Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

louis · 2018-03-18 17:33:47

It seems to me there are several distinct policy options facing Musk and his associates when it comes to the governance of Mars.

[In this context, I would point out that while the Outer Space Treaty has all sorts of prohibitions on Earth-based states alientating to themselves celestial bodies or parts thereof, the Treaty is silent on what happens if inhabitants of a celestial body declare themselves independent and self-governing. ]

There are a number of routes that could be taken:

1. BIG BANG

Musk has said he envisages there being "direct democracy" on Mars. Well, there is nothing to stop the first inhabitants on Mars declaring an independent state for the whole planet to be operated on the principle of direct democracy.

This might be a way of putting up a roadblock to interventions on Mars by totalitarian states and ideologies.

The new Mars state would have a right to self-defence and self-organisation.

2. SLOW BURN

You take a more evolutionary approach. You hope that your governor, becomes governor advised by council, then executive working with legislative council and so on until you have a working democratic government. Of course the issues of confederacy have to be resolved. Would each colony on Mars be self-governing? Would any union of colonies be permanent with a ban on secession (like the USA)?

3. COLD COMFORT

Here I am thinking you put up the white flag to the UN and say, let's make Mars like Antarctica...everyone can go there, but no one can own it and it will be weapon-free. Any development will be strictly controlled to avoid endangering any artefacts or current life forms.

4. "HOPE FOR THE BEST"

You avoid addressing the issues and simply proceed with your efforts to put humans on Mars. Maybe you do it with an American flag flying over your base but you don't have any form of government per se. You rely on your selection processes to put people there who will obey rules and regulations set by agencies on Earth.

I think my preferences are 1, 3, 2, 4. But I think the US government is simply not going to let Musk do anything as radical as set up an independent Mars government from the get-go.

Of course there are other options: "Violate the OST and declare the whole of Mars an American possession"..."Set up a single dictatorship for the whole of Mars"...."Allow - or even encourage - China, Russia and Saudi Arabia to set up totalitarian entities on Mars". Let them bring their guns, nerve gas, nutty religions and so on as they please... None of those appeal to me.

IanM · 2018-03-18 17:42:40

My personal preferences would be 2>1>>>4>>>>>>>3. I'm not a particularly big fan of making Mars like Antarctica and thus condemning humanity to an essentially single-planet existence. Nor am I big fan of a sustained state of controlled anarchy for much the same reason. As for the other options, I think 2 might be the best given the pitfalls of direct democracy, but 1 might also be good if the will of the people eventually provides for a solid constitution. My personal favorite would be something like what the Space Settlement Institute advocates, but I'm not sure if that's particularly likely.

louis · 2018-03-19 03:38:04

Ian - Do you have a link for the Space Settlement Institute proposal?

IanM wrote:

My personal preferences would be 2>1>>>4>>>>>>>3. I'm not a particularly big fan of making Mars like Antarctica and thus condemning humanity to an essentially single-planet existence. Nor am I big fan of a sustained state of controlled anarchy for much the same reason. As for the other options, I think 2 might be the best given the pitfalls of direct democracy, but 1 might also be good if the will of the people eventually provides for a solid constitution. My personal favorite would be something like what the Space Settlement Institute advocates, but I'm not sure if that's particularly likely.

IanM · 2018-03-19 10:00:27

It's something like this: http://www.space-settlement-institute.o … e-act.html

louis · 2018-03-19 16:10:34

Thanks Ian.

I think that proposed legislation would conflict with the Outer Space Treaty as it stands. The OST as I understand it does not allow states to alienate any land on celestial bodies to themselves, and the same applies to any private concern operating under their aegis. So the USA for instance could not voluntarily decide to award land rights to private firms.

As previously mentioned I think a licensing system relating to operational areas established on Mars would be acceptable under the Treaty, since you have to have some sort of orderly system of operation when humans get to Mars.

