microbes.

Excuse me while the greenies worry about the life we know to be that lives here, and is being exterminated. Excuse me while the scientists argue over the coming global warming on this planet, instead of figuring out how to mess with some alien atmosphere that even with the best predictions, would take hundreds of years to be, maybe, breathable. Excuse me while people are dying in the streets from too much fat, too much sex, or not enough work to pay the family bills.

Sending people to Mars solves none of this. Sending people to Mars as soon as possible is mindless whining on the part of the mars advocates. You know why? Because there isn't a reason to go right now. There isn't a reason to go in ten years. There isn't a reason to go in 50 years.

If there is, no one in the space community, or more precisely, within the Mars community, is saying it. No one is articulating the reasons that establish to a majority of people who ask the hard questions why this needs to be done now, and in such and such a fashion.

Which is why conversations exactly like this, among the choir, devolve into petty bickering. The answer to this thread is staring you in the face. There isn't a reason to rush to Mars, there isn't a reason to go to Mars any time soon, and there certainly isn't any reason to colonize the damn place even if you could make the weak justification to send 6 people there.

I could be wrong, but I usually am not. :laugh:

deagleninja · 2004-05-03 11:12:19

Clark- What are you doing in a forum called manned missions to mars if you don't have anything to add but the same small minded drivel that the majority of the undereducated american population shares?

Bill and Rob- With all due respect, this topic was started by myself and I choose to continue talking about military spending because I find it very relavent.

clark · 2004-05-03 11:32:17

deagleninja, perhaps I am in error, I was under the distinct impression that you wanted to understand why exactly it is taking to long. Afterall, that's why you started this thread, right? Or is it merely a thread to hear about why you think it's taking too long?

Now, I will grant you that what I just posted can be considered "small minded" drivel, yet it does get to the point of the matter, which I understand makes you uncomfortable. "If only people listened to my enlightened views and subscribe to my way of thinking..." right?

You and I, and all of us mars-nuts (if you note in my previous post, I was including myself in this group), we see things differently. We see some promise in Mars, or in space exploration in general. Yet our forward looking perspective hasn't really gotten us any closer to Mars, now has it?

Your response pretty much sums up the Mars enthusiastist capability to answer the critics. Those "small minded" people you deride with elitism and hostility are the very people you need to convince in order to fund your little pet dream. Instead of trying to counter their very valid points, you cry.

Sorry to be so matter of fact about this, but I don't see why I need to sugar coat the situation among adults. You have a brain, right? So don't you see this staring at you? Answer me. Tell me why we should go to Mars. Tell me why we should go to Mars right now.

There isn't a reason, there are only wishes and fantasies.

Rxke · 2004-05-03 11:53:01

deagleninja,

i feel your pain, but Clark just pointed out how 99% of the people think, like it or not...

Have you ever tried to convince somebody we should go to Mars? Now how should you do it? To *really* convince somebody is i think all but impossible, it'll always be a tiny minority that'd like or love to go themselves, most people are indifferent to the idea or even hostile (we got to get our world fixed first yadda yadda yadda...)

Private enterprize the answer? Maybe. At least that way you could pour your money towards goals *you* like, if even it is as insignificant as buying some merchandise off XYZ's Space-Bustin', NASA-kickin' website. Like Armadillo selling scraps of busted rocket-engines to their fans, for instance.

Downside: today private -manned- space-industry is just starting... i do not know one private enterprize with plans of going to Mars. (Come to think of it, I *do* know one... And the Boss is posting here, heh...)

RobertDyck · 2004-05-03 12:32:58

Why should we go to Mars now? Resources. The world economy has already become reliant upon satellites, and will continue to become more so. Building satellites from space resources will reduce their cost; reducing cost for things like weather satellites and DirectTV should be something people can relate to. Solar observation satellites can tell power utilities when a major solar flair is coming, so they can shut off sensitive relays to prevent another major power failure. Satellites are also used for military purposes. Then there are the precious metals that can be mined from asteroids. A Mars colony can support asteroid mining less expensively than Earth. There is also research: NASA has developed many spin-off technologies from its space efforts so far, continuing exploration will create a requirement for new developments that can spin-off to create products on Earth. One spin-off was affordable Velcro; before NASA used it for Apollo and Skylab it was too expensive for clothing. The electro-cardio gram (ECG sometimes called by television EKG) was developed as a means to monitor astronaut health, I think for Mercury.

