Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

Bill White · 2004-03-09 20:07:00

Zubrin, O'Keefe, Beckwith to Debate Hubble on CNN Tonight March 9, 2004 For further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at [http://www.marssociety.org][http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.

Mars Society President Dr. Robert Zubrin, Space Telescope Science Institute Director Dr. Steve Beckwith, and NASA Administrator Mr. Sean O'Keefe will discuss the Hubble Space Telescope on CNN tonight. At issue is Mr. O'Keefe's controversial decision to desert the space telescope. Both Dr. Zubrin and Dr. Beckwith oppose Hubble abandonment.

The show will air twice, first within the Anderson Cooper newshour beginning at 7 PM EST, and then again during the Aaron Brown newshour which starts at 10 PM EST.

Rxke · 2004-03-09 23:51:08

Open letters to The Society to be expected soon!
(You know from whom)

Bill White · 2004-03-10 06:45:30

Here is another idea. OKeefe says SM4 needs a safe haven. Zubrin says its doesnt, but okay lets humor OKeefe since he is Director of NASA. :;):

Why is ISS the only potential safe haven?

Launch a Soyuz from Kouru to loiter close to Hubble. Launch SM4 as soon as possible after the Soyuz arrives at Hubble.

Service Hubble.

Use the Soyuz for a close visual fly-by of the orbiter. If no signs of damage, land orbiter and dump Soyuz in Pacific.

If unrepairable damage, transfer crew to Soyuz and dump orbiter in Pacific (or leave on orbit for study then dump in Pacific).

If repairable damage send up appropriate repair kit via Progress from Kouru. Repair orbiter. If in doubt, land crew via Soyuz and land orbiter via remote operation.

= = =

If Soyuz is incapable of automated docking then 2 crew fly up in orbiter SM4 and 1 crew flies Soyuz. Otherwise, 3 crew in SM4 and Soyuz loiters uncrewed near Hubble until SM4 arrives. 3 are sufficient to service Hubble, I am told. 4 is preferred but Soyuz can only carry 3.

Thoughts?

Palomar · 2004-03-10 06:59:17

The show will air ... again during the Aaron Brown newshour which starts at 10 PM EST.

*Well gee whiz, I was hoping to see this. :angry: I checked all throughout the 10:00 p.m. EST broadcast (Aaron Brown), which of course is 8:00 p.m. my time. Nothing about O'Keefe or Zubrin. Everything BUT that. At 9:00 p.m., Lou Dobbs' show advertised a debate about Hubble in the latter part of the hour, but didn't mention Zubrin or O'Keefe...and I had to turn in early besides.

Oh well.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-03-10 07:14:27

From space.com:

"I believe that the future of Hubble should not be [decided] by one man in a NASA back room without a transparent process," (Maryland Senator Barbara) Mikulski said, adding that she will continue working to bring the "best advice possible" to bear on possibly reversing the decision.

clark · 2004-03-10 09:01:10

Give a politician a stick...

Just because we save Hubble dosen't mean we improve our chances for a manned mission to Mars within anyone's lifetime.

This is not the way to go. If this does happen, you won't like my predictions any more.

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-10 09:08:18

Last night, when I saw this thread, it was already too late. I would've loved to have seen it.

And clark, that statement is really irrelevant in my mind, as it says nothing about the benefits from not backing the Hubble. Guess what? The Hubble is the current thing being talked about. Zubrin gets free press for the Mars Society, doing exactly what all space advocates should do; attempting to make the most out of what resources they have available to further mans exploration of space.

There are no flaws in this approach, as there is nothing to lose by not approaching it.

And interesting points there, Bill.

dicktice · 2004-03-10 09:15:49

Full marks, Josh--right on!

clark · 2004-03-10 09:55:07

What do we gain by not supporting Hubble? Nothing.

What do we gain by supporting Hubble? Nothing.

Okay, tie. So why am I on the other side of the aisle on this?

