Don DAnthony wrote:

I've got a thought and I'm curious to what the settlers group thinks;
terraforming mars-will we get environmentalist wingnuts who boject to
it?

I'm quite certain there will be vociferous objections from the
extreme fringes of the environmental movement, but screw 'em.
Rather than terraform Mars, which is probably not possible since it
doesn't generate a magnetic field strong enough to protect its
atmosphere from solar radiation and would take tens of millenia anyway,
we should just use its ample natural resources to build habitats.
In adition to abundant minerals and ores, Mars has vast suplies of
what we need most-water. With low gravity and little atmospheric
resistance for EM catapaults, Mars is an ideal source for construction
materials.
Joe Bonello

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:02 PM, bonello_joseph
wrote:
> Don DAnthony wrote:
>
> I've got a thought and I'm curious to what the settlers group thinks;
> terraforming mars-will we get environmentalist wingnuts who boject to
> it?

Surely, but by the time that Mars is terraformed I am not sure if
environmentalism will be a para-religious movement with strong
political influence like it is nowadays.

(...)
> Rather than terraform Mars, which is probably not possible since it
> doesn't generate a magnetic field strong enough to protect its
> atmosphere from solar radiation and would take tens of millenia anyway,
> we should just use its ample natural resources to build habitats.

Magnetic field is not a concern if you just thicken the atmosphere
enough to work as a passive shielding. Anyhow, there are many degrees
of "terraforming", and a Mars with an atmosphere thickened just enough
to support liquid water and vegetable life (which has enormous
resistance to radiation) would be considered "terraformed" by many,
even though they might have to spend most of the time in underground
habitats.

Anyhow, as you hint space habitats are the ultimate way to go.

> In adition to abundant minerals and ores, Mars has vast suplies of
> what we need most-water. With low gravity and little atmospheric
> resistance for EM catapaults, Mars is an ideal source for construction
> materials.
(...)

Well, I think that there are a lot of asteroids that might supply the
same stuff with a negligible gravity well and no atmosphere at all.
Even if for some reason you prefer a little bit of gravity (for, say,
mining stuff in a more conventional way without pebbles being tossed
at vast distances by even the slightests movement), there is Ceres.

"para-religious movement" Beauty! LOL. Now that's funny!

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: lucioc@...: Fri, 23 May 2008 23:41:28 -0300Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Terraforming Mars

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:02 PM, bonello_joseph wrote:> Don DAnthony wrote:>> I've got a thought and I'm curious to what the settlers group thinks;> terraforming mars-will we get environmentalist wingnuts who boject to> it?Surely, but by the time that Mars is terraformed I am not sure ifenvironmentalism will be a para-religious movement with strongpolitical influence like it is nowadays.(...)> Rather than terraform Mars, which is probably not possible since it> doesn't generate a magnetic field strong enough to protect its> atmosphere from solar radiation and would take tens of millenia anyway,> we should just use its ample natural resources to build habitats.Magnetic field is not a concern if you just thicken the atmosphereenough to work as a passive shielding. Anyhow, there are many degreesof "terraforming", and a Mars with an atmosphere thickened just enoughto support liquid water and vegetable life (which has enormousresistance to radiation) would be considered "terraformed" by many,even though they might have to spend most of the time in undergroundhabitats.Anyhow, as you hint space habitats are the ultimate way to go.> In adition to abundant minerals and ores, Mars has vast suplies of> what we need most-water. With low gravity and little atmospheric> resistance for EM catapaults, Mars is an ideal source for construction> materials.(...)Well, I think that there are a lot of asteroids that might supply thesame stuff with a negligible gravity well and no atmosphere at all.Even if for some reason you prefer a little bit of gravity (for, say,mining stuff in a more conventional way without pebbles being tossedat vast distances by even the slightests movement), there is Ceres.

Change the world with e-mail. Join the im Initiative from Microsoft.

2008/5/24 bonello_joseph :
> In adition to abundant minerals and ores, Mars has vast suplies of
> what we need most-water.

I don't like this idea, but it would work. Mars also has a deep,
fairly awkward gravity well.

I'm thinking that going out to the asteroid belt, beyond the snow line
is probably a better idea. You could pick up water there, and separate
it using a solar still, shovel it in, cook it up.

