Relative Values of Proposed Objectives.

Void · 2019-04-28 11:56:34

I am going to attempt to evaluate the relative values of proposed objectives.

This terraformation section is perhaps the best place, as potentials of terraformation can be factored in, as well as adaptations to existing or modified environments.

To begin with I see three main camps, although there is or can be overlap between them.
1) Mother Earther people.
2) Mars People.
3) O'Neill People.

None of them are entirely wrong in my opinion.

1) People who fall into the camps are Mother Earthers to #1. These people are dangerous to the future of the human race, if allowed to burden the human race too much, but the objective of keeping the Earth useful, and pleasant is a good one. It is not the only objective however, and if given to their extremes there will guarantee the end of what we call civilization eventually. And people will end up sitting in dirt, with bones in their noses, perhaps picking their teeth with other humans bones. They depend on thing remaining the same as always, in the same cycles, and we know that even without input from humans the environment of the Earth fluctuates. To sit around and wait for the next sucker punch is idiotic and irresponsible.

2) The Mars people, taken to their most extreme example in my opinion are trying to make a second Earth on Mars, and mostly want to ignore the rest of the solar system, leaving Earth completely behind to the Mother Earthers. A good way to generate alien societies, and to also leave behind potential that can exist outside of Mars.

3) The O'Neill people at their extreme, regard Mars as a remote frozen wasteland, and want to focus on a) Taking burden off of the Earth to support human technological civilization, and b) Expanding the amount of the human race in hoping to generate more very talented people. If you have 100 times the population then you potentially have 100 times the prodigies.

I agree to some degree with all of these. I also of course put limits on each and allow for some of each.

Technically, I must be more O'Neill than the other two, but I understand the value of preserving the potential of Earth, and I do not exclude Mars, actually I am very interested in it's potential, so I include it.

We already know that the Earth has had the best potential, but I do agree that if we can we want to reduce the amount of future burden overload it has to accumulate.

I think the outer solar system is currently out of reach. I consider the inner solar system to comprise Mercury, Venus Earth/Moon, NEO's, Mars/Phobos/Demos, Asteroid belt, Trojan Asteroid, and Jupiter/and it's moons.

Because they are not low hanging fruit, for now I then set aside Mercury, Jupiter/and its moons. I also have misgivings about including the Asteroid Man Belt, and the Trojan Asteroids, as there seem to be closer alternatives, such as NEO's, and the moons of Mars.

So I do include in my evaluation(s), Venus, Earth/Moon, NEO's, and Mars/Phobos/Demos.

So, I think that we can put those into 3 baskets.

1) Venus (Which could be partnered with our Moon), and it seems that it may have some probably rocky asteroids in it's trojan positions. (L4 and L5).

2) Earth/Moon and I think that the NEO's can be put into this basket.

3) Mars/Phobos/Demos.

1) The Venus Basket, has a underground environment unsuitable to our habitation.
A surface environment unsuitable to our habitation, but perhaps in the distant future usable for Mining and wind energy. A cloud environment, said to be the closest environment to Earth's. I now disagree with that. L1-5, of which I am currently most interested in L2, and the supposed asteroids in the L4 and L5 positions.

Rather than jump to the other baskets yet, I will devalue the cloud cities notion to a degree now. I have been thinking about it, and it seems to me that the environment it most closely resembles is the open ocean surface on Earth where it is relatively temperate. However, the atmosphere is corrosive, and unbreathable, and windy which could be both harmful and helpful. And example of a task to evaluate the relative value of the Earth's ocean surface and a floating platform in the clouds of Venus. OK lets suppose a ship or a barge or a oil platform. For the atmosphere of Venus, you might want such a platform(s) before you attempted a cloud city. It's purpose would be something to gather resources from the atmosphere, and a place to land ships, and possibly a place to service floating robots that could access the surface for minerals. If I think about it, then, aside from the problem of reaching the clouds of Venus, and then being able to depart back to orbit, then you can evaluate how hard it relatively is to function in each situation. And there is another problem I believe, I don't think you get much sunshine at the altitude you have to float at. That likely then requires the use of fission nuclear power, unless you can harness wind. And then there is the potential of living organisms in the clouds. That item I think can be resolved fairly easily with robotic probes.

2) We can and likely eventually will go the path of Earth/Moon/NEO's, as handling NEO's is a potential source of resources, and is a way to divert a potential sucker punch to the Earth. These objects are relatively close at hand.

