Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

Bill White · 2004-01-20 16:23:22

Just so you know, I had already posted a copy of my sermon at the Louisiana Mars Society blog. Other folks read that.

If clark is right (and I wouldn't bet against it) and the Bush plan was for some civilian nutcase like me to go off on the 2010 shuttle retirement date well all I can say is that I am glad to have played my part.

Its good to be a part of history. :;):

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-20 16:32:39

The Committee might make a reccomendation that we retire the Shuttle and develop a follow-up variant such as Shuttle C to complete ISS by 2010. Retiring the Shuttle will provide the funds neccessary to develop the alternative that can build the ISS in less time, thereby meeting the 2010 requirement.

I don't see it happening at all unless Bush gets relected, then he could have his way. And by then, we would've had at least one or two Shuttle launches, wouldn't we? I think the Shuttle is flying again regardless of our "might or might nots." I hope I'm wrong. I hope that committee has their act together.

Byron · 2004-01-20 16:41:07

As for the question: Why do we have to go to Mars right away? Why NOT go to Mars "right away"? I don't consider possibly having to wait another 20 to 30 years "right away" by any means. How much longer are we "supposed" to wait?

Yeah, why not go to Mars now?? Unfortunately, politics doesn't work that way. What Bush and Co. are attempting to do is to stay within the "comfort zone." Sure, we've been to the Moon before, but we haven't actually lived there. Sure, it's "easier" living on Mars, but I just don't think you could sell Congress and the public on a Mars-direct program without assurance that we won't be endangering large numbers of astronants going on an "unproven" mission.

Lastly, this is a case of "something" as opposed to "nothing." Going back to the Moon is a time-consuming and costly detour...but if it inspires us to go to Mars someday, then I'm all for it...:)

B

Bill White · 2004-01-20 16:41:28

The Committee might make a reccomendation that we retire the Shuttle and develop a follow-up variant such as Shuttle C to complete ISS by 2010. Retiring the Shuttle will provide the funds neccessary to develop the alternative that can build the ISS in less time, thereby meeting the 2010 requirement.
I don't see it happening at all unless Bush gets relected, then he could have his way. And by then, we would've had at least one or two Shuttle launches, wouldn't we? I think the Shuttle is flying again regardless of our "might or might nots." I hope I'm wrong. I hope that committee has their act together.

I saw somewhere a prediction that the shuttle won't fly again before January/February 2005.

clark · 2004-01-20 16:41:56

Guys, Bush still has a year left. While my namesake :;): :laugh: will take the next election, the reccomendations from this committee will be out this summer.

Contracts for the CEV will be inked before the next election. The changes will be taking place.

Government bueracy dosen't turn on a dime, and the next President will find it difficult to turn this horse around (we might just get Mars first, but I haven't gone that far in the future yet).

Plus, this plan is neither a Republican plan, or a Democrat plan. It calls for a small budget increase, which isn't that hard to sell. If we were talking dozens of billions and high single digit budget increases, yeah, the next president would raid the piggy bank. But this sets the course in a steady fashion so we can actually achieve results.

Say what you will of any sitting President, but by and large, they want to see the country secure beyond their tenure. There are a lot of reasons we need to do this, and it has nothing to do with partisan politcs. The next president will be thankful that the hard decisions have been made.

Of course we should have Shuttle launches- but in a reduced capacity, perhaps delivering only the bare minimum of what we must (saving the rest for the SDV, thanks josh, devlopment and use)

Palomar · 2004-01-20 16:54:30

As for the question: Why do we have to go to Mars right away? Why NOT go to Mars "right away"? I don't consider possibly having to wait another 20 to 30 years "right away" by any means. How much longer are we "supposed" to wait?
Yeah, why not go to Mars now?? Unfortunately, politics doesn't work that way. What Bush and Co. are attempting to do is to stay within the "comfort zone."

*Yeah...politics, blah.

It's been brought up before, numerous times I think, but I sure wish we could get some *private* exploration enterprise on its way to Mars. If I had Bill Gates' money...

You're well reasoned as usual, Byron.