The delta-v from the snow line to Earth transfer is only about 5km/s;
11 km/s if you want to avoid aerobraking at Earth orbit. That sounds
like a lot, but it's not really, the actual thrust needed is very low,
so you can use a high Isp drive.

Let's just say what you don't want to do. You don't want to launch
propellant from the Earth's surface to return the water from the belt.
So you really want a scheme to use some of that water via ISRU as
fuel.

To do that, break down the water into hydrogen and oxygen using
electrolysis and then just sling the oxygen out the back in a hall
thruster, and optionally sling the hydrogen out in some other kind of
highish Isp drive (e.g. solar thermal); the overall Isp is plenty good
enough. With a Hohmann trajectory (which you should be able to
approximate even with a Hall thruster in this case) the trip will take
a year or a so, but the costs are pretty low overall, it's all
reusable. You could just aerobrake the water into LEO, but leave the
engine on a free return trajectory back up to the belt to pick up some
more water. The engine would need some propellant to circularise its
orbit again, but it's much lighter without the water, so it's only a
small penalty.

The other advantages of mining the snow line is that the synodic
period (i.e. launch windows) are rather more frequent (1.6 years,
compared to 2.6 for Mars), and unlike Mars there's more than one
target out there, so you could expect several deliveries per year,
whereas with Mars you get one big delivery, and then nothing for
almost 3 years.

The only downsides I can think of is that Ion drives tend to wear out,
but it might be possible to avoid that by spraying the inside of the
engine with ice or something and use it as an ablative. The Isp would
suffer due to ablation and sublimation, but it might not be that bad
in practice if you keep the inside surface cool enough and only use a
thin layer of ice.

> Joe Bonello

--
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.

Good morning all,

I'm new to the list and anxious to catch up with the discussions, but
wanted to ask on this particular topic:

Most of us who were 'raised' on the O'Neill/Heppenheimer philosophy
probably feel, as I do, that terraforming isn't way to go - and it
doesn't have anything to do with the 'morality' of using another world,
with its own potential indigenous 'life forms' - it has to do with the
non-necessity of subjecting ourselves to yet another gravity well, with
its own inherent problems.

Question: I know that the moon can supply us with the vast majority of
building materials we'll need for habitats, but thinking long term,
will it and the asteroids be able to provide us with *everything* a
human colony would need? Or will we still have to 'import' certain
materials from earth and/or other planets?

From: jim.piunti

> Most of us who were 'raised' on the O'Neill/Heppenheimer philosophy
> probably feel, as I do, that terraforming isn't way to go - and it
> doesn't have anything to do with the 'morality' of using another
world,
> with its own potential indigenous 'life forms' - it has to do with the

> non-necessity of subjecting ourselves to yet another gravity well,
with
> its own inherent problems.

Yeah, I wrote an article on this very subject: The Case for Space
http://writings.mike-combs.com/case_spc.htm

> Question: I know that the moon can supply us with the vast majority of

> building materials we'll need for habitats, but thinking long term,
> will it and the asteroids be able to provide us with *everything* a
> human colony would need? Or will we still have to 'import' certain
> materials from earth and/or other planets?

My attitude is that Mars provides very little or nothing that couldn't
be had from the right combination of asteroids. The two big things that
Mars aficionados tend to point to is water, and carbon from the CO2
atmosphere. But Carbonaceous Chondritic asteroids are obviously good
sources of carbon, and can be 10-20% water by weight.

I've heard arguments that only on Mars will water-based geological
ore-concentration processes have produced useful concentrations of
elements like copper or uranium. Number one; this is speculative until
we have ground truth. Number two; I think aluminum (plentiful on the
moon) can replace copper for most applications, and I doubt that the
people living outside the shadow of a planet will have much use for
uranium as a power source. (They might have some use for it if
interested in nuclear rockets.) But even if this point is valid, things
like copper and uranium represent very small percentages of what we need
in comparison to materials like steel and glass and concrete.

