We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

turbo · 2002-08-01 12:20:28

I think for starters domes would be too much to transport and too difficult to assemble on site. How about this: Seedwing flyers just like in one of NASA's TechBriefs to land supplies and gear on Mars. Mining machinery like the Australian opal mines or coal mining machinery automated to bore into mountains. The seedwings could be made for diassembly as structural parts of a colony. With a trench, add roof and airlock. With mountain, add airlock and take advantage of existing walls and ceiling (and insulating stone). Mountains are resistant to meteorite strikes, very difficult to burn, and Mars has several in a range of sizes. Why haul up dome materials early on?

Auqakah · 2002-08-14 15:06:27

I see arguments/ideas here for domes, and ideas/arguments for underground settlements.

But why not do both, in the same place, and at the same time?

A combination system for habitats would be safest; small, above-ground domes for access, and warren-like underground tunnel systems for living in and lab work. Domes aren't really viable because we can't make a dense enough material to block the worst of the radiation yet light enough to transport easily in large quantities. Its a bit too much to *hope* the materials needed will be magically found on arrival, so domes seem to be pretty much out to me, at least not for living in. But they will be useful for access to the underground areas, and for use as partially-radiation shielded gardens, which could house hardy animals and plants that are being developed for eventual use outside. I don't believe in the terraforming, mind, but most seem to. So no point ignoring that. The dome/subterranean combination is also useful because it removes the vulnerability that a dome-only system would use, and removes the equal vulnerability (i.e. in all likelihood few ways in or out of) a subterranean system. With the dome, there is a relativley "safe" area *above* ground for times when it would be unsafe to be underground; and the subterranean complex offers safety when the dome is unsafe to be in.

I'd also like to note that the Martian "dust" found in its famous "dust storms" is not dust. They are called fines. Calling it dust is, as Kim Stanley Robinson noted in the Mars Trilogy, somewhat akin to calling a pebble a boulder.

turbo · 2002-08-15 11:52:39

I keep going back to the roofed-oever trenches idea because of an old enemy: FIRE. Electrical fires from fines caught in motors, accidental chemical spills, whatever the cause.

If the colony was a grid of trenches using bedrock walls, with airtight doors similar to the watertight doors on ships, the affected area could be sealed off. Smaller doors in the ceiling could be opened and let the 95% CO2 of Mars atmosphere put out the fire. Reclose the doors and fix the damage.

I would make the doors mechanically operated like the remotely-operated valves on large ships. Select valves, turn crank, hydraulics do the rest. No electricity required so doors operate if power is out. No electronic controls to fail or receive false signals from radio transmissions. The same system could be set up to close off the ventilation at the same time. Fire is out, air is saved, no need for water, no wasted time to assemble a fire brigade. One time where the native environment is a help. CO2 puts out the fire, the low temperatures do the cooling work. I wouldn't use such a system in the greenhouse, but a compressor could bottle that CO2 atmosphere in reused air tanks for portable extinguishers.

Decades-old maritime architecture and Damage Control procedures adapted to Mars. Throw in some industrial process control sensors and there's a built-in Colonial Fire Department.
Oxygen sensors could also warn of leaks by monitoring O2 content all the time.

Thanks for starting this board off lil_vader!, I might even get to use things from my Environmental Science class!

turbo

Phobos · 2002-08-15 20:48:33

Damn, it seems like the Navy has already solved half of our problems. Reminds me of that argument as to who should be responsible for military space operations, the Navy or the Air Force. From reading your posts I think flying around in interplanetary space would be more like a Navy type operation than an Air Force one.

PaganToris · 2002-09-01 08:59:28

well it seems u guy like to talk about Military but i cant say much really becuse my brother is in boot camp for the marines as we speak but i like the air force sop if mars had something they should have the air force se we can scream aroyund the planet at MACH 4 speeds

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-03 06:00:53

Hi Pagan!
How old are you?
And how long have you had that axe in your head?!

turbo · 2002-09-17 11:36:15

Hello All!

I've finally gotten together enough materials to get started on the "EVA Pack". I've come up with some dimensions of my own, but if there's any "official" MS dimensions for the simulation packs, I would sure like to know.

I'd like to make one compatable with the existing metal frames if I could, I'm just not sure why the hose connections come out of the back rather than the top. ???