Because I see Hubble as the stick used to beat the Bush Space policy to death, thereby denying us the opportunity to go beyond LEO within our lifetime. I've been here for some time, and during that time, I've listened. I have listened to every point of view on this matter. Every single person who supports space exploration by humans, has called for a Presidential declaration of intent. We got it. We got it when there was little direct benefit to the man who made the speech. I have no illusions, Bush doesn't care about space, or space exploration. What do you think is going to happen to this space policy when it takes a beating? To a man who doesn't care about the issue? He will drop the whole damn thing. It's not a hill he will die on.

So we save the Hubble. Great. Pat on the back all around for the space community. After the party though, we will find that there isn't even lip service being paid to our dream. You think another President will come in afterwards and try this stunt again, after seeing the fallout? Foolish. You think Bush will be gung-ho for space exploration in his second term if his first term space policy gets whacked? Foolish.

Many remind me of small children, crying for their damn favorite toy that's waiting for them under the Christmas tree. You're not satisfied because you have to wait. "I want it now". You're not satisfied because getting the car involves giving up your favorite bike. waaah.

Bush Sr. tried with SLI, and he got burned. 8 years of Clinton, and Goldin, gave us the NASA of today. You know, the one that is horribly under-funded and falling apart. Presidents learn from the previous administrations mistakes. Hubble is becoming politicized, and in the process, Bush's space policy will be made out to be a mistake.

So what will we see then?

Development of the CEV to Block 1 or 2, at which point it will cease as this development phase will meet ISS needs. Shuttle will be decommissioned, regardless, and now we won't even have a reason to build SDV (the moon gave us a reason, now there is NOTHING). Prometheus will probably be scaled back, and nuclear propulsion, and Mars will be another 40 years off, instead of 15 to 20.

But whatever, I'll get on board. Wave my fucking flag. Rah, Hubble.

Palomar · 2004-03-10 10:18:40

*Oh yipee...another Hubble debate (thought we'd "been there, done that" at least twice already...)! My 2 cents' worth:

Clark: "What do we gain by not supporting Hubble? Nothing."
What do we gain by supporting Hubble? Nothing."

*A contradiction. Can't have it both ways.

If we don't support Hubble we lose precious data, information. Scientists have repeatedly stated Hubble hasn't yet reached its maximum potential. James Webb Telescope isn't scheduled for launch until 2011 or thereabouts. Hubble didn't perform satisfactorily initially, and there was a delay. There's no guarantee JWT won't do the same (initial delay), or that it'll return as much data and information Hubble has. Some of us realize life is short and that discovery, the collection of data, etc., shouldn't be put on hold.

Clark: "So why am I on the other side of the aisle on this?"

*Maybe you just like to debate for the sake of debate? Could that be it? Maybe you don't have a life?

Clark: "But whatever, I'll get on board. Wave my fucking flag. Rah, Hubble."

*Hubble, Hubble -- RAH RAH RAH!!! ::shakes pom-poms/does cartwheel::

--Cindy :laugh:

clark · 2004-03-10 10:29:04

I have learned a valuable lesson from some others recently.

You're right Cindy. Absolutely right. I agree with everything you say, as your point of view is well reasoned, well thought out, and considers all the available information.

Saving Hubble is the best way for us to get people to Mars.

clark · 2004-03-10 10:50:07

An Ode to Hubble, a Clark original.

Mars did set with Hubble's rise,
All for some pictures of heavens skies,
To hang on walls or in magazines,
Colorized, digitized, these distant scenes,
That man will never touch with hand nor skin,
But Zubrin, leader, led with caustic din,
And killed what hope left for our Mars,
"Settle down now, just look at the stars,"
He says, they say, we do as we're told,
While our dreams grow cold and old,
Until that day when the last of us is gone,
Still looking, waiting, for our Martian dawn,
Denied, deferred, left to better days,
In the mean time, just sit and gaze,
But march in step, fellows, follow along,
Quiet those who say it's wrong,
For Mars, the moon, the stars and sun,
Must wait for astronomers, and their fun.