I've heard a case made for harvesting nitrogen from the atmosphere of
Mars for sale to orbital habitats. I'd have to admit that I've more
recently come to accept that even CC-type asteroids are not quite as
chock full of nitrogen as I'd been lead to believe as a youngster. The
point was made that nitrogen can be usefully concentrated in planetary
atmospheres in comparison to other gasses due to its tendency to NOT
react readily. So although I've had a tendency to totally dismiss
planets as sources of raw materials of any kind, I might have to allow
that a possible exception might be nitrogen, at least until that era
when we're harvesting ice from so far out into the Solar System that
useful amounts of ammonia can be found in it. That said, I still can't
help but wonder if some point to the atmosphere of Mars as a source of
nitrogen for atmosphere dilutant in space habitats because they're
pulling for development of Mars and are desperate to come up with
anything which might conceivably be an economical export.

Regards,

Mike Combs

On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:33 PM, jim.piunti wrote:

> Question: I know that the moon can supply us with the vast majority of
> building materials we'll need for habitats, but thinking long term,
> will it and the asteroids be able to provide us with *everything* a
> human colony would need? Or will we still have to 'import' certain
> materials from earth and/or other planets?
>

My understanding is this: the Moon by itself certainly will not supply
everything we need (in large quantities, at least), as volatiles are
very scarce there. But other NEOs are rich in volatiles. Between the
two, there's no need (assuming a spacefaring civilization) to be
hauling stuff up from planetary gravity wells.

Best,
- Joe

Thanks for your reply, Mike. re:

> That said, I still can't help but wonder if some point to the
> atmosphere of Mars as a source of nitrogen for atmosphere dilutant
> in space habitats because they're pulling for development of Mars
> and are desperate to come up with anything which might conceivably
> be an economical export.

I imagine that market forces will be more a determinating factor of the
efficacy of harvesting N from Mars, or not...

Though I can't wait for the debate... :-)

Hi Joe, thanks for the reply.

Perhaps we'll find that when we become a true spacefaring civilization,
ur needs for certain comestibles and volatiles will be seen as
unnecessary. Was just wondering if there are materials necessary for
human existence that would allow us to ignore planets completely.

From: jim.piunti

> I imagine that market forces will be more a determinating factor of
the
> efficacy of harvesting N from Mars, or not...

Oh, absolutely "market forces" is the right answer to this and to every
other question we might raise. The only thing we're really arguing is
which scenario will be the most economically competitive. Another way
of phrasing it is: On which business plan would a savvy investor bet his
money? And Mars advocates need to realize that their intense enthusiasm
for Mars will have no influence on such an investment decision.

I've had so many arguments with Mars advocates who couldn't accept that
the first permanent settlements beyond the Earth will be built in
support of the first business plans which necessarily involve people,
which serve a current market, and which can show a ROI. They think it
will be based on which locations command the most affection among space
advocates, but that's not the right answer.

Regards,

Mike Combs

> I've had so many arguments with Mars advocates who couldn't accept
that
> the first permanent settlements beyond the Earth will be built in
> support of the first business plans which necessarily involve people,
> which serve a current market, and which can show a ROI. They think it
> will be based on which locations command the most affection among
space
> advocates, but that's not the right answer.

Do you think your Mars afficionados might also be displaying a bit
of 'gravity-well bias'? I think until we reach a point where we have a
number of generations of 'tin-can bred' colonists, that a lot of people
can't/don't get their mind around living on anything other than a
planetary surface...

From: jim.piunti

> Do you think your Mars afficionados might also be displaying a bit
> of 'gravity-well bias'?

I think it can be exactly that. I remember one fellow who literally
said that some people might have a preference for living in a gravity
well. I responded that people might very well have a valid preference
for living under gravity, but not in a gravity well.

I've had arguments with people who say that industrial operations have
to take place on the surface of the moon because many processes require
gravity and even the amounts on an asteroid might not be enough. I make
the point that a portion of an orbital industrial facility can rotate,
providing a suitable substitute for gravity for any process requiring
the settling or separation of materials. We might then spend a week or
more discussing the physics and engineering of rotating structures in
space. Then at the end of that discussion I might to my great
disappointment see them repeat their original assertion: industrial
operations have to take place at the bottom of a gravity well because
they'll need gravity.

> I think until we reach a point where we have a
> number of generations of 'tin-can bred' colonists, that a lot of
people
> can't/don't get their mind around living on anything other than a
> planetary surface...

