Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

wgc · 2003-12-18 08:59:20

Listen everyone here's my opinion and you can flame me all you want. Pushing for Mars Direct now is the wrong strategy. I usually agree with the Mars Society but we are wrong on this one. The will and the budget just isn't there.

We are like little kids who sit in a corner and say "I want it and I'm not going to take anything else" , What does the parent say , "ok go to your room your not getting anything".

December 17th came and surprise surprise no anouncement of a new space initiative from the White house. Of course they were saying right along that it was to early to release any details from the interagency panel.

Right now the space Advocacy groups are fragmented each with there own agenda. We need to be a united front.

The climate is right and there is a good chance we can get a reasonable Lunar program. Members of congress seem to be on board, the president may be poised to release something maybe by the state of Union, or maybe at a ceremony on the anniversary of the Challenger or Columbia disaster, your guess is as good as mine. China and the ESA have announced Lunar Plans.

What we (members of the Mars society ) should do is try to push for items which may build the infrastructure for a Mars program as an off shoot of the Lunar program.

Redeployment of the shuttle stack as a shuttle C or Shuttle with the orbiter replaced by a hydrogen booster.

Its time for a reality check, the most we can hope for in terms of a budget increase is 3 to 7 percent over 5 years. That is not enough to support Mars Direct.

There are dark forces on the horizon.

There are many groups that oppose any kind of space effort.

Citizens againt waste in goverment
Citizens against nuclear weapons and power in space

These are fringe groups but they do have a following, They prey on the lack of science education among the general population , all they need to do is mention the word "nuclear" and they can garner public dismay. Their current target is Project Prometheus. We need to find innovative ways to combat these groups. Since there sites are full of disinformation and photocopies of copyrighted documents the thought occurs to me maybe we could use that useless DCMA copyright act against them.

Other things members should do , is write their reprsentatives, pass out lititure at polling places, place support logos on their websites. I think every website that has the Mars society click on add should also show the NSS and planetary society adds. In 2004 my site will carry a voters guide to space issues support by the candidates in the coming elections.

Get involved, this is the best opputunity yet we've had to get something. But we could lose everything. Its happened before.

Rxke · 2003-12-18 09:22:07

before anyone starts stoning wgc: he (she?) wrote 'pushing MD now is the wrong ***STRATEGY***'

sadly i think that's right... Strategically speaking, Mars proponents would do better supporting 'concurrents' and keep making plans for the big Jump, biding their time.

Politically, there's no push for Mars today. Sad but TRUE. Acepting this, and acting upon it will be more important than nay-sating to every other space-plan.

Bill White · 2003-12-18 09:25:41

Right now the space Advocacy groups are fragmented each with there own agenda. We need to be a united front.

Can you define this proposed "unified" agenda in a succinct fashion?

Palomar · 2003-12-18 09:35:04

In 2004 my site will carry a voters guide to space issues support by the candidates in the coming elections.

*Much as I dislike admitting it, I think you're right on many of your points. I really dread going the lunar route though...how many decades will be stuck on the waterless moon playing King of the Hill shoving matches with rivals? How much more of a delay getting to Mars? Rhetorical questions. I think it's still important, though, to keep Mars Direct (or similar plan) out there -- visible and in the public eye.

I want to avoid the moon altogether. But I believe I understand the concept of "as good as it gets (luna with branch-off to Mars)." Then there's the issue of how content you're going to be -- or not be -- with that.

What a can of worms.

Sorry.

I would really like to see your "voters guide to space issues support by the candidates." Most political candidates seem very quiet regarding their views on space exploration, etc. Much of it is lip service, IMO; try to be "Every Man/Woman" to get the votes. I'd like to see solid evidence that a particular candidate is pro- or anti-space exploration, so I'll look forward to checking your site out.

I recently wrote my gov't reps and President Bush. Will do again.

Maybe we'll get somewhere by 2203.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2003-12-18 09:37:02

"Can you define this proposed "unified" agenda in a succinct fashion?"

Two words: leave LEO...

the rest are minor differences

Bill White · 2003-12-18 09:38:43

Two words: leave LEO...
the rest are minor differences

So, if George W. Bush calls for a return to the moon by 2018, do we all cheer and applaud and stop rabble rousing for more?

Rxke · 2003-12-18 09:57:36

No. Or yes, depending on wich advocacy branch you're sitting..