Oh yeah, before I over-electronic the thing, does anybody know offhand the type of charging system in the MDRS? I could make an internally stored DC adapter that could use a regular outlet, but I'd rather keep with the existing charging unit so as not to load the generator.

Any helpful hints?
turbo, frustrated life support system builder

Adrian · 2002-09-17 12:57:41

I know that the MDRS has just received a new generator, which you can read about here. As for the other details, I don't know anything beyond what's mentioned in the MDRS website. I'm sure that if you got in touch with the MDRS team they'd be happy to answer your questions.

TJohn · 2002-09-20 14:51:07

I found an interesting website that's perfect for the Mars mission! And it was developed by NASA. I don't know if this was posted before.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/news-item11.htm

Tom Jolly · 2002-10-17 16:42:34

Cronin's book, As It Is On Mars, attacks the question of concrete making on Mars, which is apparently a lot more difficult than most of us would like to think. Clay for concrete comes from rainfall-based effects, so it might be in short supply.

I'm not sure inflatable structures are such a good idea, either, since (as someone else pointed out, and Cronin points out) the pressure delta is humongous. Cronin suggests very, very heavy glass plates for the roof. Something to counter the 14 PSI pressure pushing against the ceiling.

My recommendation is to use lava tubes (suggested by John Lewis for Moon structures) since there's obviously been a lot of volcanic activity in the past. Line the interior with inflated plastic and cap the end(s), and you've got tons of protective material around you. Pipe in light from solar collectors; these could be low-pressure inflatables or manufactured on-site mirrors made with glass and metal, or just metal. Lots of protection, and very little to none heavy machinery required. Of course, there is no *guaranty* that there are lava tubes there, but I'd bet my life on it. And, I'll be they're huge, thanks to the low G's.

RobS · 2002-10-18 10:32:11

Have you ever walked in a lava tube before? There are some on the southern flank of Mt St Helens that are open to the public. They are God-awful places. The lava is often very sharp and can cut through shoes. They are also incredibly untidy; there are huge solidified, sharp blobs of lava all over the floor, scattered boulders that have collapsed off the roof, and hanging stuff that can fall. So a lava tube will require a jack hammer to clean it up and will be dangerous (because the roof will have to plucked of the loose stuff).

As for "piping in" light using glass fiber, that's pretty complicated. You need huge reflectors able to track the sun and collect the light.

Kevlar inflatables are much easier to make than that.

-- RobS

RobertDyck · 2002-10-19 00:22:58

Well...

I've never walked in a lava tube, but piping in light can be simplified. The ancient Egyptians used a system of mirrors. One modern museum used that same system, and a food court in a mall here uses the same system as that museum. The idea is a vertical square tube from the roof to the interior ceiling has mirrors on each of the four walls. That is all. If sunlight shines in at a sharp angle, light bounces back and forth between the mirrors several times before being released inside. If the sun is closer to over-head then the light bounces less often. Either way all of the light is reflected inside. There is no need for parabolic mirrors that track the sun, or any optical fibres. This uses flat mirrors on the sides of the square light pipe, and a sky-light window at the top.

RobS · 2002-10-19 21:44:53

Oh yes, I forgot about aluminized skylights; I have one in my kitchen, and it works very well! But I am not sure it can work well enough to reflect concentrated sunlight into a cave; otherwise you'll need one square meter of skylight for every square meter of plants. You might need big mirrors on the surface to concentrate sunlight onto the skylight.

-- RobS

Tom Jolly · 2002-10-20 22:19:08

Interesting point concerning "sharp bits and boulders" in the lava tubes, but I still believe you'd need less equipment (mass to ship) than the bulldozer you'd need to move Mars-dirt (I almost said "earth") on top of whatever other structure you want to take along. Argueably, you could even use a spray-foam sealant to cover the rough edges before installing an inflatable bag, or just forget the bag entirely and do the entire interior with foam sealant.

And yes, I was referring to light pipes, not fiber, and you can do that sort of stuff very, very low tech. I was going to suggest something more like 4 m^2 of collector per meter of flora, since the light is so much weaker out there. The only nasty problem I see is having to dust off the mirrors (or inflatable parabolics) every few days. If one was to use heavy mirrors manufactured on-site and mounted solid right in the ground, winds would, at least, be less of a concern.