I'm convinced that when the people of the future who live beyond the
Earth take a look back at the science fiction of our era, the thing
which will stand out the most to them will be how limited it is in its
planet-bound depiction of the future.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Location location location. Mars is close to the asteroid belt. In my HUMBLE OPINION it will therefore be a key settlement area. Also, it has proved water reserves in large capacity. One would think that with our moon so located as an ideal jumping point for first stage space development, and Mars for second stage (wave, cycle, revolution or other metaphor for period of activity on a certain scale and technological level) ...well, one could even see the influence of inteligent design.

OOOOOHHHHH! Faith again. Bad boy. Down.

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: jim.piunti@...te: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:32:13 +0000Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Terraforming Mars

Thanks for your reply, Mike. re: > That said, I still can't help but wonder if some point to the > atmosphere of Mars as a source of nitrogen for atmosphere dilutant> in space habitats because they're pulling for development of Mars > and are desperate to come up with anything which might conceivably > be an economical export.I imagine that market forces will be more a determinating factor of the efficacy of harvesting N from Mars, or not... Though I can't wait for the debate... :-)> Jim <

Its easy to add contacts from Facebook and other social sites through Windows Live Messenger. Learn how.
https://www.invite2messenger.net/im/?source=TXT_EML_WLH_LearnHow

Why would you want to? Someone else debated this with me and I just don't see the motivation. Clearly artificial environments will have their benefits but to me there has never been anything as awe inspiring as leaving the confines of civilization and venturing into the wild.

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: jim.piunti@...: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:44:30 +0000Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Terraforming Mars

Hi Joe, thanks for the reply.Perhaps we'll find that when we become a true spacefaring civilization, ur needs for certain comestibles and volatiles will be seen as unnecessary. Was just wondering if there are materials necessary for human existence that would allow us to ignore planets completely.> Jim <

On Jun 9, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Don DAnthony wrote:

> Location location location. Mars is close to the asteroid belt.

Not compared to, say, Ceres. Mars is about 225 million km from the
Sun; the asteroid belt is about 405 million km. That's nearly 200
million km apart, which stretches the definition of "close".

> In my HUMBLE OPINION it will therefore be a key settlement area.
> Also, it has proved water reserves in large capacity. One would
> think that with our moon so located as an ideal jumping point for
> first stage space development, and Mars for second stage (wave,
> cycle, revolution or other metaphor for period of activity on a
> certain scale and technological level) ...well, one could even see
> the influence of inteligent design.

An even more intelligent design would go to the Moon first, and then
to NEAs for volatiles. Once cislunar space has been developed, I
could see a small habitat or two on or around Mars, but the next
serious leap at that point would be the Belt.

Best,
- Joe

Mike,

I agree with you 100%. Despite all of its flaws and abuses, a
competitive free market is the best "Great Filter" for weeding out the
non-viable options from the profitable options that future space
exploration will provide. When I say "profitable" I mean that if there
is a large enough market for people who want to go to Mars to live - and
they have the hefty resources to pay for the trip and the
equipment/supplies they'll need - someone will create a business model
to serve that market.
Let's face it - there is a small but thriving market for people who
want to climb Mt. Everest. This is a totally non-productive, but
ego-satisfying, "adventure". There are individuals and companies making
a tidy profit from this activity, as impractical as it might seem to the
rest of us.

Chris

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
>
> From: jim.piunti
>
> > I imagine that market forces will be more a determinating factor of
> the
> > efficacy of harvesting N from Mars, or not...
>
> Oh, absolutely "market forces" is the right answer to this and to
every
> other question we might raise. The only thing we're really arguing is
> which scenario will be the most economically competitive. Another way
> of phrasing it is: On which business plan would a savvy investor bet
his
> money? And Mars advocates need to realize that their intense
enthusiasm
> for Mars will have no influence on such an investment decision.
>
> I've had so many arguments with Mars advocates who couldn't accept
that
> the first permanent settlements beyond the Earth will be built in
> support of the first business plans which necessarily involve people,
> which serve a current market, and which can show a ROI. They think it
> will be based on which locations command the most affection among
space

>From what I understand the Oort clouds should have everything we need to build Oniel stations from here to,
well I hate to say infinity but for a very long time.

>From what I understand.

