Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

GW Johnson · 2021-05-25 15:52:21

OF39:

17 crew via 4 Spacex Starships it is, then. Did any of the Starship payload info I posted prove useful to you? That was for 4 Starships. I split the crew into the 2 later ships, in case one crashed. Sounds like you had in mind 3 cargo ships and 1 crew-with-cargo. Not really much different. I currently show 149-171 tons deliverable to LEO by Starship/Superheavy, depending upon exactly what you assume. Restricting payload to only 150 tons to Mars per Starship allows you to use less than a full refill, even on a faster trajectory than you are proposing to use. That drastically cuts tanker flights and therefore cost (and complexity).

It sounds like you're planning on pre-packaged foods, and a few tons of water to be recycled for life support. That leaves oxygen generation for life support. And electric power for life support, which requires a small nuclear reactor. Maybe some solar, too, but you cannot do without that reactor. There may be a bad dust storm. There already have been.

Beyond life support, there is the practical matter of propellant production. I think I posted how much: the one ship to return is going to need about 250 m.tons methane and 950 m.tons oxygen = 1200 tons of propellants for the journey home, which journey is simply more demanding in terms of delta-vee than the ride out to Mars. I would suggest planning on redundant propellant manufacturing equipment and a lot of spares, assuming there will be many breakdowns. This thing will likely have to run 24/7 round the clock. It will require more than a small nuclear reactor. I dunno how much, but we're talking over a thousand tons in a year or so, so we are likely talking MW power levels, 24/7. You ain't gonna do that with solar and battery, even if it is never dark more than 12 hrs out of 24. But it will be, if a bad dust storm hits. And it will.

And then there is construction work. I would guess you are looking at things sort of like a battery (or extension-cord) electric tracked (big) Bobcat. These things could use solar augmented by some small nuclear. You can charge half your fleet during the day while the other half is working. Perhaps in shifts to get through the day. If it is night, or dark because of a bad dust storm, nobody will be outside working anyway. But they do need to stay charged. Hence the small nuclear.

And then there is science/exploration work. That requires some sort of rover cars, and possibly a way to camp overnight while being able to remove a helmet in a pressurized space. Solar with battery ought to be OK, if supplementable in some way by small emergency nuclear. The vehicles should have wheels, not tracks, because you need better speed capability. Think a car pulling one or more trailers, each trailer tailored to a purpose. One could be the campout pressurized space. The car itself could be open.

If I had my druthers, I would insist on MCP suits done as vacuum-protective underwear, over which you wear the kind of stuff used at South Pole Station. That kind of suit would be easily launderable, easily repairable, and would not be subject to depressurization dangers if it got a hole torn in it.

I doubt this is comprehensive, but I hope I addressed the most fundamental stuff. Hope it helps.

GW

louis · 2021-05-25 18:48:28

I've seen the figure of 1MWe constant for the propellant plant and that seems to be a kind of consensus figure several times and I think I ended up somewhere around there when I looked into it in detail. I think a Space X associated study came in with a figure of 60K sq metres for a PV facility to run the plant which suggests 1MWe might be an overestimate - a lot will depend on the economies of scale. I've never seen a detailed study looking at economies of scale for the propellant plant. Presumably there are such economies when you get heat circulating within vats and tanks etc. For a solar powered system there is obviously a trade off between energy storage and large propellant plant which probably favours a larger propellant plant mostly. I don't think the propellant plant itself has to be huge. I seem to recall something like 20 tons being a reasonable guesstimate for that plant facility itself (not including storage, but presumably we would use the Starships for storage).

GW Johnson wrote:

Beyond life support, there is the practical matter of propellant production. I think I posted how much: the one ship to return is going to need about 250 m.tons methane and 950 m.tons oxygen = 1200 tons of propellants for the journey home, which journey is simply more demanding in terms of delta-vee than the ride out to Mars. I would suggest planning on redundant propellant manufacturing equipment and a lot of spares, assuming there will be many breakdowns. This thing will likely have to run 24/7 round the clock. It will require more than a small nuclear reactor. I dunno how much, but we're talking over a thousand tons in a year or so, so we are likely talking MW power levels, 24/7. You ain't gonna do that with solar and battery, even if it is never dark more than 12 hrs out of 24. But it will be, if a bad dust storm hits. And it will.
GW

SpaceNut · 2021-05-25 19:24:39

Thanks GW for the post 96 as it explains a few things but if each ship is already full of mass one might have also assumed that it also was to its maximum volume that it could contain as well.

