How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

Bill White · 2004-01-09 08:09:37

Frank Sietzen's UPI article includes these quotes:

Sources said Bush will direct NASA to scale back or scrap all existing programs that do not support the new effort. Further details about the plan and the space agency's revised budget will be announced in NASA briefings next week and when the president delivers his FY 2005 budget to Congress.

and

Along with retiring the shuttle fleet, the new plan calls for NASA to convert a planned follow-on spacecraft -- called the orbital space plane -- into versions of a new spaceship called the crew exploration vehicle. NASA would end substantial involvement in the space station project about the same time the moon landings would begin -- beginning in 2013, according to an administration timetable shown to UPI

Will this follow on spacecraft need Pad 39 or the Vehicle Assembly Building or the crawlers? If they do not, why keep those structures in good repair? The new CEV will be lifted on a much smaller rocket than the shuttle, right?

No crawlers, no Ares, right?

These facilities are expensive to maintain and I have read they need signficant maintenance and refurbishment. So, if we scrap the shuttle and don't move to a shuttle derivative why not tear them down?

Thus, Zubrin's Ares becomes impossible to launch, even if built, without massive new ground support infrastructure.

No Ares? No Energia? (which already is smaller) Where is the heavy lift needed to do a Mars mission?

Palomar · 2004-01-09 08:19:11

*...and considering they're bantering around figures of one trillion dollars (the public is going to choke and sputter on that), I'm under the impression (perhaps wrong...but I rather doubt it) that this is all an attempt to discourage. "Well, we had a plan to go to Mars. We tried. The people didn't want it."

Of course they won't want a 1-trillion-dollar price tag. But why not utilize Mars Direct for (a much less expensive) 50 billion dollars or so?

I'll believe it when I see it. And I'm quite certain Pres. Bush HAS heard of Mars Direct or similar plan.

Will the game playing and greed never end?

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-01-09 08:57:42

More quotes:

Under the current plan, sources said, the first lunar landings would carry only enough resources to test advanced equipment that would be employed on voyages beyond the moon. Because the early moon missions would use existing rockets, they could deliver only small equipment packages. So the initial, return-to-the-moon missions essentially would begin where the Apollo landings left off -- a few days at a time, growing gradually longer. The human landings could be both preceded and accompanied by robotic vehicles.

= and =

As part of its new space package, sources said, the administration will convene an unusual presidential commission to review NASA's plans as they unfold. The group would consider such factors as the design of the spacecraft; the procedure for assembly, either in Earth orbit or lunar orbit; the individual elements the new craft should contain, such as capsules, supply modules, landing vehicles and propellant stages, and the duration and number of missions and size of crews.

A return to BattleStar Galactica? On orbit assembly? That is where the trillion dollar price tags come from.

And, if shutting down the shuttle program includes demolition of Pad 39, scrapping the crawlers and dismantling of the VAB, MarsDirect is off the table, right?

Bill White · 2004-01-09 09:19:52

From the San Fransisco Chronicle - - SFGate.com:

Who told the reporter this stuff?

NASA once dreamed of completing a manned mission to Mars in the early part of this century. But realistic space planners now foresee a series of unmanned Mars missions stretching out as far as 2050.
A one-way voyage across 100 million miles of space to the cold, dry planet with a payload of machinery like Spirit takes seven months. But for far larger spacecraft carrying a team of at least two humans and their gear to and from Mars, the travel time would more than double. Supporting the crew long enough to perform meaningful research would call for far larger payloads than any planetary missions yet launched.
A manned mission to Mars might be conceivable, space experts have argued -- but unlikely before the end of this century.

Why would travel time double?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-09 10:21:10

I assume they're talking about using conventional chemical methods?

I like what Douglas Osheroff said about the whole deal: "The cost of a manned enclave on the moon, I think, is going to make the space station look cheap. That's the only good thing about it," said Stanford University's Douglas Osheroff.

Source.

Earlier that article says: But a Nobel-winning physicist who investigated the shuttle accident is among those who would rather see more affordable robots ? rather than astronauts ? exploring the lunar and martian surfaces.

I agree with that, to reasonable extents. An autonomous, self replicating, robot colony on the moon would be far better than anything one could imagine, and I suspect one or two of NASA's budget could easily afford the R&D to do it. Especially now in the technological age we're beginning to really live in; the cost of such a base would be far cheaper now than it was in Carter's time.