The 'moonies' cheer, and sit back, the Martians/asteroid miners etc, go scrambling for their notes and keep up the pressure on GWB/NASA to develop hardware that'd be readily upgradeable in a future when everybody goes 'what next?'
That way you don't lose (much) time....

Rxke · 2003-12-18 10:02:23

For instance, the development of a spae-tug with universal docking capacity would be a great asset for moon-mars-asteroidmining missions, so 'vote' yes!

OTOH, a lander for the moon, and only for the moon (ie. very weak hard-wired engines into a static design) should be voted down, because arguably a upgradeable 'common' lander with 'exchangeable' engine-block would be more interesting in the long term, etc....

Bill White · 2003-12-18 10:07:52

OTOH, a lander for the moon, and only for the moon (ie. very weak hard-wired engines into a static design) should be voted down, because arguably a upgradeable 'common' lander with 'exchangeable' engine-block would be more interesting in the long term, etc....

TransHab was axed by Congress in part because Daniel Goldin tried to slip Mars capable technology into the ISS budget.

wgc · 2003-12-18 10:08:28

If I Had to take a guess I think with enough public support a Mars program derived from a Lunar program could put us on Mars by 2020- 2025. Why?

SpaceShip one and its cousins wasn?t possible just a few years ago, The components for its construction didn?t exist. They use a lot of ?Off the Shelf? components, these were not specifically designed for private spacecraft, they come from totally unrelated industries and even government programs.

Likewise much of the hardware and infrastructure for a mars program could be ?repuposed? from a lunar program.

We aren?t going to build habitats on Mars very soon, but if you had a sustained lunar program with frequencies somewhere around 3 to 4 flights per year you ?maybe? could do something like a ISS style lunar base, ?Maybe?.

Collecting rocks isn?t going to get the public support, you get to the moon, you establish and internet IP and you find innovative ways to get the public at large involved.

The exploration effort should mirror the early artic/antartic explorers not the Apollo missions.

The colonization of the Americas was a continium from Columbus to Lewis and Clake, if you look at the dates closely you see it was very discreete. Its just seem differently looking back over Historical time scales.

Bill White · 2003-12-18 10:11:40

If I Had to take a guess I think with enough public support a Mars program derived from a Lunar program could put us on Mars by 2020- 2025. Why?

Yet since no lunar program has yet been proposed by the Administration, why back off Mars until we see the details?

A robust lunar program with dual use technology might be a step forward. (Zubrin disagrees) But don't surrender Mars before any bids are on the table.

Give up Mars advocacy because "maybe" NASA will consider a lunar mission in 2018? What are you asking?

Bill White · 2003-12-18 10:14:00

Go to spacetoday's website and scroll through older articles.

The number of newspapers calling for "Mars" are more than you might first think.

= = =

Added comment:

Is the purpose of space advocacy to follow public opinion or to shape public opinion?

Lets think about this for a minute because I believe that the existing space advocacy organizations are clumsy and amateurish in their efforts to shape public opinion.

Need heart surgery? Hire an MD with years of experience. Need to design a nuclear reactor? Hire a nuclear engineer. Need to calculate orbital trajectories? You get the idea.

Today I saw that the LA district attorney has hired a public relations firm to help with media exposure related to the Michael Jackson prosecution. James Carville and Karl Rove (to be bi-partisan about this) what do those guys do all day?

Apply that lesson to space advocacy. Shape public opinion, don't merely accept it.

Rxke · 2003-12-18 10:22:43

TransHab was axed by Congress in part because Daniel Goldin tried to slip Mars capable technology into the ISS budget.

Yes, but that was 'then'. Today is the 'what next' moment...

NASA had a shuttle and plans for ISS, nothing else. So it's 'logical' (i know, i know, but i'm just trying to think as a congressman) not to do any fancy Mars extravaganza. Mars and even moon plans were too far outside of the planning horizons.

Today thanshab would get the thumbs-up, if it were proposed (well... not really, by now govnmnt (rightly?) sees ISS as a financial black hole, they won't vote for extra's and you can't argue with that... ISS is heavily flawed as a staging area for future hardware testing, transhab wouldn't make that much sense anymore. Not on ISS.)