RobertDyck · 2002-10-21 00:47:45

Maybe I should respond directly to some of Tom's points. I still think inflatables are the best idea for the first manned mission, simply because it is light-weight. Lava tubes have yet to be confirmed on Mars, so we should not rely on them for the first mission. Teflon FEP film is quite strong; film only 1 mil thick (0.025mm) at 25?C has a bursting strength of 76kPa (11 psi). That means 1 mil film has a 2.2 times safety factor to hold 5 psi pressure. Tefzel film has twice the tensile strength, although it becomes brittle at -100?C. Tefzel has been tested outdoors for 20 years in Florida, but needs UV stabilization for Utah; Mars would require more stringent UV stabilizaiton. Teflon FEP has been used on satellites, so it can withstand UV in the vacuum and intense sunshine of Earth orbit. If you want to hold 14.69psi pressure, then 5 mil Teflon FEP film is 3.74 times the required strength.

Concrete on Mars is another question. Concrete does not require clay. The paper I have on results from the TMS instrument on MGS does indicate clay, roughly 11.4-12.3%, and clay can be used as one ingredient to make portland cement, but it isn't required. Portland cement is composed of tricalcium silicate (3CaO ? SiO2), tricalcium aluminate (3CaO ? Al2O3), and dicalcium silicate (2CaO ? SiO2), in varying proportions, together with small amounts of magnesium and iron compounds. Gypsum is often added to slow the hardening process; TMS data indicates Mars soil contains 1.8-4.5% gypsum. Portland cement is manufactured from lime-bearing materials, usually limestone, together with clays, shales, or blast-furnace slag containing alumina and silica, in the approximate proportions of 60% lime (CaO), 19% silica (SiO2), and 8% alumina (Al2O3), 5% iron, 5% magnesia (MgO), and 3% sulfur trioxide. APXS data from Sojourner provided elemental concentrations, and oxides can be projected by stoichiometric oxygen. Sample A-2 contained 5.9% lime, 40% silica, 9.8% alumina, 21% Fe2O3, 9.7% magnesia, and 5.9% sulfur trioxide. Converting clay and other minerals to simplified compounds for cement could be done with the same baking process, but lime would have to be increased, and silica and iron reduced to make good cement.

MoDawn · 2002-10-21 01:40:14

It was earlier mentioned that one of the greatest benefits to a translucent dome was its psychological ramifications, namely that no colonist would feel closed in. However, no one has yet meditated upon the possibility of feeling too exposed. Although being able to view the Martian landscape and sky might begin as an intriguing and pleasurable experience, it is quite possible that it would make anybody who had to live in such an open-seeming space for extended periods of time uncomfortable enough to affect their duties, especially for people who spend the majority of their lives either indoors or around structures that have the effect of enclosing an area (i.e. telephone wires, hills, skyscrapers, etc.). The immensity of the hostile surroundings would make the dome seem even smaller and frailer by comparison, increasing the irrational fear of annhialiation through structure failure: implosion, explosion, or some other form of the Outside getting Inside.

In addition to the feeling of being exposed, a colonist may also be unsettled by the alienness of the Martian environment. A clear dome would not be able to mimic Terran weather conditions; the day sky would be eternally cloudless and of a different hue, and the night would have an uncomfortably large amount of stars, which could possibly lead to the sensation of "falling into the sky" that many people experience when lying on their backs while stargazing. For that matter, Martian rotation is different enough that human sleep cycles would be severely disrupted (although I believe those in the Navy have to run on unnatural shifts, so it woukdn't be impossible), and a translucent dome would have no control over the lengths of days and nights.

However, an opaque dome would have none of these problems: not only would it keep a colonist feeling protected, it would be able to imitate Terran conditions to a far greater extent, enough so that it could give the illusion of being a familiar Earth sky (and painted-on clouds under varying colors of light work astonishingly well), and not a sterile, completely enclosed area at all. From what I have understood, opaque domes are much less of a hassle to manufacture as well, and far more utile in that they can contain equipment such as UV shields, sensors, and environmental regulators.

