Private Mission To Mars Questions

Marsman · 2005-10-04 00:16:23

I just wanted to know what your thoughts were on this subject. What would it take for you to support a private mission to Mars? What do you see as requirements before you would look at any private plan seriously?

SpaceNut · 2005-10-04 05:53:37

Pretty much we are discusion a variation of that theme in this thread by Josh Cryer.

One man one way suicide mission...

Anyway, I'm wondering what you guys think about a one man one way suicide mission to Mars. It wouldn't be a suicide mission so much, as I'd want to go there with at least the ability to grow my own food, so I would definitely have to bring along a greenhouse of sorts. I was thinking a fairly large greenhouse which would be assembled once grounded, as a sort of Closed Ecosystem Life Support System.
A chloroplast device could suffice for food in the meantime, during the trip, and while waiting for actual food to grow in the greenhouse.
I haven't really thought about the logistics for such a trip, it's just been in the back of my head in general. "Could it be possible for a multimillionare/billionare to go to Mars for "cheap"?"
The first problem is getting there. So what would be the best rocket for such a mission? What's the biggest rocket capable of sending a, say, 5-10 ton payload to Mars? I'm thinking very small here, a ship whose internals are no bigger than most peoples bathrooms. In volume it would be only a little larger than the rover probe container was.

Marsman · 2005-10-04 08:41:46

I should have clarified that to say A Serious Private Mission, not a suicidal joke. The science and engineering has been done to death, my question was more based on the issue of what financial and credibility requirements you would need before you supported such a plan, and just in general would you support such a plan? What qualifications would you place upon your support?

SpaceNut · 2005-10-04 09:02:21

Well the financial question is one of what is the value of doing such a mission as compared to it projected cost.
The issue is as we have seen on the Nasa plan for the moon quoting a 104 billion dollar over a finacing term of from now to 2018 before the first flight and then only 2 a year at that.

So what are we getting for the investment? Some would argue it is the technology gained, the science and of course pipe dreams of privitization commercial ventures in mining.

So in the end run once all the developement is paid for to get us there what do we have to show for the first 2 completed missions other than 2 used capsules, some more rocks (whether from the moon or mars does not really matter), and a bill for 52 billion for each unit.

So what are the costs going forward if nasa budget is 8 billion and steady for the future and only 2 flights are preformed those flights then cost only 4 billion a pieces but still we have not taken the next step up the ladder beyound exploration.

So how long must we stay in that mode...

Josh was serious to pushing the point of value is to colonize and to do these other things as a consiquence of going.

So then again what are the goals...

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-04 09:32:56

I should have clarified that to say A Serious Private Mission, not a suicidal joke. The science and engineering has been done to death, my question was more based on the issue of what financial and credibility requirements you would need before you supported such a plan, and just in general would you support such a plan? What qualifications would you place upon your support?

Barring the invention of a space elevator or the discovery of a magical super rocket fuel, the basic economics of spaceflight aren't going to change any time soon.

So, what could you possibly get from a Mars mission that offsets the very large cost? NASA has the bennefit of not having a profit motive, and unless you are Bill Gates, only a corporation has the kind of money needed for a Mars mission.

Marsman · 2005-10-04 09:36:37

The goal in a word- Colonization. Science, making a profit, engineering, politics are all interesting motives for going, but the fact is many people just want to live there. It is really up to those with with the creativity and smarts to come up with solutions for making this happen just as they did with enabling poor average people to settle countries of the new world centuries ago. Only colonization outweighs the projected costs and risks. Scientists and engineers may not care where the money comes from for such missions, but I can tell you that most average people both know and care where it's coming from(usually from them). How about this idea- A mission to Mars- From the people, by the people and for the people. The search for life can go on forever but living there is what people who are interested want. I agree with Josh, it's not suicidal at all.

redhorizons · 2005-10-04 16:36:21

Marsman, if you had Bill Gate's money, would you do everything in your power to get yourself to Mars?
Is that the question you are asking? I know I would. Like Paul Allen footing the tab for SpaceShipOne, if I had that kind of money I would be looking at partnering up with Musk, Bigelow, Branson, whoever it took to get the resourses together to get hunanity, especially me, off this rock.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-04 16:46:01

SpaceShipOne kind of money is a joke, a few tens of millions won't get you anywhere. You need BILLIONS of dollars, perhaps tens of billions, to set up shop perminantly on Mars.