Bill White · 2004-03-10 10:56:34

Zubrin v O'Keefe isn't really about Hubble, its about credibility, although the Hubble stakes are high from the perspective of astronomy.

O'Keefe says SM4 is unsafe without a "safe haven" at ISS. Zubrin says thats just wrong from a technical point of view.

Irresistable force meets immovable object. Bad for space advocates, just like clark says. But the bigger issue is credibility and consensus.

If O'Keefe cannot forge a genuine consensus on Hubble (not a 51-49 political victory forced through with bureaucratic muscle, but a genuine consensus widely shared that Hubble cannot be saved) how will he forge a consensus that will survive after 2009? If O'Keefe cannot win the popular debate among space advocates about Hubble why should we have faith the Bush space vision will remain in place after Bush leaves office?

So, its not really about trading Hubble for the moon and Mars. Personally, I would trade Hubble for the moon and Mars but can O'Keefe really offer us the moon and why can't we have both?

If O'Keefe would engage in the debate and win rather than rely solely on the "safe haven" talking point then perhaps he can demonstrate he has the capability to build a genuine moon/Mars consensus that will survive political transition.

= = =

Thats why I like the Soyuz idea. Neither O'Keefe nor Zubrin need to win the "safe haven" debate. Confrontation averted.

And since a joint ESA/RSA/NASA mission to rescue Hubble would be internationalist, by definition, its seems like an ideal platform for John Kerry to take (if Soyuz can be ready to fly from Kouru by late 2006).

One orbiter flight backed up by Soyuz from Kouru (not by a 2nd orbiter) scarcely delays ISS completion (and after all I favor shuttle C to turbocharge ISS completion) and generates substantial political goodwill for NASA and O'Keefe.

And if Kouru isn't ready there is always Shenzhou.

John Creighton · 2004-03-10 11:09:16

Good pome Clark. It is too bad so many sapce advocates can't see the political realities. Oh well, often things work out inspite of politics.

Bill White · 2004-03-10 11:12:31

Good pome Clark. It is too bad so many sapce advocates can't see the political realities. Oh well, often things work out inspite of politics.

If the Bush "vision" is predicated on the Democrats all "rolling over and playing dead" then the Bush space vision shall pronounced dead no later than 2009 or maybe 2013, all before CEV ever gets man-rated.

That is another political reality.

clark · 2004-03-10 11:28:37

Speaking of political realities...

I hope you all realize that the people you are supporting in this endeavor have no loyalty to human exploration of space.

These astronomers are the same ones who call for a reduction in human exploration of space, they call it a 'waste'. The astronomy community argues for increased robotic exploration, or telescopes at the expense of human exploration.

But hey, they like space, we like space, so we must have some common ground.

Right. And the Christian Right has common ground with the moderate Republicans.

Wake up.

RobertDyck · 2004-03-10 11:51:24

I saw the CNN show last night. It was a very short article with separate interviews from O'Keefe and Zubrin. There was no debate.

Palomar · 2004-03-10 12:55:31

I have learned a valuable lesson from some others recently.
You're right Cindy. Absolutely right. I agree with everything you say, as your point of view is well reasoned, well thought out, and considers all the available information.
Saving Hubble is the best way for us to get people to Mars.

*Some of us agree to disagree, Clark.

Also, this isn't about "Clark versus Cindy" or "how many people agree with A or B point of view" -- okay?

I don't see the issue of Hubble and of going to Mars as being so intimately entangled as you seem to. Frankly, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Zubrin is for keeping Hubble. So is the Steering Committee.

Get over it.

Josh is spot-on with his earlier comments.

Even if Zubrin and the SC had a differing viewpoint, I'd stand by mine.