Okay, I'm rambling on my own personal tangent.

Bill White · 2004-01-09 10:25:34

NASA to start from Scratch?

Its as is MarsDirect doesn't exist!

By PAUL RECER, AP Science Writer
If NASA (news - web sites) returns astronauts to the moon and then takes aim at Mars, the agency will have to go back to the drawing board to get the job done. The rockets, equipment and engineers that put American footprints on lunar soil have long been lost, junked or retired.

and this gem:

All fuel, water and other supplies would have to be carried along or sent ahead on robot craft. The crew size would have to be expanded to allow for sickness or death that is likely for such a risky expedition.
Over the years, NASA has conducted a number of basic studies aimed at achieving the moon and Mars.
* * *
Just after he took over as NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe said the Apollo technique was simply too slow for exploration beyond Earth orbit and that a new propulsion method would be needed for long space voyages.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-09 10:27:08

And you know what, that's just bullshit, if that's what they're saying, no... that's crazy. CELSS is not beyond our capablity. We could have it very quickly if the R&D was put into it. And I'm not the only one with this belief here, there are others on this very forum who believe that CELSS is quite within our grasp. Send two or three payloads to Mars and anyone could exist there almost indefinitely (at least until the fuel ran out, which is longer than the lifetime of a human potentially). One would be a nuclear reactor (the one discussed here not long ago that works well in the arctic permafrost I think would be very affordable and ideal), the other would be the CELSS technology (Russian CELSS technology already reached levels of keeping people alive for extended periods, and this was 20 years ago), and the last would be the crew hab (arguably the costliest part of the whole thing!).

So no. I need to wait and see. If they really did "plan everything out" like everyone is saying, I really laugh at them. This is more or less a mission to the moon and a revamping of NASA. Nothing more.

Bill White · 2004-01-09 11:04:04

What to do with the shuttle infrastructure? IMHO that is a critical aspect for evaluating any new plan. Can this infrastructure be used for future programs or will it be obsolete?

What about an RS-68 shuttle derivative?

Greg Zsidisin describes a "Shuttle B" here.

Take a Space Shuttle External Tank. Permanently connect two, maybe three of Boeing's new RS-68 rocket engines (now used on the Delta-4) to the tank, with some added structure to mount the engines in the same location and orientation as the Orbiter's engines

If the new CEV is launched on a medium or medium light booster will we lose shuttle infrastructure and thereby lose Mars capable heavy lift?

Thoughts?

= = =

More from Space.com:

PASADENA, Calif. -- Details of U.S. President George W. Bush?s plan are emerging to reshape NASA and enable the agency to set its sights beyond low Earth orbit.
In next week?s edition of the respected trade publication, Aviation Week and Space Technology, the White House is calling for "sweeping changes" at NASA. An early piece of the space agenda is to scrap the space shuttle ? moving toward use of a new modular space vehicle for a return to the Moon in 9-12 years, the magazine explains.
The lunar hardware is geared to help astronauts "practice for an eventual landing on Mars," the magazine explains.

What will lift this new modular space vehicle? If it doesn't need Pad 39 or the VAB or the crawler you can kiss those facilities goodbye, IMHO.

Please, someone correct me.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-09 12:03:47

Robert had the exact same idea, and I would actually go for that, since it would arguably be far cheaper than what we have now, and the infrastructure there wouldn't need to be built per-say. It would definitely be cheaper.

I would go for it.

jadeheart · 2004-01-09 14:52:29

Quote
Sources said Bush will direct NASA to scale back or scrap all existing programs that do not support the new effort. Further details about the plan and the space agency's revised budget will be announced in NASA briefings next week and when the president delivers his FY 2005 budget to Congress.

Funny, I was just expressing some unease in the 'astronauts weigh in' thread, and I see this here. The more I read, the more trepidation I feel. If this program causes NASA to pare down it's unmanned program I will have to oppose it with every molecule of my being. I'll reserve judgment until the official word comes out, but it's looking more and more like a load of crap to me. Maybe the rearrangement will be restricted to the manned program, if so I say it's about time. But I'm worried it'll be a NASA-wide restructuring.

Ah well, no need to get worked up over rumors.

It will indeed be interesting to hear space scientists' reaction in the wake of this, as they stand to lose the most.