The crux of the matter as politics go is *agreement*. And agreements can be changed ("can" being the operative word).

Good evening, everyone. I'm outta here.

--Cindy

Euler · 2004-01-20 17:01:42

Where is the $75 billion figure coming from? I could not find a figure for the annual expense of operating the shuttle fleet, but I remember it being significantly less than $10 billion per year. I do know that space shuttle flights have an estimated cost of $470 million each, with all of the support, maintenance, etc. cost included. If there are 6 flights per year (slightly more than average) for 7 years, that comes to just under $20 billion.

Bill White · 2004-01-20 17:02:22

*Yeah...politics, blah.

Fair enough. What we forget is that JFK was mostly interested in showing the Soviets "who's was bigger" to get all macho and crude about it. Yet Astronaut Harrison Schmidt (among others) took that crude male competition thing and helped make Apollo a tremendous moment for science and humanity.

There is a saying I believe applies here.

"Those who love sausage and those who love law should NEVER watch as the object of their affection is being made."

The same will be true for space colonies.

Bill White · 2004-01-20 17:13:08

Where is the $75 billion figure coming from? I could not find a figure for the annual expense of operating the shuttle fleet, but I remember it being significantly less than $10 billion per year. I do know that space shuttle flights have an estimated cost of $470 million each, with all of the support, maintenance, etc. cost included. If there are 6 flights per year (slightly more than average) for 7 years, that comes to just under $20 billion.

$11 billion per year was a figure tossed around by people saying how much would be saved after 2011 by terminating the shuttle program. How much of that is flight operations and how much is ground infrastructure and the like is a fascinating question.

I have been looking for a nice color graph I saw yesterday on the NASA budget, but I can't find it.

dickbill · 2004-01-20 17:29:51

It is easier to live on Mars than the Moon. However, it is easier to get to the Moon than to get to Mars. And if we learn to live on the Moon, we know we can live on Mars, or just about anywhere.

I am not sure to be convinced by the relevance of the argument. You could as well say, 'if you can live on Pluto, you can live on Mars'.

Well, all I can say is do your base on the moon if you can, you just miss a great time on Mars.
Anyway, with SPIRIT, MARS EXPRESS and I've heard (in this forum) about a project to make a TV serie about the KSR MArs trilogy, the MArs mania will slowly contaminate more and more people and stimulate the interest for MArs, and not the Moon. And when everybody want to go to MArs, YOU gonna have to go to MArs too, Clark.
MARS MARS MARS MARS MARS MARS MARS MARS MARS

If not, Clark in a goulag on the Moon !

clark · 2004-01-20 17:42:08

If not, Clark in a goulag on the Moon !

I'll gladly mine my share of He3 if it means I get the view... :laugh:

Space exploration, this adventure, it's not about a particular destination, or at least it shouldn't be, IMHO, it's the very challenge and adventure that is space itself that should draw us.

Have your moon-pies and Martian wine, but it's the taste of endless space that beckons in our soul.

Oh well, enough prose for now. :laugh:

Bill White · 2004-01-20 17:57:04

Where is the $75 billion figure coming from? I could not find a figure for the annual expense of operating the shuttle fleet, but I remember it being significantly less than $10 billion per year. I do know that space shuttle flights have an estimated cost of $470 million each, with all of the support, maintenance, etc. cost included. If there are 6 flights per year (slightly more than average) for 7 years, that comes to just under $20 billion.
$11 billion per year was a figure tossed around by people saying how much would be saved after 2011 by terminating the shuttle program. How much of that is flight operations and how much is ground infrastructure and the like is a fascinating question.
I have been looking for a nice color graph I saw yesterday on the NASA budget, but I can't find it.

Heh! My bad.

Rhetorical brilliance destroyed by bad facts.

My numbers are waaay too high. In very round figures maybe $5 billion or $6 billion per year with 50% to 60% being fixed overhead for Kennedy Space Center employees and maintenance. Flight operations are but a fraction.

NASA accounting is hard to track.

How much was saved in 2003 with no flights since February? That should be easy enough to calculate.

This fixed overhead means high operational tempo (many launches per year) is needed to cost justify a shuttle derived variant.

