Fighting over the Moon

srmeaney · 2005-11-04 19:15:59

It is now obvious that China will go it alone with regards to Humans in Space. So when they all make their bid for Lunar Tritium mining arround 2015-18 AD, will there be a territorial dispute over the limited resources available? What are your solutions to ensuring a mutually beneficial non conflict?

Commodore · 2005-11-04 19:27:55

If they shed their totalitarian & communist tendancies on their own, we work together.

If not, I think earth issues will ground them.

Dook · 2005-11-04 19:36:13

If China or the USA does make it to the moon in 2018 they will definately not be tritium mining. Afterwards? Who knows.

I read that a ton of Helium-3 is worth $4 billion. That could certainly fund a more adventurous space exploration program if anyone can figure out how to efficiently separate it from the lunar regolith and transport it to the earth. However fusion may not be perfected even by then so it could be wasted effort.

Territorial dispute? On the moon? I just can't picture astronauts pushing each other around while yelling "Get off my moon!"

Commodore · 2005-11-04 20:01:45

Territorial dispute? On the moon? I just can't picture astronauts pushing each other around while yelling "Get off my moon!"

Indeed. True warfare in space will either make exploration impossible, or spark an arms race that will greatly speed it up.

I think don't think its every been an issue before, but if anyone so much as flicks a booger at our people up there, the gloves come off here on earth.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-04 21:06:37

If we used the law of the sea as the means to show claim to the moon then when the others get there and see old red, white and blue. All would know how was there to lay claim a long time ago.

Grypd · 2005-11-05 07:55:15

The best way to state a claim to territory on the Moon and elsewhere is to be there and using that terrain when someone else comes along.

So what if the USA got there first all they left was a flag and footprints and a large mirror. As long as China does not disturb that area then they can do what they like with the rest of the Moon assuming they ignore the outer space treaty enough to actually start mineral exploitation.

The USA by the way did Not claim the Moon it was not allowed to.

idiom · 2005-11-05 16:47:26

If they were really brazen they could remove all the Apollo equipment, claim the Apollo program really was a hoax and then claim first to the Moon status.

Grypd · 2005-11-05 18:13:35

That is stupid why waste all those tourist dollars taking people to see those old sites.

And frankly the principle of the game is materials and subtle political one up-manship. It also revolves around ensuring your country has the ability to dominate the next 50 years.

Austin Stanley · 2005-11-05 21:16:22

If China or the USA does make it to the moon in 2018 they will definately not be tritium mining. Afterwards? Who knows.
I read that a ton of Helium-3 is worth $4 billion. That could certainly fund a more adventurous space exploration program if anyone can figure out how to efficiently separate it from the lunar regolith and transport it to the earth. However fusion may not be perfected even by then so it could be wasted effort.
Territorial dispute? On the moon? I just can't picture astronauts pushing each other around while yelling "Get off my moon!"

We've talked about this in other threads, and I still think Helium-3 mining is just moronic. No way will importing a super-rare parts per billion elements from the MOON be an economic way of producing power. Fission, and every other form of fusion power will be able beat it's economics hands down. Heck solar power will probably be much more cost effective. I'm all for a moon program, but we have to be realistic and honest about why we are going there, and Helium-3 isn't it.

---------

Also there's alot of Moon out there. I don't think we are going to be fighitng over it anytime soon. I've been studing the antartic and outer space treaties. While both of them prohibit territorial owner ship, they both also allow a country to assert control over a section of territory it is currently utilising, which is all that will probably be necessary.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-05 22:13:41

I would not be so quick to condemn Helium-3...

If we are already going to be baking Lunar soil and liquifying the extracted Oxygen or Water, then capturing the Helium would be a small marginal cost.

If fusion power is practical, a large portion of the energy it produces would go back into maintaining the plasma at operating temperature/pressure. So, since you will only get to "keep" a portion (probobly a small portion) of the reactors' output, then even a small improvement in reaction efficiency would yeild big dividends in net power output.

And then there is the side-bennefit that He3 produces proton and not neutron radiation as byproduct, nor does it produce Trintium (I think, which is slightly radioactive and used in H-bombs) which is at least an "emotional" barrier to adoption.

