Problems with Humans on Mars

JonClarke · 2008-05-22 05:41:20

Cost per image is a good one that caught my attention a few days back whilst cruising wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vict … e-Mars.jpg
This image represents 3 weeks solid work for one MER.
$400,000,000 * (21 days / 1500 days total mission) = $5,600,000
Pretty expensive shot!

The panorama is 12,200 X 1,920 pixels ~ 24 megapixels.

For comparison the 70 mm frames in the Apollo astronaut's Hassalblads had a working resolution equivalent to ~31 megapixels.

During the Apollo 15 Stand Up EVA Dave Scott fired off more than 70 Hassalblad frames comprising several panoramas in about 6 minutes, using three different cameras with two different types of film and two different types of lenses. That's more than two gigapixels in total.

Jon

cIclops · 2008-05-22 05:54:24

Trying to predict the future is difficult, but saying that robotic camera technology twenty years from now won't be able match what can apparently be done today on Earth with a $10,000 camera, seems very short sighted.

As to how many six crew EVAs will be possible over a 500 day mission; if the Apollo guys really were referring to doing that on Mars over a 500 day mission, then fine let's assume 1500 (250x6) EVAs.

The discussion was about the cost of developing a capability to put humans on Mars. As the effort to develop that capability has barely started, the cost clearly lies ahead - it is not sunk cost today. Neither does it include the cost of Apollo or ISS. Today it will cost of the order of $300 billion to create that new capability. That obviously won't be included in the marginal mission cost, but it will be the equivalent comparative cost to developing robotic missions such as MSL ($2billion) or MSR ($4.5 billion)

Exploration cannot be measured in gigabytes either or even in (undefined units of) scientific knowledge. Exploration is about people being where people have never been before and experiencing what people have never experienced before. It's a distinct, independent goal, it's about discovery.

louis · 2008-05-22 07:06:09

Is there any chance of having a breakdown of this $300 billion figure. I don't find it credible at all - at least not for a minimal mission.

If we just take launch costs. Suppose we take a cost of $10,000 per Kg for LEO. That's $100Million for a ten tonne craft. Let's suppose that we quadruple that figure and then double it again to get a reasonable price for getting to and back from Mars. That gives a figure of $800million. I'd recommend four craft (2 unmanned and 2 manned), which then gives a total of $3.2 billion.

Obviously there will be development costs for the lander, inflatable-expandable habitats and also additional costs for ongoing mission control. Let's throw in $6.8billion for that and call it a round $10billion.

Beyond the initial 2 year mission, there will be mostly sunk costs, so moving on we can probably think in terms of say $5 billion every two years. So over 10 years I would say the costs would be $30billion - one tenth the cost.

I've no idea how anyone arrives at $300 billion. I find that quite fantastic.

cIclops · 2008-05-22 08:00:56

louis, it's just a WAG (Wild Ass Guess) for the development cost The breakdown is in my previous message. The current sensible plan is to first go back to the Moon, learn how to live there and move onto Mars.

Regarding the costs of the Mars components Mike Griffin said this last year:

Allocating an across-the-board 30% reserve at this stage puts the cost of a 30-year Mars exploration program at $156 billion in Fiscal 2000 dollars. Of this, approximately $70 billion consists of development cost, with reserve. If $4.8 billion/year is available in the human spaceflight account, then the Mars mission development cycle will require about 15 years. Thus, if we begin development work in 2021, we will be able to touch down on the Martian surface in about 2037, with follow-on missions every 26 months thereafter for the next two decades.

He goes on to say it will cost about $6 billion a year for operational costs.

louis · 2008-05-22 12:40:01

I think $6 billion a year for operational costs is way over the mark. Operational costs should definitely be going down over time.

I suspect that the missions being envisaged are overelaborate with NASA style allocations of 2 tonnes medical supplies!

We don't need a huge pressurised vehicle to do effective exploration (especially if we get the lander craft right so they can do hopping around the planet once we get rocket fuel production up and running). That will save a bundle.

I'm really at a loss to identify what the $6 billion dollars could consist of. I mean - employing a 1000 support staff couldn't cost more than $200million! And I don't think the launch pads/mission control will need anything like that number.

cIclops · 2008-05-22 15:21:24

In the outline of DRM 5.0 each mission uses 6 Ares V and an Orion/Ares I plus a Hab and an MTV. The launchers will cost about $3 billion and say another billion for the Hab/MTV. So yes, that would be about $4 billion every two years for hardware. It also seems to include running the Outpost, that he says costs $4 billion per year. These are very very approximate numbers, but they are an indication of what is thought to be needed to maintain such a program. For comparison that's about the same as Shuttle ($4 billion) and ISS ($2 billion) cost per year.