Bill White · 2003-12-18 10:35:33

TransHab was axed by Congress in part because Daniel Goldin tried to slip Mars capable technology into the ISS budget.
Yes, but that was 'then'. Today is the 'what next' moment...
NASA had a shuttle and plans for ISS, nothing else. So it's 'logical' (i know, i know, but i'm just trying to think as a congressman) not to do any fancy Mars extravaganza. Mars and even moon plans were too far outside of the planning horizons.
Today thanshab would get the thumbs-up, if it were proposed (well... not really, by now govnmnt (rightly?) sees ISS as a financial black hole, they won't vote for extra's and you can't argue with that... ISS is heavily flawed as a staging area for future hardware testing, transhab wouldn't make that much sense anymore. Not on ISS.)

The idea I believe can be "sold" is the idea of spreading the human race to multiple celestial locations. We become a spacefaring species when we can conceive, bear and raise children at multiple celestial locations.

If we sell this idea, space settlement can be supported with a combination of government funding and advertising. Sports stadiums get HUGE government subsidies. Why? People care about sports. Finance space using the same techniques used to finance sports stadiums with taxpayer dollars. Try to tell me it was "logical" for the Cleveland taxpayers (for example) to build a giant new sports stadium.

But it happens all the time. Go to school on how other folk get Congress to pay for stuff. And never try to tell me that professional sports is not heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer. (For better or worse, might I add.)

The solar system is like a giant sterile petri dish. Whichever culture (US / EU / China / India / Islam) starts having kids, out there, first will be best positioned to engulf the solar system over the next 500 years or 1000 years. The next great space race.

Combine this idea (kids are great hot buttons for advertising) with top shelf marketing talent. Remember in 1978 the NBA finals were broadcast on tape delay. No one cared. Yet the NBA became a multi-billion dollar industry, not by random chance, but because some very very talented people (David Stern, Brad Falk etc. . . ) crafted a brilliant media campaign to shape public opinion.

Think BIGGER not SMALLER!

Bill White · 2003-12-18 10:52:50

OTOH, a lander for the moon, and only for the moon (ie. very weak hard-wired engines into a static design) should be voted down, because arguably a upgradeable 'common' lander with 'exchangeable' engine-block would be more interesting in the long term, etc....
TransHab was axed by Congress in part because Daniel Goldin tried to slip Mars capable technology into the ISS budget.

Back on thread (sorry for the last diatribe)

You say "that was then. . ."

Why do you have ANY confidence this will be different under a Sean Keefe NASA? Especially if the Mars Society agrees to "back burner" Mars?

A lunar program with stated dual purpose goals would get my support, but has anyone in the Administration proposed that?

= = =

I am pro-nuclear space (very much so) yet I do not see the anti-nuclear movement as having more than trivial impact on the public commitment to space.

On the nuclear issue, Mars is a better venue to advocate for space nuclear power. We don't need nukes to return to the moon. We absolutely need nuclear power for MarsDirect or for any potential settlement and nuclear propulsion would be quite handy (even if not absolutely necessary, IMHO).

Rxke · 2003-12-18 11:07:06

Good point. Sean is soooooo non-bold-planning it's sickening.

But the guys at the hearing with zubrin seemed to like his "if we don't go to Mars, then at least make the moon hardware dual-pupose"

Of course, nobody knows who'll get the last word. Let's hope its *at least* the moon, they'll go for. And then start questioning the non-dual purpose submissions from competing manufacturers.

Back burner... Never, please.

wgc · 2003-12-18 12:52:15

Go to spacetoday's website and scroll through older articles.
The number of newspapers calling for "Mars" are more than you might first think.
= = =
Added comment:
Is the purpose of space advocacy to follow public opinion or to shape public opinion?
Lets think about this for a minute because I believe that the existing space advocacy organizations are clumsy and amateurish in their efforts to shape public opinion.
Need heart surgery? Hire an MD with years of experience. Need to design a nuclear reactor? Hire a nuclear engineer. Need to calculate orbital trajectories? You get the idea.
Today I saw that the LA district attorney has hired a public relations firm to help with media exposure related to the Michael Jackson prosecution. James Carville and Karl Rove (to be bi-partisan about this) what do those guys do all day?
Apply that lesson to space advocacy. Shape public opinion, don't merely accept it.

I like this idea a lot, but how do we get started. I think making it clear to the politicians out there that we are going to make space an election issue would be a good start.

If we stood outside voting places and passed out literature, if come election time we put out banner adds supporting our position.

If just one senator/representative lost an election, and it could be traced to how they voted on the space issues, the climate would change.