If all that isn't enough, then let's look short-term. The US federal government spends $15 billion per year on NASA, and NASA activities are responsible for the entire commercial space industry. The federal government makes more than $15 billion per year in tax revenue from the space industry, so it is a net gain. That's due to non-government space activity such as DirectTV and telephone satellites, etc. So the US federal government is getting a positive return on investment. Don't you want to develop other commercial revenue sources from space?

clark · 2004-05-03 12:50:14

Resources? So then going to Mars, or exploring space, it isn't about science, but about resource aquisition and exploitation. Dosen't this run contrary to NASA's charter? Dosen't this run counter to every other world space agency (save perhaps China) mandate?

If it's all about the "Benjamin's", what the f--k are we doing spending billions to find out if a microbe farted some time in the last 50 years on Mars? Why are we even considering sending people to the stars when robots can analyse and move the asteroids or material at a fraction of the cost?

Is this really all about putting miners on a god-forsaken planet to feed the maw of the beast back home?

If it ain't about the science, then why is it presented as such?

Now, if it is about resources, show me the economic cost-savings analysis that justifies the expenditure of so many resources to aquire celestial ore to be exploited in near earth space for the benefit of Earth. The value of celestial ore exsists only in space, and it only has value when you have people in space. Contrary to the doom-sayers, Earth isn't running out of metal to build the bright shiny things we loft above. It is far cheaper to mine the bottom of the oceans (which happens to cover 2/3rd's of the earth) than to get one single platinum filled asteroid. Mining the ocean is easier to transport too, since it happens to be within the gravity well here on terra firma.

A Mars colony may be able to support asteroid mining, but we don't have asteroid mining yet. Talk about the cart before the horse- it seems the public would have to believe that we're getting to the destination without the cart or the horse too! Right now there is a theory that some day we could mine the asteroids (at a profit!) and any such endeavour would benefit from a Mars colony. Well, let's see the asteroid mining first, and then maybe we can have a discussion.

And building SPS or other sats cheaper in space is a pure numbers game, and it only supports a return to the Moon, not Mars. Dead end argument for this group.

Now, for the "spin-off" argument... well, sure, we throw enough money at a problem or a challenge, and yeah, we may just get something spiffy out of it. Nothing like pushing people against a wall and say, "justify this god damn budget!" However, we could just as simply identify a direct problem that would benefit from more study- say an EKG machine, instead of flailing around hoping we hit the jackpot through some artifical challenge. Maybe going to Mars will give us some spin offs, but maybe it won't. Any spin off you might identify could be researched NOW, for a fraction of the cost of an entire Mars mission. Nothing is lost, and indeed, more is saved as we cut out some of the other wasteful spending of misdirected resources.

A world without velcro... damn shame if you ask me , but then, I want people on Mars.

RobertDyck · 2004-05-03 13:05:55

Perhaps you didn't read the arguments elsewhere on this board about space mining. I've said you have to transport smelted material from asteroids, not raw ore. Yes, mining steel and other industrial metals will probably only be profitable if used in space, but precious metals are worth a lot now. You do have to create the atmospheric entry vehicles from space resources as well; space mining is only profitable if you send small things like microchips to recover tonnes of precious metal bullion in a capsule also made from space resources.

As for research; it will always be cheaper to directly research any particular technology directly, but how do you know what to look for? Exploring new horizons lets you find answers to questions you didn’t even think to ask.

