The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

Michael Bloxham · 2005-05-05 19:18:37

It seems fairly ignorant to think that VSE is about long-term human habitation of space, just because Bush said so. We aren't on the verge of a new era; this isn't a paradigm shift in the future of space exploration.

We shouldn't expect this new lunar program to be the 'start of a new era'. It will be a lunar program and a lunar program only. It won't evolve slowly into a Mars program. It's not a 'gateway to the universe', as some of us are trying to advocate. It's just the moon. Thats it.

I think it's pretty inevtiable that any great undertaking by NASA will end prematurely, after the initial 'success'. The short terms and short-sightedness of politicians will ensure it.

So it's either the Moon or Mars: they'll both end up being little more than 'flags & footprints', we can't expect any more than that from the political structure in america. I think it's fair to say that a decent lunar program will end up killing or at least significantly delaying a Mars program. But unless the lunar program is kept short and cheap, the two will definately not be accomplished as part of one program.

If that's the outlook, then I reckon we should concentrate on Mars, because you could answer a lot more there in 500 days than you could on the moon given 500 years.

BWhite · 2005-05-05 19:29:26

For the record, it takes almost exactly the same amount of rocket fuel to drop 50 kg of rice on the Moon as it does to drop 50 kg of rice on Mars.
But how much fuel does it take to move the rice from the earth to the moon, then move it from the moon to mars?

Much more than Earth to Mars. :;):

clark · 2005-05-05 19:36:28

Well, to be fair, I have been drinking.

clark · 2005-05-05 19:46:52

I'll be brutally honest here -hic- I ain't gunna pay for some esikmo to go live on a floating -hic- ice berg, so why on Earth would I pay for you to go live on Mars?!

"NASA, as in US guv'ment, ain't in the business of settil'n folks out in yonder blue sky. They want to make a new power converter, save the birds and tree's, fine by me. But to git rid of all 'em democratic liberal-pinko-commie-non-believin-yeller'-bellies, why, who'ld we make fun of on our ray-de-o shows then?"

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-05 19:55:28

Dook,

Colonization means the permanent human presence in space. within the next 30 years we will have permanent presence in LEO and Lunar surface. Within 50 years we will have permanent presence on Mars, within that timeframe we will also have mining operations on the moon, and asteroids that are funded privately.

So wake up, by your so called 100 years we will have 50,000 + humans spread across the solar system with concentrations on LEO, Moon, Mars, Asteroid Belt, and smaller outposts on the moons of jupiter and saturn. Many other explorer missions would also be done by that time and the possibility of intersystem travel happening as well.

Current History (1960)

45 years ago not main computer infrastructure on earth, not internet, limited transport between continents and extremely limited space activity.

Today (2005)

Main Information Technology Infrastructure across earth, advance information networks ( like the internet ), major travel between continents on a regular basis and multiple countries and private enterprise involved in space.

That's why you Dook, don't understand human desires about space and the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge and the humanity's expansion of society through the understanding of space and where we fit in the universe.

Robert M. Blevins · 2005-05-05 20:06:35

Some of the posts on this thread are assuming we don't have the tech yet to reach the Red Planet. This is simply not true. One possible DRM uses either the Magnum rocket or the Delta, in the Apollo-type scenario. We have those now, and using a crew of three, with a smaller hab, it is possilble to boost our Mars vehicles into orbit, rendezvous/dock, and head for Mars.
Three basic vehicles are needed. 1) The Mars Entry Vehicle (combo-type, like the LEM possibly) 2) Crew hab 3) ERV capsule for the reentry on the return to Earth. The crew will need some type of cargo module dropped to the surface near their landing site, before they go to Mars.

One reason why some people at NASA want to go the Apollo route is because it is similar in some ways to the actual Apollo, and they had good luck with that system.

I am not a rocket scientist, however. All my research comes from NASA, Eurospace, and organizations such as the Mars Society. I get the idea some of the folks on this forum are more informed than I.

I wrote a book about a first mission to Mars. It's called 'The 13th Day Of Christmas.' Should be available this Christmas, (why not, right?) but it's a drama/adventure with hard science mixed in, not a strictly hard-science-this-is-absolutely-the-only-way book...

This book came about because I read an article in a 2004 issue of Esquire that said: 'there are no good books about actually going to Mars...'