Also

Technical revolutions are not always continuous they somethime require paradyme shifts.

jadeheart · 2003-12-18 13:59:26

I see tons of good points made here, but I tend to agree with Bill White that the Mars folks should hold out as long and as strongly as possible to see our agenda implemented. I have a feeling most space buffs would not be rabidly anti-moon, since it is, after all, a step forward from our current stagnation. But for Mars advocates there is no reason to settle for less than the holy grail until absolutely necessary. At the very least this could result in a lunar sequel that has dual-use capability & be forward-compatible with a future Mars program.

Besides, even if all the space advocates were able to unite behind one goal (be it moon or Mars) I'm not sure it would make a difference. I think that the forces that drive space policy--aerospace industry, entrenched NASA ideology, the various scientists who drive the funding process for their own projects-- at the government level dwarf the puny voice of the space grass-roots, even a united grassroots voice. (Please feel free to prove me wrong on this.)

To sum up, I think the Mars agenda has more to lose right now by pitching in with the rest (non-Mars) of the space community. Later on it may be worthwhile if Mars turns out to be hopeless in the near future. And I don't see such a strategy as childish-- just pragmatic.

Finally there is the public. I think the idea of trying to massage public opinion is pretty sage and may be the only hope of the space grassroots having more than a token voice in policy. But I have always found it really distasteful the way politicians hire big Madison Avenue firms to mindf**k everything with their image micromanaging and uber-spin. The first Gulf War was partly sold to the American people this way, and it often uses completely dishonest tactics. Do we want to become this Machiavellian in our efforts? Personally, I'm torn, because I think it would be for the greater good. But there is that thing about paving roads with good intentions. And... could an organization like the Mars Society even afford such a thing? Some of these firms charge astronomical (excuse the pun) rates. It could drain money that would be better spent elsewhere producing real results (such as the Translife experiment).

WGC's election-oriented idea sits better with me. There are a few officials from districts that are heavily dependent on space for their economies. (namely So. Cal, Houston and Florida's Space Coast.) Concentrating in these areas with election day activism may pay off well. The voting public in those places would surely be pretty receptive to it.

I would guess that there already have been political candidates in these localities who have lost elections because of their stance on space.

Something to think about.

clark · 2003-12-18 14:17:01

Shall we give the Devil his due?

Good points all around, and not much to find fault with. But as a bit of advice, I might suggest that whatever way you try to frame the argument for Mars, you don't do so by undermining other space-advocasy groups plans.

None of this, "Mars is better than the Moon becuase..." What you end up doing is spending your energy on proving how the Moon is Baaad, and Mars is better. Show how Mars should be the priority on it's own, without pointing out how much better it is than the moon. You do that, and you will have a more convincing argument, and a more receptive audience (you are less likely to offend those Loonies)

Now, invariably, the argument will come back to where we should go first, Mars, or the Moon. what should we prepare for first? Of course both sides have good points, but let me suggest this:

If we go to Mars, before building up the space infrastructure in LEO, GEO and Luna, we will in fact repeat the very same mistakes America made by going straight for the Moon.

Why? How?

We will race to a finsih line at a pace we cannot sustain. Apollo became a Flag and Footprints becuase of the rationale behind the entire venture. once we were there, there was no more need to race to it, nor invest in the infrastructure that would keep us there.

If we race to Mars, the race to Mars itself becomes the goal. Once that is achieved, the public at large will lose interest. The game will be over. And if we get to Mars, before we have built up the neccessary infrastructure to "sustain" our pace in space, we will once again spend decades going in circles trying to develop the tech to sustain our desired pace, but now without a unifying goal.

I really suggest that we all latch onto the return to the Moon, but by god, make sure that such a venture is only the first leg of the race. Yell loud and long that going back is not enough- it is a start, a valuable start, a neccessary step, but it sure as hell better be the first, and not the last step.

I would be happy to see some yahoo step on Mars- at least once. There is my nirvana. But I know that others here want more than just that one step. They want lives lived, born and dying a million miles from our cradle.

Just a friendly thought.

Bill White · 2003-12-18 17:34:12

If we go to Mars, before building up the space infrastructure in LEO, GEO and Luna, we will in fact repeat the very same mistakes America made by going straight for the Moon.

I can agree with this.

MarsDirect without a genuine follow on settlement plan does very much risk a repeat of Apollo and the possibility of a "been there-done that" mentality setting in post MarsDirect.

