One man one way suicide mission...

Josh Cryer · 2005-10-19 20:44:51

I called this thread a "one way suicide mission" because every time one way ventures to Mars have come up, people have scoffed at the ideas and the moral implications of "sending people to their death" were raised. I wanted to get that out of the way. Okay, it's a suicide mission, I'm willing to do something like that, and so Robert seems, too. I like Robert's characterization more, that it's merely a nice retirement plan, it sounds better.

I'm glad someone is taking it seriously, because deep down in my heart I believe it could be done by many of the worlds millionares. Robert has me convinced that you don't even have to be a billionare to do it. The main cost, in my mind, is getting Energia back up and running, and once it is, subsequent retirement plans would cost significantly less than the first.

It all boils down to getting a big ass rocket and getting a nice big supply to Mars, and you can potentially live there the rest of your life with the ocassional resupply if necessary.

Robert, some really specific questions that I don't know if you know the answers to or not, but how much does it cost to fuel Energia? Is it a substantial portion of the launch costs? And how much of the $160 million goes to Energia's tank cost? Do we have these lower level figures for Energia (or the Space Shuttle for that matter)? I wish we had a nice breakdown of why Energia costs $160 million, though I admit that it's still a reasonable price ($250 million for the Space Shuttle which tends to be more like $500 million in the end).

Also, what do you think about an extended living habitat, am I too optimistic in thinking the same material for the greenhouse could be used for one? Bury it underground, using support structures to keep it from collapsing under the weight, is that crazy? The hab that would land from the mission would be quite small, it could be nice if expandablity is in the plan. That idea would require excavators, though, and I don't think those are going to fit in the mass requirements, but it's just something to think about (perhaps a second unmanned Energia launch could provide for more greenhouse materials, and a much larger underground habitat). Oh man, I just had an idea. Use the hemp for building support structures for the underground habitat, it wouldn't have to be able to withstand much soil, did a big hole, and used compressed hemp fibers to act as struts. Ahh, I am crazy, but I always used to tell clark once we get there we'll be able to grow our own materials, it's not too far fetched!

BTW, I still think we can cut down the costs on the roof repair by going with a tented type structure, but Nazil fabrics doesn't want to give me a quote (well, they haven't replied, let's say that) since I'm just a lowly member of the Mars Society (I did word it as if we could buy some of their fabrics though; hell, I'm willing to drop a thousand or so just to play with it; you can build houses out of the stuff! It's brilliant really). But in the end that $15 million isn't a significant portion of the overall repair costs, so I'll give up on that idea.

But given your figures the Russians know what they're doing, hell yeah. $8 million to operate Mir. Freaking beautiful. How much did Burt Rutan spend on Spaceship One? Several tens of millions?

noosfractal, I like the bicycle idea, but I think that a tricycle of some sort would be better, even a 4 wheeled peddled vehicle, a quadracycle. It's definitely a serious proposition, and I think we'd want to bring one along anyway. On earth, bicycles are one of the most efficient forms of transport, I believe I recall that only bird flight is more efficient as far as energy usage/how far you can go matters. A quadracycle on Mars should be even more efficient due to the lower gravity. Only problem I can forsee is Martian dust getting into the chain and gears and mucking things up, but I believe that can be solved relatively easily, with just an advanced chain guard.

Josh Cryer · 2005-10-19 21:57:51

I did some rough math using stats from here: http://www.astronautix.com/props/loxlh2.htm and here: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/energia.html (and a bit of metric conversion and math using google) and came up with about $1.5 million ($1,446,051 to be exact, using a baseline of $3 per kg)to pay for the liquid hydrogen and $24 thousand to pay for the liquid oxygen. Which brings us around to about 1.6 million to fuel Energia second stage.

Fair enough?

I thought, initally, that electrolysis would be cheaper to obtain these fuels, but I found a page that discusses the electrical requirements to obtain 1 kg of hydrogen (the page itself is a crazy site, but to me the number seem sound), and discovered that it would cost roughly $4.45 to make it. The only way creating hydrogen cheaply through electrolysis would be if you had your own conversion facilities and "free" energy (say a solar or hydro or wind powered facility).

noosfractal · 2005-10-20 00:58:02

Soyuz price: Yea. ... Total is $7.54 million.

That's $270/lb pressurized to LEO, probably sub-$200 unpressurized. I didn't know we were already there.