He3 as the primary reason to go to the Moon? No, probobly not, but it might just be A reason.

Austin Stanley · 2005-11-06 06:28:37

I would not be so quick to condemn Helium-3...
If we are already going to be baking Lunar soil and liquifying the extracted Oxygen or Water, then capturing the Helium would be a small marginal cost.

With helium-3 in the parts-per-BILLION range, we won't be extracting that much just from baking rocks to get oxygen. Large scale water extration is closer to what we need, but even then we still won't be extracting in nearly the quantities. If we could find water concentrations of ~1% in shaded regions, the 1,000 tons or so we would need to process to get 100 tons of water would only give us like 10 grams of helium-3. So to extract it in economic quantities we are going to have to mine/process some very large streches of the lunar surface.

If fusion power is practical, a large portion of the energy it produces would go back into maintaining the plasma at operating temperature/pressure. So, since you will only get to "keep" a portion (probobly a small portion) of the reactors' output, then even a small improvement in reaction efficiency would yeild big dividends in net power output.

Your comments about effeciancy may have some merit when dealing with space reactors, but little when dealing with terrestrial reactors. Conventional fusion fuel is dirt cheap in comparision to the amount of energy it can produce. If fusion power becomes practical and Deutrium extraction and Tritum production go large scale this will be even more true. Helium-3 being able to produce marginaly more energy per unit is not going to able to offset this tremendous advantage. Since concentional reactors are still strugling to reach breakeven it still to soon just how much of an advantage He-3 is going to give you, but it certianly isn't going to realise the multiple order of magnitude increase you would need to be economicly competitive.

The key benifit of both nuclear and fusion power is that the fuel costs are insignifigant. Enriched uranium consists of about 16% of fission costs, compared to 38% for coal and even higher amounts for oil and natural gas. Fusion fuel in comparison is expected to make up less than 1% of the cost.

And then there is the side-bennefit that He3 produces proton and not neutron radiation as byproduct, nor does it produce Trintium (I think, which is slightly radioactive and used in H-bombs) which is at least an "emotional" barrier to adoption.

This argument has some merit, but not for the reasons you state. Without fast neutron radiation there is less worry about the degredation of the containment ring. This is likely to be very important as examining the machinery for degredation and then fixing and/or replacing it is likely to be one of the major costs associated with fusion power. However, I still don't think this is enough to offset He-3 very high costs. Especialy since side reactions that take place during He3-D fusion still produce some neutron radiation.

Grypd · 2005-11-06 08:57:51

The principle of Hunting for a Fusion fuel on the Moon is not considered a good idea by the likes of us in the west but you have to look at it from the point of view of the country that wishes to do it in this case China. China needs to double its power output every few years to keep its expanding economy and rapid industrialisation on track. It can do it but it has limited capability to do it by the likes of cleaner hydro, Windpower is just too expensive and does not provide enough power. It has not enough Gas and the price of that commodity is increasing, Oil is needed for fuel and materials not for burning for power. This leaves only Coal and Chinas coal which has plenty of is as coal goes very very dirty.

Nuclear is an option but the whole world is looking at that option so prices for uranium is increasing. Another problem that China has is that it is a country that is actually water poor and this has major concerns for the Future. Water purification and pumping needs a lot of energy and this will have to be supplied.

Now there is the possibility of Helium 3 which as power goes is clean and from the energy it can give fantastically powerful. So China has to look at the future and it sees this fuel possibility so she will do the sensible thing and make sure that when the powerplant that uses Helium 3 comes available and oil is runing out it has another power source available.

Austin Stanley · 2005-11-07 03:51:09

The principle of Hunting for a Fusion fuel on the Moon is not considered a good idea by the likes of us in the west but you have to look at it from the point of view of the country that wishes to do it in this case China. China needs to double its power output every few years to keep its expanding economy and rapid industrialisation on track. It can do it but it has limited capability to do it by the likes of cleaner hydro, Windpower is just too expensive and does not provide enough power. It has not enough Gas and the price of that commodity is increasing, Oil is needed for fuel and materials not for burning for power. This leaves only Coal and Chinas coal which has plenty of is as coal goes very very dirty.
Nuclear is an option but the whole world is looking at that option so prices for uranium is increasing. Another problem that China has is that it is a country that is actually water poor and this has major concerns for the Future. Water purification and pumping needs a lot of energy and this will have to be supplied.
Now there is the possibility of Helium 3 which as power goes is clean and from the energy it can give fantastically powerful. So China has to look at the future and it sees this fuel possibility so she will do the sensible thing and make sure that when the powerplant that uses Helium 3 comes available and oil is runing out it has another power source available.