JonClarke · 2008-05-22 16:45:19

Trying to predict the future is difficult, but saying that robotic camera technology twenty years from now won't be able match what can apparently be done today on Earth with a $10,000 camera, seems very short sighted.

Robot cameras today on Mars don't come anywhere near matching what hand held cameras could do on the Moon almost 40 years ago. Doubtless they will improve in the next 20 years, but I would be surprised if they improved tat much. And don't forget that hand held cameras 20 years down the track will also be much better than those available today.

As to how many six crew EVAs will be possible over a 500 day mission; if the Apollo guys really were referring to doing that on Mars over a 500 day mission, then fine let's assume 1500 (250x6) EVAs.

I can live with that.

The discussion was about the cost of developing a capability to put humans on Mars. As the effort to develop that capability has barely started, the cost clearly lies ahead - it is not sunk cost today. Neither does it include the cost of Apollo or ISS. Today it will cost of the order of $300 billion to create that new capability. That obviously won't be included in the marginal mission cost, but it will be the equivalent comparative cost to developing robotic missions such as MSL ($2billion) or MSR ($4.5 billion)

I still disagree. Not with the amount under your assumptions, but that it should be included in the costing of a crewed Mars mission. Prrogram costs just are not accounted that way. Every Mars misssion cost attempt I have seen as just looked at program specific costs, which in your case is 100 billion. On the other hand, were you to express it as: "We need 300 billion investment in spaceflight starting now to develop the capability to get to Mars via the Moon", I would agree.

Exploration cannot be measured in gigabytes either or even in (undefined units of) scientific knowledge. Exploration is about people being where people have never been before and experiencing what people have never experienced before. It's a distinct, independent goal, it's about discovery.

Going where no one has gone before is fine, and I agree. But exploration also has to be justified in terms of measurable return. Especially when there are completing projects and approaches. Which means some form of cost vss return analysis. Science modern exploration is scientfic, scientific return gives us a quantitative measure for this.

cheers

Jon

louis · 2008-05-22 17:25:26

In the outline of DRM 5.0 each mission uses 6 Ares V and an Orion/Ares I plus a Hab and an MTV. The launchers will cost about $3 billion and say another billion for the Hab/MTV. So yes, that would be about $4 billion every two years for hardware. It also seems to include running the Outpost, that he says costs $4 billion per year. These are very very approximate numbers, but they are an indication of what is thought to be needed to maintain such a program. For comparison that's about the same as Shuttle ($4 billion) and ISS ($2 billion) cost per year.

It sounds to me like development costs are being conflated with production costs here. I simply don't believe that an expandable hab will cost anything like hundreds of millions in terms of production costs.

Besides, we need to be clearer here about whether we are talking about just running say a six person habitat or expanding the colony. If we are simply talking about maintaining an outpost I don't see how that requires a habitat replacement every 2 years.

These figures are incredible. Where do we get the $4 billion for running the outpost from? I've already noted that even if it requires 1,000 support staff, the wage bill's not even going to be near $200million. I don't for one moment believe 1,000 support staff are required. But even they are, that leaves $3.8 billion of expenditure for us to locate! Where will it all be going?

The Shuttle and ISS are as I understand it both extremely expensive technologies and the Shuttle is flying several missions each year I think, not one every two years. The ISS requires a hell of a lot of upkeep because it can't really do ISRU apart from energy capture and a little bit of food growing.

cIclops · 2008-05-23 02:47:44

If development costs were conflated with marginal/operational costs, the numbers would be far higher! A modern passenger aircraft like the A380 costs $300m, a hundred million dollars doesn't go that far. The Mars Hab will have to be extremely reliable, its life support system has to work without fail for over two years. Technology like that is expensive. Much of the cost is in the QA and testing, the materials are just a fraction of the unit cost.

Shuttle flies about four times a year and costs about $4 billion to operate. Shuttle operations seem a lot simpler than the complexity of supporting two lunar missions per year (four launchers + four vehicles + Hab components) plus a Mars mission (7 launchers + 3 vehicles + Hab) every two years. The Outpost would be approximately equivalent to ISS.

NASA are designing Constellation to reduce operational costs as much as possible. Anyone who says they can do it cheap has a lot to prove. Exploring the Moon and Mars will be expensive, so much has to be learned.