So the bottom line is you want $100 million for the first human vehicle to Mars? Ok. That's a lot better than $100 billion.

Well, that was for the EDL system. You still need a launch vehicle - I'll give you the $310m figure, cause I'm still in shock from the Soyuz pricing. Next is the habitat. I assume that the same bathroom sized interplanetary accomodations would provide for the first weeks (months?) on the surface until an independent habitat could be constructed - from bricks made from Martian soil, right? Our retiree can't live in the greenhouses. What were we going to use for power again? Maybe the Russians have a surplus reactor from a rusting submarine that they'd be willing to part with (maybe they'd even pay you to take it - decommissioning is expensive).

.

noosfractal · 2005-10-20 01:20:54

I did some rough math using stats from here: http://www.astronautix.com/props/loxlh2.htm and here: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/energia.html (and a bit of metric conversion and math using google) and came up with about $1.5 million ($1,446,051 to be exact, using a baseline of $3 per kg)to pay for the liquid hydrogen and $24 thousand to pay for the liquid oxygen. Which brings us around to about 1.6 million to fuel Energia second stage.

Josh I think fuel costs are the least of your worries. Check out the figures Robert gave for Soyuz. Of the $7.5m total, only $0.3m are fuel costs - not even half of 1%. And that is for a product with near zero R&D costs.

Robert might be able to get you there for $500m, but Dook has a point about staying alive once you get there - let's say two years to begin with - until the next retiree arrives

.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-20 01:43:22

Actually there was mission control for the Mir station itself, 2 Soyuz launches and 4 Progress. It added up to more than the cost of a single Soyuz. But the point is they operate Soyuz spacecraft at a much more affordable price than American spacecraft today.

I don't have a cost break-down for Energia. The NASA web site simply lists price quoted to them in 1994 for launch with the EUS Energia Upper Stage. As for hydrogen generation by electrolysis, hyperphisics has a calculation of energy required to split water. They list ideal power consumption, but real world operation is never ideal. Using the ideal figures I get:
1 mole (18.01528 grams) of water converts into 1 mole (2.01588 grams) of hydrogen and 1/2 mole (15.9994 grams) of oxygen. Power consumed: 237.1 kJ = 0.06586 kWh. Calculating for 1kg hydrogen I get 32.67 kWh of electricity. Using Manitoba Hydro rates for electricity, a large commercial customer called on their page "General Service Large (Non-Residential; Customer-owned Transformation)" with "Exceeding 100 kV" has a rate of 5.26¢ /kWh plus a demand charge of $1.41 /kVA. The web page you linked says Energia has 797 tonnes of liquid hydrogen. At the ideal electrolysis rate it would take 26038464.59 kWh or $1,369,623.24 plus the demand charge. If you want to complete the work in 30 days at 24 hours per day it would take 36164.534 kW. Since 1 watt = 1 volt * 1 amp, that means 1 kW = 1 kVA. Actually power utilities usually talk about kW as power from the generating station, and kVA as power used in customer equipment. The difference is power loss due to transformers and resistance in power lines. We're working just with customer equipment so the demand charge is 36164.534 kVA or $50,991.99 which brings the total power bill to $1,420,615.23 Canadian dollars. Using today's rate at the Royal Bank to buy Canadian dollars and pay in US dollars, that works out to $1,215,343.72 US dollars.

But then, that's the ideal rate for water electrolysis and Manitoba Hydro rate for electricity. I've been told Manitoba Hydro has the cheapest power on the continent, but it's where I live. Would you believe the Premier of the province wants to make hydrogen from Manitoba electricity and export hydrogen? Manitoba uses hydro dams for electricity so no pollutants, just flooded land; but we have lots of land. But getting back to your project, you would have to add electrolysis equipment cost.

::Edit:: That power calculation is for hydrogen production, it doesn't include cryogenic liquification. The up side is oxygen produced as a by-product.

Josh Cryer · 2005-10-20 02:23:38

Robert, thanks for all the corrections/info, I was just dabbling, once I start getting the number straight I'll be less innaccurate, promise.

I played with some numbers, going on the future cost ($50k) of Stirling Energy Systems' one of solar arrays, it would cost some $140 million to build a solar facility capable of creating that much fuel in a month. Just going on a tangent, here. (I was curious as to how much it would cost to have a self-sufficient facility built somewhere, something on the equator would definitely have the sunlight.)

