Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-15 10:02:48

Reading the AIAA report, their figures for the TMI mass seem a little low. I think this is because they are assuming the old ~110MT payload of the original "CaLV" and not the heavier 130MT Ares-V. They may also be using the lower Isp figure for the J-2S engine instead of the more efficient J-2X. The actual figures are probably ~20-30%(ish) higher.

cIclops · 2006-12-15 10:36:57

Sure, its called a Farnsworth Fusor, we've had those for years. A kid even built one for a highschool science project competition. The catch is they can't make one that produces more power than it consumes, and it doesn't scale well.

Yikes I wonder where that school got their D2 and neutron detector. Any non crank references for this device? Preferably from a professional physics lab that confirms the production of neutons and fusion. As it's so easy to build and been around since 1962 surely it's been done many times by many labs, but for some reason there are no papers about it ...

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-15 11:32:45

No, but its irrelevant to the topic of discussion anyway...

The Farnsworth Fusor, provided it does work, is a such a weak power or neutron source that it wouldn't be practical to make anything dangerous with it.

And D2? You can buy heavy water from chemical companies, they'll ship it to your door, its not an especially exotic substance and isn't very expensive if you only want a small amount of low grade.

RobS · 2006-12-15 19:31:17

My goodness, I'm away a few days and miss an incredibly interesting conversation! A couple of comments:

1. I suspect we will have an excellent idea where to put our base before the first manned mission. Mars is heading towards being the most heavily remote-sensed body in the solar system, Earth included. Earth won't have radar profiles of the entire surface down 5 kilometers. I suspect in ten yeas we'll have a pretty good idea where there's subsurface ice in equatorial regions. And any place people land, there will be robotic exploration at least five years in advance. When crew arrives, there may already be a substantial payload present.

2. I love the idea of a reusable MAV, but I am not sure how well it'll serve as a hopper. It depends on how it decellerates. Mars orbit takes 8,000 mph/13,000 kmph. If you plan to hop half way around Mars, that's about 7,000 mph/11,000 kmph to get there, almost the same to slow down and land, and then you have to return to your starting point. The total delta-v might be 26,000 mph/40,000 kmph; way too much for an MAV. But it might be useful for hops of a thousand or two kms. Getting around on Mars might be easier accomplished by a hydrogen dirigible or a helios-style solar-powered aircraft (assuming you already have landing strips). The latter could also be used to drop supplies.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-15 22:15:11

I don't think that the RMAV will be able to go all the way around the globe, thats just going to be a trade-off we'll have to live with, just like its hydrogen-burning Lunar counterpart on the Moon.

We need to be absolutely sure that we can support a base at a particular location, which means locating and quantifying the size of an ice deposit plus perhaps test drilling to make sure that we can extract it. Making sure the ground is stable, relatively unobstructed, and not too hard/rocky to dig are also paramount. Finding some Nitrate deposits would also be nice. In light of this, I think that a manned mission to a potential site before building is a good idea.

Also, since the RMAV's range won't be global, some manned missions to sites of interest out of its range should also be on the itinerary.

But perhaps most of all, NASA probably won't have the money to develop the Mars ships and the RMAV with its hardware and the machinery to make fuel for it at the same time. Send some regular manned missions first while the money that formally went into developing their ships is spent on RMAV and base component development.

I do think however that much of the deceleration could be accomplished by aerobraking via the shape of the vehicle, its reentry angle, and some manner of folding strake or inflatable ballute. This would make a load of difference as far as fuel consumption.

I am not thrilled by airplanes of any sort on Mars, they just don't have the payload nor the convenient air strip to launch/land from. Especially not one with low acceleration like Helios. Airships are more practical perhaps, but their capability is limited and they are awfully slow. Rockets, rovers, and rails (colony time) are the way to go on Mars if you want to really move anything.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-17 18:56:00

My understanding of GCNs overall objections to "3 Ares V, Mars Semi-Direct" is that a single Ares V launched from Earth can't deliver large enough of a Hab module to the surface of Mars.