But its still too much to spend if all we will have to show for it come 2010 is a completed ISS and nothing else.

jadeheart · 2004-01-20 18:42:35

If something is built to survive on the Moon, it will survive on Mars.

I disagree. The only thing the moon offers over Mars (as far as a testbed for Mars) is proximity and simulation of radiation exposure a Mars-bound crew would experience in transit. (Which we can simulate without going to the moon, BTW.)

Mars has atmosphere, more gravity, than the moon. Thus more difficulties in designing for atmospheric entry & landing. How do we simulate this on the moon? Can't. Mars has weather, wind, dust fines, atmospheric & soil chemistry, CORROSION. How do we simulate this on the moon? Can't. The lunar landing modules from Apollo could land on the moon fine. But would you want to take one down to Mars? Not me.

The moon is a trap for anybody who wants to go to Mars. If we're going to the moon for the moon's sake, I'm ok with that. But the moon as a stepping stone for Mars is rubbish. If we're going to take a CEV to Mars then we need to realize that the moon will be an insufficient testbed.

Bill White · 2004-01-20 19:24:39

If something is built to survive on the Moon, it will survive on Mars.
I disagree. The only thing the moon offers over Mars (as far as a testbed for Mars) is proximity and simulation of radiation exposure a Mars-bound crew would experience in transit. (Which we can simulate without going to the moon, BTW.)
Mars has atmosphere, more gravity, than the moon. Thus more difficulties in designing for atmospheric entry & landing. How do we simulate this on the moon? Can't. Mars has weather, wind, dust fines, atmospheric & soil chemistry, CORROSION. How do we simulate this on the moon? Can't. The lunar landing modules from Apollo could land on the moon fine. But would you want to take one down to Mars? Not me.
The moon is a trap for anybody who wants to go to Mars. If we're going to the moon for the moon's sake, I'm ok with that. But the moon as a stepping stone for Mars is rubbish. If we're going to take a CEV to Mars then we need to realize that the moon will be an insufficient testbed.

clark has a good point about technical versus public relations issues. You are correct about Mars, yet John Doe and Jane Roe will just assume the Moon is easier.

They will be WRONG! but its politics and public relations and we won't persuade them otherwise. If public sentiment allows a moonbase, take it, reluctantly, but still lobby for Mars.

I suggest that the lunar "practice" may be worth less than clark says but more than some "Mars or bust" people might think.

jadeheart · 2004-01-20 19:31:15

I won't kick and scream TOO much about going to the moon. Don't get me wrong, it's better than what we're currently doing.

Clark's semantic parsing of Bush's (Rove's) words was certainly informative. It did give me some hope that there is room to wriggle a bit within the guidelines of the plan and allow some sensibility to prevail. (I too would like to see the shuttle phased out sooner than called for.)

It's true enough that politics & PR must always be considered... Maybe this is one instance where political doublespeak will work in our favor.

Palomar · 2004-01-20 20:08:08

*Yeah...politics, blah.
Fair enough. What we forget is that JFK was mostly interested in showing the Soviets "who's was bigger" to get all macho and crude about it. Yet Astronaut Harrison Schmidt (among others) took that crude male competition thing and helped make Apollo a tremendous moment for science and humanity.
There is a saying I believe applies here.
"Those who love sausage and those who love law should NEVER watch as the object of their affection is being made."
The same will be true for space colonies.

*You're a wise man, Bill White.

I get just so impatient about all this. I try not to...but can't help it sometimes. I've been waiting since the early 1970's for "the next step" (beyond LEO). The rolling out of the shuttle Enterprise in 1976 (William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy were on hand to sign autographs, etc.) was exciting but already comments were floating around about the shuttle actually being a step-down and a "silent confirmation" we weren't going anywhere beyond Earth's orbit again any time soon. Boy, did that ever prove to be true.

I had just turned 4 during Apollo 11 (yes, I remember it...distinct memories) and now I'm 38 and we're talking about going back to the moon. I want to go someplace else! And I mean before I'm eligible for a frickin' AARP membership.