IanM wrote:

It's something like this: http://www.space-settlement-institute.o … e-act.html

louis · 2018-03-19 16:14:12

What would a BIG BANG option involve?:

1. A declaration of independence by the community of human beings on Mars.

2. A claim to the whole of planet.

3. Adoption of a constitution providing for elements of direct and representative democracy.

4. Establishment of a digital currency for Mars, which can be freely traded on Earth.

5. Declaration of Mars doctrine - requiring all Mars settlement projects to obtain the approval of the Mars Government and declaration that Mars is a weapons-free zone.

Last edited by louis (2018-03-19 16:17:33)

SpaceNut · 2018-03-19 17:11:34

Realestate registry or claims land doctrine not just minerals or gems for mars people and of there own property ownership to which only upon a sale of the first round of parcel ownership can an off worlder be able to purchase for use any mars property.
Mars global command port for space travel and commerce coordination center.

elderflower · 2018-03-20 05:39:59

Weapons free? A rock can be a weapon, particularly when flaked to sharpen it. Never mind availability of screwdrivers, hammers, drills etc

louis · 2018-03-20 05:42:44

Maybe amend to weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weaponry, as defined on Earth.

elderflower wrote:

Weapons free? A rock can be a weapon, particularly when flaked to sharpen it. Never mind availability of screwdrivers, hammers, drills etc

louis · 2018-03-20 05:49:45

Ownership of land is simply not allowed by the Outer Space Treaty. You could have a licence registry - Person A or Firm A is licensed by the state operating the base to operate in Area C for X no. of years for Y purpose. I think in order for it not to be a violation of the treaty, the number of years cannot be say 1000 years or maybe even 100 and it has to be for an active purpose. I also think licence transfers could not be automatic. on sale of a firm or death of Person A - these are licences that attach to a specific (legal) person.

For practical purposes, I think a licensing system would work as well as, in some sense better, than a freehold system. Most people acquire land for active purposes - to live on, to farm, to build factories, shops and offices on. Very few people buy as speculation. In many parts of Europe, the majority of the population are used to renting and not have lifelong rights over property.

SpaceNut wrote:

Realestate registry or claims land doctrine not just minerals or gems for mars people and of there own property ownership to which only upon a sale of the first round of parcel ownership can an off worlder be able to purchase for use any mars property.
Mars global command port for space travel and commerce coordination center.

elderflower · 2018-03-20 05:58:12

Firearms? Gas powered guns? Explosives?
Applicability of the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution?
It may be difficult to smuggle stuff in on a rocket, given payload restrictions, but with a half decent workshop you can make quite sophisticated weaponry if you want to. You cannot prevent people from arming themselves somehow if they want to, except by concentration camp.

RobertDyck · 2018-03-20 06:44:04

louis wrote:

Ownership of land is simply not allowed by the Outer Space Treaty. You could have a licence registry - Person A or Firm A is licensed by the state operating the base to operate in Area C for X no. of years for Y purpose. I think in order for it not to be a violation of the treaty, the number of years cannot be say 1000 years or maybe even 100 and it has to be for an active purpose. I also think licence transfers could not be automatic. on sale of a firm or death of Person A - these are licences that attach to a specific (legal) person.

Outer Space Treaty

Article II
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
...
Article VIII
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

The treaty doesn't actually prohibit ownership of land. However, no nation can claim sovereignty, so who can grant you ownership? One guy tried to sell deeds to celestial bodies. His argument is that he isn't a nation, so the treaty doesn't apply to him. However, a court ruled he can't sell title deed. After all, land on celestial bodies are not his to sell. To avoid criminal charges, he agreed that his "deeds" are nothing but novelty items.

The other point is there is no time limit. An "object" placed on a celestial body remains under jurisdiction of the nation it came from. No time limit.

louis · 2018-03-20 09:50:44

Well quite: the Treaty doesn't need to mention ownership, because ownership is always guaranteed by the state and if the state can't
appropriate the land to themselves as part of their state territory, then they have no means to guarantee ownership. The same applies to the high seas and Antarctica. By virtue of the treaties governing those parts of planet Earth, states cannot guarantee private ownership within those areas. Any person who simply claimed ownership would be considered to have undertaken an act of piracy under international law...which means recognised states could simply obliterate them (pirates have very few rights under international law).