What about a "four Ares V rocket" Mars Semi-Direct Mission?

Four man crew of course.

One Ares V launches the Mars Ascent Vehicle.

One Ares V launches the Earth Return Vehicle to Martian orbit.

One Ares V launches a Hab module to Earth Orbit
One Ares V launches a chemically propelled Earth Departure Stage to Earth Orbit which docks with the Hab. It then propels the Hab to Mars.

That would seem a reasonable compromise.

Anyone who can do charts or graphics that could make up something that I could print out to go with my lobbying campaign that reflects this?

SpaceNut · 2006-12-17 20:47:58

Reading the AIAA report, their figures for the TMI mass seem a little low. I think this is because they are assuming the old ~110MT payload of the original "CaLV" and not the heavier 130MT Ares-V. They may also be using the lower Isp figure for the J-2S engine instead of the more efficient J-2X. The actual figures are probably ~20-30%(ish) higher.

My understanding of GCNs overall objections to "3 Ares V, Mars Semi-Direct" is that a single Ares V launched from Earth can't deliver large enough of a Hab module to the surface of Mars.
What about a "four Ares V rocket" Mars Semi-Direct Mission?
Four man crew of course.
One Ares V launches the Mars Ascent Vehicle.
One Ares V launches the Earth Return Vehicle to Martian orbit.
One Ares V launches a Hab module to Earth Orbit
One Ares V launches a chemically propelled Earth Departure Stage to Earth Orbit which docks with the Hab. It then propels the Hab to Mars.
That would seem a reasonable compromise.
Anyone who can do charts or graphics that could make up something that I could print out to go with my lobbying campaign that reflects this?

A possible solution would be to add another set of SRb's for the mars profile to give us a better margin...

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-17 23:02:16

My understanding of GCNs overall objections to "3 Ares V, Mars Semi-Direct" is that a single Ares V launched from Earth can't deliver large enough of a Hab module to the surface of Mars.
What about a "four Ares V rocket" Mars Semi-Direct Mission?
Four man crew of course.
One Ares V launches the Mars Ascent Vehicle.
One Ares V launches the Earth Return Vehicle to Martian orbit.
One Ares V launches a Hab module to Earth Orbit
One Ares V launches a chemically propelled Earth Departure Stage to Earth Orbit which docks with the Hab. It then propels the Hab to Mars.
That would seem a reasonable compromise.
Anyone who can do charts or graphics that could make up something that I could print out to go with my lobbying campaign that reflects this?

No this won't work either. The DRM-III plan requires much more payload for the MAV/ISRU/Hydrogen package than can be sent by a single launch, and reducing the size of the crew cabin a little bit to accommodate fewer astronauts will not make much difference in its mass.

And if we have to go ahead and develop and launch the fancy chemical TMI stage, then whats one more launch shouldn't be a big deal. And if we're going to go from four to five launches, we might as well go all the way to six and accommodate a much larger crew (six men with eight possible), an ERV with extra mass for radiation shielding, and the option to develop only one HAB module (same design doubles as ERV) with associated economies of scale. A "light weight" ERV for four would probably have to be inflatable, since it wouldn't get the benefit of ISRU, and inflatable modules can't aerobrake.

It sounds to me like you are wanting to salvage Bob Zubrin's radically over-optimistic, essentially ineffective, and dead-end plan... by making a "compromise" with the much more sane (but still cutting it a little close) NASA plan. This would require that Bob Zubrin's plan be credible and have at least slightly comparable robustness, but it has neither. Stop trying to stick up for Crazy Bob, stop trying to take his "baseline" and drag it (kicking and screaming) over the "not crazy" threshold.

This will lead to precisely the very thing we have got to avoid, and thats starting and committing to a plan that just doesn't offer the engineering margins or performance needed to effectively explore and establish ourselves on Mars. Weight creep is an especially big issue engineering wise, that if we start with no margins and something (or lots of little things) wind up being too heavy, then this will lead to cutting corners or cutting what we can do. Neither of these is acceptable. Capability is another issue, that again if you can't build a base in a reasonable number of launches, then the chance such a base will ever be built is nil. You can't do this with wimpy rockets.