Bill White · 2004-01-09 15:50:26

Am I the biggest wet blanket, or what? Hopefully my fears are unfounded and at least I have this ally from National Review Online which is a rather conservative publication.

He asks "nine years to get back to the moon?" Okay, folks, we need details. What we need now are details.

What you build must depend on where you're going. The space shuttle is a failed vehicle because it was designed with no clear destination in mind; it was built just to go up and down. This is a complete reversal of the successful space program of the 1960s, in which all our vehicles were dedicated to bringing us closer to the lunar landings.
As President Bush's proposal moves from vision to execution, it will be important that the hardware is designed to serve the ultimate goal. Logically, that goal must be Mars: Of all the plausible destinations, Mars offers the most interesting opportunities for exploration, the most intriguing lines of scientific inquiry, and the best likelihood of eventual human settlement. Any other plans and hardware ? such as a return to the Moon ? must be subsidiary to the ultimate goal of a manned mission to Mars. To save money, accelerate the program, and maximize the value of lunar testing for Mars missions, it is imperative that any lunar missions be conducted with a modified version of the hardware intended for the Mars goal.

= IF = the new vision offered by President Bush can meet this test, I am a 100% supporter.

Dook · 2004-01-09 16:31:20

I think going to the moon is a waste of time, money, and resources. It's not on the way to Mars, it's the wrong way and totally unnecessary, like a speed bump on the freeway. There is little scientific and civilian interest in the moon in my opinion. The average person wants to see us venture out into the universe and make new discoveries so I think at first many people will applaud the idea because they don't know that by going to the moon, again, sigh..., we are just postponing the human landing on Mars. I can see a Mars mission being put off time and again because of the need to constantly re-supply and fix things on the moon base. What are they going to do there anyway? The scientific interest is in Mars! Not the moon! The only reason President Bush wants a moon base is because the Chinese are planning one. Big deal! Let them go to the moon and lets go to Mars and upstage them once again.

The simple reason is that Mars may have life or hold fossil evidence of life. Add to that the incredible idea that one day Mars could be terraformed and become another place in the universe as beautiful as the earth and the idea quickly fades of having a few poor astronauts stuck doing nothing on a desolate and dead moon.

It's tough to remain optimistic but perhaps they really know what they are doing. Maybe they are preparing for a manned mission in 2018 when Mars is again only 35.9 million miles away. Hopefully they are. There is still time.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-09 17:02:25

This is more or less about revamping NASA in my opinion, you can look at it any way you want. Focusing on the moon is a realistic goal, depending on your outlook. The argument is basically that we don't have the means to test our technologies on Mars, so our best bet is testing upon the moon. This is true to an extent, but it's really not that true when we look at it; look at Spirit, Pathfinder, etc. These were missions which did things we've never even done before in space, but the simulations here on the ground were more than enough to get things done adequately; the moral of the story is that in reality we do not need a moon base to design or work out the technologies needed for a Mars base. And in fact, a Mars base has far less logistics, since there's water on Mars, an atmosphere capable of absorbing a lot of lethal radiation, higher gravity, and so on. Digging up and sorting regolith on the moon is far different than from Mars. Mars has that 7 mbar atmosphere with above freezing temperatures that don't vary drastically from the sun to the shade; not a whole lot atmosphere admittedly, but it's better than a pure vaccume as far as sorting and collecting stuff (primarily water) goes.

We've really talked this one down a dozen times before, and it all depends on your view. Luna is good for baby steps, but Luna technology doesn't equate Mars technology (so that argument is relatively defunct). It's going to work somewhat differently. The only real thing Luna offers is that it's close, so there are good political opportunities there.

And really, I think that's what this boils down to. Let's hope that it actually leads to something significant rather than some G.H.B scheme that's going to cost many billions.

RobS · 2004-01-09 20:07:37

Don't panic! Remember reporters are stretching the little information they have with their own guesses, and some reporters really don't know much technically.

Some specific comments:

Why the moon first: We have debated the importance of the moon as a route to Mars endlessly on these forums, but keep in mind that whether you think a return to the moon is necessary or not, an awful lot of important and expert people think it is. John Glenn has said so. At least one Apollo astronaut has said so. I've seen the idea quoted a lot. So the White House is following the experts on this one.

Travel time being double the seven months of Spirit: The reporter here clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Spirit went minimum energy, pretty much, at a time the opposition was close. A longer travel time would take MORE energy.