Anyhow, I must sleep, just wanted to respond.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-20 03:51:55

noosfractal: Remember the Soyuz cost includes the spacecraft and personal gear including spacesuits. As a satellite launch vehicle it would cost $3.83 million. The launch vehicle that lifted Soyuz-TM-31 was a Soyuz 11A511U which can lift 6,220kg to 450km orbit at 51.8°. That means $615.76 per kg or $279.89 per pound. However, the cost to a customer was $40 million in 1999, which is $6,430.87 per kg or $2,923.12 per pound. You have to watch the profit margin.

The brick idea is actually very good. Bruce Mackenzie came up with that idea before the first Mars Society conference. He said he presented it at a "Case for Mars" conference and Kim Stanley Robinson used it for the Red/Green/Blue Mars books. Bruce said KSR added the idea of doming the atrium between the barrel vaults.

Josh: To use Energia the vehicle will have to be pretty small, but I'm hoping bigger than a bathroom. Shuttle's external tank is 8.4 meters diameter so the Mars Direct habitat was designed for that outside diameter. Energia was built to carry the Buran orbiter on its side so the upper stage is side mounted. That means you can't have a payload larger than the upper stage diameter, the core stage main tank is in the way. Energia Upper Stage is 5.7 metres diameter so the Mars spacecraft has to be that big or smaller, at least when it launches. A TransHAB style vehicle could inflate bigger once in space, but how would that enter Mars atmosphere? You don't want something that has to deflate for atmospheric entry. It could be asymmetrical, with bays sticking out on 3 sides, but it would complicate aerodynamic forces and weight has to be balanced during Trans-Mars Injection. So you've got 5.7 metre diameter.

I wouldn't pile dirt on an inflatable film. The film can't support a lot of weight. A brick arch or dome could support the weight. Bruce originally stated weight of the soil overburden alone would provide counter pressure to interior gas pressure, but I was sceptical that a piece of mortar between bricks would blow out and create a leak. I asked him to include spray-on or paint-on membrane or plastic film inside the brick to act as a pressure seal. He now adds that seal to his presentations. You could use the same PCTFE membrane as a plastic bag liner, but wouldn't need the spectrally selective coating or double layer for temperature control. You would be better off with a single layer, some sort of fibrous or foam thermal insulation, and an inner wall. The question now becomes how much to bring vs. how much to make on Mars.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-20 03:53:16

Long term settlement of Mars and expansion to house more settlers would justify bringing a lot of mining, refining, and manufacturing equipment. At the 2004 Mars Society conference I presented how to extract aluminum from bytownite, a mineral common in Mars soil. I left out how to purify bytownite from average Mars dirt, I should get back to that some day. It's a chemical process that extracts alumina (aluminum oxide) then just smelts that with the usual electricity method. The by-product extracting alumina is sodium hydroxide (caustic soda, a strong alkali) and hydrochloric acid (strong acid, most of which is used in the process), as well as hydrated silica gel. The silica gel can be calcinated to form silica, then melted and sodium hydroxide and a calcium oxide compound are added to make glass. The calcium can be calcium hydroxide (a little is also produced from processing bytownite, but not much) or calcite or dolomite. The last 2 minerals are in Mars soil so it's just a matter of separating soil minerals.

Once you have glass you can pour it onto a flat surface to make windows, pour into a mould to make drinking glasses, blow-form into a mould for bottles and jars, or simply learn the ancient art of glass blowing. Most importantly, a simple device can extrude a hair-thin strand of glass in a high speed air stream, paint it with an adhesive and blow to form fibreglass batt insulation. You can make the adhesive on Mars too: urea-formaldehyde for yellow insulation, phenol-formaldehyde for pink insulation, or nylon for white insulation. I wouldn't recommend urea-formaldehyde, it was used as foam insulation in the 1970s but off-gassing was an issue. Besides, it's easier to make phenol on Mars than urea. Phenol is made from carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. It can be made by reacting benzene with hydrogen peroxide. Benzene is produced by the MetaMars reactor developed by Pioneer Astronautics (Robert Zubrin's company). Formaldehyde is formed by combustion of hydrogen with carbon monoxide.