And exploration? All this money, time, and effort and we're only sending one more guy than Apollo when we could send double for a bit more? Mars, contrasted to the Moon, has far far more to learn about it. Mars has water on its surface, and once had liquid water flowing across it; this alone makes Mars exponentially more fascinating than the Moon. And life, if it exists or even more if it is dead, will be most elusive since the surface is a such a forbidding place for microorganisms. We'll need boots on the ground to look for them with any hope of finding them, and six people is entirely justified, you could probably double the ground covered. What if we go and spend and wait and built and train and all that for a four-man crew but they miss that one underground spring or pond when we could have sent six for just a bit more and found it?

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-17 23:03:49

A possible solution would be to add another set of SRb's for the mars profile to give us a better margin...

Not really. Extra SRBs won't help that much, since with such low-efficiency rockets and already high liftoff thrust, you get diminishing returns.

RedStreak · 2006-12-18 05:37:56

It sounds to me like you are wanting to salvage Bob Zubrin's radically over-optimistic, essentially ineffective, and dead-end plan... by making a "compromise" with the much more sane (but still cutting it a little close) NASA plan. This would require that Bob Zubrin's plan be credible and have at least slightly comparable robustness, but it has neither. Stop trying to stick up for Crazy Bob, stop trying to take his "baseline" and drag it (kicking and screaming) over the "not crazy" threshold.

Crazy Bob as you dub him is about the only professional who came up with a solution that wasn't over the 400 Billion Dollar range.

There is still something to salvage indeed: ISRU and the lander vehicles ought to be utilized along with aerobraking.

cIclops · 2006-12-18 08:07:49

And now a few sane words from Mike Griffin (MG) from an interview with St Petersberg Times recently:

TIMES: The findings on Mars (the recent discovery that water may currently exist on the red planet, sometimes washing down craters and forming gullies)... does that suggest a new mission for you all?
MG: No, not yet because returning to the moon and then going on to Mars is already part of our congressional direction. That is the strategic plan for NASA. It will take a while to recreate the capability that we had developed for the Apollo program and then let go of. For the next few years we're in the business of recreating that capability. And then we will of course extend it. And I expect to live long enough to see the first people set down on Mars.
TIMES: There's going to be a lot of options for this spacecraft and that mission. I'm wondering, is one of those options maybe we can't go to Mars? Maybe it's just going to prove too challenging?
MG: No I absolutely disagree with that. We know enough about how to get to Mars that we know that we can do it. It's a question of maybe a little bit more risk or a little bit less, it's a question of how much do you want to spend, how quickly do you want to do it. But we know how to get to Mars.
TIMES: You mean, with people?
MG: With people. We know how to do that. Not to say that there are not some unknowns, not to say that there aren't plenty of technical challenges, in fact we do it because it's challenging. But we know how to get to Mars.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-18 08:11:18

The bulk of the scientific work on Mars does't have to be done onsite.

Collecting samples and making measurements for more than a year will provide enough work of scientists back on Earth for decades. And a couple of scientists on Mars with little to but sampling and research for more than a year are more than capable of doing that.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-18 08:29:46

Too bad Bob isn't an aerospace engineer...

The $400Bn SEI plan? You are comparing MarsDirect to that??? Its obvious to the point of farce that the SEI plan wasn't really serious, NASA came up with the ridiculous figure to intentionally prevent any Mars mission from being contemplated, in order to protect the Shuttle "gravy train." Which it did... NASA has succeeded in everything that it has earnestly attempted, its just that its true goals have often been different then the stated ones.