In my opinion, keeping Hubble afloat a few more years doesn't negatively impact on Mars (frankly speaking, because I don't think the gov't has any intentions of sending astronauts there until decades into the future...by which time Hubble -will- be space junk).

I've read lots of posts about this issue over the past month or so, etc.

I could be wrong on this issue, but this is how I see it.

And I doubt anyone in NASA is hanging off the edges of their seats, drooling in anticipation at who is going to say what next in this thread.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-03-10 13:09:34

Clark: "So why am I on the other side of the aisle on this?"
Cindy:*Maybe you just like to debate for the sake of debate? Could that be it? Maybe you don't have a life?

Cindy writes:

Also, this isn't about "Clark versus Cindy" or "how many people agree with A or B point of view" -- okay?

Interesting. You make snide personal comments about me, then claim this isn't about "Clark vs. Cindy". I didn't introduce this as an argument between us, you did.

I don't see the issue of Hubble and of going to Mars as being so intimately entangled as you seem to. Frankly, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

You don't see what I do. Fine. Par for the course. You think I'm making a 'moutain out of a molehill' by discussing an issue I find interesting in a thread in the Free Chat forum. Fine, so much for the exploration of ideas or different viewpoints. I believe any languag I have used to discuss this particular matter has been less invective and less caustic then anything Zubrin is spitting out on national airwaves.

Zubrin is for keeping Hubble. So is the Steering Committee.
Get over it.

Da, Commander. I vill march to the veat of vour drum.

Even if Zubrin and the SC had a differing viewpoint, I'd stand by mine.

So what's your goddamn problem with me standing by mine?

I could be wrong on this issue, but this is how I see it.

So you leave open the possiblity that your views may be an error, yet preclude the possibility my views may be correct. Brilliant.

And I doubt anyone in NASA is hanging off the edges of their seats, drooling in anticipation at who is going to say what next in this thread.

I don't perform for NASA.

Bill White · 2004-03-10 13:21:41

Zubrin =IS= making it about Mars (or at least trying):

Cosponsors Rally to Save Hubble
March 10, 2004 For further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at [http://www.marssociety.org][http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.
In the past 24 hours, eight more congressmen have joined as cosponsors of the bipartisan resolution to save the Hubble Space Telescope.
The bipartisan resolution now has 21 cosponsors.
Mark Udall (D-CO), Todd Akin (R-MO), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Bart Gordon (D-TN), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Nick Lampson (D-TX), Jim McDermott (D-WA), C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), James Moran (D-VA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Martin Frost (D-TX), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Barney Frank (D-MA), Jim Matheson (D-UT),
Michael McNulty (R-NY), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)

It needs more. Is your congressman on the above honor role of those willing to take a stand for science? If not, why not?
Call your congressman and ask that he or she become a cosponsor of the bill, H Resolution 550.
You can reach your congressman's office by telephone through the Capitol Hill switchboard. 202-224-3121. Ask for your congressman's office. Then, once you are transferred, ask for "legislative aide in your office who works on space issues." Tell that person you want the congressman to become a co-sponsor.
Call today. This is a fight we can win. This is a fight we must win.
If we abandon the pioneer spirit needed to save Hubble, - the willingness to accept risk to explore the unknown - we don't just lose Hubble- we lose any posibility of a human future in pace.
No Hubble = No Humans to the Moon, Mars or anywhere else.

By the way, another option to avoid a confrontation is to stick a Soyuz DM in the payload bay of the orbiter. No Soyuz launch from Kouru needed. Maybe SM4 gets scaled back because of a smaller payload manifest but Hubble lives indefinitely.

Otherwise, if the Hubble supporters get bulldozed by O'Keefe in Congress or by the bureaucracy, there is a greater risk of future payback against the Bush vision, at least IMHO.