Marsman · 2005-10-04 17:33:44

I do understand the incredibly complex and risky nature of human space flight, not to mention costly. I agree with you GCN. The other aspect is time. NASA, who are geared up for such tasks usually take years to put together a decent program like the new 2018 Moon shot, and anyone thinking they can just launch with a bit of money behind them are sorely mistaken. It will take many billions, much time and a whole lot of people(thousands and more), and the right kind of people. The kind of thinking and motivation for such a mission will be along the lines of a more expansive, pioneering mindset, not a "what can we get out of it" mindset. If that is an overiding motive for you then just think about our own lives in the western countries. Many of our modern day conveniences and infrastructure components were built by people mostly with a pioneering and visionary outlook. So it will be with Mars. No private mission will succeed until it accepts the costs and risks just like NASA do. The point is to make that first step and to continue until we reach the goal of a colonized Mars no matter what the costs or risks. I don't know if any one person will ever pony up the money to go to Mars due to the insane cost and risks, but I do know that a collaberative effort from a base of many people over whatever time is needed will stand a much better chance of going. If the people want to settle on Mars one day then it will be the people who have to make it happen. The fact is, whatever solution someone comes up with will probably be shot down here and elsewhere but a private mission is going to happen at some point. Question- Who are the only source other than big corporations that when combined have the resources to do anything? (Besides government taxes too).

Dook · 2005-10-04 17:58:50

The goal in a word- Colonization. Science, making a profit, engineering, politics are all interesting motives for going, but the fact is many people just want to live there.

-Colonization? Sigh...I still don't get it. Why does anyone think it is good to risk the lives and health of a hundred people just to strand them forever on a desert planet? There would be huge continuing costs to resupply with food and spare parts for little benefit.

-A rotation of 6 scientists every two years would be adequate for science.

-Making a profit? I don't think you've really looked into this. Even if mars was made of gold you wouldn't make a profit over your mission costs.

-Engineering? Okay, but we can just keep making these relatively cheap but nifty probes that test new technology without risk to human life.

-Many people just want to live there? Are you kidding me? On mars? Think of a very small mobile home that you are stuck inside, rarely, if ever, going outside and when you do it's in a pressure suit. Think of bumping elbows with the same people everyday. Eating MRE and dehydrated foods for years. Sitting inside cramped radiation shelters for hours during solar storms. Doing the same boring work day after day, oh, and if you make a mistake you just might kill everyone. No weather other than dust storms. No immediate conversation with family and friends on Earth. No pets.

Anyone who wants to go to mars to live, other than fanatical scientists, are people who think they can simply run away from their problems. They are not problem solvers and absolutely not the people anyone would pick for a mission to mars.

Marsman · 2005-10-04 18:24:43

Colonization has never been easy. My own ancestors came to Australia on a 6 month trip over 170 years ago in a time where many people died on the way and conditions once they got here were brutal to say the least, and with no hope of contacting their friends or relatives- ever. I think the basic motive behind colonization for the average person is to make a new life for themselves, to be a part of building something beautiful and productive out of what was once ugly and unproductive, and most of such people are fully aware of the problems ahead yet they still go. You will probably never understand that motive unless you have it yourself. My other question is why are there so many anti-Mars views from members in a Mars enthusiast forum? The simple fact is a NASA future on Mars is never going to cut it with the large mass of people interested in space exploration and settlement in the world today. I never said a profit could be made and even if it could, it will be many decades away, so we agree on that point. The Mars Society and New Mars were created by people with an interest in all things Mars and specifically an interest in opening up Mars to as many people as possible one day. So why are there such strong views here against this vision?(point 3 of the purpose statement)

Many people do want to go to places like the Moon and Mars, and space advocate groups are proof of that. You have given a glass is half empty view of life on Mars, all the negatives(which I don't disagree with), but what about the positives? I agree also that the first mission/s will be crewed by qualified scientists and the like, but in time people from all walks of life will go there. So if it was a proper scientific mission, and it followed the gradual development path of missions/base/ colony and it was fully funded from private(not for profit) sources, would you support this concept?(and it had the right people running things)

Dook · 2005-10-04 18:56:05

The Pilgrims faced great challenges, they accepted the risks. Honestly if you want to go to mars tomorrow, go ahead. But don't expect us to send you anything.