Forget the Moon-Mars thing.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-05 20:12:04

It seems fairly ignorant to think that VSE is about long-term human habitation of space, just because Bush said so. We aren't on the verge of a new era; this isn't a paradigm shift in the future of space exploration.
We shouldn't expect this new lunar program to be the 'start of a new era'. It will be a lunar program and a lunar program only. It won't evolve slowly into a Mars program. It's not a 'gateway to the universe', as some of us are trying to advocate. It's just the moon. Thats it.
I think it's pretty inevtiable that any great undertaking by NASA will end prematurely, after the initial 'success'. The short terms and short-sightedness of politicians will ensure it.
So it's either the Moon or Mars: they'll both end up being little more than 'flags & footprints', we can't expect any more than that from the political structure in america. I think it's fair to say that a decent lunar program will end up killing or at least significantly delaying a Mars program. But unless the lunar program is kept short and cheap, the two will definately not be accomplished as part of one program.
If that's the outlook, then I reckon we should concentrate on Mars, because you could answer a lot more there in 500 days than you could on the moon given 500 years.

Nah, its not ignorant, you are just being pesimistic (one wonders your opinion of the matter if John Kerry had launched VSE...).

-No more serious ISS work past 2010
-No more STS past 2010
-Goal to return men to the Moon
-Goal to likly stay on the Moon
-Goal to put men on Mars.
versus:
-Operate ISS indefinatly or until it is no longer repairable
-Fly STS until 2025, perhaps 2030, or maybe even requalify the airframes
-Not go any dang place
-Not do any dang thing
-Try to shake extra money from Congress to buy Shuttle-II while flying STS and ISS simultainiously despite rising ISS repair costs, so that we can... keep flying the ISS.

What part about this is not a "paradigm shift?" Under the old pre-VSE "vision," we'd still be using Shuttle all the way out until 2025, but under VSE we will be planted on the Moon and likly setting sights on Mars by that time.

And I don't agree that everything NASA does is doomed to be a one-off short term thing. The differences between now and Apollo are very different:
-We can set up shop for a third of the cost of Apollo flags/footprints anually
-The Moon can produce an economically valuble product (Pt, Ni, etc)
-The Moon would be a perfect astronomy platform, hold scientific interest itself for some time
-The Moon could become extremely valuble with the advent of Fusion, without He3 may delay adoption
-The Moon could become a solar power platform for the Earth long term, transmission technology permitting

Once we are established on the Moon and fuel (or at least oxidizer) is available, base design/operations research finished, and a next-generation reuseable lander/TLI/TEI vehicle is built, this will radically reduce the cost of operating on the Moon after the enabling work is finished. So, this savings can then be diverted to pay for Mars without need of a radical budget hike.

clark · 2005-05-05 20:13:00

Cool Robert.

But, we have the tech? At what cost? Who will build it? What will be the *actual* cost? So we can send people to Mars, how does that help us? Why do we need to do this now, and quickly? What is the loss if it takes us 50 years instead of 10?

We still have a hard time getting things to Mars, humans going is vastly more complicated- how does that demonstrate we are ready? We have gone to the Moon, almost 40 years ago, how have we demonstrated we are capable of more?

We haven't.

clark · 2005-05-05 20:17:48

I must be drunk, GCN is making sense.

Dook · 2005-05-05 20:27:50

Michael: I agree with you 100%. But what if we find life on mars? Mars then would turn into some kind of extended science mission to see if there is more life and to study the food and energy cycle of the microbes we did find.

Martin: No, we will not have a permanent human presence in LEO (the ISS is going to fall) or the moon in the next 30 years. Primarily because we don't need it and it would be a huge waste of money. Haven't you learned anything from the ISS disaster? If we do put a permanent human presence on the moon it would mean that we NEVER get to mars. Do the math, we can't afford the moon and mars. It's one or the other. Building and maintaining a moon base = entire NASA budget forever. Nothing else, no space pictures, no science, just a bunch of dull grey moon dirt with platinum in it that we won't need anyway because bio-diesel is a much cheaper alternative to fuel cells.

50,000 humans spread out in the solar system in 100 years? Intersystem travel? I hate to tell you this but all that Battlestar Galactica stuff isn't real. It's just a movie show. Dream on trekkie.