There already is a pretty good plan, NASA's DRM-III architecture, which already uses aerobraking and ISRU, but comes to the table with a tight but sane mass budget unlike MarsDirect. The 1990 price tag to mount a DRM program was around $60Bn, which included developing a new HLLV, so even with a huge ~50% inflation and price creep its still under $100Bn.

cIclops · 2006-12-18 08:31:08

The first scientist(s) on Mars, probably geologists with astrobiology training, will want to explore as many sites as possible. Expect everyone to have geological training and to explore in two or more teams. How much time is spend at each site will be decided by what is found and that will involve as much analysis as they can do using the widest range of instruments onsite. Yes the full analysis will be done on Earth but as there will a strict limit on the mass that can be taken back to Earth, samples will be carefully selected and prepared.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-18 09:07:45

The bulk of the scientific work on Mars does't have to be done onsite.
Collecting samples and making measurements for more than a year will provide enough work of scientists back on Earth for decades. And a couple of scientists on Mars with little to but sampling and research for more than a year are more than capable of doing that.

Nonsense! It absolutely DOES have to be done on site, thats the whole reason for sending people in the first place! To think otherwise is to parrot the stupid lie by JPL robophilies and their ilk.

The yard stick for Mars science isn't to collect just enough material to occupy the astro-geologists, -biologists, or -physicists while the missions are carried out, its whether or not we unlock the secrets, mysteries, and questions about Mars. We should learn as much as possible about Mars regardless if it takes longer than the missions do to illicit knowledge from data and samples.

Lots of the Martian surface is interesting, but we will only have a limited number of landings possible for a long time. Each landing deserves maximum attention that is affordable, to glean as much as we can from a particular landing site, since it is likely that site will never be studied again with such scrutiny for a long, long time.

Each landing site will be able to cover a great deal of ground with pressurized rovers (and later on methane-fueled hopper rockets from a central base perhaps); the one NASA has in mind in the original DRM plan would have a range of 500km and unpressurized ones 160km or so. They would be able to cover 800,000km and 80,000km respectively! You can't tell me that the crew would exhaust every possible site of interest with such a reach in 500 days, or perhaps even longer!

And that means more boots on the ground, if we need five rockets for a crew of four with comfortable mass margins and an effective suite of equipment, its asinine to even talk about saving that sixth rocket if it means not having those two additional crewmen!

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-18 11:17:40

Again, we must not repeat Apollo on Mars, we cannot let a "red dust or bust" rush to Mars guide the planning for a mission: if we do then we will get the worst of all outcomes, a mission thats ineffective, inefficient, and a dead end all for the sake of shaving a few billion and a few years off the price tag & schedule. If we are going to go like this, then we shouldn't even go at all and save the money and political will for when we are willing to go right.

MarsDirect is the Apollo of Mars; designed as the bare-bones way to send and retrieve a small number of astronauts in the fastest, simplest, cheapest way. But even worse than Apollo, it tries to push crazy numbers as reasonable, probably in the hope of pushing the project beyond the threshold of political no-return before anybody really realizes. Thats not going to work anymore, that way of doing things is over... As for whether or not they will be safe, able to accomplish much, or if the plan could lead to future things is merely an afterthought. And look where that got us.

For science, we should be going to Mars to learn as much as we can for whats affordable. That means lots of data and sample collection, but also some analysis on the ground. What good is it to collect a bunch of samples, take them all the way home to Earth, and only then find out if bacteria are or were present? If we would have known that on Mars, then we could have taken more samples from that area, and get a much better cross section of Martian biology. I am sure that there are similar cases with nonbiological science, like looking for veins of radioactive materials to help learn about the fate of the Martian surface.

A lot of science can be done at home by scientists later on, but some analysis will have to be done on Mars.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-18 12:32:24

You forget the obvious GCN.

We will never go to Mars with manned missions for science or to learn, or as Dr. Robert Zubrin says to set up a new human civilization.

Those have never been enough motivation for such endeavours as we are speaking of.

We'll go to Mars for dick waving, flag waving, jingolistic political reasons.

Might as well get used to that.

We'll probably send the first starships our for the same reasons in a 100 years or so.

cIclops · 2006-12-18 12:58:51

The first voyage to Mars will be the greatest of all expeditions, once begun (not that it hasn't but most people quite rightly won't believe it until they see it) it will consume world attention. Scientists, engineers, teachers and students and yes even the public will follow every step, it's in our bloodstreams. Naturally, politicians will position themselves, those for and against; the media will be positive as it will be the greatest show off earth. This voyage has been discussed for years and years, it will be done right technically. The experience of Apollo was not all negative, it taught what not to do, and as GCN keeps saying this MUST be done right, if it becomes a pure political flag planting event then it's over for a long long time.

