Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

C M Edwards · 2006-12-19 16:31:17

3 tops should be all that's required, and that's complex enough.

I do not agree. 3 launches should be enough to send the crew, ala DRM-III, but I don't vouch for its adequacy to both get the mission underway and, equally important, keep it underway.

Living and working on Mars will require more than just putting people on Mars, even if all we're talking about is a half dozen astronauts.

Grypd · 2006-12-19 16:58:12

I don’t know where GCNRevenger gets his information about the mental health of the Salyut cosmonauts
He can have an interesting POV but often I just wonder about his mental health.
Submariners can go for a good year as a minimum in their crampt conditions.

No they dont and submariners are not a good example. On average a submarine patrol is about one to two months long. Boredom is common but the crews are large and well trained individuals and there is space to get away from someone. But there have been incidents and very drastic ones at that.

The incidents of mental health deterioration that have occured in the space industry have been incredibly worse.

In june 1997 the commander of the MIR was showing the symptoms of lack of sleep, Neuroticism and depression he also was guiding in the supply ship. His concentration as well as the other two crew one being the astronaut M Foale was poor they where just unfit. The unmanned supply ship slammed into the MIR nearly destroying both.

In december 31st 1999 a test chamber in Moscow the six person crew of the Mars flyer celebrated new years. One cosmonaut got too amorous towards a female canadian member and though he brushed it off as a harmless moment the female crew member believed it to be attempted rape.

There have been numerous other incidents with crews in space rebelling against ground control and of actual incidents between the crews.

ESA did a survey where they discovered that even with the most carefully prepared psychological background on a crew add stress and uncertainty removes all such controls. In one of there tests a six person crew spent 26 days in an underwater habitat. The crew broke down and divided into rival camps and even with one person totally ostracised.

The simple thing is that more space reduces these tensions, too little space add stress and unfitness we get nasty side effects and mental health is affected.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-19 17:34:01

U.S. submarines NOW only are on patrol for three months or so, and only completely isolated for a month or so (depending on the status of their SLBMs and what targeting package they are covering).

But during the 1980s well before the end of the Cold War, five or six month patrols were not unknown. During which up to three months might be spent cut off from the outside world.

And though Submarine crews for the U.S. are about 100-133, the fact that aboard a submarine "there is space to get away from people" would be news to anyone who has served on one. Submarines are cramped enough (even modern ones) that crew members often develope acute near sightedness because their eyes never have anything to focus on more than a few dozen feet away.

And regarding submarines, though it is not done this way since the end of the Cold War, at one time submarine crews were told that if they developed a severe illness aboard during a key part of the patrol that was incurable by the medic aboard.................they might simply die rather than pull the sub off of a vital mission, even in peacetime.

Grypd · 2006-12-19 18:09:20

U.S. submarines NOW only are on patrol for three months or so, and only completely isolated for a month or so (depending on the status of their SLBMs and what targeting package they are covering).
But during the 1980s well before the end of the Cold War, five or six month patrols were not unknown. During which up to three months might be spent cut off from the outside world.
And though Submarine crews for the U.S. are about 100-133, the fact that aboard a submarine "there is space to get away from people" would be news to anyone who has served on one. Submarines are cramped enough (even modern ones) that crew members often develope acute near sightedness because their eyes never have anything to focus on more than a few dozen feet away.
And regarding submarines, though it is not done this way since the end of the Cold War, at one time submarine crews were told that if they developed a severe illness aboard during a key part of the patrol that was incurable by the medic aboard.................they might simply die rather than pull the sub off of a vital mission, even in peacetime.

But as the Russian space agency and both NASA and ESA have discovered experiments with crews on submarines have nothing to do with space research. The conditions are just that disimilar. Conditioned crew for submarines and there enviroment do NOT give any information or access to the health issues that space crews face.