What you don't understand is that all the simple, easy things, have been done and the really tough stuff is left to figure out.

Also, why are you all here anyway? After all this is the MARS SOCIETY! You moononites need to get the hell out and go play over at the Moon Societies web pages!

BWhite · 2005-05-05 20:30:15

Cool Robert.
But, we have the tech? At what cost? Who will build it? What will be the *actual* cost? So we can send people to Mars, how does that help us? Why do we need to do this now, and quickly? What is the loss if it takes us 50 years instead of 10?
We still have a hard time getting things to Mars, humans going is vastly more complicated- how does that demonstrate we are ready? We have gone to the Moon, almost 40 years ago, how have we demonstrated we are capable of more?
We haven't.

Dude, its not really "we" and its not about NASA.

Space exploration is like a Dutch auction. As technology improves, the price and risk declines until someone steps to the plate and says, okay let me have a crack at it. Throw the pitch.

Maybe they all die. (Roanoke Island)

Then someone else will try.

Dook · 2005-05-05 21:02:58

And I don't agree that everything NASA does is doomed to be a one-off short term thing. The differences between now and Apollo are very different:
-We can set up shop for a third of the cost of Apollo flags/footprints anually
-The Moon can produce an economically valuble product (Pt, Ni, etc)
-The Moon would be a perfect astronomy platform, hold scientific interest itself for some time
-The Moon could become extremely valuble with the advent of Fusion, without He3 may delay adoption
-The Moon could become a solar power platform for the Earth long term, transmission technology permitting

A moon base can produce an economically valuable product? Maybe. What if bio-diesel engines beat out fuel cells? Which they should since almost all of the infrastructure for bio-diesel is already in place. And if platinum becomes too expensive increased recycling of platinum will reduce it's need and other metals will take it's place wherever they can, also reducing it's need. In this case your moon base would sit quiet, abandoned.

Using the moon as an astronomy platform? A hubble type telescope at the L1 point would be the same for less or we could build an array of telescopes on the dark side of the moon and have it relay it's information to a satellite in orbit around the moon to send to us. Still no moon base needed, just a visit every few years to fix things.

He3? Still a ways off, and we may never need it.

Moon transmitted power to the earth???? Yeah, right.

You say the cost of operating on the moon will radically reduce once the base is finished and a next generation lander is built. How long do you think all of this will take to build? 35 years?

You are really reaching with all of this. Something else is obviously driving it. You always point out the facts to us but I think you are disregarding them this time for some reason.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-05-05 22:02:45

GCNR:

Nah, its not ignorant, you are just being pesimistic (one wonders your opinion of the matter if John Kerry had launched VSE...).

I'm being realistic and you know it. I hate this to effect my credibility; but that election reminds me of that South Park episode where they hold a school board election. The candidates are Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche. They were both crap, but atleast we were sure Bush was crap.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-05 22:41:18

A moon base can produce an economically valuable product? Maybe. What if bio-diesel engines beat out fuel cells? Which they should since almost all of the infrastructure for bio-diesel is already in place. And if platinum becomes too expensive increased recycling of platinum will reduce it's need and other metals will take it's place wherever they can, also reducing it's need. In this case your moon base would sit quiet, abandoned.
Using the moon as an astronomy platform? A hubble type telescope at the L1 point would be the same for less or we could build an array of telescopes on the dark side of the moon and have it relay it's information to a satellite in orbit around the moon to send to us. Still no moon base needed, just a visit every few years to fix things.
He3? Still a ways off, and we may never need it.
Moon transmitted power to the earth???? Yeah, right.
You say the cost of operating on the moon will radically reduce once the base is finished and a next generation lander is built. How long do you think all of this will take to build? 35 years?
You are really reaching with all of this. Something else is obviously driving it. You always point out the facts to us but I think you are disregarding them this time for some reason.

Biodiesel is just a short-term solution, in the future as the world develops, it will simply not be enough. Fuel cell power is also much more efficent to begin with, since it does not waste such large amounts of energy as heat, and since it has no moving parts. Eventually, fuel cells will inherintly win out, as the superior technology always does. Fuel cells for end power is essentially a foregone conclusion, it is just a matter of time... and the nation that gets there first will have an economic and technological edge.