So what is right? Creating an affordable transportation system between Earth and Mars is the key, initially it must be used wisely for the obvious: exploration and science. Then as soon as possible, it must move towards becoming self financing. This can't be expected to happen in a short time unless a miracle occurs, but steady progress towards reducing the costs through ISRU and other technologies must be the objective. And then we go beyond.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-18 13:13:55

The first voyage to Mars will be the greatest of all expeditions, once begun (not that it hasn't but most people quite rightly won't believe it until they see it) it will consume world attention. Scientists, engineers, teachers and students and yes even the public will follow every step, it's in our bloodstreams. Naturally, politicians will position themselves, those for and against; the media will be positive as it will be the greatest show off earth. This voyage has been discussed for years and years, it will be done right technically. The experience of Apollo was not all negative, it taught what not to do, and as GCN keeps saying this MUST be done right, if it becomes a pure political flag planting event then it's over for a long long time.
So what is right? Creating an affordable transportation system between Earth and Mars is the key, initially it must be used wisely for the obvious: exploration and science. Then as soon as possible, it must move towards becoming self financing. This can't be expected to happen in a short time unless a miracle occurs, but steady progress towards reducing the costs through ISRU and other technologies must be the objective. And then we go beyond.

Overall not likely.

there is approximately ZERO chance of Mars Expeditions becoming self financing.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-18 13:43:49

You forget the obvious GCN.
We will never go to Mars with manned missions for science or to learn, or as Dr. Robert Zubrin says to set up a new human civilization.
Those have never been enough motivation for such endeavours as we are speaking of.
We'll go to Mars for dick waving, flag waving, jingolistic political reasons.
Might as well get used to that.
We'll probably send the first starships our for the same reasons in a 100 years or so.

Nonsense, we aren't going back to the Moon to wave flags, we've already got a few up there after all, plus we're going back there and Mars promises to be even more interesting place to visit.

NASA has been able to effectively retain its budget since Nixon... "reduced" the scope of the agency, and we have almost nothing to show for the vast majority of the money spent. How can NASA possibly do any worse the next 30 years than the last 30?

NASA has the political support to approximately maintain present funding indefinitely as long as he agency shows progress, and if it is spent carefully, honestly, and with discipline for the goal it would be enough. It will however take time without a major injection of new money, and so we have to be patient, getting into a rush to Mars will leave us just where we were after Apollo, where the rockets we built weren't good enough to keep showing progress enough to justify their expense. Then Congress will rightly question why NASA wasted all that money on a rocket and ships that can't produce much to show for it, and then our presence on Mars will end, perhaps for a very long time.

Travel to Mars will not become self-funding for a long time, probably three quarters through this century at earliest, but what can be absolutely guaranteed is that this will never happen without a "beach-head" with access to water and rocket fuel. Such a base in the short term (relatively speaking), combined with small-ish RLVs, will also dramatically reduce the cost of maintaining a presence there. Then this will either insulate a Mars presence to budget cuts, or permit the money to be spent on other things like an Earth-side RLV, space elevators (for Earth or the Moon), or maybe even a trip to the gas giants.

RedStreak · 2006-12-18 15:31:48

MarsDirect is the Apollo of Mars;

My ass it is, to put it vulgarly.

What Mars Direct advocated was putting the equiptment on Mars first to ease the risks for humans. How much of a bad idea is that?

RedStreak · 2006-12-18 15:36:14

Obviously alot of opinions being floated around currently. I think I'll check back in this forum after NASA releases more info on its Mars plans.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-18 16:49:32

What GCN is advocating is a very "Von Brauning" idea of space exploration.

That we build all the hardware to do it "right" and that the act of building the hardware will show just how committed we are.

Thats backwards.

Its like building a military force and then deciding what kind of war we want to fight.