For the Moon, I will add that it has favored areas, like the poles with presumed water, and favorable daylight. It also has undergrounds, which include Lava Tubes.
Those underground places are proximate to sunlight, and of relative good thermal values. Being somewhat cold is a good thing as you will want to shed heat from your machinery. Being of a relatively constant temperature will challenge your operations much less than some other places. And unlike the clouds of Venus, you will have places to stand on. The gravity may be deficient though for human health. We just don't know how deficient yet. As for Materials, it has quite a lot, but there are deficiencies. However if you couple it with Earth and the NEO's you can make up for those deficiencies, such as Carbon, or possibly some metals you might want. So, in my book the undergrounds of the Moon are a far better environment than that of the clouds of Venus. Also, we are talking about the O'Neill group, so we do have the options of O'Neil Cylinders for potentially good environments.

3) Mars/Phobos/Demos. So here I would start at the bottom. The undergrounds. This could include anything not directly exposed to the atmosphere of Mars, even it were a low pressure greenhouse, or even if it were an unpressurized garage. Manufactured structures, both above and below ground, and of course even Lava Tubes, and who knows caves of other kinds formed by other methods may exist to be found some day. As on the Moon, I think that this environment is much better than that of the clouds of Venus. We expect relatively easy access to a broad spectrum of chemicals. Solar energy is going to be available, although global dust storms will challenge the energy situation.

The moons of Mars, may be a satisfactory substitute in part for NEO's, and Mars, may have Carbon and Water to export, but perhaps not at a price favorable to that of the Moon and NEO's. We will see about that. However the assets represented by Phobos and Demos can certainly be used in the Mars vicinity.

……

The above evaluation is why I favor, a base on the Moon, to further discover the Moon, and it's potentials, and also to evaluate human reaction to the Moons gravity environment. I think that ultimately Oxygen and other substances extracted from the Moon could likely facilitate movement of stuff to Mars, and also perhaps the extraction of materials from NEO's. But beyond a few people to explore, and also test human and animal physiology, I would leave further development of the Moon to grow as it might. O'Neill Cylinders? Sure, those interested can move in that direction with the Moon and/or NEO's.

And then I would point to Mars, and then finally a base in orbit of Venus to study Venus and perhaps robotically test operating in the clouds of Venus.

……

So, I think that a base on the Moon before Mars will facilitate a more stout further address of Mars, and that after that a base around Venus would be a purpose in itself, but would also be another path to route stuff to Mars.

The Mars potential is very great I suppose I think. Things I think I have learned lately lead me to really feel so.

The Nay-Sayers have said that there is not enough material to Terraform Mars. I would correct that. I would say that based on the values the Nay-Sayers give, we can definitely make rivers run on Mars with a pressure of 3 time current. That is about how much the Nay-Sayers give. I know that what it presumed to be in the South Polar cap is reported to be enough for proper water snow, and to make temporary streams run. 3 time the current pressure will likely allow for rivers to run.

Snows, and daytime equatorial heat, and summertime polar heat would likely provide enough ice and snow melt for rivers.

I was concerned about reproducing the raging rivers that it is now supposed existed periodically until 1 Billion years ago, as I felt it would flood out bases and cities, and would make travel troublesome. However I think it humans plan not to put their permanent habitation into places where rivers will run, and lakes and seas will accumulate, it can be OK. With tunneling like the Boring company, it should be possible to cross the rivers. And with sub-orbital transport, the rivers can be jumped over.

Obviously having liquid surface water supplies would be good for a civilization.

The pressure of Mars being a Average? of ~5.5 mb multiplied times 3 would be ~16.5. In the best case for Hellas, we can suppose ~11.5 times 3 or >~34.5 mb.

My reasoning on this is that though atmospheric compression, the weight of atmosphere would actually be >~34.5 mb. I feel that this would be more than sufficient for certain aquatic life to grow in pooled water. Even some vascular plants.

Inhabitants could relatively easily also construct greenhouses of several types. Various additional pressurizations.

As for Nitrogen being in short supply, I am not sure plants need atmospheric Nitrogen. Maybe I can be corrected if needed? I think that if you manufactured nitrogen compounds needed in the soil for plants that might be enough.

As for aquatic environments, I suspect that microbes would fix Nitrogen.