Of course, a Big Bang approach would be a new departure. The human settlement on Mars would have to be prepared to assert its sovereignty on the basis of some theory of natural right. They would have no immediate recognition under Earth based international law. But one could make a strong argument I think for the natural right of self government on several grounds. At some state the Earth, the UN and major powers might be prepared to recognise the Mars government's authority and right to self rule if that government could build up the community quickly enough. If you could build up the Mars commnity to 10,000 quickly, say, using ISRU, I think it would be very difficult for Earth powers to dislodge them.

RobertDyck wrote:

louis wrote:
Ownership of land is simply not allowed by the Outer Space Treaty. You could have a licence registry - Person A or Firm A is licensed by the state operating the base to operate in Area C for X no. of years for Y purpose. I think in order for it not to be a violation of the treaty, the number of years cannot be say 1000 years or maybe even 100 and it has to be for an active purpose. I also think licence transfers could not be automatic. on sale of a firm or death of Person A - these are licences that attach to a specific (legal) person.
Outer Space Treaty
Article II
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
...
Article VIII
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.
The treaty doesn't actually prohibit ownership of land. However, no nation can claim sovereignty, so who can grant you ownership? One guy tried to sell deeds to celestial bodies. His argument is that he isn't a nation, so the treaty doesn't apply to him. However, a court ruled he can't sell title deed. After all, land on celestial bodies are not his to sell. To avoid criminal charges, he agreed that his "deeds" are nothing but novelty items.
The other point is there is no time limit. An "object" placed on a celestial body remains under jurisdiction of the nation it came from. No time limit.

Terraformer · 2018-03-20 13:34:09

They wouldn't need to dislodge them. They'd just ignore them, and carry on settling Mars. As long as the independentistas stick to their habitats, and don't attack anyone, everyone should get along fine.

louis · 2018-03-20 16:36:56

Well that's not what I was describing in the Big Bang approach...under that approach you would remove or destroy any rovers, robots or life support equipment that wasn't authorised by your independent sovereign Mars government.

Terraformer wrote:

They wouldn't need to dislodge them. They'd just ignore them, and carry on settling Mars. As long as the independentistas stick to their habitats, and don't attack anyone, everyone should get along fine.

elderflower · 2018-03-21 04:59:09

10000 people wouldn't be enough to patrol a whole planet with land surface equal to that of earth. You probably need millions to support such an effort. UN intervention is unlikely, the UN depends on member states to provide resources for military action and I can't see that happening given the costs involved in sending an expeditionary force to Mars
I foresee many settlements, some with non Western origins, developing separately on Mars. Hopefully an equivalent of the Continental Congress will come about and a United Martian States will be constituted by the time there are several tens of thousands of settlers in a few dozen settlements. This entity can then join the UN if it wants to.

Terraformer · 2018-03-21 05:16:15

So, Louis, you're suggesting that 10,000 people declare war on 7.5 billion? I think we'd just drop a rock on them, if they tried that. Or remember to send weapons so that the settlers can defend themselves, if the silly independentistas decide to fly halfway around Mars to cause trouble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YSozbfIQbY

Last edited by Terraformer (2018-03-21 05:17:13)

louis · 2018-03-21 14:03:00

I'm suggesting that it wouldn't be that easy for 7.5 billion people marooned on Earth to defeat 10,000 on Mars.

If sending an army of 10,000 to defeat the people of Mars, they would have to launch 100 BFRs in one launch window, in a matter of days, and probably another 50 BFR cargo ships. Then what? If the Mars people were ruthless they could destroy the BFRs before they even got close to Mars with laser weapons or perhaps with the equivalent of a few billion pieces of shrapnel sent in their direction, tearing into their spaceships' body work when they collide with the fast moving ships.

If the BFRs land, the Mars community can surround the ships and prevent them unloading personnel and cargo. The Earth invaders will be in no fit state to fight in any case immediately on arrival (unless they've developed AG).

Even if they deploy their energy systems - PV panels or nuclear reactors, those can easily be destroyed by the Mars community using offensive rocket hoppers.