We also know that an even heavier starship landing without a concrete pad precursor mission is not happening even with a leg redesign for starship.

It also means extra of anything for extended stay is also a big if until we get one to land and not blown up that has humans in them...

I agree that there is a pecking order to those things that we want to build and make before leaving mars.

The big if's would still be water....

we are also in the need for a crane operator with the starships massive payload amounts and if we are expecting heavy equipment we will need a real crane as the metal of starship will need to be beefed back up to support its operation....

Something else is the cargo bay door or air lock can only be so large for a speedy transfer of goods from earth orbit before leaving to go to mars and thats not defined either. Its also a problem for the likes of the heavy equipment that we will need.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-05-25 23:54:58

GW-
Your comments are spot-on.
Regarding the sequence of Earth departure for Mars, the freighters would leave first on a slower trajectory in order to save on the amount orbital fueling required. Possibly freighter departure as soon as the window for the Hohmann transfer ellipse opens. The manned Starship will depart on a free return trajectory and everything can be scrubbed if all 3 cargo vessels suffer RUD or crash. I inadvertently left out the additional 2 Bobcat loaders and the rovers on the manned ship.
Yes, all will be battery operated Ala Tesla. There will be spare "quick change" battery packs for all vehicles, so taking a working unit out of service for a recharge will be accomplished by swapping out battery packs. The loaders and rovers will all have roofing of PV panels, and each will carry additional foldable spares in case the are needed. Get far from the base? Take a lunch break and set up the backup solar panels and get a partial recharge and enough to return to base camp before nightfall.
As I mentioned in post #9 , this will be a primary nuclear powered mission. Each starship should be carrying one 500 kW reactor and another 100kW system for more versatile and easily accessed power. There will be complete redundancy of fuel production reactors on each Starship. If nothing gets broken or destroyed during landing, this will ensure adequate fuel production and adequate power for charging batteries and doing useful work.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-05-26 00:10:29)

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-26 07:18:40

For OF re topics ...

It is good to see GW Johnson actively on your team!

You have a variety of options going forward ... The one SpaceNut suggested is the least complicated and has a minimal downside.

SpaceNut suggested aiming for a Wiki-like structure that would reside in this forum and remain available to such readers as might wander by, or conceivably there might be an occasional referral to the topic. That is a worthy goal, and I'd be happy to help with that if there is something I might be able to do.

The second tier is my proposal you aim for publication in a print journal not subject to peer review (other than the editor, who will be looking for value to a general audience, and less to technical considerations.

The ** real ** Gold Ring for this endeavor would be to prepare a proposal good enough to pass muster with Dr. Zubrin, and be authorized to proceed on to SpaceX with the blessing of the Mars Society.

Or, we could just continue on as normal forum activity, and that would be fine as well. The content gathering in your two topics is already in the upper range of the history I have seen, although there is a vast terrain I've not seen.

I'd be interested in where you'd be comfortable aiming.

(th)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-05-26 08:50:22

(th)-

Re: your post #105; I need to give this a bit of thought before making such a commitment.

I did a bit of research on the Bobcat website last night, and perhaps we should include 2 excavators (tracked backhoes). They're heavier and more bulky than the front loader Bobcat skid-steer units, but these would allow excavation of habitat shelter trenches more rapidly and effectively than front-loader units. These would also be much more effective for moving large rocks and preparation of a landing pad for the permanent base. These would also make digging into a hillside practical. I wasn't able to find , in my rather quick examination of the website, any weight details for any of the equipment. I suspect the standard Bobcats would be around 7,000 pounds and an excavator double that weight.

SpaceNut · 2021-05-26 16:59:18

We are now at a battle star galatical stage...to many rockets most likely at a min 2 billion to 4 billion with all the equipment modified to perform its tasks maybe more.

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-26 18:29:11

For SpaceNut re #107

Was #107 intended to be humorous?

There is little point in nickle dime(ing) something like this. In the days of exploration of the Arctic and the Antarctic, the nickel/dime folks never left port.