The best analysis is for antartic explorers as long as they are in small numbers and overwintering or specially designed test beds like ESA Norways and Russias Mars Flyer. Both have shown that even with crews well trained and evaluated the constant in your face personel as well as "ground crew" observation is a breaker and with the "right stuff" attitude being displayed it causes problems. Test subjects tend to attempt to display what they believe the researcher thinks best and this causes disfunctionality.

Other issues are cultural problems, language and the most dreaded male/female issues.

Both NASA and ESA have looked at having all female crew as they tend to react more positively with these issues of culture and language and also are less dominated by the "right stuff" falsehood and are more willing to discuss issues with ground crew rather than to create them and us issues.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-19 18:16:05

I didn't bring up submarine crews.

GCN did trying to "prove" what he thought (incorrectly) was a valid point.

And sure there will be stresses among a crew of four, five, or six sent on a 26 month mission.

There will be disagreements and arguments probably.

But its foolish to argue that we MUST provide a large enough space and/or a large enough crew to PREVENT ANY disagreement or argument.

Once again, GCN tried the argument with crew physical health and could not win it.

Now its the mental health of the crew argument.

We will never eliminate every danger factor in a mission to Mars.

Go with what we've got, what we can afford, the earliest we can.

The best research into any of these issues will be in the doing.

Grypd · 2006-12-19 18:46:21

I didn't bring up submarine crews.
GCN did trying to "prove" what he thought (incorrectly) was a valid point.
And sure there will be stresses among a crew of four, five, or six sent on a 26 month mission.
There will be disagreements and arguments probably.
But its foolish to argue that we MUST provide a large enough space and/or a large enough crew to PREVENT ANY disagreement or argument.
Once again, GCN tried the argument with crew physical health and could not win it.
Now its the mental health of the crew argument.
We will never eliminate every danger factor in a mission to Mars.
Go with what we've got, what we can afford, the earliest we can.
The best research into any of these issues will be in the doing.

The simple fact is that all the research comes out with the same methods to reduce these issues.
1), the best crew evaluation that is possible must be done at the beginning but you will have to accept that it cannot and will not catch everything.
2), The more space preferably personal available the better the mental health of the crew.
3), Exercise helps and being active in the Mission helps just as much.
4), Larger crews help to reduce tensions especially if the crew mix is of the same nationality and ethnic group
5), Crew confidence and willingness to work as a team is the most essential element. Good morale and family contact make up an essential part of this.
6), The longer the mission the more trouble flairs up, especially if the crew feel that they have little or no control over mission direction. MIR crew had little or no faith in there technology and felt like orbital repairmen at ground controls beck and whim.

Disagreements happen, yes but in close quarters these tend to fester and there is no way for it all to be cleared out. There is no way that enough space to solve all the issues can be provided but the more the space the better for the mental health of the crew.

So this we know and this is why when you look at mass margins we have to design a mission where crew have personel space not find themselves floating in the little spaces between the stores and that it has as little time in space as possible. Crew on the surface will have to have a lot of individual control over there actions obviously with an Earth oversight but day to day running not be dominated by Earth mission control.

Stress will happen its expected its natural. Too much stress over time though is a breaker and crews in this position break up.

RedStreak · 2006-12-19 18:47:25

3 tops should be all that's required, and that's complex enough.
I do not agree. 3 launches should be enough to send the crew, ala DRM-III, but I don't vouch for its adequacy to both get the mission underway and, equally important, keep it underway.

It may depend on the complexity of the mission. However if the mission is to deliver say a 5-person crew and a few tons of cargo then 2 launch vehicles is enough for that mission may be all thats required.

dicktice · 2006-12-19 19:50:04

Having just read, after witnessing the difficult manual folding up and putting away of the temporary solar array on the International Space Station just now:

[Quote] "There's just no replacing eyeballs and hands in space. It's another great day in space."
—Flight director John Curry [Unquote]

I reiterate my claim, some posts back, that only by remote rover manipulation from Mars orbit, i.e. essentially in realtime, can we get the most out future multipurpose rovers--even giving up landing during the first Marspedition which should be the one that determines where the second (when it arrives to rendezvous with the first) will land.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-19 20:13:59

You propose sending a manned mission all the way to Mars orbit and DO NOT land and you will be LAUGHED out of the Congressional committees.