Makes alot more sense to decide what war you plan on fighting and THEN build the military thats capable of it.

We want to get to Mars. Lets build what we can ASAP and just go. If the long term political will dies after two or three missions............then at least we've gotten two or three of the most productive manned space missions in human history.

My short term goal is to see that first manned mission to Mars and back.

My long term goal is to string a bunch of short term goals together in sequence.

Grypd · 2006-12-18 17:02:19

What GCN is advocating is a very "Von Brauning" idea of space exploration.
That we build all the hardware to do it "right" and that the act of building the hardware will show just how committed we are.
Thats backwards.
Its like building a military force and then deciding what kind of war we want to fight.
Makes alot more sense to decide what war you plan on fighting and THEN build the military thats capable of it.
We want to get to Mars. Lets build what we can ASAP and just go. If the long term political will dies after two or three missions............then at least we've gotten two or three of the most productive manned space missions in human history.
My short term goal is to see that first manned mission to Mars and back.
My long term goal is to string a bunch of short term goals together in sequence.

What GCN is advocating and I agree with him is that Mars direct is not capable of doing the job it is too light. GCN is perfectly correct when you come down to the bare bones of it how much space and manpower is needed to run a proper Mars mission. Nasa agree's with him that is why they came out with the DRM III in the first place.

Mars direct is chancy at best and worse it is a people breaker. It is perfectly possible yes to get to Mars with it but they truly would not have the capability to actually do anything. Worse the experience would be the equivalent of a modern day slave ship on the way out with the lack of space per passenger and how on Earth or Mars was a crew member supposed to be fit enough to function on Mars.

Apollo showed us that space agencies are perfectly willing to go with bare bone mission plans just to get the "Job" done.

We are not going to suddenly abandon the Moon just to get to Mars and so we can factor in what we can get from there even if it is an oxygen source. We will have experience in multiple launches meeting to go to a destination so then we can certainly do the same for a Mars mission. Likely the case will be that Mars DRM III will get cahnged and may well get bigger as the mass requirements to get the job done are reviewed from our knowledge and experience of Moon operations or we find that we can increase the capability of the Mission without too much cost elsewhere.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-18 17:12:09

Are you seriously suggesting that a geologist and biochemist spending 500 days on Mars assisted by two engineers and advised by the best scientists on Earth can't do one heck of alot of exploration and good science?!?!?! For that matter they could also explore thousands of square miles.

The FIRST mission isn't supposed to explore EVERYTHING.

Sure, we could always send more scientists. More equipment. Explore a larger area.

But part of any initial mission is just to prove we can get there and back safetly. That the basic equipment works.

Shannon Lucid walked off the shuttle after six months in the cramped confines of Mir. She did that coming into a ONE G gravity field.

Why should be think that Mars bound astronauts setting foot into a ONE THIRD G field after six months in the HAB would have any problems? And if that issue, rotating the HAB and upper stage via tether to produce one third G is hardly a show stopper.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2006-12-15 10:02:48

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#102 2006-12-15 10:36:57

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#103 2006-12-15 11:32:45

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#104 2006-12-15 19:31:17

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#105 2006-12-15 22:15:11

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#106 2006-12-17 18:56:00

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#107 2006-12-17 20:47:58

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#108 2006-12-17 23:02:16

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#109 2006-12-17 23:03:49

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#110 2006-12-18 05:37:56

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#111 2006-12-18 08:07:49

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#112 2006-12-18 08:11:18

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#113 2006-12-18 08:29:46

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#114 2006-12-18 08:31:08

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#115 2006-12-18 09:07:45

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#116 2006-12-18 11:17:40

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#117 2006-12-18 12:32:24

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#118 2006-12-18 12:58:51

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#119 2006-12-18 13:13:55

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#120 2006-12-18 13:43:49

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#121 2006-12-18 15:31:48

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#122 2006-12-18 15:36:14

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#123 2006-12-18 16:49:32

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#124 2006-12-18 17:02:19

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#125 2006-12-18 17:12:09

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

Board footer