Are Bush/O'Keefe sufficiently committed to their vision to offer a compromise?

clark · 2004-03-10 13:44:42

This is such a weak argument coming from Zubrin, I'm sorry. I fail to see how the termination of the Hubble means we also give up our pioneering spirit. It's an exscuse to try to make his voice relevant.

Zubrin speaks. Reporter asks, "who do you represent?".
Zubrin,"myself and, oh yeah, the Mars Society."
Reporter inquires further, "Why are you speaking out about Hubble then?"
Zubrin, " Because I am a private citizen interested in space exploration, and really, it's all about Mars."
Reporter asks, confused, "Hubble is really about Mars, how?"
Zubrin replies, "well you see, the unmanned telescope represents all our hopes and dreams or sending men to Mars someday."
Reporter continues, "So saving Hubble helps put men on Mars?"
Zubrin of course replies, "Yes, of course. It's just obvious. I mean, retiring Hubble would mean we wouldn't have the courage to EVER go explore space. It's just obvious."
Reporter inquires further, "But dosen't retiring the Hubble allow NASA to refocus efforts to start working on new Human exploration missions to the Moon and then Mars?"
Zubrin, stutters, "well, yeah, but... but... retiring Hubble would be a crime against Humanity! An abortion of Science! Another sign of the coming Apocalypse!"

Bill White · 2004-03-10 14:06:18

clark, you may be right unless Oliver Morton is [http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/star … icle=12423]correct with the opinions expressed in this article.

If manned missions come to be seen as too difficult and too expensive rather than routine that makes it far easier to simply pull the plug altogether some time in the future. Why do we need humans in space at all?

Its all about credibility and consensus. If OKeefe is wrong about SM4 (as a technical matter) where is the credibility for the rest of the program? Why should we believe that the NASA promise to return to the moon by 2020 will be fulfilled?

As I have written before, if there is no creative way to save Hubble because its too unsafe then there is no way we will finish ISS by 2010. And if we dont finish ISS by 2010 then Constellation gets pushed back and the whole Bush vision can quickly become viewgraph engineering.

Doing some creative mission architecture with the orbiter and Soyuz would demonstrate that NASA still has some fire in the belly and a can-do attitude.

= = =

One shuttle mission with a Soyuz DM in the payload bay costs NASA maybe 6-8 months on ISS completion. With CEV man-rating pushed out ten years, NO delay on Project Constellation at all.

clark · 2004-03-10 14:28:58

I don't think we quite realize the gravity of the situation. Any plan predicated on using a Shuttle orbitor automattically requires, by proclamation of the CAIB report, that an additional Shuttle be ready to go to mount a rescue mission. It has to be ready to go in a matter of days from the point where we realize we need to mount a rescue mission.

This will be neccessary for any creative plan that relies on the Shuttle in any capacity. This is a requirement for ISS bound Shuttle flights too- the difference here though is that a rescue Shuttle only need be ready to fly within something like 90 days (about as long as the ISS can act as a safe-haven).

Also, using the Shuttle for anything other than ISS completition assumes extra risk that isn't neccessary to the end game for the life of the Shuttle. The Shuttle has ONE main mission, and that is by virtue of the fact that the Shuttle is the only thing that can finsih the ISS. 100 billion dollar international project decades in the making hinges on the Shuttle.

I doubt we will make the 2010 date. It's a near impossibility. The Commission has already hinted that they are willing to move dates around, and not be held to them if there are issues of saftey (read Shuttle and ISS construction).

Everytime the Shuttle launches, we take a risk that the bird will not land. We are now down to three orbitors, and now require one extra one to be 'on deck' in case the active one needs a rescue. At any point, something can go wrong, and with another Shuttle failure, you can say goodbye to any and all human space exploration by NASA. You want to gamble some more with the future of America's space program? I don't, not at this point, not like this, and certainly not for a glorified Kodak camera.

ISS needs to be completed, unfortunetly, and the Hubble dosen't need to be saved, unfortunetly.