Not VOTED ON & RECOMMENDED for approval.

The Manned Mars program must take political realities into serious consideration.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-19 22:09:35

But what I do object to is a half dozen launches for ONE manned mission.
I don't care how much it makes sense from an "engineering" standpoint.
Engineers don't vote in Congressional committees on budgets.
Politicians do. And a politician is likely to say something like "why do you need all these launches for one Mars mission? Can't you do it in less".

Why do you object to six launches? Why is that too many? Because Bob Zubrin says so?

And why will Congressmen think that six is too many either? Because Bob Zubrin says so?

When asked, "can't we do it for less," the plain and simple answer is no.

Six it the minimum effective arrangement, offering the capability to at least earnestly try and answer the questions and mysteries of Mars, and offers the best chance of success which fits in NASA's probable budget.

Three additional dockings per mission is not a big deal, three additional rockets made with cheap engines aren't a big deal, so why is six such a problem? Is it because of money? Six rockets launched by the same sized labor force as three somewhat larger ones will cost little more, and we've already achieved twice the necessary launch rate in the Shuttle heyday. Why is this bad? Because it sounds bad? Why should the way it sounds - an emotional knee-jerk - be at all considered?

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-19 22:26:35

Your implication that I simply parrot Dr. Zubrins beliefs is insulting. And I've done nothing to provoke insults from you.

I think six launches is excessive.

I think its excessive because the launch of ANY spacecraft (manned or unmanned) is most dangerous and prone to errors during launches.

You have the largest mass, the greatest concentration of highly complicated volatile materials, the greatest forces involved in play.

Thus I believe that its incumbent to reduce those launches. Thats my first reason.

Second reason is political. I've stated those political reasons earlier.

And GCN, you go to a Congressional committee trying to get support for something and say "No,we can't do it"..........I guarantee that you will not get funding for it.

Congress is far more forgiving of cost overruns once something is actually being built than appropriating enough money up front. Space Shuttle, ISS being prime examples.

In regards to launches, I find you accounting methodology highly suspect.

You are saying basically, the ground crew at Kennedy Space Center all has to be paid anyway, so they might as well spend their time launching rockets instead of waiting around between fewer launches.

I would bet good money, that it costs more (substantially more) from an operational standpoint for the people at KSC and JSC to oversee six launches in a year than two or three.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-19 22:44:24

There appears to be little in the way of good evidence to support rumors either favorable or unfavorable about the Salyut Cosmonauts but my point remains that since this is such a question mark that we should err on the side of caution.

6mo long submarine patrols had to be very hard on crews, and the conditions on a Mars mission will be considerably worse with no gravity and tight quarters for both legs of the cruise phase, plus still tight quarters much of the time for the 500 day stay on Mars. I bet the more modern 3mo cruises on submarines are in large part to relieve psychological stress.

And as it seems quite evident by SpaceNut's information, that submarines are a pick-nick compared to space travel. This is not something that can simply be waved away with a "bah, suck it up soldier" attitude! More total and contiguous space will help with this issue, and dinky little ships like MarsDirect can't offer this during the trip to, from, or maybe even on Mars.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-19 23:18:06

All this because you are afraid of launches failing? Thats just emotion and not reason talking, six launches of a modern rocket are really quite reliable, and the additional risk really is pretty inconsequential. Its entirely reasonable to assume Ares-V will have a reliability in excess of 99%, especially since both the Shuttle boosters and EELV engines have already proven approximately this level of assurance, plus the Ares-V core stage will even have engine-out like the old S-IC first stage.

Percentages, not gut feelings. Increasing the risk of a launch failure in the manifest needed to mount a mission from say ~1-in-200 to ~1-in-100 is not even worth fretting about if it gives us so much more reliability, capability, and enables real effectiveness for the rest of the mission. Wake me when the risk hits 95% or less.