This having been said, I don't think one big dome is an ideal habitat. Although it is a wonderul way to prevent claustrophobia, if something goes dreadfully wrong, it goes dreadfully wrong everywhere. I'm in favor of compartmentalizing, and while I don't know if blasting into the surface is really more efficient than building foreign materials on it, tunnelling seems like a good option for reasons discussed earlier. A series of smaller domes (maybe with one larger, central dome?) connected by tunnels in the warren system already suggested seems ideal, as it gets the best of both worlds. Such a Prairie Dog design would be safer, structurally efficient, and psychologically comfortable.

And that way we can keep a clear dome for the swimming pool and the beehives.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-21 07:17:39

Hello MoDawn!

An interesting first post with a different slant on the psychology of transparent domes.
Actually you make them sound like an agoraphobic's worst nightmare! I even got to wondering whether you might suffer with agoraphobia yourself (? ).

For what it's worth (and I know there are multiple opinions on this), I personally would go for a large transparent dome every time. In another thread in this forum, "Domed Habitats ...", we discussed building domes up to a kilometre in diameter, one of the advantages being the mass of air enclosed and the resultant shielding from radiation. And there will doubtless be sections of such a dome with multi-story buildings reminiscent of Terran cities, though on a much smaller scale, of course.
I believe, myself, that living in an enclosed space is more likely to be detrimental to a person's long-term mental health than a clear dome could ever be. Modern materials are very durable and reliable. Confidence in the robustness of domes would grow with time and even the most nervous individual would learn to relax and forget that a lethal environment exists just outside the membrane. People here on Earth work in glass-walled skyscrapers, their desks and chairs just inches from the glass. On the other side of the glass, there may be a 150 metre drop onto a concrete sidewalk, but the office workers rapidly become totally blase about their proximity to certain death. They don't even think about it.

I feel certain that sensors would be installed in the dome membrane, and elsewhere, which would alert the inhabitants in the event of a breach. The larger the dome, the longer the time interval between the puncture event and the reduction of internal pressure to dangerous levels. In the same way that cruise liners, by law, must carry sufficient lifeboats for all passengers, domes would be required to have sufficient suits, and/or other pressurised safe-havens, to cater to all inhabitants in the event of a catastrophe. Periodic dome-failure drills would probably be implemented as a matter of routine public safety.

As for the slightly longer day being unavoidably obvious in a clear dome, I've been led to believe that humans will most likely adjust quickly to the change. Another New Mars member (whose identity escapes me at the moment ... please excuse such a vague reference! ) recently wrote that experiments show people adapt far more readily to a longer day than a shorter one. A most serendipitous finding for humans colonising a planet like Mars!!

Anyhow, .... my vote goes to the "Big Transparent Dome Party"!!

RobertDyck · 2002-10-21 09:34:20

Hello MoDawn,

Psychological studies of shift workers have shown that constantly changing their sleep cycle and extreme cycles lead to irritability, lack of concentration, and various problems. However, a steady 25 hour sleep-wake cycle can actually be healthier than a normal 24 hour cycle. Shift workers were asked to wake 7 hours plus the time to prepare for work before their shift the first day, then wake an hour later the following day, then an hour later again, etc. The last day of that shift they would wake with just enough time to prepare for work. Every 8 days their shift would change to start 8 hours later. Workers are happy, well slept and productive, and managers have something they can schedule. Mars has a 24 hour and 37 minute day. This should be no problem for colonists.

A view of Mars is necessary for any colonist. Being cooped-up indoors has its own problems. Anyone who travels all the way to Mars will want to see that planet. The exotic and different vistas of Mars are what a tourist would go for, so this is not something to hide. In fact, I would argue that every bedroom must have at least one window. A habitat or later apartments could be opaque, but a window is required. Besides, Mars does have weather. Mars does have clouds, not all the time and certainly not as many or as thick as Earth, but clouds do exist. You can see clouds in a Hubble Space Telescope image of Mars. The stars at night on Mars would look the same as the stars at night on Earth on a clear night in the country. I suggest you drive somewhere miles away from street lights; the Milky Way is a marvellous sight to see.