In my opinion, you (or whoever is designing this) needs to decide what is needed to bring the crew home safely (a) and solicit whatever funds are needed to insure that, so that (b) whatever science objectives are motivating the funders can be achieved..

The funders are NOT going to appreciate someone nickel/dime(ing) at the cost of lives or science objectives.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-27 07:44:34

Noah wrote:

I found a list of questions for a building design. It is intended for an Earth building, but many questions are also useful for a Mars building.
(Source: Neufert Architects'Data Fifth Edition)

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-27 07:50:00

For Noah,

While you were away studying (and of course that is the most important use of your time!) some changes were made in the forum.

The topic created by Oldfart1939 to define and plan a 17 person expedition is to be updated by the author.

All the rest of us are welcome and encouraged to post in the Companion. I moved (copied and pasted) your post, but it did not come across correctly.

Please recreate your post in the Companion.

In addition, for all ... Noah has provided a checklist for planning design and construction of a building on Earth. There are individual details of the checklist that might be applicable for Mars.

If someone has the time to look over the list that Noah provided, it would be interesting (to me for sure) to see what a list just for Mars might look like.

(th)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-05-27 15:49:10

Re, posts #107 & 108:

I think that SpaceNut was echoing the original concept of Mars Direct in contrast to the one in the "90 day report" that was presented by NASA to congress. It was DOA based on costs approaching $500 Billion. On the other hand, SpaceX is proposing something much more workable and at almost no cost to the Federal Treasury.

I admired the concept proposed by Robert Zubrin and the effort he has continued in that direction. That design concept is now 30+ years in the rear view mirror, and some progress in available hardware has finally come to pass.

The elapsed time makes the Mars Direct concept no less valuable than before.

P.S.: The Battlestar Galctica comment is straight from Robert Zubrin's talks.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-05-27 16:04:17)

GW Johnson · 2021-05-27 16:24:34

OF:

See what I said in the "Starship is go" thread. Men to Mars in 2026 with an extremely experimental vehicle is utter nonsense. Being ready with a mission plan is not nonsense, but near-term mission expectations are simply out-of-line with facts on the ground.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-27 18:21:27

For OF re timing ....

Taking the counsel of GW Johnson into account, I still think that 10 years is a reasonable time scale for an expedition on the scale of the one you have outlined.

You ** should ** remain available to provide counsel over that time period. The key role you can play now, if the stars align as I'm hoping they will, is as an inspiration to the young folks who are (a) going and (b) going to make it happen.

It seems to me that recruiting your 17 expedition members ** now ** for a launch 10 years from now ** should ** seem reasonable to the kind of level-headed person you want in any case.

***
Regarding Bobcats ... I'd like to offer the suggestion you delegate responsibility for selecting hardware to carry out tasks to the people you recruit. They'll appreciate your confidence in them, and you'll be happier with the results.

If a habitat needs to be constructed, detailed planning and rehearsals can be carried out on Earth.

There is NO need to limit participation to the United States.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2021-05-28 05:55:22

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I did a bit of research on the Bobcat website last night, and perhaps we should include 2 excavators (tracked backhoes). They're heavier and more bulky than the front loader Bobcat skid-steer units, but these would allow excavation of habitat shelter trenches more rapidly and effectively than front-loader units.

I see you're doing construction. Not just the first exploration/science mission, but construction. The Mars Homestead project assumed 12 crew to construct the first permanent human base. Yes, we believed a construction vehicle was required. I would like to make a suggestion.

This is a typical Bobcat skid-steer loader. There are various sizes. This one is S450. ("S" for skid) Rated Operating Capacity: 1,370lb. Operating weight: 5,370lb

The thing that makes it "skid-steer" is it's wheels. It's wheels don't turn, to steer the vehicle you turn the wheels on one side while wheels on the other do not turn. Or to pivot in place, turn wheels on the other side backward. This means the wheels literally "skid" across the ground as it's steering. Be advised: operating this on grass will tear up the grass. This works very well on pavement or hard or very firm ground. It doesn't work so well on loose soil/dirt/sand/gravel at an incline.

This is a typical Bobcat compact track loader. This one is T450. ("T" for track) ROC: 1,490lb. Operating weight: 6,424lb

Track vehicles work better on loose ground and inclines. The track provides more traction. I'm suggesting a compact track loader would be more appropriate for Mars.