If you want to get away there are great expanses of land in Antarctica where you can go and you don't have to worry about things like obtaining oxygen, CO2 toxicity, and finding water. Oh, and it's actually warmer in Antarctica.

My motive? To create beauty here and everywhere. People stranded in a tuna can for the rest of their lives, stale air, recycled water? That's not beauty.

A simple initial landing on mars with some exploration. An initial base for scientists, further landings that test greenhouses, domes, and conduct surveys of various areas. Begin terraforming with mirrors and greenhouse gas factories. An atmosphere, seas, weather. Then introduce plants, someday animals. In the future serious human colonization. Now that is beauty.

Also I'm not sure what other opposition you've met here, usually I'm the only voice against these calls for the urgent colonization of mars.

I won't support any colonization of mars until it has an atmosphere. Just scientists and terraformers until then.

Marsman · 2005-10-04 19:18:09

Sorry Dook, I've got to learn to be more precise. I'm from Red Colony so yes, terraforming is what I look forward to as well. The colonization I am talking of would obviously be limited until then to bases and small cities(domes and the like), and of course terraforming will lay the foundation of a real new world. Most scientists and technical personnel will want to have their families with them if they are there for a permanent stay so colonization of a form will have to be addressed. Some of the early cities while domed can still be beautiful places to live, I don't think people working on Mars for years will put up with a strictly functional place to live, it's just not human nature. There will be many moons and planets where domed or underground cities will be the only feasible method of colonization, and I'm sure people know how to make them beautiful and interesting.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-04 20:53:05

There are people who want to go to Mars. From a business perspective it doesn't matter why, they do and they're willing to pay to get there; that's all that matters. A businessman operating a colonist transport will make a profit carrying colonists to Mars.

There is profit to be had supplying those settlers. A business operating on Mars itself will make tools and kitchen utensils and clothing and all the other necessities of life from local Martian materials. Profits from running that business will be used to pay locals to make fuel and supplies for the transport ship. This means little or no Earth resources to maintain and operate the ship, but colonists pay in Earth dollars. That's one hell of a profit business.

So why would people want to move to Mars? Little government and lots of land. There's iron and aluminum and bricks to be made from Mars rocks. Build your home and tell government to stick it where the sun don't shine. No tax. No environmental regulation. Just dig a hole in your own land for materials to make bricks or glass and dump the slag in a crater over the hill. Free sunshine every day, clouds do exist in Mars but they're very rare. Solar panels for power, or if you're really handy with technical stuff build a thorium nuclear reactor and dig thorium fuel from your own ground. (Reference: Thorium map) Do you want me to explain how a thorium reactor works and why it's safer than a uranium reactor?

Marsman · 2005-10-04 22:08:10

Good thoughts Robert. Making it a reality will be hard but not impossible. So with a robust plan that people respect a private mission might just stand a chance of gaining real support.

JonClarke · 2005-10-04 22:15:45

There are people who want to go to Mars. From a business perspective it doesn't matter why, they do and they're willing to pay to get there; that's all that matters. A businessman operating a colonist transport will make a profit carrying colonists to Mars.
There is profit to be had supplying those settlers. A business operating on Mars itself will make tools and kitchen utensils and clothing and all the other necessities of life from local Martian materials. Profits from running that business will be used to pay locals to make fuel and supplies for the transport ship. This means little or no Earth resources to maintain and operate the ship, but colonists pay in Earth dollars. That's one hell of a profit business.
So why would people want to move to Mars? Little government and lots of land. There's iron and aluminum and bricks to be made from Mars rocks. Build your home and tell government to stick it where the sun don't shine. No tax. No environmental regulation. Just dig a hole in your own land for materials to make bricks or glass and dump the slag in a crater over the hill. Free sunshine every day, clouds do exist in Mars but they're very rare. Solar panels for power, or if you're really handy with technical stuff build a thorium nuclear reactor and dig thorium fuel from your own ground. (Reference: Thorium map) Do you want me to explain how a thorium reactor works and why it's safer than a uranium reactor?