But not without Platinum. Platinum recycling is a stop-gap solution which doesn't actually MAKE any more platinum, and as I have mentioned before, the Earthly supply will simply run out and then there won't be any more anywhere. Pt also has numerous uses as a catalyst, without which many industries would face serious hardships. Chances are good that you have eaten something today that had at least one ingridient passed over a platinum catalyst... And there are no substitutes. Platinum is unique in the way it efficently reacts with Hydrogen, and there are no less rare materials that do what it does on Earth or in space rocks.

Oh, and as a cute side note, guess what? If your biodiesel feedstock contains signifigant amounts of unsaturated hydrocarbons, guess what you would need to process it (Hydrogenation) to fix it? ...Thats right, a Platinum catalyst.

My point about having a telescope array on the Moon's surface as a justfication for a base is not that its a sole reason, but a contributing one, since you would have competant repair staff on hand to make the trip in days, not months, if they were stationed on the Moon to begin with and do it without having to spend half a billion dollars on an all-expendable expedition. In fact, the cost of maintaining the base versus a telescope maintenance trip every two or three years offsets a good chunk of the cost.

And yes, Helium-3. I think that we are closer to a fusion reactor then we have been in the past, now with the advent of superconductor magnets of sufficent power and quality, as well as computers powerful enough to actually model what goes on inside the torus. Japan + Europe are even building a reactor that they hope could possibly sustain the break-even point right now. Helium-3 may be required, and is certainly desired, to make a practical powerplant. With such a technology in hand, it would revolutionize the way we make the lifeblood of our civilization. If a lack of He3 supply slows down adoption by a decade or two then that alone would justify the Lunar base. We really are making progress to figuring fusion power out.

And how long would it take to build such a minimal base? Ten years tops. Probobly closer to five... I am not talking about much of a base here, just big enough to make fuel and lay foundations. Thats all, no more then half a dozen people (probobly only four), no huge greenhouse farms, etc. When private industry wants the Pt/He3, they can then come and get it using the beach-head NASA has... without going broke in the process.

I am not "reaching," I am stating that there are good reasons for maintain a Lunar base.

Robert M. Blevins · 2005-05-05 23:03:00

Revenger says:
"One of the DRM's calls for an Apollo-type mission to Mars, rather than launching several heavy-lift bodies into orbit first. This means a smaller crew, only one cargo module having to reach Mars before the main spacecraft, and a shorter stay on the surface. (Perhaps 100 days.)"
What? Have you even read the DRM mission plans?

Well, to a degree I have read some of them. And you are correct in your assessments. The 3-person crew, Apollo-type mission was a wildcard that some NASA scientists have been considering very recently. It probably isn't an official DRM yet.

I guess this was the basic idea they were kicking around, probably semi-officially:

1) Send two cargo modules to Mars. One to Mars orbit, one to the actual landing site.
2) Scale down size of crew hab for three people.
3) Construct crew hab, booster, (think 'Lunar Service Module' but larger and more powerful), Earth Return Vehicle (reentry capsule, basically), and Mars Entry Vehicle.
4) Use existing rockets to put needed hardware into LEO.
5) Put crew aboard booster/hab combination, rendezvous with the other two pieces of hardware, and dock.
6) Go to Mars (I believe the possiblility of using strap-on boosters was discussed here, firing half of them to acheive Trans-Mars injection, the other half for the return, using the fuel in the main rocket for course-corrections.)
7) Acheive stable Mars orbit.
8) Separate MEV from main spacecraft and make the landing.
9) Stay on Mars for x-number of days, according to available resources already sent previously.
10) Liftoff from Martian surface, dock with main spacecraft.
11) Refuel from cargo module number two in orbit.
12) Return to Earth.

Okay, I had to paraphrase some of this, since I am not a rocket scientist, and some terms are probably simplistic, but I think this was the basic plan...

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-06 05:58:35

Dook,

I am not talking about the pityful budget of NASA to build the industrial and mining sectors in space. You need to look at the problem from a whole different level of resource requirements and the application of resources to build the infrastructure. I am talking about US$100 Billion budget per year funded primary by the Global Business Entities.