A transparent dome would have at least 2 layers, with each layer capable of holding all the pressure itself. The gap would be pressurized less than the interior, but a higher pressure than Mars. That would permit pressure alone to hold its shape. Monitoring the gap pressure could detect leaks: a reduction means a leak in the outer layer, an increase in pressure indicates a leak in the inner layer. The transparent material can be coated with a spectrally selective coating. Silver based coatings for low-e glazing reflect 98-99.6% of UV, roughly 90% of near-IR and 55% of far-IR, while transmitting 85% of blue and green light, 60% orange and 30% of red light. The result is an azure tint, but that is designed to reflect short wave infrared (near-IR) and transmit long wave infrared (far-IR) to reduce solar heating. On Mars we may want a more even IR response, and clear colourless windows. Perfectly colourless is hard to achieve while blocking non-visible light.

MoDawn · 2002-10-21 09:42:10

Actually, I'm situated more towards the claustrophobic end of the scale.

I like the use of the air as shielding against radiation; the more non-mechanical the protections are, the less likely they are to malfunction. For this reason I like Lil_vader and John Crighton's idea of a self-sealing dome such as those on cell phone towers. (Although I thought it was a layer of ozone, O3, and not simply regular O2 that blocked UV? And wouldn't that only provide adequate protection in the middle?)

Even with "lifeboats", though, a disaster in an area without isolatable sections might prove too swift and deadly for colonists to make it to the lifeboats. (We might want lifeboats even with compartments.)

I hope a 1-kilometer-diameter-dome is feasible, because I believe taller objects would be comforting enough that a clear dome wouldn't unsettle anybody, and, of course, they would be highly space-efficient. Actually, with skyscrapers, I think a clear dome might even be better (not to mention aesthetically pleasing). This might not be possible with a multilayered, selfsealing dome, though. (Unless the sealing substance was translucent? Has anybody considered a translucent dome? I think it might not be worth the effort, because it would still feel just as closed in. What if the substance was clear, like hair gel? It would have an interesting warping effect on the view, although maybe not enough to notice.)

I'm a little concerned about all the materials it would take to build such an immense dome and tall buildings, however: just the dome would take vast amounts of foreign material, and large quantities of fuel to get it to Mars. For this reason I'm still in favor of tunnelling; it takes advantage of shelter already provided there.

Bill White · 2002-10-21 10:36:51

Is there any consensus on the optimal air pressure of a permanent human settlement?

O2 partial pressures would seem dictated by human biology. Slightly higher than Earth normal O2 partial pressure may allow health benefits.

CO2 partial pressures are likewise dictated by the toxic effects of having too much. But for N or the inert gases, how low can we go, safely?

I recall this was discussed many months ago but I believe there are new members how may be interested or have new insights.

Lower overall pressure will reduce the stresses on any inflated structure, obviously.

RobertDyck · 2002-10-21 11:41:36

I believe humans require 3.0 psi partial pressure of oxygen. You can breathe that in a spacesuit, and the lower pressure makes the suit easier to move. Pressure too low causes rapid evaporation of water from the lungs. You can withstand 2.5 psi pressure of pure oxygen if you spend weeks in high-altitude training, but it is safer to stick with 3.0 psi partial pressure of oxgyen. Shuttle spacesuits (EMU) use 4.1 psi pressure (some nitrogen). Skylab used 5.0 psi pressure with 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen. I would argue that the Skylab mixture works well and should be used for a habitat on Mars.

RobS · 2002-10-21 17:57:03

The Case for Mars also argues for a Skylab type atmosphere. Nitrogen tends to suppress fires, apparently, so it is safer than pure oxygen. Also, a large colony will need a hospital and the hospital will need to give patients oxygen. That is much easier to do if there is nitrogen or argon in the air, which an oxygen system replaces with oxygen.

Any hapitations on Mars will need multiple escape routes in case of depressurization or fire. This is the same principle as in fire protection on Earth; no building should have only one way out, lest a fire block the only escape route. The earliest outpost, before any large domes are erected, could accomplish this by connecting habitats and greenhouses together in squares or rectangles; that way each unit has an exit at each end to the rest of the outpost. When domes are built, much housing can be put under the circumferential skirt, with windows facing the greenery and the regolith holding the dome down overhead to protect the housing from cosmic rays. If apartment buildings are built inside the dome, they should have underground escape tunnels (which might also serve as utility tunnels) in case of depressurization. Many universities already have such utility tunnels on Earth.