A device the size of a Volkswagen Beetle engine can make all sorts of chemicals from carbon dioxide and water:
• Phenol formaldehyde, also known as phenolic: pink adhesive for fibreglass insulation, binding wood veneer to form plywood, wood chips for oriented strand board (OSB), wood particles for particle board, and the aerospace industry uses it for aircraft manufacture.
• Acetone: a solvent used for science experiments.
• Polyethylene beads: can be melted to mould plastic parts.
• Ethylene glycol: antifreeze
• Hydrogen peroxide: medical disinfectant
• Benzene: I don't know what you need it for, but an intermediate to make phenol
• Carbon monoxide: an intermediate, useful for many chemical reactions

With water and salt you can make:
• Sodium hydroxide: mix with vegetable oil to make soap
• Hydrochloric acid: I don't know what you need that for either, but it's a by-product of sodium hydroxide
Actually these 2 are common alkali and acids, used for all sorts of industrial or science reactions.
Intermediate products are chlorine gas and hydrogen gas, useful for some reactions.

Depending on what plastics you need, you can also make:
Polypropylene (PP)
PET
Mylar - chemically the same as PET
PVC
Polystyrene (PS)
Polybutadiene rubber (BR)
ABS - made from BR, styrene, and something made from propylene and ammonia
Acrylic
Nylon
Polycarbonate (PC) - sold by brand name Lexan

Polycarbonate is used for spacesuit helmet visors, but you have to be very careful when making it. The ingredients aren't hard to make: acetone, phenol, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, carbon monoxide, chlorine gas. However, you have to be careful about the gas. Carbon monoxide is toxic, and the intermediate gas produced from carbon monoxide and chlorine is phosgene. That was a chemical warfare agent in World War 1; very poisonous. If you want to make polycarbonate you should do so in a separate, sealed chemical room.

Rxke · 2005-10-21 02:50:45

A device the size of a Volkswagen Beetle engine can make all sorts of chemicals from carbon dioxide and water

Energy requirements?
Maintenance/other operations requirements?
Output per day?

I mean, is this an experimental `curiosum`or a workable thing? Not needing say 2 fulltime supervisors
and rehauls every week etc...

(Edit:) BTW this is a thread that`s just begging to be NewMarsWiki-fied!

SpaceNut · 2005-10-21 08:26:47

Here something that might be handing.
Space concepts improve life in the desert

Granted Mars is a lot colder but the design is one that is inflated to shape and has a flexable solar cell build in.

or here

Here is another that proves out larger structures that are inflated as well.
pneumatic structure tents

SpaceNut · 2005-10-21 08:39:35

Here is another very neet product that is light weight and would be of use
flexible solar modules and outdoor solar chargers rather than those very heavy glass solar panels.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-21 11:30:43

I'm referencing designs developed by Pioneer Astronautics, Robert Zubrin's company. Most people in the Mars Society should be familiar with In-Situ Propellant Production, which converts [tex:8bfe71ac76]CO_2[/tex:8bfe71ac76] and hydrogen into methane and oxygen. The Mars Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide Freezer (MACDOF) freezes [tex:8bfe71ac76]CO_2[/tex:8bfe71ac76] out of Mars air. It's very efficient because Mars atmosphere is so close to the freezing temperature of dry ice. MetaMars converts methane into aromatics: benzene, toluene, and naphthalene. You then have to separate the aromatic you want.

One of the papers I presented at this year's Mars Society conference expanded on MACDOF. Instead of harvesting just [tex:8bfe71ac76]CO_2[/tex:8bfe71ac76], I collected argon and nitrogen. It takes more power but the other gasses act as diluents for oxygen (will dilute oxygen) for breathing air in the habitat. They can be further separated to produce argon to fill sealed window units, and nitrogen burned with hydrogen to form ammonia. Ammonia has a couple uses, one is nitrogen fertilizer for the greenhouse, another is refrigerant. You can use ammonia with a normal compression cycle, or ammonia with water is a refrigerant using the absorption cycle.

Further details as to equipment size, mass, and power requires actually developing it. The greater number of plastics produced, the more equipment needed.

noosfractal · 2005-11-04 02:14:47

Energia with EUS can throw 35,680kg to C3=0, 31,091kg to C3=10, or 17,446kg to C3=50. A manned mission to Mars will use C=15 so interpolating I get 24,207.5kg to TMI.

Most Mars Direct derivatives seem to call for minimum energy for the cargo missions (as low as C3=8 in a good year) and C3=25 for the manned mission.