Be4sides, as Morton points out, a space program that has to actually justify itself, ain't neccesarily a bad thing.

Bill White · 2004-03-10 14:47:17

I don't think we quite realize the gravity of the situation. Any plan predicated on using a Shuttle orbitor automattically requires, by proclamation of the CAIB report, that an additional Shuttle be ready to go to mount a rescue mission. It has to be ready to go in a matter of days from the point where we realize we need to mount a rescue mission.
This will be neccessary for any creative plan that relies on the Shuttle in any capacity. This is a requirement for ISS bound Shuttle flights too- the difference here though is that a rescue Shuttle only need be ready to fly within something like 90 days (about as long as the ISS can act as a safe-haven).

And I am asking, did CAIB ever consider using a Kouru based Soyuz as an alternative to the 2nd orbiter; or

carrying a Soyuz DM in the payload bay.

No 2nd orbiter needed on Pad 39. The extra cost? Less than a robotic Hubble de-orbit mission and ISS completion is delayed by ONE mission.

= = =

Edit: = IF = the orbiter is so very fragile (and it may well be more fragile than is being admitted by NASA) then 8 orbiter missions plus 8 shuttle C missions better assures ISS actually gets finished.

Risk of failure to eventually complete ISS due to orbiter damage reduced by 2/3 or 67%.

Drop the Hubble service mission and the same risk of failure is reduced by 1/25 or 4%.

Shuttle C takes time to deploy? Sure. The sooner we get started the better.

Palomar · 2004-03-10 14:47:28

This is such a weak argument coming from Zubrin, I'm sorry. I fail to see how the termination of the Hubble means we also give up our pioneering spirit. It's an exscuse to try to make his voice relevant.
Zubrin speaks. Reporter asks, "who do you represent?".
Zubrin,"myself and, oh yeah, the Mars Society."
Reporter inquires further, "Why are you speaking out about Hubble then?"
Zubrin, " Because I am a private citizen interested in space exploration, and really, it's all about Mars."
Reporter asks, confused, "Hubble is really about Mars, how?"
Zubrin replies, "well you see, the unmanned telescope represents all our hopes and dreams or sending men to Mars someday."
Reporter continues, "So saving Hubble helps put men on Mars?"
Zubrin of course replies, "Yes, of course. It's just obvious. I mean, retiring Hubble would mean we wouldn't have the courage to EVER go explore space. It's just obvious."
Reporter inquires further, "But dosen't retiring the Hubble allow NASA to refocus efforts to start working on new Human exploration missions to the Moon and then Mars?"
Zubrin, stutters, "well, yeah, but... but... retiring Hubble would be a crime against Humanity! An abortion of Science! Another sign of the coming Apocalypse!"

*I can't help wondering if this an issue with -Hubble-
or rather is really an issue with -Zubrin's personality- (edit: or perceived personality, at any rate).

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-09 20:07:00

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#2 2004-03-09 23:51:08

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#3 2004-03-10 06:45:30

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#4 2004-03-10 06:59:17

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#5 2004-03-10 07:14:27

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#6 2004-03-10 09:01:10

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#7 2004-03-10 09:08:18

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#8 2004-03-10 09:15:49

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#9 2004-03-10 09:55:07

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#10 2004-03-10 10:18:40

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#11 2004-03-10 10:29:04

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#12 2004-03-10 10:50:07

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#13 2004-03-10 10:56:34

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#14 2004-03-10 11:09:16

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#15 2004-03-10 11:12:31

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#16 2004-03-10 11:28:37

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#17 2004-03-10 11:51:24

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#18 2004-03-10 12:55:31

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#19 2004-03-10 13:09:34

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#20 2004-03-10 13:21:41

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#21 2004-03-10 13:44:42

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#22 2004-03-10 14:06:18

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#23 2004-03-10 14:28:58

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#24 2004-03-10 14:47:17

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#25 2004-03-10 14:47:28

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

Board footer