Yes a lot of the cost is in the operational and engineering support for the infrastructure.

SpaceNut · 2008-05-23 06:04:00

The Shuttle and ISS are as I understand it both extremely expensive technologies and the Shuttle is flying several missions each year I think, not one every two years. The ISS requires a hell of a lot of upkeep because it can't really do ISRU apart from energy capture and a little bit of food growing.

But the biggest insitu that is available is there own trash which is dumped overboard onevery progress ship that is used to bring up fresh supplies with.

With that much solar energy to capture one could make a melting chamber for the metals to be reused thus starting building in orbit.

Where there is plant life there is store energy to reprocess into oil, methane and other products.

So when is it time to stop doing science and get onto building for the future with what we have....

louis · 2008-05-23 06:06:43

The Mars Hab doesn't have to fly! I think that removes about 90% of the complexity - all that cabling, wiring and instrumentation. I mean - what are we seeking to monitor and control in the Hab? It's an interesting question...probable list:

- Air quality

- Air pressure

- Radiation levels

- Air temperature

- Humidity

- Water levels/quality

- Fridge/freezer temperatures.

- Water temperature (hot and cold)

- Power intake/battery levels

- Venting of sewer gas?

- External conditions (whether safe to go out).

That probably covers it. A lot of these controls are very standard and will just need to be of a high engineering standard for durability (although we would have spares for the most important).

There is still the puzzle of how one arrives at these figures if development costs have been "front loaded".

I don't think we need anything near a 1,000 support staff for a minimal Mars mission so even the estimates I have produced so far are pretty inflated.

I can see deep space coms could be an expensive ongoing cost. May depend if one could latch on to NASA's or Russia's existing system.

cIclops · 2008-05-23 07:32:00

But it does have to fly, it has to land on the surface!

louis · 2008-05-23 17:30:29

Granted: a problem for the lander, not the Hab.

siggy · 2008-05-24 06:18:18

Allthough i'm new here, i will jump right into the discussion here if i may. I have been following this board on and off for the last few years.

But the biggest insitu that is available is there own trash which is dumped overboard onevery progress ship that is used to bring up fresh supplies with.

I never quiet understood why they keep sending up the supplyships and then simply destoroy all the energy and mass that goes with it. They could use it for radiation shielding. Not to mentio the engines, solar panels and potential habital volume is destroyed.

To Mars. I'm not entirely sure, but these are the forums for the marssociety? If not, i stand corrected. I'm not sure if anyone has seen the mars underground documentary from Dr. Zubrin, but there was a NASA official in it that more or less responded to the mars society as 'it's great to fantasise, but it's different if the nuts have to fit the bolts'. With that i have to agree. Doing the analog missions is fun, but it's not very constructive. For testing waste processing and human life systems, it's not necessairy to go to the arctic.

Another point which i find weird. The marssociety only focusses it's efforts on NASA, at least from what i can tell. NASA has proven after the Moon landings, that it cannot do anything cost-effective. Allthough i admit that i don't know the inner workings of NASA, i do know that it can be done much much cheaper the private way.

The biggest problem from my perspective is the amount of usable mass you can land on Mars cheaply. I'm not sure if it was on this board, but i can remember that there was someone who rebuilt his sewerpiepes in his own house to recycle all the water and human wastes he made. Though i think it destroyed his marriage, it showed that this is not superscience. We are doing it for ages, and we will be doing it for ages. On Mars, recycling waste is a bit more simple since it's a sterile environment, so the recycling system doesn't have to have a few things that such a device whould have on earth.

Another problem is with Mars missions in general is that we go there for pure science. Yes this is needed, before anything else, but we have sufficient data (especially after tomorrownight) to make descisions for a startupcolony. But, if we keep doing science, there will never be a colony. Scientist don't create colonies, colonists and adventurers do. The problem within this, as we can so on the ISS, is that the science instruments requiere a tremendous amount of energy while the actual energy energy needed to be alive in spac or on Mars, is much much lower.

With that in mind, if i would be a multi-millionaire and would have to spent my money on a Mars colony i would design the first stage on the following requirements and nothing more:
- has to be lightweight, so inflatable design rigidized with pressurized air/atmosphere;
- enough greenhousespace to grow enough food;
- a simply device which can drop seeds and water in the greenhouse for testing purposes;
- led-lights for greenhouses if necessary

You either can send a few people along, but testing it and see if the plants grow is not a bad idea. However, this can be done on earth as well for the most part. On another note, since this is only the most basic of startups (only creating food and recycling everything), the colonists would have nothing to do. Maybe some empty inflatable place and some handmining equipement like a shovel and a pick so they can at least do something.