China's position is no diffrent than that of any other country. Sure they need more energy, we all do. But that fact doesn't change the economics of the situation. I was check prices online, I can buy 8500L of Deutrium for 5,100€ or about $6k. right now, with the bottle included. That's about $1 a liter. Now I can't by Tritium online for obvious reasons, and while I would expect it to be more expensive, not necessarily drasticly so. Lithium (which is radiated in a reactor to get tritium) is around $50/lb. so Tritium isn't going to cost drasticly more than this, but lets call it an order of magnitude to be generous. Even at $500 a pound it is cheap. Now I know my units aren't all uniform, but I think you can get the point. Conventional fusion fuel is cheap. And when you consider the amount of energy that fuel can produce it's REALLY cheap, way WAY less then enriched Uranium or Coal. I don't see how He-3 which is going to cost millions to billions of dollars per gram is going to be able to compete.

srmeaney · 2005-11-07 05:22:48

If China or the USA does make it to the moon in 2018 they will definately not be tritium mining. Afterwards? Who knows.
I read that a ton of Helium-3 is worth $4 billion. That could certainly fund a more adventurous space exploration program if anyone can figure out how to efficiently separate it from the lunar regolith and transport it to the earth. However fusion may not be perfected even by then so it could be wasted effort.
Territorial dispute? On the moon? I just can't picture astronauts pushing each other around while yelling "Get off my moon!"

If Tritium export to earth is an unlikely reason to go to the Moon, the reason for going must be to control territory. If a Territorial disputes come up, Is the likelyhood that one Astronaut or another will on authority if his/her state pull a gas propelled Projectile weapon to take control of that territory even a possibility?

If not then why not?

What are the prospects of a bunch of US Astronauts being "accidentally killed" because they rode their rover into the control zone of automated weapon platform set up by the Chinese to keep others out of its lunar territory?

Rxke · 2005-11-07 05:59:46

Also there's alot of Moon out there.

If it turns out the assumed ice-deposits are real, all of a sudden there will be not that 'lots of Moon'

Peak of eternal light, icepits... *those* will be the only interesting places to start an outpost/colony/manufacturing plant...

Griffin was not stupid in requiring the landers to be able to land near the poles.

Grypd · 2005-11-07 09:31:04

The principle of Hunting for a Fusion fuel on the Moon is not considered a good idea by the likes of us in the west but you have to look at it from the point of view of the country that wishes to do it in this case China. China needs to double its power output every few years to keep its expanding economy and rapid industrialisation on track. It can do it but it has limited capability to do it by the likes of cleaner hydro, Windpower is just too expensive and does not provide enough power. It has not enough Gas and the price of that commodity is increasing, Oil is needed for fuel and materials not for burning for power. This leaves only Coal and Chinas coal which has plenty of is as coal goes very very dirty.
Nuclear is an option but the whole world is looking at that option so prices for uranium is increasing. Another problem that China has is that it is a country that is actually water poor and this has major concerns for the Future. Water purification and pumping needs a lot of energy and this will have to be supplied.
Now there is the possibility of Helium 3 which as power goes is clean and from the energy it can give fantastically powerful. So China has to look at the future and it sees this fuel possibility so she will do the sensible thing and make sure that when the powerplant that uses Helium 3 comes available and oil is runing out it has another power source available.
China's position is no diffrent than that of any other country. Sure they need more energy, we all do. But that fact doesn't change the economics of the situation. I was check prices online, I can buy 8500L of Deutrium for 5,100€ or about $6k. right now, with the bottle included. That's about $1 a liter. Now I can't by Tritium online for obvious reasons, and while I would expect it to be more expensive, not necessarily drasticly so. Lithium (which is radiated in a reactor to get tritium) is around $50/lb. so Tritium isn't going to cost drasticly more than this, but lets call it an order of magnitude to be generous. Even at $500 a pound it is cheap. Now I know my units aren't all uniform, but I think you can get the point. Conventional fusion fuel is cheap. And when you consider the amount of energy that fuel can produce it's REALLY cheap, way WAY less then enriched Uranium or Coal. I don't see how He-3 which is going to cost millions to billions of dollars per gram is going to be able to compete.