And as for pure research vs practical applications: scientists will always want to conduct pure research for its own benefit, not anything practical. But their research feeds information and discoveries to engineers and applied researchers, who in turn develop practical applications for our economy. Scientists who pursue pure research don’t want to even think about anything practical, those I met at CSEW4 (Canadian Space Exploration Workshop 4) actually look down their noses at engineers, but they are the beginning of the research assembly line that does provide practical applications. Don’t push practicality with them or they’ll push back, but practicality is the real reason government funds their research.

clark · 2004-05-03 13:31:05

Robert, I've heard the arguments many times, from many different perspectives, and in all of it, there is less room for people in space. Look to your own suggestions, what is the role of the human? Tele-operating smelted material that is transported automatically. Hell, we could be more efficient, work on developing a more versatile AI and neevr worry about supporting humans in space or the time lag between Earth and our robots.

I might also add that going to Mars seems to be the wrong way, or the most indirect way, of getting to the asteroids, if exploitation of resources for the benefit of Earth is the goal.

All these things you have to create just to utilize the resources is a strike against the whole proposition. It costs more than it costs to search for the stuff on Earth and mine it. So what's the point if it costs more? If it uses more energy? We're not getting ahead.

As for knowing what to look for, well, you have me there. Which is the beauty of giving yourself an artifical challenge, but the point is that we have plenty of real-world (as in Earth) challenges that need solving, and going to Mars dosen't really hold the promise of helping with those. In fact, it could serve as a means to distract, or take away funds from more pertinent research here at home.

Look at Plan Bush, already it is defunding some fo the actual hard science that was part of NASA's mandate, for what? So some fly-boys can float around or play golf on the Moon. Sure, we could put more funds into the Sciences, but we all know that there is only a certain amount of cash to go around, so choices are made. Is Mars really the choice we should be making right now? If so, why? Why Mars instead of nano-technology? Why Mars instead of a cure for cancer or AIDS? Why Mar when we are faced with a global generational war on terror (it should be poverty and ignorance, but hey, I don't get paid for sound bites).

And if Mars, why now?

Bill White · 2004-05-03 13:39:01

More people. More living space. A trillion humans flooding the solar system within the next 1000 years.

Yes, Virginis, that is a "t" for trillions. Its the only reason that "works" for going into space, IMHO.

= = =

The first live human birth on Mars is the only race worth winning.

PS- Bob Zubrin knows this pefectly well. Read his novel "First Landing" and then diagram the plot.

Dook · 2004-05-03 13:42:00

Everyone sat around their televisions and watched the Apollo missions in the beginning but they soon lost interest. I think they want us to go to mars and if we do they will pay some attention to it but they see it as something that provides little to no specific benefit to their lives.

What we need is a charismatic and intelligent leader with a passion for the cause. We need a JFK.

Our goals in space are too slow and too simple. We can get the public to look for a moment but that's all before they get bored. NASA has no understanding of what the people want that's why they wanted to let the Hubble die even though the overwhelming majority want it saved. We need to give the public more, more discoveries, more incredible pictures, and more footprints on strange planetary bodies to keep their interest.

Who cares if we go to mars in 30 years? Nobody. The public would if it was 5 or maybe 10 years away and they could see real work towards it but 30 years??? That might as well be 300.

clark · 2004-05-03 13:49:10

The Argument of the Bunny, courtesy of Bill. Hitler had some success with that one too.

Okay, a trillion people in a 1000 years. Now, tell me why we need to go to Mars in a decade if we're already thinking in terms of millenia?

Bread and Circus, courtesy of Dook. Got any Christians to throw to the Lionstoo ?

Why not just spend billions on robots that can transmit VR quality pictures and allow more people to experience "Mars" or wherever through virtual reality technology. Or is vicarious living the only way we can get our kicks these days? Survivor, Deep Space Vacuum XX. "No one can hear you vote." :laugh:

[please, don't take any of this personaly, just being a bit colorful, if a bit acidic] No offense is intended, but you'll probably feel that way anyway.

RobertDyck · 2004-05-03 13:50:26

There are many reasons why Mars now. One is that sustained space exploration is a key vehicle to exploration that provides a need for pure research. But space exploration is dying, and manned space exploration is not only a key component, it is politically necessary to maintain taxpayer support. That touches on politics, but the engineering aspect involves installation, maintenance, upgrades and repairs of large complex unattended robotic exploration equipment. One dramatic example is the Hubble space telescope. An interferometry space telescope could image an Earth size planet orbiting another star, but the only way we know to build one is on the surface of the Moon. That construction requires humans, and although operation will be remote, you can expect the same degree of maintenance/upgrades/repairs as Hubble. We have already lost much of the infrastructure for a manned mission to the Moon; if we don't do something now we'll loose the rest.