Again, I just wish some private enterprises could get their heads and wallets together...let private citizens make donations, etc., and get to Mars by 2020.

Oh well.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-01-20 22:50:04

Elsewhere I was told that detailed drawings exist for the shuttle C. The engineering was pretty much finished over ten years ago so the time frame to deploy one of these might be pretty quick.

Related, the C uses SSMEs - the original plan had been to use SSMEs that had been swapped out of an orbiter and had only one useful mission left in them. For our purposes, SSMEs need not be built, as they can be taken from the existing orbiters.

Are there any spare SSMEs in inventory? SSMEs or RS-68? Maybe use up all existing SSMEs first (all less one set?) and decide whether its cheaper to make more SSMEs or re-engineer and use RS-68s.

The payload module would need to be built but it only needs to be sufficiently robust to survive one trip UP to LEO. It would be built on the molds and tooling used to make orbiters. More efficiency there, no back to the drawing board.

Given the recent announced delay in returning the orbiter to flight status, [http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/rt … 40120.html]see space.com any "delay" between the first shuttle C launch and the first orbiter launch might be less than we had been thinking.

= = =

New improved numbers! (Gawd! that $75 billion is embarassing! Brain cramp, sorry.)

Thanks to Michael Bloxham for [http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_budge … 4jan04.pdf]this chart - - I stole the link from his post one thread over.

Shuttle costs appear to fall between $4.5 and $5.0 billion per year. $35 billion between now and termination of the shuttle.

How to allocate for Kennedy Space Center fixed costs can be argued but =IF= shuttle C can be flown at an increased operational tempo than the orbiter (and that should be fairly easy to do) then annual fixed costs can be amortized over a larger number of flight.

I believe KSC employees would be paid about the same per year whether they launch 2 or 3 orbiter missions or 7 or 8 shuttle C missions. Compress more shuttle C launches into a given year and the cost per launch falls in addition to the savings from avoiding all those orbiter processing costs.

If 6 or 7 ISS assembly shuttle C launches occur in a given year then adding another launch to test a shuttle lifted CEV or to throw a HUGE robot lander at Mars would be incrementally small. On shuttle C you could send a small armada of orbiting micro-sats as well as a few landers. One mission to Mars and another to blanket Luna with orbiters!

Even clark should agree that more robots on the Moon, sooner is a good idea.

My original numbers may have been wrong, but the idea stays the same.

Every penny we spend on the shuttle orbiter between now and 2010 are expenses that SOLELY benefits ISS completion. Can't we get some "two for one" deals with that same money?

If we finish the ISS with shuttle C (or B) and squeeze in a few unrelated launches during that same time period to get more benefit from the money that has already been allocated and perhaps end up in 2011 with proven HLLV without changing the Bush budget numbers by one slim dime.

More bang for the $35 billion Bush proposes to spend on the shuttle for ISS assembly.

clark · 2004-01-20 23:35:11

Bill, you play the beggar's refrain well. :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-20 23:59:19

Where's that other 10 billion of NASAs budget going? Dang...

Bill White · 2004-01-21 00:14:18

Bill, you play the beggar's refrain well. :laugh:

Well, are you at least entertained?

clark · 2004-01-21 10:05:10

Of course!

this is the best part though:

How to allocate for Kennedy Space Center fixed costs can be argued but =IF= shuttle C can be flown at an increased operational tempo than the orbiter (and that should be fairly easy to do) then annual fixed costs can be amortized over a larger number of flight.
I believe KSC employees would be paid about the same per year whether they launch 2 or 3 orbiter missions or 7 or 8 shuttle C missions. Compress more shuttle C launches into a given year and the cost per launch falls in addition to the savings from avoiding all those orbiter processing costs.
If 6 or 7 ISS assembly shuttle C launches occur in a given year then adding another launch to test a shuttle lifted CEV or to throw a HUGE robot lander at Mars would be incrementally small. On shuttle C you could send a small armada of orbiting micro-sats as well as a few landers. One mission to Mars and another to blanket Luna with orbiters!