But it does come down to operating cost and size of machinery needed to build an operating reactor. If we can get fusion operating using Deutrium rections we will find that the plant will have to be of a large design as it will like a coal plant be the power of water heated by the plant that we get power from. All of this will be at risk and it will be likely irradiated and as such needing replacement often and the material from this plant will be radioactive hazardous waste. Getting rid of this and replacing the plant is expensive and the greatest operational cost of the plant is not fuel but this handling of dangerous material and its long term storage.

Helium 3 will though need a lot smaller plant as it will draw electricity straight from the fusion plant and as such a smaller less radioactive plant is formed. This over time is the major saving though the plant that houses a Helium 3 reactor will still get irradiated from stray Deutrium-Deutrium reactions. The difference is size and that the plant will last a lot longer, need replacement less and when replaced the irradiated plant will take up less space in storage.

And so the long term view as well as that the use of Helium 3 plants will not give a country the ability to make nuclear weapons from the materials irradiated unlike a Deutrium-Tritium plants waste, gives Helium 3 an edge.

BWhite · 2005-11-07 14:29:33

Also there's alot of Moon out there.
If it turns out the assumed ice-deposits are real, all of a sudden there will be not that 'lots of Moon'
Peak of eternal light, icepits... *those* will be the only interesting places to start an outpost/colony/manufacturing plant...
Griffin was not stupid in requiring the landers to be able to land near the poles.

If Dennis Wingo is correct and intact Ni-Fe asteroid fragments bearing PGM exist near the lunar surface, those won't be everywhere either. 70% of Terra's platinum comes from one source, Merensky Reef in South Africa, the site on an ancient Ni-Fe asteroid impact.

Imagine one crater - - Heh! - - Lets call it "Wingo Crater" that is filled with Ni-Fe fragments. Everywhere else has the usual stuff, silicon, aluminum etc. . .

Under the "non-interference" provision of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 if one nation started mining Wingo Crater and stuck little plastic flags and robotic survey equipment on all of the most promising bolders, it isn't clear to me that anyone else could move ("interfere with") that equipment.

They cannot claim ownership, but if little worker bee robots were busy polishing the most promising fragments, a de facto form of ownership might result.

Grypd · 2005-11-07 14:58:43

I know its politics but it is relevant to this thread.

I have to agree with that assesment BWhite. But we must also put it to its logical conclusion. If one of those craters was found its materials will still belong to the whole world assuming the country accepted that provision in the Outer space treaty. But with the $Billions sitting in such a crater I could well see the Outer space treaty simply discarded and as long as that country kept to the other space provisions and treaties there would not be a problem for that country except for the general lack of legal provision for everyone else.

Actually that is my main concern the Outer space treaty does contain a lot of decent general legislation and it provides a sense of protection and guidelines for many of those who plan for space. If this treaty is dropped to allow a country to use mineral mining then many countries will follow suit. Landgrabbing and probable claimjumping are likely to follow as there will be no set authority to protect those interested in space and utilisation of space.

Of course with China being interested in Mineral exploitation then there is at least one political force interested in changing the current Outer space treaty into something more useful.

BWhite · 2005-11-07 15:11:53

I know its politics but it is relevant to this thread.
I have to agree with that assesment BWhite. But we must also put it to its logical conclusion. If one of those craters was found its materials will still belong to the whole world assuming the country accepted that provision in the Outer space treaty. But with the $Billions sitting in such a crater I could well see the Outer space treaty simply discarded and as long as that country kept to the other space provisions and treaties there would not be a problem for that country except for the general lack of legal provision for everyone else.
Actually that is my main concern the Outer space treaty does contain a lot of decent general legislation and it provides a sense of protection and guidelines for many of those who plan for space. If this treaty is dropped to allow a country to use mineral mining then many countries will follow suit. Landgrabbing and probable claimjumping are likely to follow as there will be no set authority to protect those interested in space and utilisation of space.
Of course with China being interested in Mineral exploitation then there is at least one political force interested in changing the current Outer space treaty into something more useful.