As for other more mundane Earth-bound challenges: AIDS is being researched as fast as possible. Throwing more money at the problem will not produce results faster. Another area of research is anti-aging. But I've met people who object to fiddling with genetic engineering for the purpose of repairing telomeres, and some people don't want to stop aging at all. Today we could genetically engineer a lab mouse to be born with the characteristic to produce telomerase with every cell division. That mouse and its off spring could easily be studied to see if there are any side effects, and how effectively that slows or stops aging. I suggested it to one researcher at my alma mater, but she objects to any animal studies. Sometimes a grand vision is necessary to ensure research actually moves ahead. That's what human exploration is really good for: moving research ahead and shaking up the status quo.

Mars has more resources to support a human base, so it's actually easier than the Moon.

Bill White · 2004-05-03 13:56:42

Everyone sat around their televisions and watched the Apollo missions in the beginning but they soon lost interest. I think they want us to go to mars and if we do they will pay some attention to it but they see it as something that provides little to no specific benefit to their lives.
What we need is a charismatic and intelligent leader with a passion for the cause. We need a JFK.
Our goals in space are too slow and too simple. We can get the public to look for a moment but that's all before they get bored. NASA has no understanding of what the people want that's why they wanted to let the Hubble die even though the overwhelming majority want it saved. We need to give the public more, more discoveries, more incredible pictures, and more footprints on strange planetary bodies to keep their interest.
Who cares if we go to mars in 30 years? Nobody. The public would if it was 5 or maybe 10 years away and they could see real work towards it but 30 years??? That might as well be 300.

People need to identify with the people who are going to Mars.

What was the brilliant Gatorade commercial? What was the jingle? "I can be like Mike!" (Michael Jordan)

So long as space advocates hold themselves out as being different or better than everyone else, we get no where. Telling your wife she is stupid (or a small minded speaker of drivel) is a lousy way to win an argument, even if you are 100% correct.

= = =

Why should people care?

I see the solar system as being like a giant sterile petri dish.

Infect with a few hundred highly educated, talented, highly motivated human beings equipped with robust CELSS technology and I predict population explosion.

Question. What language will be most prevalent away from the Earth in the year 2492?

English or Mandarin? Why?

clark · 2004-05-03 14:06:47

One is that sustained space exploration is a key vehicle to exploration that provides a need for pure research.

It dosen't have to be Mars, does it. Plan Bush is nothing but "sustained space exploration", yet my feeling is that it sticks in most Mars enthusiasts craws becuase it isn't Mars Direct... which I might add, is not "sustained".

Pure research is putting some scientists up there for years on end to study Mars, it's Antarctica, not a colony, or a civilization. Exscise the colony component of this dream, and there will be less people who support the entire endeavour, not more. Which is why the Mars Society includes colonization as a component of their "plan".

Construction requires humans currently, but that may not be true in ten years, when we're getting ready to go to the moon. Research (and promise) is being given from new types of "constellation" sattelites that work over large areas of space,a nd are coordinated in their imaging (similar to radio telescopes). Why do we need to send people?

People need to identify with the people who are going to Mars.

Why? Isn't that the same as saying that the British needed to identify with the American colonists? So they speak Mandarin, or they speak American (I will not offend the British among us), the language is largely irrelevant since it is a matter of cultural norms that define us, and allow us to understand each other. That said, Mars will simply blow your mind. The environment of space and Mars will cause changes to the cultural norms- sure, certain holidays might be shared, same gods worshiped- but living in the day to day life, that's a function of the environment, not from where your great great grandparents came from.

Bill White · 2004-05-03 14:25:03

Hitler wanted to take living space away from other people.