It happened again! I composed a bunch of materials and tried to save it and got the "Hmmm....Can't find that page. It is disgusting.

Never mind, I will patch it, but I am quite annoyed.

Running rivers would purge the dust into the pools of water over time. This would rust, and produce Hydrogen. Microbes might then produce Methane from it. I would suppose snow melt would bring Perchlorates into the running water so that might be toxic for a time. However microbes should decompose that to Chloride salts, and Oxygen to release to the atmosphere.

As for surface life, I think that with snow and some U.V. protection from Ozone, and a somewhat thicker atmosphere, it may be likely that Lichen, fungi, Cyanobacteria, and Algae, could take hold in places on the soil and rocks above water.

Good enough but not as good as it was.

Tired.
Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-04-28 13:35:06)

louis · 2019-04-28 13:43:14

Interesting analysis.

Some comments...

I think you can identify Space X with Mars people (of course!) and Blue Origin with O'Neill people. Sadly it seems like half of NASA are "Mother Earthers".

I doubt we particularly need to "plan" for a lunar base. My view is it will happen quite soon because lunar tourism is now very close to being viable. That will put humans on the Moon on a long term basis and lead to organic development of colonies and communities.

I'll probably come back and post some more observations.

Void wrote:

I am going to attempt to evaluate the relative values of proposed objectives.
This terraformation section is perhaps the best place, as potentials of terraformation can be factored in, as well as adaptations to existing or modified environments.
To begin with I see three main camps, although there is or can be overlap between them.
1) Mother Earther people.
2) Mars People.
3) O'Neill People.
None of them are entirely wrong in my opinion.
1) People who fall into the camps are Mother Earthers to #1. These people are dangerous to the future of the human race, if allowed to burden the human race too much, but the objective of keeping the Earth useful, and pleasant is a good one. It is not the only objective however, and if given to their extremes there will guarantee the end of what we call civilization eventually. And people will end up sitting in dirt, with bones in their noses, perhaps picking their teeth with other humans bones. They depend on thing remaining the same as always, in the same cycles, and we know that even without input from humans the environment of the Earth fluctuates. To sit around and wait for the next sucker punch is idiotic and irresponsible.
2) The Mars people, taken to their most extreme example in my opinion are trying to make a second Earth on Mars, and mostly want to ignore the rest of the solar system, leaving Earth completely behind to the Mother Earthers. A good way to generate alien societies, and to also leave behind potential that can exist outside of Mars.
3) The O'Neill people at their extreme, regard Mars as a remote frozen wasteland, and want to focus on a) Taking burden off of the Earth to support human technological civilization, and b) Expanding the amount of the human race in hoping to generate more very talented people. If you have 100 times the population then you potentially have 100 times the prodigies.
I agree to some degree with all of these. I also of course put limits on each and allow for some of each.
Technically, I must be more O'Neill than the other two, but I understand the value of preserving the potential of Earth, and I do not exclude Mars, actually I am very interested in it's potential, so I include it.
We already know that the Earth has had the best potential, but I do agree that if we can we want to reduce the amount of future burden overload it has to accumulate.
I think the outer solar system is currently out of reach. I consider the inner solar system to comprise Mercury, Venus Earth/Moon, NEO's, Mars/Phobos/Demos, Asteroid belt, Trojan Asteroid, and Jupiter/and it's moons.
Because they are not low hanging fruit, for now I then set aside Mercury, Jupiter/and its moons. I also have misgivings about including the Asteroid Man Belt, and the Trojan Asteroids, as there seem to be closer alternatives, such as NEO's, and the moons of Mars.
So I do include in my evaluation(s), Venus, Earth/Moon, NEO's, and Mars/Phobos/Demos.
So, I think that we can put those into 3 baskets.
1) Venus (Which could be partnered with our Moon), and it seems that it may have some probably rocky asteroids in it's trojan positions. (L4 and L5).
2) Earth/Moon and I think that the NEO's can be put into this basket.
3) Mars/Phobos/Demos.
1) The Venus Basket, has a underground environment unsuitable to our habitation.
A surface environment unsuitable to our habitation, but perhaps in the distant future usable for Mining and wind energy. A cloud environment, said to be the closest environment to Earth's. I now disagree with that. L1-5, of which I am currently most interested in L2, and the supposed asteroids in the L4 and L5 positions.
Rather than jump to the other baskets yet, I will devalue the cloud cities notion to a degree now. I have been thinking about it, and it seems to me that the environment it most closely resembles is the open ocean surface on Earth where it is relatively temperate. However, the atmosphere is corrosive, and unbreathable, and windy which could be both harmful and helpful. And example of a task to evaluate the relative value of the Earth's ocean surface and a floating platform in the clouds of Venus. OK lets suppose a ship or a barge or a oil platform. For the atmosphere of Venus, you might want such a platform(s) before you attempted a cloud city. It's purpose would be something to gather resources from the atmosphere, and a place to land ships, and possibly a place to service floating robots that could access the surface for minerals. If I think about it, then, aside from the problem of reaching the clouds of Venus, and then being able to depart back to orbit, then you can evaluate how hard it relatively is to function in each situation. And there is another problem I believe, I don't think you get much sunshine at the altitude you have to float at. That likely then requires the use of fission nuclear power, unless you can harness wind. And then there is the potential of living organisms in the clouds. That item I think can be resolved fairly easily with robotic probes.
2) We can and likely eventually will go the path of Earth/Moon/NEO's, as handling NEO's is a potential source of resources, and is a way to divert a potential sucker punch to the Earth. These objects are relatively close at hand.
For the Moon, I will add that it has favored areas, like the poles with presumed water, and favorable daylight. It also has undergrounds, which include Lava Tubes.
Those underground places are proximate to sunlight, and of relative good thermal values. Being somewhat cold is a good thing as you will want to shed heat from your machinery. Being of a relatively constant temperature will challenge your operations much less than some other places. And unlike the clouds of Venus, you will have places to stand on. The gravity may be deficient though for human health. We just don't know how deficient yet. As for Materials, it has quite a lot, but there are deficiencies. However if you couple it with Earth and the NEO's you can make up for those deficiencies, such as Carbon, or possibly some metals you might want. So, in my book the undergrounds of the Moon are a far better environment than that of the clouds of Venus. Also, we are talking about the O'Neill group, so we do have the options of O'Neil Cylinders for potentially good environments.