If you don't think it can't happen then you are limited by the words ( can't, shouldn't couldn't won't don't ) because It can happen and you need to work on a purely global level. First think that you have 6 billion customers what you can sell them all at $30 per month per year as a subscription - even if you only get 10% of the Market that equals 600 M x$30 = $18 billion x 12 = $ 216 Billion and Using US$100 Billion doesn't think impossible. Say it takes 15 years to build the infrastructure to make the money then from 2020 -2035 = 1.5Trillion dollars, that 30 years from now then another 20 years adds 2 trillion dollars more resources ( infrastructure, personnel, space assets, lunar assets , martian assets and more ) now we are 2055, the next 50 years you would generate another 5 Trillion Dollars from earth but doesn't count on the mining and industrial capacity in space that is developed from 2035 onwards to reduce the dependence of earth resources.

These are the numbers that you need to work towards to build the work outside the earth and take humanity into space. Also Dook I can prove everything that I have typed and I know one product that could do this volume of monetary sales.

I am currently working on a number of projects that income generating to build some of the necessary components for the infrastructure required for the global resource gathering for the expansion of space for humanity.

Also Dook, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek are futuristic and I am talking about the current level of technology and expansion of real hardware, and real desires for humanity in space. You need to broaden your minds into understand of resource allocation on a planetary scale not a small country scale like USA or UK.

Secondly, You asked why I am here,

Because I believe that the next large population for each will be Mars but we need the infrastructure to get there and I agree with the idea to get to the moon and use it as a testing facility for humanity living permanently in space. When we move to Mars we have a fully trained workforce for the planet and also technologies to work on low - G Worlds.

But I don't like the Explorer Missions planning only, I think they are first step - foothold phase but the beach head phase would be outposts up to 50+ personnel and that requires infrastructure backing from earth-lunar space. If we haven't got those goals then we are just tourists in space and I am not working on being a tourist but a participating member of the our solar system ( or can be called - the terran star system)

Dook · 2005-05-06 06:08:46

And how long would it take to build such a minimal base? Ten years tops. Probobly closer to five...

Five years to develop a moon base? I doubt it.

What habitats are we going to use?
What equipment to move and connect them on mars?
What moon rovers?
What telescope array equipment?
What machine to separate the He3, platinum, and make oxygen from lunar dust?
What earth return vehicle for transporting people?
What moon launch material (He3, or platinum) return vehicle?
What rocket to launch all this equipment to the moon?

Also you are going to have to launch constant missions to the moon just to keep it stocked with the moon material return vehicles.

I see 20-30 years spent on this moon base, then it all gets destroyed in a Geminid meteor shower, 4 lives lost.

Dook · 2005-05-06 06:24:27

First think that you have 6 billion customers what you can sell them all at $30 per month per year as a subscription

Companies don't throw away $100 billion dollars just to satisfy trekkie fantasy. You say millions of people are going to pay you $30 a month for a subscription? Subscription to what?

There is no profit in moon, asteroid, or mars settlement.

Even the idea of a moon base to gather platinum is a NASA charity project. The money made by selling the platinum won't cover the cost of building and maintaining the moon base.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-06 06:49:06

Dook,

No Profit , what have you been smoking ? The organization that gets a dominant position in space for business will be a major space player that other group/s will work with including the governments of earth. Remember the main space players will make the rules for everyone else.

First and Foremost you are not throwing US$100 Billion to just satisfy a trekkie fantasy. Each investment into infrastructure in space is an asset and will bring generate income through the form of lease agreements with other parties (both government and non-government)

Put it this way the combined budgets of USA, Europe, China, and Russian currently don't make that volume in funding through their governments because they don't see the value. The have other domestic issues to attend too. Thus If Business Organization has assets in space they want to use or lease they could an provide income, simply like a property rental agreements.

Thus you can derive a income stream from your space assets on earth from other parties and will provide additional growth for space activities in general, bring more private industry at a lower cost base into space.

I am not talking about the ISS pityful space station either, something alot larger and better that could have a permanent crew spinning in orbit providing a home in orbit for all third party personnel and organization personnel. Other Platforms that could provide space for experiments and small scale manufacturing again lease to third parties.

You just have a closed mind, Dook, Space will be a larger diverse economy than the combined countries of earth.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-06 06:53:27

Ok lets slow down for a minute.
Nasa is an agency of which we would like it to be more business like but I think the only thing it can do is rein in the costs of its output of doing exploration for science.