Maybe we should take Josh's advice, and get you as the head of NASA. I think they made this very same pitch, "we'll make money if we do MORE flights per year". Meanwhile, the engineer's are locked int he utility closet lest they speak the truth, "we can't fly it like that."

What you propose makes sense, but (always the but) the plan is predicated on doing something we couldn't even do with the Shuttle. Can an unknown SDV do what you say? ???

That's the calculation you have to go through when contemplating the alternatives, which might be a known quantity- such as the EELV.

We can make plans for the future based on exsisting hardware that we know works. It's a bit harder to plan for the future if your main vehicle/infrastructure is still being 'developed'.

Bill White · 2004-01-21 10:43:28

The X-factor missing from "my" plan (a bold choice of words) is whether the NASA team currently running the shuttle has the spirit and gumption to accomplish this.

I believe that if the people running the shuttle program today were to somehow find the spirit and motivation to do what the MER team did (the PBS Nova show about Spirit/Opportunity revealed a breath-taking measure of dedication and commitment to the goal) then great things could be accomplished with the $35 billion set aside for the shuttle between now and program termination.

The $35 billion figure comes from [http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040113/arms_satellite_1.html]here.

If they cannot accomplish more with $35 billion than ISS completion then Ares, MarsDirect and the like are not feasible with this team either. If they can, well, then there is lots and lots of stuff we Americans can accomplish.

I now see the Bush plan as being more of a challenge rather than a decree. The plan is asking NASA's old guard, "Can you do more with $35 billion than merely finish ISS? We don't think so."

I am infuriated with the idea that the US taxpayers will spend $35 billion and get NOTHING except ISS completion. But if that is the best the NASA team can do, I guess that is the best they can do.

Bill White · 2004-01-21 12:21:40

clark writes:

We can make plans for the future based on exsisting hardware that we know works. It's a bit harder to plan for the future if your main vehicle/infrastructure is still being 'developed'.

What do we know about the orbiter?

< 1 > Two percent failure rate;

< 2 > Return to flight status remains uncertain; and

< 3 > NASA deems it sufficiently unsafe to allow a Hubble rescue mission. Given the bad PR that comes from letting Hubble die, I believe this really is safety-driven and not money driven.

So, now we will spend another $35 billion on a space system with these known qualities?

That's the calculation you have to go through when contemplating the alternatives, which might be a known quantity- such as the EELV.

If the NASA shuttle team can't put together a viable program with shuttle C then Delta IV & Atlas V are the only options. The ball is in their court, IMHO.

Lets not discuss the Boeing / Lockheed EELV contract scandal. Or that Boeing Air Force refueling tanker lease issue.

What you propose makes sense, but (always the but) the plan is predicated on doing something we couldn't even do with the Shuttle. Can an unknown SDV do what you say?

That is the $35 billion dollar question. If NASA can't do more with $35 billion beyond ISS completion then MarsDirect is infeasible. Totally infeasible. Remember that Zubrin claims we can go to Mars for $35 billion.

=IF= NASA can't do this shuttle C plan within a $35 billion budget how can they go to Mars for $35 billion?

Maybe I am too much an idealist (someone here accused me of that once) but I do believe if people applied the spirit, motivation, dedication and commitment that was shown on the MER rover project, we could do "my" shuttle C plan for $35 billion. Finish the ISS and add a few extra missions for dessert and give America a proven HLLV come 2011.

But this is the last chance for shuttle program. $35 billion and its lights out, the party's over. And if ISS completion is the best they can manage for this $35 billion, I agree with George Bush. Clean house and start over.