And the politics, my response was to your question... say that a Congressmen asked NASA if they could mount a Mars mission with only one <150MT all-chemical launch that had to be safe, reliable, and effective, how could there be any answer other than no? The same is true for a mission with only three launches in the same way, that it cannot be done, so the answer to the panel is again no. Its irresponsible or a lie to say otherwise.

Congress is far more forgiving about cost overruns about space? I don't think you realize the sea-change that has occurred since Columbia exploded over Texas, NASA doesn't have that luxury anymore, and will be punished for gross failures or fraud in accounting. And even if this is not so, this is not something we can afford to risk.

And finally I think you are wrong about the estimate concerning KSC launch staff: these workers are by and large salaried employees who are going to be paid a similar amount annually regardless of schedule. The present Shuttle infrastructure is tailored for a maximum of six launches a year, a vehicle considerably more complex than Ares rockets. So it stands to reason that they will be left to sit on their hands under the "rush to Mars" plan with only two or three launches every two years but will still be paid the same if they launched six.

Even if this were not true, the cost can't be much greater, so the added performance, margin, and ability of a six-flight mission is well worth the price.

cIclops · 2006-12-20 04:34:08

Jeffrey Williams, flight engineer of Expedition 13, gave a presentation yesterday where he described his six month stay on the ISS. Initially with just him and Pavel Vinogradov the ISS was comfortable. When Thomas Reiter arrived he said how much more cramped it was. He added that when ISS goes to a crew of six, it will be a challenge in such a small volume. Currently the ISS has 425 m³ of habitable volume, compared with only 90 m³ inside Salyut.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-20 07:39:57

IIRC, even the original design of the Hab for Mars Direct, the crew had 250 square feet EACH.

And 125 square feet each in the ERV.

Each crew member had their own separate room as well.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-20 08:10:34

IIRC, even the original design of the Hab for Mars Direct, the crew had 250 square feet EACH.
And 125 square feet each in the ERV.
Each crew member had their own separate room as well.

No it doesn't, the lower deck of the MD HAB will be completely full of equipment during the trip out, and will still be dominated by the airlock and storage after landing too. That cuts it down to 125ft^2 just like the overgrown broom closet of the ERV.

The problem is two-fold as well, not only should the crew have significant space to live in, but they should also have sizable contiguous space too. If all the rooms are hardly bigger than a walk-in closet it doesn't matter how much room they have.

Have you ever seen the MarsDirect HAB? It feels like you're locked into a maze with a (cramped) living room.

Its clearly just not enough.

NASA's DRM vehicle will have two and a half decks and perhaps even has room for a cockpit/cupola in the integral aerobrake shield's nose, open for the whole trip. The "half deck" being a small ISS node sized thing for the airlock and storage, which leaves the rest of the vehicle open unlike MD. Surface equipment, unlike MarsDirect which as little place to put it except inside on the lower deck, can ride outside the DRM HAB astride the half-deck to free up even more space.

Its just better, it will greatly ease the strain on the crews' mental health, reducing one of the major crew risk factors. It also gives us much more capability with the extra crew, and perhaps a mental health bonus too. You say that Bob plans for two engineers and two scientists? Then, working in pairs as is NASA tradition, we could send out TWO explorer teams instead of only one. Which is good, since we will have at least one pressurized and one unpressurized rover on hand. Its the right fit.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-20 08:54:05

[quote="GCNRevenger

The problem is two-fold as well, not only should the crew have significant space to live in, but they should also have sizable contiguous space too. If all the rooms are hardly bigger than a walk-in closet it doesn't matter how much room they have.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-20 08:57:49

Why do you assume that the crews mental health would be such a big issue on a manned Mars mission?

You dismiss the "suck it up soldier" attitude. Apparently not considering the fact that the crew of the first missions to Mars will be the best possible selected out of what would certainly be HUNDREDS of volunteers.