An excavator can be compact. The first is E10, Rated Lift Capacity 527lb, Operating weight 2,593lb. The second is E20, RLC 1,098lb, Operating weight 4,306lb.

Bobcat has become known for compact construction vehicles. Other brands manufacture competing vehicles: John Deere, Case, Caterpillar, New Holland, others.
Heavy Equipment Guide: Companies by Skid-Steer Loaders

Any vehicle would have to be customized for Mars. One suggestion I made was to manufacture the vehicle with titanium alloy instead of steel. Titanium has the same weight (mass), but greater strength. That allows making structural members like arms to lift the bucket thinner, so lighter. Hydraulics will have to be adjusted for extreme cold of Mars. And the engine can't breathe air, Mars has no oxygen. Well, practically none; not enough for combustion. When Robert Zubrin and David Baker proposed Mars Direct in 1990, they suggested using methane/oxygen because the ERV would need that for propellant anyway. Just make a bit more for the rover. But rather than using electricity to run ISPP, you could just operate the vehicle with electricity. At least one company specializes in electric conversion of Bobcat vehicles. And Bobcat themselves is working on all electric vehicles using lithium-ion batteries. They're even working on all electric actuators instead of hydraulics; intended for cold climates like Alaska.

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-28 06:30:26

For RobertDyck re item here: This should fit into Large Ship as well.

For OF ... Possibly of interest for trip out and back ...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/zero … 10268.html

Short-term microgravity (the prototype was only weightless for 20 seconds at a time) is just a limited test, of course, and it already helped shake out an issue with the device that they're working on. But the next test might be a longer-term installation aboard the ISS, the denizens of which would no doubt like to have a working fridge.
While the prospect of cold drinks and frozen (but not freeze-dried) meals is tantalizing, a normal refrigerator could be used for all kinds of scientific work as well. Experiments that need cold environments currently either use complicated, small scale cooling mechanisms or utilize the near-absolute-zero conditions of space. So it's no surprise NASA got them aboard the microgravity simulator as part of the Flight Opportunities program.
Analysis of the data collected on the flights is ongoing, but the success of this first big test validates both the approach and execution of the space fridge. Next up is figuring out how it might work in the limited space and continuous microgravity of the ISS.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2021-05-28 08:31:41

Construction vehicles: battery electric makes good sense on Mars. You have choices of nuclear and solar for recharge. Hydraulic actuators generate more force for the weight than electric actuators, even today. You use an electric motor instead of shaft power to run the hydraulic pump, so that the rest is the same as here. As for hydraulic fluid in the cold of Mars, delete the hydrocarbon oil in favor of silicone oil. It goes a lot lower without gelling up.

Choice of materials: densities of aluminum are 0.10 lb/cu.in, titanium 0.17 lb/cu.in, and steel 0.28 lb/cu.in. Aluminum has the lowest strength range, titanium is similar in strength range to aluminum, and steel is much higher in its strength range, particularly the heat-treatable forms. You can work-form aluminum and steel, you cannot work-form alpha-phase titanium (and there is no stable beta-phase form). All these metals fatally embrittle in the cold, except 300-series stainless steel. The 300 series austenitic stainlesses are nonmagnetic, and non-heat-treatable (except to anneal-out work hardening).

GW

SpaceNut · 2021-05-28 13:08:36

Good to see the posts on the equipment and they are now in its topic as well...

Battery power construction equipment

I made note that since we do not have a garage for the vehicles when not in use that we will need to solve for how to protect the battery from the mars cold.

Construction technology for Mars?

Covering a variety of 3D concrete and other materials to make use of...
Here is another item we might need that already comes in a battery operatalble

BATTERY 48V 425AH
83 amp external battery charger.
A 240V battery charger is standard

Oldfart1939 · 2021-05-28 17:06:09

Please note: I specifically included a separate habitat structure in the parent thread for vehicles and maintenance. I'm thinking that plug-in electric heaters can keep the oil and hydraulic fluids from gelling.