When a Mars settlement grows to village and town size, it probably should have multiple domes, so the loss of one would not jeopardize most of the living space. The best way to do that would be to start making domes of small or intermediate size (say, 50 meters across) and make a dozen or so, then graduate to 100-meter domes, make a dozen or so of them, then 250-meter sized domes, etc. At each stage the colony gains experience with construction at that size, and lays the foundation for larger and more complex domes. Connecting the domes together would be underground utility tunnels and "streets" on which robotic vehicles would transport inhabitants the length of the settlement. When the settlement promises to grow to thousands, one could envision the municipal government laying out an underground "street" with sidewalks, utility lines, and mass produced airlocks every fifty meters or so, and then selling the lots along the street to private developers, who would build something behind each airlock and connect to the municipal oxygen, hydrogen, sewer, and electrical lines. Some developments might be expensive private homes; others might be apartments; others might be agricultural units. Some will have open domes, some "partially open" (you can see the sky, but not the landscape outside because of the housing around the central space) and some might just be pressurized buildings with no domes at all.

-- RobS

CaptainRich · 2002-10-29 16:39:34

Cronin's book, As It Is On Mars, attacks the question of concrete making on Mars, which is apparently a lot more difficult than most of us would like to think. Clay for concrete comes from rainfall-based effects, so it might be in short supply.
I'm not sure inflatable structures are such a good idea, either, since (as someone else pointed out, and Cronin points out) the pressure delta is humongous. Cronin suggests very, very heavy glass plates for the roof. Something to counter the 14 PSI pressure pushing against the ceiling.
My recommendation is to use lava tubes (suggested by John Lewis for Moon structures) since there's obviously been a lot of volcanic activity in the past. Line the interior with inflated plastic and cap the end(s), and you've got tons of protective material around you. Pipe in light from solar collectors; these could be low-pressure inflatables or manufactured on-site mirrors made with glass and metal, or just metal. Lots of protection, and very little to none heavy machinery required. Of course, there is no *guaranty* that there are lava tubes there, but I'd bet my life on it. And, I'll be they're huge, thanks to the low G's.

Cronin's book, As It Is On Mars, attacks the question of concrete making on Mars, which is apparently a lot more difficult than most of us would like to think. Clay for concrete comes from rainfall-based effects, so it might be in short supply.

I have made a reasonable clay-like slurry by using random rocks in a rock tumbler. You can probably get a clay with specific chemical properties by just pre-selecting specific rock types. You could also pre-test this on earth by selecting rock type that will be common on Mars.

EuroLauncher · 2006-01-18 10:08:18

So the Zubrin Mars Habitat Unit seems like a good idea but may lack the fuel and space for it to be a great mission, the George Bush vision for Space Exploration offers a strategy of human and robotic missions, beginning with returning the Space Shuttle to flight and completing the Space Station and calls for humans to return to the moon and eventually explore Mars and beyond it could be good but faces budget probelms, while Russia's federal space agency has already displayed a full-scale Martian station at the last Paris Air Show but Russia has never got far with Mars, Wernher von Braun had also some great ideas for Mars but some of his plans were closer to sci-fi than space-science.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-08-01 12:20:28

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#52 2002-08-14 15:06:27

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#53 2002-08-15 11:52:39

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#54 2002-08-15 20:48:33

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#55 2002-09-01 08:59:28

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#56 2002-09-03 06:00:53

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#57 2002-09-17 11:36:15

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#58 2002-09-17 12:57:41

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#59 2002-09-20 14:51:07

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#60 2002-10-17 16:42:34

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#61 2002-10-18 10:32:11

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#62 2002-10-19 00:22:58

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#63 2002-10-19 21:44:53

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#64 2002-10-20 22:19:08

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#65 2002-10-21 00:47:45

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#66 2002-10-21 01:40:14

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#67 2002-10-21 07:17:39

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#68 2002-10-21 09:34:20

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#69 2002-10-21 09:42:10

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#70 2002-10-21 10:36:51

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#71 2002-10-21 11:41:36

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#72 2002-10-21 17:57:03

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#73 2002-10-29 16:39:34

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

#74 2006-01-18 10:08:18

Re: We need a brainstorming session! - Bat around a few ideas.

Board footer