Mars 2018: Don't hold your breath, the feeling is they're looking at the mid 2020s at the earliest, probably the 2030s.

NASA scrapping everything else: This has to be defined. I doubt it means dropping unmanned exploration of Jupiter and Saturn. It may mean less money there and more for robotic exploration of the moon and Mars. It probably refers, also, to the proliferation of NASA research centers around the country with all their programs, which makes the agency unfocused at best and a gigantic pork barrel at worst.

Lack of references to heavy lift vehicle capacity, and references to modular systems and orbital assembly: These relate to each other. It appears they plan to use EELVs that can put 20-26 tonnes into orbit at a time (specific reference to the Ariane may be reference to the Ariane-12, which should be able to put closer to 30 tonnes in LEO).

Saturn could loft 130 tonnes to LEO and land about 15 tonnes on the moon using a modified and expanded cargo version of the lunar excursion module (which was never built). The ISS is built out of 16-tonne modules. A 24-tonne to LEO vehicle, with upgraded existing technology, can put 12-19 tonnes on the lunar surface, and thus can do the same work as a Saturn V. But you have to build a reusable transportation system of the sort Michael Duke proposed in http://members.aol.com/dsportree/MM22.htm. In his system, an 8-tonne solar powered ion-propulsion tug (4 tonnes of vehicle and 4 tonnes propellant) can push 16 tonnes to lagrange 1 (between the Earth and the moon) in 6 months. A 24-tonne payload split between 16 tonnes of chemical fueled stage and 8 tonnes of crew vehicle can fly to L1 in a few days. If you can make fuel at the lunar south pole, at L1 you rendezvous with a lunar-based vehicle and it lands either the 16 tonnes of cargo or the 8-tonne crew vehicle on the moon, then refuels. With this system you can do most of the work of the Saturn V with an EELV.

"Because the early moon missions would use existing rockets, they could deliver only small equipment packages.": Probably a reference to missions not starting out with moon-munfactured fuel, so they have to be small to set up the fuel making. But once you can make fuel on the moon, an EELV can do quite well.

Lunar orbit assembly: Probably an inaccurate reference to L1, the ideal place to assemble a Mars vehicle if one is using electric propulsion to L1 (which hovers at the rim of the Earth's gravity well). From there, Mars is 0.7 km/sec (1,500 mph) away on a Hohmann trajectory, twice that for a six-month crewed vehicle. The mass ratio for hydrogen-oxygen (hauled up from the moon?) is very favorable: 1.16 for Hohmann and 1.4 for fast trajectory.

Battlestar Galactica: No, they are referring to building a 50 tonne or 75-tonne Mars ship out of 2 or 3 EELV launches, I'd guess.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-01-10 00:44:23

Since alot of the money going into the Shuttle/ISS program is launch facilities, those probably will be on the hit list, especially since it is practical to build a Moon base with 25 ton class launchers... Dumping ISS into the sea or handing off to the Europeans puts a smile on my face though.

If Nasa has a ready supply of fuel, either sent from Earth or the Moon, to L1 then making a MarsDirect sized ship from EELV launches (say, 6, for around a billion total) is not impractical... one shot for the HAB/lander or ERV, one for various equipment & fuel, and one for the TMI propulsion stage... it isn't likly that Ares could be launched for under $400-500M a pop when you factor in the cost of the redesign and the big massive pad/crawler/VAB infrastructure anyway.

I still have a central, deep-seated fear though... that unless Nasa goes to Mars with the intent to stay reguardless of the science mission, then Mars will be a scientific curiosity like Antarctica, and not the next step for our species.

Aetius · 2004-01-10 01:03:44

NASA's not in the space colonization business. Once the technological path has been blazed, it's up to private industry to seize any opportunities which present themselves.

If an off-world colony cannot produce significant tax revenues within a reasonable time after its establishment, it simply can't continue to exist.

GCNRevenger · 2004-01-10 01:12:14

There is one good reason to go back to the Moon that can't be quantified easily... that Nasa would get practice, experience, and somthing it sorely lacks - confidance - in building manned space ships. I think that Nasa engineers would not sleep too soundly with their masterpiece, the ISS, if it didn't have that Soyuz attached. Its a long way from where we are now to risk putting astronauts in spacecraft for two years with no safety net. Technologicly speaking, no, the Moon does not make sense as a testing ground for a MarsDirect class mission, but it does get Nasa in the business of exploring again, and if the general tone of Bush's plan is any indication it screams "walk before you run."