Here are the C3 departure contours for 2007 - just in case

http://www.geocities.com/noosfractal/mars2007.pdf
_

RobertDyck · 2005-11-05 00:53:11

Here are the C3 departure contours for 2007 - just in case
http://www.geocities.com/noosfractal/mars2007.pdf

Woo hoo! A lamb-chop graph! This shows the center colour of the left lobe is C3=15-20, and the next colour is 20-25. So the very center of the center colour should be about 15. That means the lowest energy for the fast lobe is still C3=15. With departure about September 25, 2007, and arrival April 19, 2008, that's 207 days transit time. With C=25 it reduces arrival to February 29, 2008. (It's a leap year.) So 157 days transit.

Now my math is getting confused. I interpolate C3=25 as 24,207.5kg to TMI and C3=15 as 28,796.5kg to TMI. Is that right? Check my figures.

For even lower energy, the center of the right lobe is coloured C3=10-15. Assuming the exact centre is C3=10, then I get departure September 27, 2007, and arrival September 23, 2008. That's just 4 days short of a year. Mass for that energy is on the NASA table, C3=10 is 31,091kg to TMI.

Calculating landed mass we get:
C3=10 ... 19,297.86kg
C3=15 ... 17,873.7kg
C3=25 ... 15,025.3kg
These are estimates so you should round-off to 2 significant digits.

I think we can safely say if you have ~$800 million US dollars we can put you on Mars in April, 2008, with a cargo lander following 5 months later.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-08 09:36:23

This thread fits in niceley with the concept of the 4Frontiers Corporation.

MIT Alums Race to Mars With Start-Up Company

“We’re looking at permanent trips, establishing civilization on the Red Planet
dedicated to building a self-sustaining settlement on Mars by 2025.
The first journey is targeted to launch in 2025 with 12 space pioneers. After a six month one-way journey,Mars pioneers would develop the infrastructure to support the initial habitation space, life support systems, nuclear power generation, and mining. The settlement’s purpose would be mining minerals on Mars and making these materials available and accessible to the Earth.

Josh Cryer · 2005-11-09 11:53:10

I think we can safely say if you have ~$800 million US dollars we can put you on Mars in April, 2008, with a cargo lander following 5 months later.

INSANE. Now, where is my checkbook?

But no, seriously, a billion bucks gets you to Mars, I think that's reasonable.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-09 17:46:56

Actually you have a choice. The second lander can have either equipment for mining, ore benefaction, smelting, refining, and a workshop for manufacture; or the second lander can have an Earth return vehicle.

If you want a Mars Direct style manned mission to Mars, that would require 3 launches of Energia. So $148.25 million to restore infrastructure, 3 launches at $160.8 million each, for a total of $630.65 million for launch vehicles including TMI stages. Then add habitat, cargo lander, and ERV. A science mission would require mission control on Earth as well as scientific analysis of data and publishing that data. Once you include scientists they will want fancy science instruments. A science mission will demand the ERV be launched at an Earth-Mars opposition before launching the crew, so the ERV is launched 26 months early. This extends the time mission control must operate. All this means $2 billion US dollars for a corporate-run science mission to Mars. It also means the earliest launch of the ERV will be September 2007, the habitat and cargo lander in November 2009, landing in the first week of April 2010.

If you want to demonstrate technology before committing human lives to it, then here's a more conservative schedule:
- Phoenix: launch August 2007, arrival May 25, 2008 (schedule set by JPL)
- Mars Science Laboratory: launch December 2009, arrival October 2010 (schedule set by JPL)
- Sample Return: launch Christmas 2011, arrival summer 2012, return launch fall 2013, arrive on Earth early 2014 (earliest possible dates)
- ERV: launch April/May 2016, arrival early 2017
- habitat & cargo lander: launch early July 2018, arrival January 2019, depart for Earth March 2020, arrive on Earth fall 2020
Is that schedule better than the Moon by 2018 and Mars "some time"?

SpaceNut · 2005-11-09 21:26:59

The last word on mars probes had only the pheonix still on scheduel with the MSL being bumped out another 2 years to possibly build a second unit. But with the current state of nasa budgeting and the amount of cash out go for existing projects it makes it very tough to progress into the future. Making those that follow all delayed as nasa finishes the ISS and starts getting its feet wet again with lunar exploration.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-09 22:28:15

It would appear that we could do a lot more with a little help from our ecological freinds namely baterium of various extreme forms.
This may make the need for heavy reactors and other equipment to make fuel for mars return vehicles not necessary.