3) Mars/Phobos/Demos. So here I would start at the bottom. The undergrounds. This could include anything not directly exposed to the atmosphere of Mars, even it were a low pressure greenhouse, or even if it were an unpressurized garage. Manufactured structures, both above and below ground, and of course even Lava Tubes, and who knows caves of other kinds formed by other methods may exist to be found some day. As on the Moon, I think that this environment is much better than that of the clouds of Venus. We expect relatively easy access to a broad spectrum of chemicals. Solar energy is going to be available, although global dust storms will challenge the energy situation.
The moons of Mars, may be a satisfactory substitute in part for NEO's, and Mars, may have Carbon and Water to export, but perhaps not at a price favorable to that of the Moon and NEO's. We will see about that. However the assets represented by Phobos and Demos can certainly be used in the Mars vicinity.
……
The above evaluation is why I favor, a base on the Moon, to further discover the Moon, and it's potentials, and also to evaluate human reaction to the Moons gravity environment. I think that ultimately Oxygen and other substances extracted from the Moon could likely facilitate movement of stuff to Mars, and also perhaps the extraction of materials from NEO's. But beyond a few people to explore, and also test human and animal physiology, I would leave further development of the Moon to grow as it might. O'Neill Cylinders? Sure, those interested can move in that direction with the Moon and/or NEO's.
And then I would point to Mars, and then finally a base in orbit of Venus to study Venus and perhaps robotically test operating in the clouds of Venus.
……
So, I think that a base on the Moon before Mars will facilitate a more stout further address of Mars, and that after that a base around Venus would be a purpose in itself, but would also be another path to route stuff to Mars.
The Mars potential is very great I suppose I think. Things I think I have learned lately lead me to really feel so.
The Nay-Sayers have said that there is not enough material to Terraform Mars. I would correct that. I would say that based on the values the Nay-Sayers give, we can definitely make rivers run on Mars with a pressure of 3 time current. That is about how much the Nay-Sayers give. I know that what it presumed to be in the South Polar cap is reported to be enough for proper water snow, and to make temporary streams run. 3 time the current pressure will likely allow for rivers to run.
Snows, and daytime equatorial heat, and summertime polar heat would likely provide enough ice and snow melt for rivers.
I was concerned about reproducing the raging rivers that it is now supposed existed periodically until 1 Billion years ago, as I felt it would flood out bases and cities, and would make travel troublesome. However I think it humans plan not to put their permanent habitation into places where rivers will run, and lakes and seas will accumulate, it can be OK. With tunneling like the Boring company, it should be possible to cross the rivers. And with sub-orbital transport, the rivers can be jumped over.
Obviously having liquid surface water supplies would be good for a civilization.
The pressure of Mars being a Average? of ~5.5 mb multiplied times 3 would be ~16.5. In the best case for Hellas, we can suppose ~11.5 times 3 or >~34.5 mb.
My reasoning on this is that though atmospheric compression, the weight of atmosphere would actually be >~34.5 mb. I feel that this would be more than sufficient for certain aquatic life to grow in pooled water. Even some vascular plants.
Inhabitants could relatively easily also construct greenhouses of several types. Various additional pressurizations.
As for Nitrogen being in short supply, I am not sure plants need atmospheric Nitrogen. Maybe I can be corrected if needed? I think that if you manufactured nitrogen compounds needed in the soil for plants that might be enough.
As for aquatic environments, I suspect that microbes would fix Nitrogen.
It happened again! I composed a bunch of materials and tried to save it and got the "Hmmm....Can't find that page. It is disgusting.
Never mind, I will patch it, but I am quite annoyed.
Running rivers would purge the dust into the pools of water over time. This would rust, and produce Hydrogen. Microbes might then produce Methane from it. I would suppose snow melt would bring Perchlorates into the running water so that might be toxic for a time. However microbes should decompose that to Chloride salts, and Oxygen to release to the atmosphere.
As for surface life, I think that with snow and some U.V. protection from Ozone, and a somewhat thicker atmosphere, it may be likely that Lichen, fungi, Cyanobacteria, and Algae, could take hold in places on the soil and rocks above water.
Good enough but not as good as it was.
Tired.
Done.