Second phase would be to send industrial machinery so the colonists could build more livingspace. That would be my only requirement for the second phase. It doesn't make sense to me to do anything else. You simply need the extra livingspace to grow in a hostile environment as Mars is. This phase, i think, is the difficult part. If you want to do it cheaply, you'll have to do it in one launch on a cheap rocket (SpaceX, Dnepr) so that limits your mass. I know you can't make industrial machinery for mass production that light for Mars, but who said anything about mass production. If you could create 2 to 5 additional living spaces in a year is more then enough. Again, it has to be small enough to fit onto a rocket and it has to be light.

Third and nth phase:
Create more industrial equipement for melting iron, creating steel, etc etc. When this happens, energy requirements go up and up. Apart from nuclear power, solar power in orbit transmitted onto the surface is a good choice imo.

I'm sorry if that was (a bit) off-topic.

About a support staff on earth. I think a very small staff on standby is needed at most. If there is a life threatening situation, there would be nothing the support staff can do anyway and since it would be self-sufficient, there would be no need for support staff back home. imo.

cIclops · 2008-05-24 07:01:07

Hey there siggy, it's good to see you have delurked successfully!

That's a lot of points and questions for a first post, well done.

Okay, why aren't spacecraft reused? It's a problem of cost and technology. Making a spacecraft reusable costs money and makes it more complicated. When the technology to do this is ready it will surely be done. Some reuse is possible today, the Deep Impact spacecraft bus is being reused for two other missions called EPOXI. Progress cargo ships are being reused for ISS trash disposal. It's simply a question of cost, it's cheaper to launch a new spacecraft.

Yes, these forums are part of the Mars Society, click the icon top right to go there.

Yes, we discussed the Mars Underground movie here

There are many different views about NASA, but most people would agree it's the only game in town right now and they have done and are doing amazing things in space. NASA has been authorized to send humans to Mars and is beginning serious work on that goal.

Yes, closed life support systems will be essential to the first human Mars missions unless someone finds a way to launch a lot of usable mass cheaply into space.

It's big steps between robotic exploration, a first landing, setting up a permanent Outpost and then a colony. That seems to be the logical way to proceed, and of course right now we are in the middle of the first step.

So welcome to newmars and enjoy the trip!

siggy · 2008-05-24 07:50:48

Hey there siggy, it's good to see you have delurked successfully!
That's a lot of points and questions for a first post, well done.
Okay, why aren't spacecraft reused?

Thanks

I wasn't really referring to reuse, but using the materials from the spacecraft. Or parts at least.

NASA has been authorized to send humans to Mars and is beginning serious work on that goal.

They are? Didn't know that, i thought their current goal is the Moon by 2020.

Yes, closed life support systems will be essential to the first human Mars missions unless someone finds a way to launch a lot of usable mass cheaply into space.

Really cheap access won't happen with rockets imho. The cheapest way is to built everything as light as possible. Inflatable habs are extremely light compared to the pressurized cans.

It's big steps between robotic exploration, a first landing, setting up a permanent Outpost and then a colony. That seems to be the logical way to proceed, and of course right now we are in the middle of the first step.

Agreed, more or less. Experience is necessary, tests are necessary, but a manned landing just for doing a manned landing doesn't add anything constructive to the ultimate goal apart from the manned landing. For robotic exploration, i think after tomorrownight, everything is explored unless you want to dig deep into the surface. And that requires a bit more then just robots.

Why a permanent outpost, probably manned by only scientists on a rotating schedule? Takes way too much energy to ship crew back and forth, and it would increase complexity, mass and costs enourmusly. I know that that is the NASA way and the extremely safest way, but that would take ages and trillions of dollars & euros.

I think i will work my ass of to become multimillionair so i can at least try it my way

So welcome to newmars and enjoy the trip!

Thanks again

louis · 2008-05-24 11:44:14

Not sure how we define the difference between a permanent outpost and a colony. I can't imagine that there will in the first 50 years be many volunteers (or at least, not many suitable volunteers). I think the reality is that people will be living on Mars temporarily for between 2 and 6 years.