Lunar ice could change this equation somewhat, and make a Lunar L1 fuel depot a good investment for future inner-solar-system development. I'm not sure where the idea that Lunar ice is somehow inaccessable compared to Martian regolith ice came from, you simply sift it a little then heat it up using a solar collector or reactor waste heat and it would readily sublimate off for easy collection. Either which way, humans will not be doing the digging on the Moon or Mars, but operating a "robot mining camp" will require real-time human oversight of some kind. Even if the camp doesn't require humans to perform maintenance, the robots will require oversight that cannot be provided over a multi-minute time lag.

GCNRevenger · 2004-01-10 01:22:52

Well if Nasa isn't in the colonization business, it better learn to... the fantastic costs of getting even a small mass between worlds will, for the forseeable future, preclude any profit from a Mars venture without a massive subsidy which would dwarf the actual revenue of the venture. There will be no Martian trade, and even Lunar profitability is questionable.

If Nasa isn't looking ahead to building a real colony, say that crater would make a dandy dome wall, lets land there attitude, then a Mars venture will dwindle down to a small, mostly automated, perhaps not even perminantly staffed space cottages that nobody cares of... even if life is found on Mars, it will not be enough to sustain interest. Nasa should be going to prepare the way for settlers who would make it their business to prepare for more settlers, and worry about turning a profit later.

Baphomet · 2004-01-10 05:08:17

A couple items:
First, I believe the doubled travel time refers to getting the astronauts back (the trip is doubled due to the return trip).

For the timeline, from the reports I've been reading, they are talking about Luna by 2013 and (from what I've read) a manned Mars FLY-BY!!! around 2020, the excuse given is that it is cheaper and easier than getting them down to the surface and back. Personally, I suspect (and pray) that this was erroneous info.

And as far as the cuts, I've read that any cuts/re-org they will be looking at are pretty-much limited to the manned program (thankfully).

Shaun Barrett · 2004-01-10 06:33:45

Welcome to New Mars, Baphomet!
An informative first post ... thank you.

Palomar · 2004-01-10 06:59:03

Well if Nasa isn't in the colonization business, it better learn to...

*This reminds me of an article I read (online) -- I believe I posted it previously in the "Astronauts Weigh In" thread -- wherein it's pointed out that NASA must eventually decide whether its mission is science or exploration.

Actually, I don't see why it can't be both, since science and exploration seem to me to have always been rather companionable "bundle babies" (to cop a phrase from Heinlein).

They go hand-in-hand, don't they...at least generally speaking? I think so.

--Cindy

Aetius · 2004-01-10 09:16:04

GCNRevenger, I couldn't agree more.

clark · 2004-01-10 13:53:28

Okay, so what's this space plan all about?

Same thing it's always been, distraction and control.

Use of Russian and European rockets is more than likely intended to counter chinese influence and cooperation with these nations in relation to space development.

Who has more to spend? This forces China to divert part of their funds for military modernization to keep up, or just to stay in the game.

Retiring the Shuttle fleet was obvious. It's a big white elephant, and the only reason we keep it is becuase of politcal influences (it's a big program, with lot's of hands in the pie). This move also opens up the possibility of private parntnerships with industry.

Focus on the human side- we do need more research into CELSS (which falls under the human side of research for NASA),

Oh yeah, the Exploration vehicle to replace OSP... gunna be a capsule. :;):

Bill White · 2004-01-10 22:03:16

Okay, so what's this space plan all about?
Same thing it's always been, distraction and control.
Use of Russian and European rockets is more than likely intended to counter chinese influence and cooperation with these nations in relation to space development.
Who has more to spend? This forces China to divert part of their funds for military modernization to keep up, or just to stay in the game.
Retiring the Shuttle fleet was obvious. It's a big white elephant, and the only reason we keep it is becuase of politcal influences (it's a big program, with lot's of hands in the pie). This move also opens up the possibility of private parntnerships with industry.
Focus on the human side- we do need more research into CELSS (which falls under the human side of research for NASA),
Oh yeah, the Exploration vehicle to replace OSP... gunna be a capsule. :;):

If this plan includes NO shuttle derived booster and an aggressive dismantling of shuttle infrastructure, this plan is also a "contract hit" on future hopes for MarsDirect.