Void · 2019-04-28 20:48:06

I enjoyed your reply Louis. I was going to edit out the errors in the first post, but I guess I can leave it as is as you have quoted it anyway. I think I would rather fumble with words, and think I might have something to tell, than to have perfect words about nothing. A lot of people who impress me have so much more to tell that their words fumble. I think that can be the mark of something to look at with your ear mind and your eye mind.

……

I recovered something more of what was lost in the first post, and of course added to it.

While I like the idea of squirting water vapors in a rising vortex in the hopes of generating more Oxygen and so more Ozone and obviously more atmosphere, it is very plausible that if the relative humidity of Mars rises on average from some terraforming action, U.V. will split more of it and so generate more atmosphere. (I got that notion from another member who does not show here very often). Of course there will then be a loss of water, but I think there is actually plenty. And anyway while we might actually want some seas, we also want lots of dry land, and of course water resources. I think that there can be a sweet spot for that.

If the atmosphere becomes more moist, then more Oxygen. Possibly if more Oxygen then more Ozone. If too much Ozone, then we stop getting more Oxygen. But if we control the amount of Ozone destroying chemicals in the Martian atmosphere, and suppress Ozone to a degree, then we can keep getting more Oxygen. The trick is to have enough Ozone so that the U.V. is not too deadly to surface life, but not so much that photolysis is excessively suppressed.

So the Nay-Sayers are wrong. We can get the X3 atmospheric pressure, and then as the atmosphere will be warmer, so the humidity will be greater, the water content of the atmosphere greater, the production of Oxygen and perhaps Ozone greater.

Later on, somehow if water runs low, well by that time perhaps it will be possible to direct comets, or take some from a more outer location. Or CO2 from Venus. Well whatever.

I would think that if parts of the surface of Mars could get up to 70 mb within say 100-300 years, that would not be so bad.

As for Nitrogen, if you have locations with a pressure of 35-70 mb, I think that solar greenhouses could be filled with a more Nitrogen rich mix, so that Nitrogen fixing organisms could provide sustained fertility.

And of course the reason for doing this with Mars, and perhaps over time even more, is that it has a ~.38 g gravity well. So pseudo-Earth like conditions with a more shallow gravity well than Earth. This could really be a good jumping off point for a space fairing human race to go very far I think.