Earthfirst · 2004-01-21 14:14:04

I think that you are right, all your lies sound like truth, but have no meaning.
If you make somthing up and keep saying its the truth people will see it as truth. Herman Gerbles, or some other nazi said that. So if you lie and say it true I guess that makes every one a nazi right. Wrong!
Every one lies it does not make you evil, just a liberal degenerate Dean supporter.
Why Am I still writing, I forgot what the topic was.
Anyways Dean wants to raise taxes to pay for homeosexual weddings in New Hamshire,place Micheal Jackson in charge the boys military school in dc. Dean will deflie younge school girl like clinton did. The same goe double for the other dems.
Dr. Zubrin is a great Guy, he started the mars society, wrote lots of books, I read the case for Mars. Not a good plot or charters but great ideas
Also the city on Mars should br called New Crawford
God bless the victorys Bush.
How that guy sure got off topic

clark · 2004-01-21 14:28:02

What do we know about the orbiter?
< 1 > Two percent failure rate;
< 2 > Return to flight status remains uncertain; and
< 3 > NASA deems it sufficiently unsafe to allow a Hubble rescue mission. Given the bad PR that comes from letting Hubble die, I believe this really is safety-driven and not money driven.
So, now we will spend another $35 billion on a space system with these known qualities?

And replace it with a system with the same problems?

1: Any SDV will more than likely be based off of exsisting Shuttle launch infrastructure, right? How are we improving the 2% failure rate? Indeed, we won't know the actual failure rate until we start using the new SDV.

2.Flight status for any SDV is completely unknown. It flies when it's ready... after numerous tests.

3.It is doubtful that an SDV would save the Hubble since it can't bring it back to Earth, and an SDV system can't get humans to it in time to fix it (it will be building the ISS on an accelerated schedule, remember!)

This last part though may demonstrate NASA's leanings though- maybe they already figure they want an SDV, and know pursuing that option means the Hubble is a gonner.

Part of the reason O'Keefe made an executive decision to not return to the Hubble is becuase we would have had to have another Shuttle on stand-by. We have three, and the only time we need a Shuttle on standby is when it is doing something not involved with the ISS.

So, now we will spend another $35 billion on a space system with these known qualities?

35 billion, or 7-8 billion a year to phase out the Shuttle and finish ISS by 2010. Until we have an actual reccomendation for alternatives that we can plan around, we have a plan to work with.

That is the $35 billion dollar question. If NASA can't do more with $35 billion beyond ISS completion then MarsDirect is infeasible. Totally infeasible. Remember that Zubrin claims we can go to Mars for $35 billion.

Actually, sorry Bill, but the numbers are not working for you lately... The NYtimes article I linked to a few posts back has Zubrin quoted that a Mars Direct mission would cost 50 billion dollars over ten years.

Maybe I am too much an idealist (someone here accused me of that once) but I do believe if people applied the spirit, motivation, dedication and commitment that was shown on the MER rover project, we could do "my" shuttle C plan for $35 billion. Finish the ISS and add a few extra missions for dessert and give America a proven HLLV come 2011.

Next you'll say we can land a man on the moon! :laugh:
A lot of things need to come together to make this happen, but it just might. The MER rover team was smaller than what we are considering with any SDV rollout.

But here is something on your plans favor: Bush just told a bunch of NASA employee's that they are out of a job by the end of the decade. Now, I would like to think that some of them just might be motivated enough to make this happen, and perhaps save their very own job. Carrot and stick approach?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-01-20 16:23:22

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#27 2004-01-20 16:32:39

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#28 2004-01-20 16:41:07

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#29 2004-01-20 16:41:28

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#30 2004-01-20 16:41:56

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#31 2004-01-20 16:54:30

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#32 2004-01-20 17:01:42

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#33 2004-01-20 17:02:22

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#34 2004-01-20 17:13:08

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#35 2004-01-20 17:29:51

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#36 2004-01-20 17:42:08

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#37 2004-01-20 17:57:04

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#38 2004-01-20 18:42:35

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#39 2004-01-20 19:24:39

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#40 2004-01-20 19:31:15

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#41 2004-01-20 20:08:08

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#42 2004-01-20 22:50:04

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#43 2004-01-20 23:35:11

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#44 2004-01-20 23:59:19

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#45 2004-01-21 00:14:18

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#46 2004-01-21 10:05:10

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#47 2004-01-21 10:43:28

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#48 2004-01-21 12:21:40

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#49 2004-01-21 14:14:04

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

#50 2004-01-21 14:28:02

Re: Dr. Zubrin Is A Poor Spokesman For Mars Direct - Hey, I Adore the Man....but.....

Board footer