Utter fantasy.

Just on one technical issue alone: have you any idea what the actual thorium content is in the Martian crust? What the minimum ore grade for thorium is? How much plant is needed to mine, mill and process thorium, then turn it into a reactor fuel? How much plant is needed to construct and operate a reactor, and then safely dispose of the waste?

That's not even getting into the political legistative stuff.

Jon

Marsman · 2005-10-05 00:29:11

What would be your own positive alternative suggestions be Jon? From what I can gather here people want something robust enough to engender wide support, and I agree. So if we had such a plan in place then what? Actually gaining public and corporate support is a whole other issue and it seems that no matter how good the mission plan is there are obviously many other issues to be dealt with as you say.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-05 00:38:39

On Mars there are no "political legislative stuff". Do what you want, if you screw up you only harm yourself. Toxic waste buried in frozen ground will stay put; there is no ground water to contaminate. Mars has permafrost, frozen mud. Wind will blow surface material around, but anything buried will stay put. So if you screw up your reactor, you only contaminate yourself, not your neighbours. That's why "political legislative stuff" will stay off Mars.

Disposal is actually the easiest. There's one small commercial thorium reactor available now, intended for small remote towns. It's designed as a narrow cylinder so it can be buried in a deep hole. Pipes connect the reactor with steam turbines on the surface. The reactor itself is always operated remotely due to radiation; doing so in a hole is no different than behind a several-foot-thick concrete door. After several decades the reactor will run out of fuel, but the entire reactor core will have become radioactive. Fine, cap the hole and move the steam turbine building over to a fresh patch of ground. Dig another hole to burry another reactor core. Rebuild the steam turbine & generator building over the new reactor core. The important thing is to remember not to dig where the reactor core was buried.

Several years ago (1987 or 1988) I saw a video from Ontario Hydro. That showed workers stuffing uranium oxide powder (yellow cake) into hollow stainless steel tubes to make reactor rods. They wore white lab coats with plastic shower caps on their hair, a paper filter mask over nose and mouth, safety glasses like you would find in a wood working shop, and the same loose plastic gloves you get with oven cleaner. They stuffed yellow cake into the steel tubes with their fingers. That doesn't appear to be very dangerous stuff. In fact, uranium oxide is not chemically toxic. It's a low level radioactive source, but not dangerous when exposed for minutes or hours. You only have to ensure you don't get any in your body for long-term exposure. Low level exposure over years can cause cancer, that's why they wore gloves and a filter mask. Uranium is very mild before it goes into the reactor; is when it comes out that it's extremely dangerous. The fast-and-hot by-products of fission are so dangerous you want several feet of concrete or lead between you and it.

Thorium is even less radioactive than uranium. 100% of natural thorium is [tex:fee8a408f6]^{232}Th[/tex:fee8a408f6]. That undergoes alpha decay with a half life of [tex:fee8a408f6]1.405 \times 10^{10}[/tex:fee8a408f6] years. That means half of the material decays in that time, so half decays in 14.05 billion years. The next half takes another 14.05 billion years, etc. The universe is estimated to be 15 billion years old. That's a very slow decay. Furthermore alpha radiation is so mild you can block it with a single sheet of paper or plastic film as thick as paper. Uranium [tex:fee8a408f6]^{235}U[/tex:fee8a408f6] alpha decays with a half life of [tex:fee8a408f6]7.04 \times 10^8[/tex:fee8a408f6] years. Both undergo spontaneous fission, but only a very tiny fraction of events are SF. Thorium undergoes SF even less. This means much less radiation from thorium than uranium.

Will it take a lot to refine thorium? Maybe. But power is very important in space so I suspect that small nuclear reactors will be a thriving business on Mars.

There are a few minerals of thorium. We don't know yet which is on Mars. Monazite-(Ce) is a mineral of [tex:fee8a408f6](Ce,La,Nd,Th)PO_4[/tex:fee8a408f6] which occurs on Earth with an empirical ratio of [tex:fee8a408f6]Ce_{0.5}La_{0.25}Nd_{0.2}Th_{0.05}(PO_4)[/tex:fee8a408f6]. Finely ground monazite sand will digest at 155°C to 230°C in 93% [tex:fee8a408f6]H_2SO_4[/tex:fee8a408f6] (very strong sulphuric acid). Thorium is also extracted from Thorianite ([tex:fee8a408f6]ThO_2[/tex:fee8a408f6]) and thorite ([tex:fee8a408f6]ThSiO_4[/tex:fee8a408f6]).