I am not arguing for war but I am arguing that if you want to avoid war on Mars, you really need to think strategically and creating a unified independent democratic Mars government is essential.

No democracy on Earth has ever gone to war with another democracy on Earth. Lots of non-democracies have gone to war with each other or democracies.

Terraformer wrote:

So, Louis, you're suggesting that 10,000 people declare war on 7.5 billion? I think we'd just drop a rock on them, if they tried that. Or remember to send weapons so that the settlers can defend themselves, if the silly independentistas decide to fly halfway around Mars to cause trouble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YSozbfIQbY

Terraformer · 2018-03-21 15:30:42

If America tried to lay claim to the entirety of Antarctica, and started attacking everyone else’s bases, they'd soon have a war on their hands.

Anyway, I expect space colonisation to unfold in a similar way to Antarctica. The backers, who will initially be governments, will appoint the base commanders and be responsible for whatever happens on their bases. If we're lucky, there'll be private colonies later, which will also have governors appointed by their backers.

louis · 2018-03-21 18:53:55

The Big Bang proposal is that the humans present on Mars declare an independent global state at the earliest opportunity. There would be no other bases on Mars. So the issue would be whether Earth powers, individually or collectively, would seek to invade Mars in those circumstances, or would they deal with the government.

I am not saying this is a very probable option. It would firstly depend on a very fast colonisation process as first envisaged by Musk - tens of BFRs setting off every two years for a decade or so. I think if you had a sizeable community on Mars, then it would be difficult to deny their right to self-governance. It would also depend on the community being very technically advanced, using robots on a big scale.

It is though feasible, if a number of things were to fall into place very rapidly:-

1. Thousands of colonists who are highly educated (in science and technology) and wish to settle permanently on Mars.

2. Issues of living 0.38 G resolved through weighted suits, space medicine and use of centrifuges. That would include key issue of successful procreation.

3. Massive industrialisation, on a per capita scale so that the colony is able to make energy generation equipment, steel, processed metals, plastics, ceramics, bricks, rockets, satellites, electrical equipment, electronics, transport vehicles, robots, 3 Printers and full range of machine tools, lasers, all household goods, chemical processing equipment, all agricultural equipment and mining equipment. Most industrial processes would be very highly automated.

4. Huge revenues generated through trade with Earth and sale of on-Mars services.

Put that all together and I think you would have a community that could stand on its own and resist any aggression from Earth.

If you think there won't be aggression from Earth under any of the options, I think you are being naive. There will be. And I don't think you could put a lid on development on Mars in the way you can with Antarctica. I think Mars will prove irresistible as an option for permanent settlement once people get there, see the possibilities, the beauty of the place and conquer the barriers to living there successfully.

Terraformer wrote:

If America tried to lay claim to the entirety of Antarctica, and started attacking everyone else’s bases, they'd soon have a war on their hands.
Anyway, I expect space colonisation to unfold in a similar way to Antarctica. The backers, who will initially be governments, will appoint the base commanders and be responsible for whatever happens on their bases. If we're lucky, there'll be private colonies later, which will also have governors appointed by their backers.

Void · 2018-03-21 20:42:24

Be at peace. Or pieces if you are a VV.

I have a limited interest here.

The point I will speculate on is that since survival of humans on Mars, will depend on people who are technologically competent, and intelligent, and most likely co-operative, will limit the opportunities for simplified humans to take over the gene pool.

Mars unlike Antarctica, probably has enormous gifts for those who have the capability to unlock them.

I think however, it will not favor the VV's. Verbal and violent. That is people who like to live off of the efforts of the intelligent and like to replace them genetically with their simplified capabilities.

It is too easy in a land of opportunity for the capable to either refuse to co-operate, or to arrange for an air leak that serves their purpose of getting rid of VV's.

The useless excessive specialty of being a redundant dominator will not be rewarded as much on Mars as it is in 3rd world countries and really to some extent everywhere, on Earth.