Current trends in space law point towards analogies with the open ocean.

Japanese tuna boats cannot claim the ocean but they can claim the tuna they land. Chinese mining modules cannot claim ownership of Luna but they can claim the PGMs they process and lift from the surface.

Even without ownership of the ocean, it is illegal for one fishing boat to drive through or damage the nets of another. China gets there first and "spreads nets" over the relevant crater: survey markers, guide wires for robots and a whole army of (possibly) dumb robots.

Guess what? We cannot move that equipment and therefore cannot access the PGM.

Voila! De facto ownership.

= = =

Edit to add:

All of this assumes NO change to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

Austin Stanley · 2005-11-08 21:29:16

But it does come down to operating cost and size of machinery needed to build an operating reactor. If we can get fusion operating using Deutrium rections we will find that the plant will have to be of a large design as it will like a coal plant be the power of water heated by the plant that we get power from. All of this will be at risk and it will be likely irradiated and as such needing replacement often and the material from this plant will be radioactive hazardous waste. Getting rid of this and replacing the plant is expensive and the greatest operational cost of the plant is not fuel but this handling of dangerous material and its long term storage.
Helium 3 will though need a lot smaller plant as it will draw electricity straight from the fusion plant and as such a smaller less radioactive plant is formed. This over time is the major saving though the plant that houses a Helium 3 reactor will still get irradiated from stray Deutrium-Deutrium reactions. The difference is size and that the plant will last a lot longer, need replacement less and when replaced the irradiated plant will take up less space in storage.
And so the long term view as well as that the use of Helium 3 plants will not give a country the ability to make nuclear weapons from the materials irradiated unlike a Deutrium-Tritium plants waste, gives Helium 3 an edge.

I'm not at all convinced that these advantages of He 3 are going to give it enough of an edge to displace conventional fusion fuels. D-T and even better yet D-D fusion fuel is effectivly free while He3 is going to cost millions to billions a gram.

And relisticly the the advantages He3 has are not that great. It's advantage in power per unit fuel mass is worthless on the earth, where its mass is so low (in comparion to coal or even nuclear) to be meaningless. It has lower neutron emission but is still not totaly aneutronic, due to the side reactions D-D and D-T, producing about a tenth as much neutron radiation as D-T fusion. This is still alot of radiation. It's higher plasma density might let your reactor be smaller, but necessarily that much smaller. It still has to be able to withstand high energy neutron radiation. He3 reactors are also often assumed to be smaller because they use higher field densities then D-T reactors, but this is an unfair assumtion since a He3 reactor requires such a field for it's operation and a D-T reactor would similary benifit.

So in the end you get potential better and easier energy conversion by converting the energized protons to electricity, a longer period of time bettwen having to overhall the reactor due to neutron radiation, and you don't have to breed tritium. You still have to worry about disposal of radioactive parts (a minor concurn) and the D-D side reactions actualy produce tritium so you still have to worry about that as well (another minor concurn). I doubt anyone who couldn't already produce all the tritium they wanted to would be getting their hands on He3, but you could probably use it in a thermonuclear bomb as well. In the end these advantages are not enough to outweigh the massive costs of importing the stuff. Heck, it probably would be less expensive to just collect the He3 from Tritium decay in the end anyways. Also, if He3 fusion proves to be possible, I see no reason that D-D fusion coudn't also be done, which has many of He3's advantages and fewer of D-T's drawbacks.

-----------

As for fighting on the moon, I doubt it will ever come to blows. Any fight in space would quickly spill over here on the earth. The US can currently "win" a nuclear engagment with China pretty easily, but I doubt it would ever happen. As they used to say about the Russians, probably also applies to the Chinese. "They love their children just as much as we do." Meaning neither of us wants to see a nuclear war.