It does have to be treated with respect. If 1kg of pure Thorianite is held in hand for 1 hour you will get 0.49489 rem radiation. That directly scales, one tenth the radiation for one tenth the thorianite. A nuclear reactor worker is permitted 5 rem per year of deep tissue radiation, or 50 rem per year of surface radiation. The vast majority of radiation from thorium is surface.

::Edit:: I should mention, alpha and beta radiation are produced by normal decay of radioactive isotopes. These are the forms of radiation easy to shield. They can be stopped by a single sheet of paper, and cannot penetrate skin deeper than a thickness of a sheet of paper. They aren't dangerous unless you get a sufficiently intense dose to cause skin cancer, and that takes a lot. However spontaneous fission produces neutron and gamma radiation. Those forms are much more dangerous, they penetrate deeply.

redhorizons · 2005-10-05 08:41:54

Just for clarification. I was not saying that the $20mil John Allen shelled out will get anyone to Mars. What I was inferring was, there are a lot of rich mother F--kers out there in this world, if they chose to go combine their resources, and bring in others with the plans and desires to go to Mars, for whatever purpose, they could do it. And they could do it a lot sooner than any nation could.
If Dook wants to wait until Mars is a mini-Earth then fine, he has a good point, even those of us that think we want to go to that barren planet right now, for whatever our reasons, I doubt many of us would be able to or willing to stay. To go to Mars while Mars is Mars is going to require a profound love for what the planet is, and a desire to be a trailblazer, to be able to detach from all material and emotional posessions and begin life anew.
That is a breed of humanity that seems very rare indeed in this day and age.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-05 09:00:45

I found the reactor reference. Toshiba is building a 4S reactor. That's a model name, it stands for "Super-Safe, Small and Simple". Galena, Alaska, is buying one. Here is one news article with images of the reactor. This one is fuelled by uranium and designed to last 30 years.

India is working on a thorium reactor. One design is based on the Toshiba 4S reactor but using thorium.

Thorium itself is not fissile. It won't react. When exposed to neutron radiation [tex:08a302b76d]^{232}Th[/tex:08a302b76d] becomes [tex:08a302b76d]^{233}Th[/tex:08a302b76d]. That will beta decay with a half-life of 22.3 minutes into Protactinium 233. That will beta decay with half-life of 27.0 days into uranium 233.
[tex:08a302b76d]^{232}Th + n \rightarrow ^{233}Th \rightarrow \beta + ^{233}Pa \rightarrow \beta + ^{233}U[/tex:08a302b76d]
Uranium is fissile, in fact [tex:08a302b76d]^{233}U[/tex:08a302b76d] is easier to split than [tex:08a302b76d]^{235}U[/tex:08a302b76d]. Another neutron will cause uranium to fission. Exactly what the atom splits into is random, but usually it splits into 2 fragments with sizes of 95 and 135 subatomic particles and 3 released neutrons. So it takes 2 neutrons to cause a fission, but releases 3. That means 1 neutron can be lost and the process is self-sustaining.

The important thing is that from the first neutron capture, thorium takes days to decay into a fissionable element. That slow process means it cannot explode. It also means there's a limit to how fast it can react, so if engineered properly it can't melt down.

Only 1.7% of uranium is [tex:08a302b76d]^{235}U[/tex:08a302b76d], but 100% of natural thorium is [tex:08a302b76d]^{232}Th[/tex:08a302b76d] so the fuel is a lot more abundant. Uranium is usually found in thorium deposits, prospectors consider thorium an indicator mineral for uranium. Abundance on Earth's crust is 7.2 ppm, uranium is 1.4 ppm. Since thorium is so much more abundant, why not use it?