Yet without a commitment to a permanent human presence in space why do we need any of this infrastructure? If the goal is permanent presence I am pretty much okay with ANY plan.

Infrastructure is good so long as calls for infrastructure are not merely smokescreens to pacify space advocates with an "Emperor's New Space Program" just like the children's story the "Emperor's New Clothes." In other words, we should oppose calls to "Ooh and Aah" the fancy drawings or promises to do something, next decade.

= = =

As a practical matter the Moon is very far more likely (see clark's American moonbase thread for reasons) and I fully support plans to establish a permanent presence there. If for no other reason than my belief that a permanent American only base would be matched by a permanent ESA base managed ISS-style. Let's see if Chirac can make that work.

clark's other thread mentions an article that compares a lunar base to the British naval base at Gibraltar. Since Gibraltar was a painful thorn in France's side for a few centuries don't expect a US-only base to go unmatched by the ESA.

More people in space is good. Be they US, French or Nigerian.

= = =

None of this, "Mars is better than the Moon becuase..."

Absolutely! And vice versa, no?

Still, why must it be either/or?

TransHab (constructed from boron doped, hydrogen rich polyethelyne + plus a carbonfiber layer inside the fabric sandwich if you insist + kevlar for strength) offers a radiation shielded environment useful for the Moon or Mars. Dome a crater with this fabric and pressurize. Voila! - lunar habitat.

And, as life engulfs the solar system, BOTH the moon and Mars will be assimiliated by those pesky DNA life forms that crawled from Earth's primordial seas.

wgc · 2003-12-18 18:18:12

If we go to Mars, before building up the space infrastructure in LEO, GEO and Luna, we will in fact repeat the very same mistakes America made by going straight for the Moon.
I can agree with this.
MarsDirect without a genuine follow on settlement plan does very much risk a repeat of Apollo and the possibility of a "been there-done that" mentality setting in post MarsDirect.
Yet without a commitment to a permanent human presence in space why do we need any of this infrastructure? If the goal is permanent presence I am pretty much okay with ANY plan.
Infrastructure is good so long as calls for infrastructure are not merely smokescreens to pacify space advocates with an "Emperor's New Space Program" just like the children's story the "Emperor's New Clothes." In other words, we should oppose calls to "Ooh and Aah" the fancy drawings or promises to do something, next decade.
= = =
As a practical matter the Moon is very far more likely (see clark's American moonbase thread for reasons) and I fully support plans to establish a permanent presence there. If for no other reason than my belief that a permanent American only base would be matched by a permanent ESA base managed ISS-style. Let's see if Chirac can make that work.
clark's other thread mentions an article that compares a lunar base to the British naval base at Gibraltar. Since Gibraltar was a painful thorn in France's side for a few centuries don't expect a US-only base to go unmatched by the ESA.
More people in space is good. Be they US, French or Nigerian.
= = =

None of this, "Mars is better than the Moon becuase..."
Absolutely! And vice versa, no?
Still, why must it be either/or?
TransHab (constructed from boron doped, hydrogen rich polyethelyne + plus a carbonfiber layer inside the fabric sandwich if you insist + kevlar for strength) offers a radiation shielded environment useful for the Moon or Mars. Dome a crater with this fabric and pressurize. Voila! - lunar habitat.
And, as life engulfs the solar system, BOTH the moon and Mars will be assimiliated by those pesky DNA life forms that crawled from Earth's primordial seas.

I agree that the apollo program couldn't be maintained but it could of been scaled back , some of the elements redeployed. I think a lot of the reasons other than the war was Nixion sticking it to those "Democrats". Political in-fighting After all it was Kennedy's program".

As to this whole argument, I'd love to see us go to mars, I think we will probably around the 2020 mark, I think techology may become available to us that makes that easier. This is 1944 and we are trying to predict what we have in 1969. You can take an educated guess but it likely to be wrong.

The statements coming out of the interagency panel, very few say that whatever the destination is it will be doable and not break the budget. True or false doesn't matter, many lawmakers think mars would be to expensive.