Is there realy anything to fight over? A fair question. The moon is plenty big, but BWhite might be right that the resources might be concentrated in a few strategic locations. But then again it might not. Even if water only exists in economicly recoverable quantities on the poles, there are lots of craters up there and each could give alot of water. Platnium is likely to be scattered about as well. Because the moon doesn't have an atmosphere to sheild it from some strikes or tetonic action, or weather to move the stuff around after it hit, there are probably plenty of platnium rich strikes to be mined.

I agree with the points about how territory will be "claimed."

srmeaney · 2005-11-09 01:50:53

Also there's alot of Moon out there.
If it turns out the assumed ice-deposits are real, all of a sudden there will be not that 'lots of Moon'
Peak of eternal light, icepits... *those* will be the only interesting places to start an outpost/colony/manufacturing plant...
Griffin was not stupid in requiring the landers to be able to land near the poles.

Nightmare Scenario: China gets to the North Lunar Pole and declares available Water & Ice and the whole region in General a Protectorate of the Peoples Republic of China.

What are the prospects of a resource War?

Grypd · 2005-11-09 12:41:14

I suspect that there would be no war as the Idea of claiming a whole region is all well and good, as long as you can actually prove your claim and more importantly able to control it.

In short you would need a lot of assets to be able to do so and so claiming a whole region will thankfully not happen for many years. By then I hope a more reasonable means to claim resources and the rights to utilise them is made law.

Helium 3 from the Moon has always been a no goer financially as a reason to go to the Moon. But Helium 3 is a very powerful means to provide power and I hope that technology allows its use sooner rather than later. And it is not the problem with containment that benefits a Helium 3 reactor its the means of getting power from it. Helium 3 reactors draw power directly from the reaction but a Deutrium-Deutrium/Tritium reactor has to have the whole water for heating and the generators and the cooling towers etc. This means a Helium 3 reactor at worst gets at least a 40% efficiency bonus in power utlisation and this can be a lot more.

Most modern plants loose a minimum of 40% of the potential power generated by simple heat waste etc. A helium 3 plant will not have that problem and with the more effective reaction they also gain from that benefit too.

RobS · 2005-11-09 12:46:02

Well, there's always the South Pole.

Commodore · 2005-11-09 16:51:34

I suspect that there would be no war as the Idea of claiming a whole region is all well and good, as long as you can actually prove your claim and more importantly able to control it.

My space tank and squad of space marines says so.

There really needs to be a framework set in advance make sure that whatever comes from the Moon benefits those on the moon first, and they get a say in what goes on. The US settlement plan for the (then) Northwest Territories comes to mind.

Grypd · 2005-11-09 17:11:40

I suspect that there would be no war as the Idea of claiming a whole region is all well and good, as long as you can actually prove your claim and more importantly able to control it.
My space tank and squad of space marines says so.
There really needs to be a framework set in advance make sure that whatever comes from the Moon benefits those on the moon first, and they get a say in what goes on. The US settlement plan for the (then) Northwest Territories comes to mind.

I suspect that the Moon will always be considered as integral to the Earth in short a big satellite of the planets.

Still by the time you get to build yourself a shiny space tank and a squad of space marines you will find a hundred years has gone past.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-11-04 19:15:59

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#2 2005-11-04 19:27:55

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#3 2005-11-04 19:36:13

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#4 2005-11-04 20:01:45

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#5 2005-11-04 21:06:37

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#6 2005-11-05 07:55:15

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#7 2005-11-05 16:47:26

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#8 2005-11-05 18:13:35

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#9 2005-11-05 21:16:22

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#10 2005-11-05 22:13:41

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#11 2005-11-06 06:28:37

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#12 2005-11-06 08:57:51

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#13 2005-11-07 03:51:09

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#14 2005-11-07 05:22:48

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#15 2005-11-07 05:59:46

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#16 2005-11-07 09:31:04

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#17 2005-11-07 14:29:33

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#18 2005-11-07 14:58:43

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#19 2005-11-07 15:11:53

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#20 2005-11-08 21:29:16

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#21 2005-11-09 01:50:53

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#22 2005-11-09 12:41:14

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#23 2005-11-09 12:46:02

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#24 2005-11-09 16:51:34

Re: Fighting over the Moon

#25 2005-11-09 17:11:40

Re: Fighting over the Moon

Board footer