As for business going to space both Lockheed and Boeing do have the rockets for cargo but nothing yet for manned flight. Where as the Russians do have both at this time. At relatively cheap prices if they could be bought. Which at this time only the rich can afford.

If one wants to go to stay in space with a permanent presence than the US most do the same. Building the CEV for Manned and cargo use would get the US back into the game since it will be no shuttle one ship do all.

Dook · 2005-05-06 07:15:52

I am not talking about the ISS pityful space station either, something alot larger and better that could have a permanent crew spinning in orbit providing a home in orbit for all third party personnel and organization personnel. Other Platforms that could provide space for experiments and small scale manufacturing again lease to third parties.

I haven't read a comic book in years so it is difficult arguing with you, but I will try.

What great space waste infrastructure are people going to lease? Space based manufacturing? Not a chance. Anything you can build in space is easier, cheaper, and better built on the earth and the infrastructure is already here so no company is going to waste money on this.

A space hotel? Might work. But not until we have a much cheaper launch vehicle that can safely and more gently take passengers into orbit.

This GBE is going to use what infrastructure to launch all of this? You think NASA is just going to hand over the keys to all of it's buildings and equipment?

I have the most open mind of anyone in the world and I would like to see humanity achieve more goals in space but wild space adventures that have no hope of success only hurt that effort. We are very far from achieving any kind of Star Trek technology so you will just have to keep watching reruns.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-06 07:35:32

Space based manufacturing? ??? You may be right for exported items going back to earth but not going the other way after it has begun. Space built Items would only be used in space and would be very valuable to those that live there. Only once the price would be less than those from Earths would there be a chance to compete for sales back on earth for those Moon or mars built items. Other than the I want one of those fad novelties from either is there any sales to be realized at first of any manufactured item on the moon or mars.

Dook · 2005-05-06 08:13:43

No one is going to live in space for a very long time. There is no reason to do it, there is no profit in it, there is nothing out there that we absolutely HAVE to do or have. We are there only because we want to be.

I want NASA to discover new things, not waste my money on building your space waste infrastructure just so you can live out your trekkie fantasies.

BWhite · 2005-05-06 08:35:53

Ok lets slow down for a minute.
Nasa is an agency of which we would like it to be more business like but I think the only thing it can do is rein in the costs of its output of doing exploration for science.
As for business going to space both Lockheed and Boeing do have the rockets for cargo but nothing yet for manned flight. Where as the Russians do have both at this time. At relatively cheap prices if they could be bought. Which at this time only the rich can afford.
If one wants to go to stay in space with a permanent presence than the US most do the same. Building the CEV for Manned and cargo use would get the US back into the game since it will be no shuttle one ship do all.

Or, the private sector can just buy Russian rockets.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-06 09:05:28

But would the rich Dennis Tito's be allowed to do so by our government? Would they be allowed to build a launch pad without large regulatory hurdles to clear as in the alternative space companies which we do know that they have today with doing suborbit flights?

Well while I am there in space if I should discover a miracle cure for a disease or some magical alloy that we are trying to make here on earth. Would that then justify my presense there? Thoses that go are going there to work not just live a fantasy.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-05-05 19:18:37

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#27 2005-05-05 19:29:26

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#28 2005-05-05 19:36:28

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#29 2005-05-05 19:46:52

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#30 2005-05-05 19:55:28

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#31 2005-05-05 20:06:35

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#32 2005-05-05 20:12:04

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#33 2005-05-05 20:13:00

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#34 2005-05-05 20:17:48

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#35 2005-05-05 20:27:50

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#36 2005-05-05 20:30:15

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#37 2005-05-05 21:02:58

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#38 2005-05-05 22:02:45

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#39 2005-05-05 22:41:18

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#40 2005-05-05 23:03:00

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#41 2005-05-06 05:58:35

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#42 2005-05-06 06:08:46

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#43 2005-05-06 06:24:27

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#44 2005-05-06 06:49:06

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#45 2005-05-06 06:53:27

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#46 2005-05-06 07:15:52

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#47 2005-05-06 07:35:32

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#48 2005-05-06 08:13:43

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#49 2005-05-06 08:35:53

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#50 2005-05-06 09:05:28

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

Board footer