If plans include ideas like the RS-68 Shuttle B or Ares or Shuttle C then I say "Yeah Team" we are really on our way to Mars - maybe later rather than sooner - but we are on our way. The orbiter should have been scrapped yesterday, yet the idea of having Delta as our most capable booster? Not so sure about that.

Yet my original point stands unchallenged. Scrap the shuttle infrastructure and Mars will be like that pony my daughter asked for her birthday.

"Sure dear, you might get a pony, just put it on the list."

= = =

Yeah, we can build a new HHLV from the drawing board but that will greatly increase the cost and delay things immensely. No one is talking about doing that, are they?

= = =

I also fear this plan will seek to essentially merge NASA into Defense and have civilian space initiatives be ancillary to military space initiatives. How many civilian corporations will be allowed to operate any fast new nuclear ships the US deploys?

Don't get me wrong, US hegemony of cis-lunar space is totally preferable to anyone else having hegemony of cis-lunar space, yet the idea that we might need to sacrifice civilian space to accomplish that is not pleasing to me. The NASA / DoD "OneTeam" concept already was a step in that direction.

Spider-Man · 2004-01-11 00:20:17

I'll believe it when I see it. And I'm quite certain Pres. Bush HAS heard of Mars Direct or similar plan.

You'd be surprised how horridly few people have any idea what Mars Direct is or who Robert Zubrin and the Mars Society are. I've personally called multiple senators and congressmen affiliated with the space program and who are advocates of exploration of other worlds, and they didn't have any idea about Mars Direct or anything but the 90-Day-Report until I did my best to inform them.
Do you know why? Because they're connected with NASA, the corrupt, factionalized institution it's become, the agency which abhors Zubrin and his ideas. And you think the Commander in Chief would be better informed than the dedicated officials I contacted? I only pray that a little good comes from the effort I exerted.

Will the game playing and greed never end?

Direct that to the previous adminstration, who systematically destroyed the space program into the burning wreck that Columbia became, the shattered fragments of Polar Lander strewn across the Martian surface, the flakes of Deep Space 2 longsince vaporized in the atmosphere of the Red Planet. The Clinton Adminstration, and most especially Al Gore, are to blame for our inexcusable stagnation with the godawful International Space Station. I refer you to Entering Space for more details.
But that's not to say that debilitation of space-based efforts is partisan, oh not at all, for 'twas Nixon, the wretch, who ended our missions to the Moon to begin with. Conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican; the whole history of space since Sputnik has been brutalized by both.

And just as Kennedy initiated our first steps into the unknown, so Bush shall continue our uniquely American tradition of braving the final fronteer, and with skill and excellence. Ignorance is the enemy, dear Cindy; greed is not a factor. It was ignorance which ended the Moon landings; it was ignorance which brought about the 90-Day-Ungodly-Report prophesying a mission cost twenty times more than it had to be, despite the "best and brightest" supposedly behind it; it was ignorance which cut funding in the nineties from the space program, and it was that very ignorance which led to the loss of millions of dollars worth of artfully produced hardware, and the very loss of six human lives. Ignorance is the foe which we are here to combat, to educate ourselves via these inimitable fora, so that we might educate the world.

Ad Martem sic nunc imus,
et nos non hic sistimus,
nam homines hic sumus,
ad astra sic ibimus.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-09 08:09:37

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#2 2004-01-09 08:19:11

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#3 2004-01-09 08:57:42

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#4 2004-01-09 09:19:52

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#5 2004-01-09 10:21:10

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#6 2004-01-09 10:25:34

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#7 2004-01-09 10:27:08

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#8 2004-01-09 11:04:04

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#9 2004-01-09 12:03:47

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#10 2004-01-09 14:52:29

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#11 2004-01-09 15:50:26

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#12 2004-01-09 16:31:20

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#13 2004-01-09 17:02:25

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#14 2004-01-09 20:07:37

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#15 2004-01-10 00:44:23

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#16 2004-01-10 01:03:44

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#17 2004-01-10 01:12:14

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#18 2004-01-10 01:22:52

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#19 2004-01-10 05:08:17

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#20 2004-01-10 06:33:45

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#21 2004-01-10 06:59:03

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#22 2004-01-10 09:16:04

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#23 2004-01-10 13:53:28

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#24 2004-01-10 22:03:16

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#25 2004-01-11 00:20:17

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

Board footer