Gold trading might cover the cost of human transport. I don't think the developing outpost/colony will require a huge amount of material supply. They will be living simply on Mars and the food, furniture, hygiene products, clothes etc will be made with Mars ISRU. Some hi tech spare parts for machines and medicines will be required, but not huge amounts. I think we might be looking at less than 100 tonnes every 2 years for a mature outpost colony of 100 people.

cIclops · 2008-05-24 12:50:46

The difference between a permanently manned Outpost or base and a Colony is that people living in a colony would stay for there without intending to return and eventually people would be born there. An Outpost would not be permanently manned but the buildings and equipment would be reused.

ISS is an Outpost
Amundsen-Scott is a base
McMurdo Station is almost a colony

louis · 2008-05-24 18:32:34

Ciclops -

Trying to get these definitions sorted. So you seem to be saying...

Outpost is a permanent installation periodically with human habitation.

Colony is a permanent installation continuously inhabited mostly by persons who are permanent inhabitants of Mars.

You don't give a definition for a "base". Is that a permanent installation with permanent human habitations but where the inhabitants are mostly temporary inhabitants of Mars?

I don't really agree with this approach. I think any permanent installation which is continuously inhabited deserves to be called a colony. I wouldn't bother with the term outpost unless we are talking about a temporary habitat.

louis · 2008-05-24 18:33:51

...carrying on...

I think of a base as a small colony or part of a larger colony. A collection of several bases in close proximity I would call a settlement or city.

cIclops · 2008-05-25 05:14:13

Something like that louis

Definitions vary and so do associations - 'base' often to refers to a military installation. 'Outpost' can also be a military station some distance from the main base. 'Colony' is appropriate because it usually means a remote settlement that has strong links with its origin.

An outpost doesn't necessarily have to be permanent, bases usually are, a colony is setup to be permanent.

Amundsen-Scott base is permanently inhabited, but nobody calls it a colony. McMurdo station has over 1000 people resident including many "civilians" during the summer and over 200 in winter. However it has no permanently resident children, that might be a good test for colony status.

louis · 2008-05-25 07:41:02

"Amundsen-Scott base is permanently inhabited, but nobody calls it a colony."

From might point of view, that is because of its purpose. Its purpose as I understand remains strictly scientific. If the object were to develop a self-sustaining human community, primarily for its own existence then I think we might call it a colony.

I agree if we just set up a base on Mars as a scientific "listening post" then there is not much point in calling it a colony because it is not our aim to create a large self sustaining human community there.

SpaceNut · 2020-01-25 21:23:01

cIclops wrote:

To make the exercise valid for Mars exploration we need common denominators. Distance traversed, science payload, samples returned. For cost we can use either a simple total cost or cost per kg. if you can think of a better measure, than by call means suggest it.
The cost per km traversed, cost per kg of returned sample, cost per image - would all make sense.
Exploration cannot be measured in kg.

might as well make use of that exercise energy to do something useful like in pumping water to compressing air or even making electricity.

So how much energy do we get depends on the person
power-potential-various-exercise-machines

POWER PRODUCTION
Lat Pulldown: 594W/612W
Leg press: 450W/360W
Low Row: 306W/270W
Chest Press: 270W/189W
Machine Fly: 234W/189W
Leg extension 207W/126W
Triceps extension 198W/234W
Shoulder press 135W/162W
ENERGY PRODUCTION
Lat Pulldown: 9,9Wh/10,2Wh
Leg press: 7,5Wh/6Wh
Low Row: 5,1Wh/4,5Wh
Chest Press: 4,5Wh/3,15Wh
Fly: 3,9Wh/3,15Wh
Leg extension 3,45Wh/2,1Wh
Triceps extension3,3Wh/3,9Wh
Shoulder press 2,25Wh/2,7Wh
ENDURANCE TRAINING
Stair stepper: 150 watt = 50 Wh in 20 minutes.
Rowing machine: 122 watt = 40.6 Wh in 20 minutes.
Cycling machine: 110 watt = 36.6 Wh in 20 minutes.
Crossfit: 50 watt = 16,.7 Wh in 20 minutes.
Steps: 35 watt = 11.7 Wh in 20 minutes.

tahanson43206 · 2020-01-26 07:28:47

For SpaceNut re #98

Thank you for this interesting post, with the diagram and especially for the list of power potential of various exercise activities.

In recent days, I've been thinking about the opportunity offered by the launch of the Mars 2020 rover in July, to create a set of "virtual" expeditions for 100 students who would participate in an online activity supervised by a PhD level person, and lead by family and school personnel.