P.S. I got the word photolysis from Terraformer. I like to ascribe to what is appropriate. I don't think of myself as someone who might want to be involved in plagiarism. Funny mind I have, I think it is like a camera sometimes. Takes a snap-shot of where I got something sometimes, what it was.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-04-28 21:08:04)

SpaceNut · 2019-04-29 22:26:52

Sometimes the mission type and destination overlap the labeling as to the objectives.

The Apollo program was a giant leap but all it ened up being labled was a sortie mission in the we went and then we left.

The other day I happened on 3 asteriods that are NEO to which we could go to besides the moon which would give tons of experience for going further out and still we would be in relative safe conditions.

So many choices out there besides the big ones.

NEO Earth Close Approaches

knightdepaix · 2019-04-30 09:40:51

SpaceNut wrote:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … 180101.gif

Can those NEO be collected and mined on Mars, Luna or on Earth?

Void · 2019-04-30 13:21:01

I think that at this time the preference would be to extract certain materials on site, and ideally to build a structure from other materials, that are not worth bringing to the Earth/Moon locations.

Many of these objects, if they are rubble piles are thought to contain old hydrated clays from their original parent object. Additionally they may contain tars with Carbon, Hydrogen, and perhaps Nitrogen. They may contain rare Earth metals, and Platinum group metals and gold.

These perhaps are worth retrieving.

But, in the Mars/Phobos/Demos area, we have a group of objects that can satisfy in part quite a few needs. It will not be as easy to move these materials back to the Earth/Moon orbits from Mars/Phobos/Demos, but if Starships are moving manufactured stuff from Earth/Moon to Mars/Phobos/Demos, then when they head back to Earth/Moon they will have empty cargo bays. Seems like some materials may be carried back in those otherwise empty cargo bays. This could hold true, if as I think we will eventually have true interplanetary spacecraft that rarely or never land on a planetary object.

In another thread I have mentioned a classification system including at this time three human groups. Mother Earthers, O'Neill's, and Mars's.
We potentially can get them all on board, if we work with the three objects: Mars/Phobos/Demos.

My reasons for the Mother Earthers to be OK with it are that we can practice altering the path of asteroid-like objects by messing with Phobos and Demos. We can practice getting rare Earths and Platinum and Gold from those objects even if it is not there.

For the O'Neill's we can practice extracting water and Carbon from these objects. We can even practice building in orbit synthetic gravity machines down the line.

For the Mar's, obviously if you can get refueling from Phobos and/or Demos, that is going to help the settlement of Mars. Else, perhaps materials of value can be extracted directly from Mars.

It appears that Phobos and Demos can be sources of materials useful. They have good chances of being rubble piles, even rubble pile asteroids. If not then, if they were blasted off the surface of Mars by impactors, there are good chances that Mars itself created hydrated clays that were blasted into orbit and comprise in part Phobos and Demos.

While I am in favor of the Moon and Neo's, I think that some intense research of Phobos and Demos is merited.

If I had my way, Starship would first visit Mars to further analyze it. I would strap on extra fuel depot tanks to the Starship, and instead of landing I would have it examine Phobos and Demos. In my wildest dreams, I would have it send down a dragon to survey a landing site, and to collect surface samples.

Probably it would use ballistic capture to achieve orbit of Mars.

We would want it to come back to the Earth/Moon system.

I think that various international entities might help finance that for various reasons. And it would be a good hardware test for Starship.

I know that Dragon as it is cannot get back to orbit, so some extra suffering required if we want it to land, and even more if we want it to get back to orbit.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-04-30 13:33:20)

SpaceNut · 2019-04-30 17:46:45

I would say that void is right on local mining use of the neo's to which I would move materials to a selected location or to the one we would want to covert to an orbiting death star for man to inherit long in the future as the hotel of mans journey in space.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2019-04-28 11:56:34

Relative Values of Proposed Objectives.

#2 2019-04-28 13:43:14

Re: Relative Values of Proposed Objectives.

#3 2019-04-28 20:48:06

Re: Relative Values of Proposed Objectives.

#4 2019-04-29 22:26:52

Re: Relative Values of Proposed Objectives.

#5 2019-04-30 09:40:51

Re: Relative Values of Proposed Objectives.

#6 2019-04-30 13:21:01

Re: Relative Values of Proposed Objectives.

#7 2019-04-30 17:46:45

Re: Relative Values of Proposed Objectives.

Board footer