SpaceNut · 2021-05-28 18:22:24

First use of equipment is berm and moving of nuclear reactor... est total time, crew to complete task?
Second to house equipment is building

Ok concrete pad required? Lots more time and crew to do plus materials

A little different shape but How to Put Up Quonset Hut-Type Buildings

Things You'll Need
Cement foundation with troughs 6 inches wide and 8 inches deep lengthwise along both sides.
4-man construction crew
Q-Model Quonset kit
Scissor jack
Rope
Spud wrenches with tapered ends and foot-long tapered drift
4 cordless air impact wrenches

https://www.homeintheearth.com/2014/10/ … hut-steel/

Each arch is made up of 7 pieces of steel bolted together with half inch bolts. Each arch section ends up weighing ~240 lbs.
The garage steel came on 1 pallet weighing about 4800 lbs. It included 2 buckets and 2 boxes containing about ~5000 pairs of nuts and bolts.
To assemble the arches, I used the help of friends and family… No one who helped had ever done anything like it before.
The first Saturday, I had my parents and sister to help for nearly 12 hours, pre-dawn to dark. We got up 6 arches, which means it took an average of about 8 man hours per arch.
Actually, the second arch took 3 hours and 40 minutes, which is about 14.66 man hours… And the 6th arch took 1.5 hours or 6 man hours. That is a decent learning curve. The second Saturday is harder to calculate because I had different people who came at different times for different numbers of hours.
The first arch was done by 3 people and some time was lost giving tours to arriving friends, etc. but we were starting on the second arch by 2 hours and 10 minutes later, which is 6.5 man hours. The 9th arch (the last one that we had a full crew for) took 7 guys only 35 minutes, which is just over 4 man hours.
In total, my friends and family gave me 94 man hours over those two Saturdays

Unsure of the available man hours but its got to be all hands on the deck if its not a full day and in space suits it will be longer...

Oldfart1939 · 2021-05-29 09:06:29

SpaceNut-

Re: your post #119.

That's a lot more than I had envisioned for the Mars Mission #1, both in size and materials. There will of necessity, be an airlock for the shop, adequately sized for ingress and egress of rovers, Bobcats, and any other construction vehicles; probably doors 3 meters by 3 meters. The building material for the walls will be polymeric with carbon fiber and Boron Nanotube additives for radiation moderation and load-bearing strength. Most of the weight-bearing will be accomplished by internal pressurization, which is why an airlock will be needed. I envision this whole system to be be about 1.5 meters below grade for the floor. This is to facilitate the addition of a layer of regolith for Solar Flare protection. I also envision an emergency radiation shelter as a dug-in feature, completely sheltered from flares.

As an aside, this is something that the Mars Desert Research Station could undertake as a construction project.

GW Johnson · 2021-05-29 11:27:44

OF:

You might consider the depressurization accident scenario when deciding what strength to use for regolith-covered structures. I doubt you want the building to collapse just because it lost its atmosphere from inside. Patch a hole and repressurizing is always less effort than building another one.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-29 12:39:42

For OF re flow of topics...

It is good to see GW Johnson joining the members contributing to your effort here ...

After pondering his post #120, it came to me that there might be something to the old Sears Roebuck "Good/Better/Best" merchandise ranking.

Your preference for a cheap, quick and just barely capable solution would (hopefully) qualify as a "good" solution, and it might appeal to some customer who had a greater tolerance for loss of personnel than others.

GW's suggestion might represent a first cut at a "better" solution, which might cost more but might reassure investors the crew has better chances.

There might be something not yet posted that would be even better, incorporating lower cost and reduced risk. I have no idea what that might look like, but it may well be "out there" waiting for someone to recognize.

***
Regarding digging machinery ... there is no reason at all to put humans on work vehicles like that ... Every bidder for a contract to supply your digging equipment should provide fully remote operations capability, and include a mount for an AI system if it becomes available by launch date.

On-Earth farmers are already experimenting with AI systems for farming equipment, and the trend is certainly going to accelerate.

(th)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-05-29 15:35:09

Thomas-
I never stated a preference for cheap and barely capable. At this point, ANYTHING WE SEND will be barely capable.
I disagree strongly about reliance on robotics and earth moving machinery (regolith moving machinery?). I have considerable experience, as does GW, in operation of farm-type machinery. Doing something on another planet for the first time requires human input, and no amount of sophistication can overcome the unexpected. That's because it IS unexpected. I have personally owned and operated 5 different tractors with front loaders in various sizes and degrees of sophistication, Ranging from a small Deutz 3 cylinder diesel up to and including a John Deere 6400 which had a 1.5 ton working capacity front loader.