A requirement for ANY person making a trip to Mars would be a daily exercise schedule, and your list of energy potentials provides a way to measure performance by passengers and crew. I was thinking along the lines of inviting participants to report data from their personal lives such as food intake, exercise performed, and homework completed. The details of reporting would be worked out by the leadership of each group.

As described earlier in another topic, I am thinking along the lines of 100 students participating in a "virtual" ship, mediated by a dedicated FluxBB (or equivalent) online service. Membership in each ship would be by approval, so only the students, their parents or guardians, and supervising/leadership personnel would be able to log in.

An education theme for each ship would be the responsibility of the PhD level leader, and I would imagine it would reflect the field of expertise in which the leader has experience. However, as in many educational settings, "graduate assistants" would assist with management of assignment and assessment of student participation.

Originally, I was thinking of one ship with 100 students, but Elon Musk's recent vision of 1,000,000 people going to Mars suggested to me that 1,000,000 people involved in an activity like this is not unreasonable in the current age.

The cost in dollar/euro/yen terms is practically nothing. The FluxBB software is free, and the only cost to the sponsoring organization would be host server charges, which (I expect) would be quite low in today's cloud environment.

What ** is ** needed is time ... time and mental focus ... That holds true for the leadership of course, as well as for the students.

However, if this vision comes to pass, there could potentially be a number of folks following the flight of the 2020 Rover, and then the first several months of its stay on Mars (assuming a successful landing).

In any case, the "virtual" ship would "return" to Earth right on schedule for a real expedition, were one to have been planned for this launch window.

(th)

Calliban · 2020-01-26 08:54:10

SpaceNut wrote:

I think that we already have the data for Mars Cosmic radiation exposure and from it land in the areas that are dark blue and we are fine.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/s … 20308.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=7584
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2002/03 … rie_br.jpg

A few thoughts on radiation dose issues.

1. The radiation dose map appears to indicate doses in the 'blue' areas of 10-15 rem per year (100 to 150mSv).

2. That is quite a lot. But it refers to dose to unprotected human beings out in the surface. In that situation, humans will be wearing thick polymer based clothing that will offer additional protection.

3. Even in domed habitats, human beings will be spending most of their time in buildings, that will shield out most of this radiation. If they spend 25% of time outside of buildings, dose is reduced to 2.5-3.75rem per year. There are places on Earth with background radiation levels that high that are permanently inhabited.

4. Domes will most likely be made from steel frames, with glass and plastic panes between the steel lattice. So the domes will be electrically conductive. Maybe electric or magnetic fields can be used to deflect charged particles? A solution like this does not need to be 100% effective. If it can cut dose rates by 50%, it is useful enough to be valuable.

5. A dome 100m deep, pressurised to 0.5bar, provides 60kg/m2 of air above each square metre of internal surface. That is about 25% of the column density of the entire Martian atmosphere. Substantial additional shielding.

6. Martians are likely to be troglodytes. On this board we have discussed many times the different engineering options for producing pressurised volumes on Mars. Building underground, using the weight of rock and soil to balance the internal pressure in subsurface tunnels and caves, appears to be resource optimum. Containing pressure by ballasting against gravity, means that little is needed in the way of engineered pressure shells. It also takes care of the radiation problem, given that 2-3m of soil and rock will reduce cosmic ray doses to almost zero.

Last edited by Calliban (2020-01-26 09:05:00)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2008-05-22 05:41:20

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#77 2008-05-22 05:54:24

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#78 2008-05-22 07:06:09

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#79 2008-05-22 08:00:56

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#80 2008-05-22 12:40:01

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#81 2008-05-22 15:21:24

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#82 2008-05-22 16:45:19

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#83 2008-05-22 17:25:26

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#84 2008-05-23 02:47:44

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#85 2008-05-23 06:04:00

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#86 2008-05-23 06:06:43

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#87 2008-05-23 07:32:00

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#88 2008-05-23 17:30:29

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#89 2008-05-24 06:18:18

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#90 2008-05-24 07:01:07

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#91 2008-05-24 07:50:48

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#92 2008-05-24 11:44:14

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#93 2008-05-24 12:50:46

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#94 2008-05-24 18:32:34

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#95 2008-05-24 18:33:51

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#96 2008-05-25 05:14:13

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#97 2008-05-25 07:41:02

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#98 2020-01-25 21:23:01

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#99 2020-01-26 07:28:47

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#100 2020-01-26 08:54:10

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

Board footer