JonClarke · 2005-10-05 16:59:36

A thorium economy isn't going to work on Mars. It does not exist in sufficent concentrations. Ore grade thorium is of the order of hundreds to ppm. Thorium concretaions on Mars appear to be less than 10 ppm. The prospects for significant higher concreations is not good. Thorium is a lithophile element, it preferentially is concentrated in fractionated crustal rocks. These are very very rare on Mars. Ore grade thorium is just the first step in a thorium economy. You then have to mine, mill, concentrate, process into fuel, breed, reprocess and them, and only then, have you got fissile material.

A mistake on Mars involving toxic material will not just harm yourself, it may well contaminate large areas. This will impact on other settlers and future users. There will be legislation, believe me. Burying stuff in frozen ground is not a good idea. brines move round even in permafrost, climates can change. Wind does blow material ground There is groundwater on Mars, you would not want to contaminate.

Thinking there won't be legislative sanctions on what can and cannot be done is unrealistic. There is legislation covering current frontiers - the ocean floor, the poles, earth orbit. There is no reason to think that Mars will be different.

Jon

Dook · 2005-10-05 18:01:40

I think our disagreement lies in time. There will likely be colonists, dome cities, businesses, and some kind of transport ships leaving the earth often for mars. But it won't happen in the next 100 years. We're not even planning on making an initial landing for another 30 years.

If we could end our ISS commitments, retire the space shuttle, cancel CEV and all of the moon plans, and instead implement NASA's DRM we might be able to make a mars landing by 2018.

Some terraforming plans suggest that if mars has as much CO2 as we hope it may only take 50-100 years to build an atmosphere there (with the combined effects of a large space mirror, greenhouse factories, and an increased albedo).

To me everything else just doesn't compare.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-05 18:37:16

At this point we don't know what concentrated ores exist on Mars. We'll have to go to find out. But I do have to make one correct. JonClarke listed several steps but you don't have to breed or reprocess. The whole point of a thorium reactor is that breeding is done in the power reactor itself. You feed in pure thorium (or thorium dioxide), neutron radiation transmutes it to uranium, and that same neutron radiation causes uranium to fission as soon as it's produced. You do need a little uranium as a neutron source to "sweeten" the thorium, but once started it's self-sustaining. You can use thorium from a spent reactor to "sweeten" fresh fuel for a new reactor, so you only need to bring a tiny starter of pure uranium from Earth for the first reactor. Once the economy is started on Mars, it will sustain itself. Since uranium ore is associated with thorium ore, you could extract uranium on Mars but it would be easier to bring a tiny seed of uranium from Earth. Again that assumes an ore body sufficiently concentrated to be practical to mine. Orbital measurements using the gamma ray spectrometer on Mars Odyssey are not sufficiently sensitive. We need prospectors on the surface, crawling over hills and splitting open rocks.

redhorizons · 2005-10-06 08:04:29

Dook, I agree with you more than I would like too. The dreamer in me would like to see these things happen on a compressed time scale, but the realist in me knows it will not be in my lifetime, (barring human longevity increases greatly) before we get to a viable colonization point on Mars.
If we could some how convince NASA to scrap all the crap that is holding us back, but bureaucrats rule and so we wait.

publiusr · 2005-10-07 10:00:04

Private Mars Mission needs a private HLLV. Now go find someone besides Gates that can get us one.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-10-04 00:16:23

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#2 2005-10-04 05:53:37

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#3 2005-10-04 08:41:46

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#4 2005-10-04 09:02:21

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#5 2005-10-04 09:32:56

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#6 2005-10-04 09:36:37

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#7 2005-10-04 16:36:21

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#8 2005-10-04 16:46:01

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#9 2005-10-04 17:33:44

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#10 2005-10-04 17:58:50

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#11 2005-10-04 18:24:43

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#12 2005-10-04 18:56:05

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#13 2005-10-04 19:18:09

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#14 2005-10-04 20:53:05

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#15 2005-10-04 22:08:10

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#16 2005-10-04 22:15:45

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#17 2005-10-05 00:29:11

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#18 2005-10-05 00:38:39

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#19 2005-10-05 08:41:54

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#20 2005-10-05 09:00:45

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#21 2005-10-05 16:59:36

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#22 2005-10-05 18:01:40

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#23 2005-10-05 18:37:16

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#24 2005-10-06 08:04:29

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

#25 2005-10-07 10:00:04

Re: Private Mission To Mars Questions

Board footer