Other than that I don't have a crystal ball.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-03-21 20:44:10)

RobertDyck · 2018-03-21 21:32:46

Terraformer wrote:

I expect space colonisation to unfold in a similar way to Antarctica. The backers, who will initially be governments, will appoint the base commanders and be responsible for whatever happens on their bases. If we're lucky, there'll be private colonies later, which will also have governors appointed by their backers.

Do I have to repeat the history of St. John's? Robert Zubrin likes to spout on and on about history, St. John's is Canadian history. Summary: After Christopher Columbus, England sent an explorer. He discovered Newfoundland, documented a natural bay he named St. Johns, and the Grand Banks. He returned to England, fishermen didn't need to wait, upon hearing about the Grand Banks and safe harbour, then set out to fish it right away. Fishermen established a fishing camp on the shores of St. John's bay. The first house was built in 1497 for a caretaker to over-winter. It grew to a town, then a city. All this was more than a hundred years before the first government colony. No government involvement at all in St. John's. Almost a century after founding St. John's, in 1583 a group of 3 navy ships showed up with marines, the admiral declared St. John's to be British territory, and collected taxes. He never made it back to England alive, the tax money "disappeared". No one tried to collect taxes for several decades after that.

More than a century after St. John's, a government colony was established called "Roanoke". Do you know what that is?
Spain's failed colonies: San Miguel de Gualdape in Georgia (1526), Pánfilo de Narváez's expedition to Florida's Gulf coast (1528–36), Pensacola in West Florida (1559–61), Fort San Juan in North Carolina (1567–68), and the Ajacán Mission in Virginia (1570–71).
France: Parris Island, South Carolina (1562–63), Fort Caroline on Florida's Atlantic coast (1564–65), Saint Croix Island, Maine (1604-05), and Fort Saint Louis, Texas (1685–89).
England: "Lost Colony of Roanoke" (1587–90) in North Carolina and Popham Colony in Maine (1607–08).

Today the city of St. John's is the capital of Newfoundland. It remained independent for many years, becoming a province of Canada in 1949.

If you want Mars to be successful, don't ask government. Private business will do it. Just as St. John's, it will be built by businessmen who just want to make profit.

louis · 2018-03-22 05:32:39

There are many differing examples of ways of establishing and administering colonies. The East India Company, a private company, ran a huge Empire in India before it was taken over by the British state. The Hudson Bay Company, with which you will be familiar, had a de facto similar position in much of northern Canada. Colonies have been established by religious enthusiasts, idealists, pirates, companies and so on. Tax gathering has often been a privatised concern in the past. Medieval monasteries were often a kind of self-governing colony established within rural areas.

I would agree we have a rather narrow view of government. The reality is that for every law, there are one hundred internalised "rules" (culture, if you like) that the vast majority of people within a society work to. We see this with regard to road traffic. Yes, there are laws, but then there is (in the UK) the Highway Code (advice on how to behave with legislative backing - can be used as reference in insurance disputes for instance) and beyond that, there are all the internalised rules a society tends to follow. If drivers in the UK behaved like drivers in Calcutta, there would be blood on the streets as such behaviour would be deemed unacceptable (constant beeping of horns, pushing in when you don't have what we consider the right of way etc).

For relevant to Mars, there are plenty of unwritten rules about what you do and don't do on a plane...on Mars there will surely be plenty of such rules...there must be a culture of safety around maintaining the pressurised environment and good health. Spacenut mentioned foods that are not eaten in Zero G because of the dust factor. Although Mars will have 0.38 G, I think we could see something similar, given everyone is living cheek by jowl in an air conditioned environment.

I can see a Mars community working happily enough as a colony under the aegis of Space X with no declaration of there being a "state" or some such. You could possibly model it on a self-governing university. Call it the Mars Knowledge Community or some such. My concern is what happens when others less benignly motivated move in on Mars and exert some muscle, bringing with them their intolerance.