Bacteria Eat Human Sewage, Produce Rocket Fuel

But Brocadia anammoxidans, or anammox bacteria, survive without oxygen, producing energy from nitrites and ammonia, which is found naturally in human waste.

This being the case we could use all (the waste) that is produced aboard the ISS as a means to jump start such a fuel in orbit manufacturing facility.

Couple this with a batch of other types could lead to a quicker colonization effort.

Josh Cryer · 2005-11-18 00:56:25

So, Robert, any ideas as to how we can raise $1 billion?

Palomar · 2005-11-18 07:08:41

So, Robert, any ideas as to how we can raise $1 billion?

*I could hold a bake sale. Usually my cakes and cookies get rave reviews.

A suicide mission? That's depressing. There's got to be a better alternative. Although if someone wanted to do that, it'd be their right.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-11-18 08:29:22

So, Robert, any ideas as to how we can raise $1 billion?
*I could hold a bake sale. Usually my cakes and cookies get rave reviews.
A suicide mission? That's depressing. There's got to be a better alternative. Although if someone wanted to do that, it'd be their right.
--Cindy

Life's a suicide mission.

Is one way to stay with maybe 3 or 4 people total, and at least the chance of living 30, 40 or 50 years on Mars a suicide mission?

This why I wish to write a story about two Jesuits who go to Mars as scientists, never to return. Suicide? Not if they bring 30 years of protien ration bars and a water and oxygen recycling kit.

Josh Cryer · 2005-11-18 19:49:46

A 30 year supply of MREs would weigh about 20 tons. But MREs last typically 10-15 years at the most (in perfect conditions, and I assure you the radiation would prove a toll on MREs). It'd obviously be bettter to take 20 tons worth of greenhouse material. Assuming you can accomodate 20 tons.

But anyway, once you raised the $1 bln, if you did it under the guise of space exploration, it could be a nice thriving company.

$170 million for the payloads Energia can lift is ridiculosuly cheap.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-22 07:57:17

Not sure if you will be able to bring so much if your power source is nuclear for mars but is you were to make use of solar one might look at the preformance of the rovers as a base line.

Dust buildup has gradually degraded the amount of power available from the solar arrays aboard Spirit and Opportunity. Both rovers were initially able to generate about 900 watt hours of power from the available sunlight, though dust has clouded their solar panels.
Spirit’s solar arrays currently produce about 650 watt hours while Opportunity’s generate up to 700 watt hours, Laubach said. A minimum of 300 watt hours is required for Spirit to function, though Opportunity can operate on slightly less, she added.

Granted thats not all the much but when it comes to needing lots of items within a single launch it may prove to be one of the trade offs.

BWhite · 2005-11-22 22:30:29

A 30 year supply of MREs would weigh about 20 tons. But MREs last typically 10-15 years at the most (in perfect conditions, and I assure you the radiation would prove a toll on MREs). It'd obviously be bettter to take 20 tons worth of greenhouse material. Assuming you can accomodate 20 tons.

I agree.

My main point is that it's NOT suicide. Risky? Well, du'h!

As for new MREs? Heck you could host a tele-thon from the surface of Mars and raise enough money to buy 4 or 40 tons of MREs and the lift to drop 'em airbag style like the MER.

Josh Cryer's Mars-Day tele-thon? 8)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-10-19 20:44:51

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#77 2005-10-19 21:57:51

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#78 2005-10-20 00:58:02

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#79 2005-10-20 01:20:54

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#80 2005-10-20 01:43:22

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#81 2005-10-20 02:23:38

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#82 2005-10-20 03:51:55

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#83 2005-10-20 03:53:16

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#84 2005-10-21 02:50:45

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#85 2005-10-21 08:26:47

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#86 2005-10-21 08:39:35

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#87 2005-10-21 11:30:43

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#88 2005-11-04 02:14:47

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#89 2005-11-05 00:53:11

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#90 2005-11-08 09:36:23

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#91 2005-11-09 11:53:10

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#92 2005-11-09 17:46:56

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#93 2005-11-09 21:26:59

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#94 2005-11-09 22:28:15

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#95 2005-11-18 00:56:25

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#96 2005-11-18 07:08:41

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#97 2005-11-18 08:29:22

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#98 2005-11-18 19:49:46

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#99 2005-11-22 07:57:17

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#100 2005-11-22 22:30:29

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

Board footer