Microbes do warrant consideration but otherwise there ain't no people up there (at least close by) and if there are people up there, unless we go out there we will never get to meet our cousins.

Stephen Hawking expressed his opinion that humanity might well extinct itself if we fail to settle space while a true space-faring species, able to harness and convert inorganic resources and sunlight might well be immortal (subject to evolution creating new species).

= = =

There is nothing out there worth going out there to get, except the opportunities related to what we might become by going out there.

= = =

PlanBush? Simple point - - I very much fear he doesn't really intend to do what the fancy words say.

clark · 2004-05-03 14:36:35

Ah, "Opportunity". It waits beyond the horizon, at the top of them thar moutains, past the edge of all seas..."

I admit that a compelling case might be made based on the premise that where Mankind chooses to go, Mankind creates new opportunites where none exsisted. Yet such an argument works for anything and anywhere that mankind has yet to venture.

That includes the bottom of the sea, the top of every mountain (on Earth) and the darkest reaches of the unknown where science has yet to venture. Mars is not so special as to own this reason. Mars is also much harder to access, and it seems that very few would realize the maximum of the potential opprotunity when compared with other avenues we might approach. If we are looking to a societal movement to do this, then don't we owe it to the group at large to find thigns that maximize opportunity for a greater portion of the populace? Spending 50 billion to send 6 people on a round trip to Mars over ten years, or spending 50 billion so everybody who has the ability to go to college, can? Which will provide more opportunity for more people?

Mars ain't going anywhere, so what's the rush?

deagleninja · 2004-05-03 14:38:30

I for one, am not trying to convince anyone that isn't already a Mars enthusiast. Yes, 99% of people think a mission to Mars is stupid. So what. It's not as if NASA is capable of going to Mars in their current state anyway, so what's the point of trying to convince the public to support budget increases. More money thrown at NASA is more money wasted.

The only way to change public opinion enough to significantly support a series of Mars missions is to increase the number of educated people in this country. And for that to happen, we are talking about an effort extending across generations.

I am not willing to wait that long so I am going to concentrate on making myself a billionaire so that I can fund a Mars-Direct prospect or something similar. There really should just be a Mars fund shouldn't there? Perhaps I will create a website to take donations over 10 years and see if I can't get 15 billion that way. :bars2:

clark · 2004-05-03 14:42:07

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

I wish you the best of luck, but don't ask for donations without a tax id code. :laugh:

Ah, apathy...

So if you know the answer, why do you bother to ask?

Rxke · 2004-05-03 14:57:46

The only way to change public opinion enough to significantly support a series of Mars missions is to increase the number of educated people in this country.

Hmmm... Not too sure of that, most highly educated people i know still don't care about Mars...

And YAMFW? (Yet Another Mars Fundraising Website) That won't work, I'm afraid, a lot of people tried, and failed, heck if it was that easy, the Mars Society would've been rich by now.

deagleninja · 2004-05-03 16:44:54

Well I can tell ya that snapping one-liners aren't going to get us anywhere closer to Mars either. If we try something and fail so what, at least we tried.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-05-02 22:08:07

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#77 2004-05-02 23:27:03

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#78 2004-05-03 03:29:11

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#79 2004-05-03 09:26:56

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#80 2004-05-03 10:16:00

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#81 2004-05-03 10:37:43

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#82 2004-05-03 11:12:19

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#83 2004-05-03 11:32:17

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#84 2004-05-03 11:53:01

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#85 2004-05-03 12:32:58

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#86 2004-05-03 12:50:14

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#87 2004-05-03 13:05:55

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#88 2004-05-03 13:31:05

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#89 2004-05-03 13:39:01

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#90 2004-05-03 13:42:00

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#91 2004-05-03 13:49:10

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#92 2004-05-03 13:50:26

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#93 2004-05-03 13:56:42

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#94 2004-05-03 14:06:47

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#95 2004-05-03 14:25:03

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#96 2004-05-03 14:36:35

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#97 2004-05-03 14:38:30

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#98 2004-05-03 14:42:07

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#99 2004-05-03 14:57:46

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#100 2004-05-03 16:44:54

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

Board footer