Hey a good start might be to stop refering to those other folks as Loonies.....

wgc · 2003-12-18 20:29:54

I see tons of good points made here, but I tend to agree with Bill White that the Mars folks should hold out as long and as strongly as possible to see our agenda implemented. I have a feeling most space buffs would not be rabidly anti-moon, since it is, after all, a step forward from our current stagnation. But for Mars advocates there is no reason to settle for less than the holy grail until absolutely necessary. At the very least this could result in a lunar sequel that has dual-use capability & be forward-compatible with a future Mars program.
Besides, even if all the space advocates were able to unite behind one goal (be it moon or Mars) I'm not sure it would make a difference. I think that the forces that drive space policy--aerospace industry, entrenched NASA ideology, the various scientists who drive the funding process for their own projects-- at the government level dwarf the puny voice of the space grass-roots, even a united grassroots voice. (Please feel free to prove me wrong on this.)
To sum up, I think the Mars agenda has more to lose right now by pitching in with the rest (non-Mars) of the space community. Later on it may be worthwhile if Mars turns out to be hopeless in the near future. And I don't see such a strategy as childish-- just pragmatic.
Finally there is the public. I think the idea of trying to massage public opinion is pretty sage and may be the only hope of the space grassroots having more than a token voice in policy. But I have always found it really distasteful the way politicians hire big Madison Avenue firms to mindf**k everything with their image micromanaging and uber-spin. The first Gulf War was partly sold to the American people this way, and it often uses completely dishonest tactics. Do we want to become this Machiavellian in our efforts? Personally, I'm torn, because I think it would be for the greater good. But there is that thing about paving roads with good intentions. And... could an organization like the Mars Society even afford such a thing? Some of these firms charge astronomical (excuse the pun) rates. It could drain money that would be better spent elsewhere producing real results (such as the Translife experiment).
WGC's election-oriented idea sits better with me. There are a few officials from districts that are heavily dependent on space for their economies. (namely So. Cal, Houston and Florida's Space Coast.) Concentrating in these areas with election day activism may pay off well. The voting public in those places would surely be pretty receptive to it.
I would guess that there already have been political candidates in these localities who have lost elections because of their stance on space.
Something to think about.

Positive or negative, If some candidate lost because they took a positive position on space It must not of been very publicly reported. Please name one??

wgc · 2003-12-18 20:41:09

Ok , I admit it I'm a card carrying member of the National space spciety, the planetary society and of course the mars society. Mars society most recently, I've been with the other groups longer, with NSS when it was called the L5 society.

I want to see a space program back on track, achieving positve goals and expanding .

Now be it an :

Active Mars program
Active Moon Program
or even astoroid recon (same delta v requirements for a moon mission will get you to the astoroid)

Any of the above will give the country experience in:

Launch capability
Capture and docking
Closed life support systems

Hopefully the 21th century will be the century of solar system exploration, the 22th century will see exploration out to maybe 10 light years or so, and beyond that who knows. there is some talk of lanching a Kuipner belt probe somewhere around 2050 out about .4 light years. (thats (point) .4 light years don't get to excited)

You have to learn to float before you can swim.

wgc · 2003-12-18 20:42:50

By the way how to you become anything other than a junoir member in this forum, is it average number of post daily or do you have to bribe someone.

Rxke · 2003-12-19 03:00:44

Ys, you have to bribe Adrian.... Pay him in Mars-bars...

Errr... no, you have to post at least 50 msgs, then you become member, an so on... with your average of 1.63 posts per day, you'll get there in 20-21 days :;):

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-18 08:59:20

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#2 2003-12-18 09:22:07

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#3 2003-12-18 09:25:41

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#4 2003-12-18 09:35:04

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#5 2003-12-18 09:37:02

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#6 2003-12-18 09:38:43

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#7 2003-12-18 09:57:36

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#8 2003-12-18 10:02:23

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#9 2003-12-18 10:07:52

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#10 2003-12-18 10:08:28

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#11 2003-12-18 10:11:40

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#12 2003-12-18 10:14:00

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#13 2003-12-18 10:22:43

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#14 2003-12-18 10:35:33

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#15 2003-12-18 10:52:50

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#16 2003-12-18 11:07:06

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#17 2003-12-18 12:52:15

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#18 2003-12-18 13:59:26

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#19 2003-12-18 14:17:01

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#20 2003-12-18 17:34:12

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#21 2003-12-18 18:18:12

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#22 2003-12-18 20:29:54

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#23 2003-12-18 20:41:09

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#24 2003-12-18 20:42:50

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

#25 2003-12-19 03:00:44

Re: Space groups Unite - Stop acting like children

Board footer