Even as an experienced and careful operation, it was easy to get stuck and required that a second tractor be used to rescue the stuck one. I envision large rocks buried in what from the surface appears to be sand. A robotic tractor would probably destroy itself in an attempt to push through, or back up and hit the obstacle at a higher speed in a lower gear range.

This is a trap for the unknowing and overconfident.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-05-29 16:07:55)

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-29 16:48:15

For Oldfart1939 re #123

Thank you for engaging with me on the point of teleoperation as compared to physical operation of a piece of equipment.

On Earth, direct operation of equipment is on it's way out. The risks to human life and limb are tolerable when (a) life is not valued and (b) there are no alternatives. Already there are teleoperation systems running on Earth, at considerable savings to the organizations that make the investments, not to mention improved health and wellbeing of the workers.

If your equipment on Mars needs a human operator under some very special circumstance, so be it. I'm confident you'll discover that modern equipment is capable of operating (under human direct control) as well as that equipment can operate with a human in the cockpit, and at considerable savings in the long run, because the human operators can swap in and out instantly just as they do now with a Zoom call between friends.

However, I'm going to return to my basic point .... your role (as I see it) is to inspire your team to join you, and to solicit from them the recommendations on how to do THEIR jobs as you lay them out. The people you hire are all going to be PhD level people although they may not necessarily possess or even want the diploma. ** No ** one you hire is going to need instruction on how to operate a piece of equipment.

** Your ** role is to demonstrate to your funder (those who will be accepting your bid) that you are able to recruit and to inspire a team of such capability that the investment will have a better than even chance of success in not only bringing everyone back but achieving the mission objectives as well.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-05-29 18:48:01

The composite materials are not meant to be cheap but another alternative material to explore for an option since that would be a mass saving if it could be used.

The real issue is it needs a solid floor to attach to in the concrete pad which we do not have time to mix, pour add fixturing attachments and such on day 1 as its going to take much longer than we have to exit the equipment from the starships cargo hold which will need crane operation to bring down to the surface for its first use which is for nuclear plant setup in a kilowatt format as in multiple Krusty units.

Even if the nuclear setups go smoothly we still need to keep them warm for the night even if unprotected so as to be able to make use of them on the next day....Thats when its critical for creating new structures to get man out of the tuna can hab of the starship as we need the oxygen system running, water electrolysis units up and co2 collection to begin....

https://theconstructor.org/concrete/fib … ials/5060/

Mechanical and chemical properties of polymer materials are crucial for designers and engineers since these characteristics demonstrate whether these materials are suitable to be used in construction or not.
High strength or modulus to weight ratios, toughness, resilience, resistance to corrosion, lack of conductivity (heat and electrical), color, transparency are properties which are present in most of polymer materials. It is possible to modify the properties of polymer materials by either adding stabilizer or plasticizers.

The chemistry of
https://www3.nd.edu/~amoukasi/CBE30361/ … s_2014.pdf

Something to keep in mind is how its going to be packed inside of the starship not just how to make it into the assembly that we are desiring....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2021-05-25 15:52:21

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#102 2021-05-25 18:48:28

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#103 2021-05-25 19:24:39

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#104 2021-05-25 23:54:58

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#105 2021-05-26 07:18:40

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#106 2021-05-26 08:50:22

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#107 2021-05-26 16:59:18

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#108 2021-05-26 18:29:11

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#109 2021-05-27 07:44:34

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#110 2021-05-27 07:50:00

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#111 2021-05-27 15:49:10

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#112 2021-05-27 16:24:34

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#113 2021-05-27 18:21:27

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#114 2021-05-28 05:55:22

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#115 2021-05-28 06:30:26

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#116 2021-05-28 08:31:41

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#117 2021-05-28 13:08:36

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#118 2021-05-28 17:06:09

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#119 2021-05-28 18:22:24

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#120 2021-05-29 09:06:29

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#121 2021-05-29 11:27:44

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#122 2021-05-29 12:39:42

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#123 2021-05-29 15:35:09

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#124 2021-05-29 16:48:15

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

#125 2021-05-29 18:48:01

Re: Companion fo Mars Expedition Number One; 17 crew members

Board footer