RobertDyck wrote:

Terraformer wrote:
I expect space colonisation to unfold in a similar way to Antarctica. The backers, who will initially be governments, will appoint the base commanders and be responsible for whatever happens on their bases. If we're lucky, there'll be private colonies later, which will also have governors appointed by their backers.
Do I have to repeat the history of St. John's? Robert Zubrin likes to spout on and on about history, St. John's is Canadian history. Summary: After Christopher Columbus, England sent an explorer. He discovered Newfoundland, documented a natural bay he named St. Johns, and the Grand Banks. He returned to England, fishermen didn't need to wait, upon hearing about the Grand Banks and safe harbour, then set out to fish it right away. Fishermen established a fishing camp on the shores of St. John's bay. The first house was built in 1497 for a caretaker to over-winter. It grew to a town, then a city. All this was more than a hundred years before the first government colony. No government involvement at all in St. John's. Almost a century after founding St. John's, in 1583 a group of 3 navy ships showed up with marines, the admiral declared St. John's to be British territory, and collected taxes. He never made it back to England alive, the tax money "disappeared". No one tried to collect taxes for several decades after that.
More than a century after St. John's, a government colony was established called "Roanoke". Do you know what that is?
Spain's failed colonies: San Miguel de Gualdape in Georgia (1526), Pánfilo de Narváez's expedition to Florida's Gulf coast (1528–36), Pensacola in West Florida (1559–61), Fort San Juan in North Carolina (1567–68), and the Ajacán Mission in Virginia (1570–71).
France: Parris Island, South Carolina (1562–63), Fort Caroline on Florida's Atlantic coast (1564–65), Saint Croix Island, Maine (1604-05), and Fort Saint Louis, Texas (1685–89).
England: "Lost Colony of Roanoke" (1587–90) in North Carolina and Popham Colony in Maine (1607–08).
Today the city of St. John's is the capital of Newfoundland. It remained independent for many years, becoming a province of Canada in 1949.
If you want Mars to be successful, don't ask government. Private business will do it. Just as St. John's, it will be built by businessmen who just want to make profit.

Terraformer · 2018-03-22 07:47:45

louis, people have tried to build a perfect society by excluding the "wrong type" many times before. It's never worked, because it turns out that humans themselves are the wrong type. You seem to think Mars will be different, that if only the right type of people are allowed to settle it, the problems that have beset humanity from it's beginning will somehow disappear, even when those born on Mars regress to the mean of their parents population.

louis · 2018-03-22 08:24:27

Not sure where you'll find mention of "perfect society" in what I write. But society can advance. Abolition of slavery - one of the cruellest of human institutions - is a good example. So is eradication of major diseases that caused such suffering in childhood. Everything is not all one way: there are rocky rapids, stagnant pools, eddies, and vortices in the stream even as it pushes forward.

Terraformer wrote:

louis, people have tried to build a perfect society by excluding the "wrong type" many times before. It's never worked, because it turns out that humans themselves are the wrong type. You seem to think Mars will be different, that if only the right type of people are allowed to settle it, the problems that have beset humanity from it's beginning will somehow disappear, even when those born on Mars regress to the mean of their parents population.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-03-18 17:33:47

Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#2 2018-03-18 17:42:40

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#3 2018-03-19 03:38:04

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#4 2018-03-19 10:00:27

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#5 2018-03-19 16:10:34

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#6 2018-03-19 16:14:12

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#7 2018-03-19 17:11:34

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#8 2018-03-20 05:39:59

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#9 2018-03-20 05:42:44

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#10 2018-03-20 05:49:45

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#11 2018-03-20 05:58:12

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#12 2018-03-20 06:44:04

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#13 2018-03-20 09:50:44

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#14 2018-03-20 13:34:09

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#15 2018-03-20 16:36:56

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#16 2018-03-21 04:59:09

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#17 2018-03-21 05:16:15

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#18 2018-03-21 14:03:00

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#19 2018-03-21 15:30:42

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#20 2018-03-21 18:53:55

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#21 2018-03-21 20:42:24

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#22 2018-03-21 21:32:46

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#23 2018-03-22 05:32:39

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#24 2018-03-22 07:47:45

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

#25 2018-03-22 08:24:27

Re: Big Bang, Slow Burn, Cold Comfort or "Hope for the Best"

Board footer