You're suggesting that rigorously trained and screened professionals who WANT to go on the greatest history making mission in world history will somehow start falling apart because the living room on the Hab is cramped.

SpaceNut · 2006-12-20 09:35:38

The issue with a small place is that you are not moving around alot and that leads to the large muscle issues. Even though there is an exercise health room there is little time for all to use it during a days work.
This is more like living in a one room effiency appartment.

C M Edwards · 2006-12-20 09:54:46

This is more like living in a one room effiency appartment.

Actually, it's more like everybody living in a one room efficiency apartment. (In fact, my first efficiency apartment was slightly bigger.) With that little space, unless the exercise equipment is left out all the time, there's not even reasonable assurance that they'll be able to pull it out to use it every day without having to shove somebody else's "workspace" aside. That consumes even more space for exercise equipment than necessary just ensure it's always available.

The only way to make the Mars Direct Hab livable is to get rid of the lab and clean out all that junk downstairs.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-20 10:28:31

This is more like living in a one room effiency appartment.
Actually, it's more like everybody living in a one room efficiency apartment. (In fact, my first efficiency apartment was slightly bigger.) With that little space, unless the exercise equipment is left out all the time, there's not even reasonable assurance that they'll be able to pull it out to use it every day without having to shove somebody else's "workspace" aside. That consumes even more space for exercise equipment than necessary just ensure it's always available.
The only way to make the Mars Direct Hab livable is to get rid of the lab and clean out all that junk downstairs.

IIRC, if you go Mars Semi-Direct, most of the equipment used on the Mars Surface goes out with the Mars Ascent vehicle.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-20 23:26:24

Why shouldn't we assume mental health is a serious concern? It appears to at least be a risk from historical extended confinement tests and from actual stays on Mir/ISS.

And are you sure you aren't gunning for Bob? Thats almost precisely his response to the problem of crew mental health. Setting up a system to transport astronauts to Mars that relies on them being fired-up, gung-ho, or otherwise worked up like a six year old on the evening of Dec 24th is a recipe for disaster. Betting on this in a dangerous job that requires clarity and discipline are bad odds, so we should at least mitigate the risk by making a roomier HAB/ERV. Where is the proof that they don't need room? And if the astronauts are going to be cooped up for ~6mo with no way out, then yeah a decent sized contiguous volume should be included too.

A lot of the surface science gear will ride on the MAV payload, yes, but some of it will have to ride with the HAB. The HAB will need to carry the unpressurized rover (to reach the MAV if need be), either a solar or nuclear power plant (preferably the latter), and so on.

RobS · 2006-12-21 00:42:05

NASA has put a lot of thinking into the size of habs, so they are the experts. The Design Reference Mission calls for a hab that is 7.5 meters in diameter and 3 meters high for each of two floors, with a little extra space in the rounded end caps (the entire habitat is 7.5 meters long). Considering that the Mars Direct hab is 8 meters in diameter and also has two stories, the area and volume are almost exactly the same (100 square meters; 300 cubic meters, total). Mars Direct's hab was for four people and the lower level was stuffed full of cargo, leading to an area of about 12.5 square meters per person and about 36 cubic meters per person on the top floor. The DRM has six people in 100 square meters or 17 square meters per person and about 50 cubic meters per person, assuming none of the volume is dedicated to cargo (and I suppose some is).

I'll stick to DRM, but it really ain't a huge difference. There is a bigger difference when you look at masses, though; the DRM hab is about twice the mass of Mars Direct's. That's a measure of how much NASA thought Mars Direct underestimated the mass margins.

As for the interior design, Mars Direct's pictures are old and the design has been updated, so I don't think one can criticize that too much.

-- RobS

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-21 08:01:47

Why shouldn't we assume mental health is a serious concern? It appears to at least be a risk from historical extended confinement tests and from actual stays on Mir/ISS.

Why assume what there is no evidence of?

The occasional argument among crewmembers or annoyance with ground controllers hardly translates into "serious mental health issues" for the crew.

I would assume that as part of crew selection, the primary and backup crews will undoubtedly train together for at least a few years. Including training in isolation where they have to work together for months on end with no other contact aside from radio messages from the "ground".

Any significant personality conflicts, psychological problems, or other abnormalities should be detected then.

If a serious abnormality escapes detection prior to the mission, then it probably won't matter how much square footage the Hab has

C M Edwards · 2006-12-21 10:17:36

Why shouldn't we assume mental health is a serious concern? It appears to at least be a risk from historical extended confinement tests and from actual stays on Mir/ISS.
Why assume what there is no evidence of?

Actually, there's plenty of evidence of the risk of psychological problems in isolated environments, with mariner's anecdotes going all the way back to ancient Greece.

Its only in the last century or so that scientific methods have been applied to studying the problem of mental health and crew morale in isolated environments. What these studies reveal is that isolation and cramped space alone are not the only factors affecting the crew's health (mental and physical), and their effects can be counteracted through proper management of the mission. Measures of crew morale reflect overall mental health, but three years of good morale isn't going to just happen. Morale is still somewhat mysterious, but maintaining the minimum necessary to complete a mission is something that can be controlled. Proper planning - including the provision of such details as good food and exercise, which is just as important as adequate personal space for crew morale - is required. We can beat "space madness" without much trouble. We just can't skimp on the materials and procedures necessary to do so.

IMHO, the worst flaw in Mars Direct's neglect of crew morale issues is not the personal space issue, which is still livable in the long term. Several studies also indicate the necessity of having a crew member in charge of implementing all of these morale-related plans. Since "Mission Commander" just sounds better than "Cruise Director", I propose giving our chief morale officer that title instead.

The crew needs a commander even more than it needs a bigger ship.

The occasional argument among crewmembers or annoyance with ground controllers hardly translates into "serious mental health issues" for the crew.

No, but it does represent a situation that should be allowed for in mission planning, and dealt with immediately.

I would assume that as part of crew selection, the primary and backup crews will undoubtedly train together for at least a few years. Including training in isolation where they have to work together for months on end with no other contact aside from radio messages from the "ground".
Any significant personality conflicts, psychological problems, or other abnormalities should be detected then.

Hmm...

So, we should create all of their problems with isolation and morale up front, then send them on a three year mission together, but only after we've deliberately broken up the team to cull the weak? I don't agree.

If a serious abnormality escapes detection prior to the mission, then it probably won't matter how much square footage the Hab has

Amen.

No one factor can provide a magic cure for all morale & mental health problems. Not more space, not pre-flight screening, not even a good cruise director (er... mission commander). We probably couldn't afford enough of it even if something were possible. At some point, the crew will just have to suck it up. All that we can do is make the trade-offs necessary to demand as little sucking as possible.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2006-12-19 16:31:17

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

#152 2006-12-19 16:58:12

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

#153 2006-12-19 17:34:01

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

#154 2006-12-19 18:09:20

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

#155 2006-12-19 18:16:05

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

#156 2006-12-19 18:46:21

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

#157 2006-12-19 18:47:25

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

#158 2006-12-19 19:50:04

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

#159 2006-12-19 20:13:59

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

#160 2006-12-19 22:09:35

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

#161 2006-12-19 22:26:35

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

#162 2006-12-19 22:44:24

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

#163 2006-12-19 23:18:06

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

#164 2006-12-20 04:34:08

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

#165 2006-12-20 07:39:57

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

#166 2006-12-20 08:10:34

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

#167 2006-12-20 08:54:05

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

#168 2006-12-20 08:57:49

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

#169 2006-12-20 09:35:38

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

#170 2006-12-20 09:54:46

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

#171 2006-12-20 10:28:31

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

#172 2006-12-20 23:26:24

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

#173 2006-12-21 00:42:05

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

#174 2006-12-21 08:01:47

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

#175 2006-12-21 10:17:36

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

Board footer