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: jim.piunti@...: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:33:59 +0000Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Terraforming Mars

Good morning all,I'm new to the list and anxious to catch up with the discussions, but wanted to ask on this particular topic:Most of us who were 'raised' on the O'Neill/Heppenheimer philosophy probably feel, as I do, that terraforming isn't way to go - and it doesn't have anything to do with the 'morality' of using another world, with its own potential indigenous 'life forms' - it has to do with the non-necessity of subjecting ourselves to yet another gravity well, with its own inherent problems. Question: I know that the moon can supply us with the vast majority of building materials we'll need for habitats, but thinking long term, will it and the asteroids be able to provide us with *everything* a human colony would need? Or will we still have to 'import' certain materials from earth and/or other planets? > Jim <

Enjoy 5 GB of free, password-protected online storage.

On Jun 9, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Don DAnthony wrote:

> From what I understand the Oort clouds should have everything we
> need to build Oniel stations from here to, well I hate to say
> infinity but for a very long time.
>

Very true, I think -- and, they happen to extend very far out, so much
so that by the time we have people living comfortably Out There for a
long time, the next Oort cloud over will seem a fairly modest hop.
This is how the galaxy will be colonized, I suspect.

Best,
- Joe

P.S. Please feel free to trim the quoted text to just the relevant
bits in your reply!

From: Don DAnthony

> Location location location. Mars is close to the asteroid belt.
> In my HUMBLE OPINION it will therefore be a key settlement area.

Yes, I've seen this argument raised before. But I think it derives from
the Earth-bound truism that if a place is closer to another place, it
makes it easier to get to that other place. But in space travel,
distance only influences travel-times. We also need to factor in
delta-V. Mars is closer to the Belt, but it lies at the bottom of a
planetary gravity well (yes, a shallower one than the one we presently
sit at the bottom of, but still planetary in magnitude).

A base located on a NEA might make a better departure point for trips to
the Belt. The NEA might not even orbit as close to the Belt as Mars
does. But the NEA would have a negligible gravity well. If departing
from Mars, some high-thrust rocket with aerodynamic design would be
needed to transport you to some orbiting spacecraft with a
low-thrust/high-efficiency drive. If departing from some NEA base, only
the latter spacecraft would be involved.

I've before expressed the opinion that people living at the tops of
gravity wells will quite literally be in a far better position to
exploit asteroids than anybody living at the bottom of one.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: Don DAnthony

> Location location location. Mars is close to the asteroid belt.
> In my HUMBLE OPINION it will therefore be a key settlement area.

Mike has answered this pretty well. I'd only add that, if the
proximity of Mars to the Belt turns out to be important, then a
habitat ORBITING Mars has all the proximity advantages of any habitat
ON Mars, PLUS all the advantages of being at the top of a gravity
well, continuous sunshine, access to zero-G, access to full-G, etc.

> Why would you want to? Someone else debated this with me and I just
> don't see the motivation. Clearly artificial environments will have
> their benefits but to me there has never been anything as awe
> inspiring as leaving the confines of civilization and venturing
> into the wild.

I didn't mean ignore planetary surfaces entirely, but only as places
for which one might want to permanently hang their hat... And
considering the gravity well, if we can supply ourselves with
comestibles from elsewhere, then why would we want to incur the expense
of obtaining them from 'the well'?

As far as planetary surfaces in general, 'Artificial environments' is a
relative term. When you have 3-4 generations of settlers raised in the
(relative) confines of a Space Habitat - THAT becomes 'natural' and
visiting a planetary surface might one day become as 'exotic' as SCUBA
diving...

I think the best, most convenient and richest source of nitrogen is the Earths atmosphere. It can be extracted from LEO with what is effectively a siphon hose. Lower a tether (hollow) with a pump at the bottom into the upper atmosphere and pump air up to the orbitiing satellite for processing into nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, etc. Generate electric power from the tether and use it to fight the atmospheric drag on the tether/collector and keep the satellite in a stable orbit.

--- On Mon, 6/9/08, Combs, Mike wrote:

From: Combs, Mike
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Terraforming Mars
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 9, 2008, 2:06 PM

From: jim.piunti

> Most of us who were 'raised' on the O'Neill/Heppenheime r philosophy
> probably feel, as I do, that terraforming isn't way to go - and it
> doesn't have anything to do with the 'morality' of using another
world,
> with its own potential indigenous 'life forms' - it has to do with the

> non-necessity of subjecting ourselves to yet another gravity well,
with
> its own inherent problems.

Yeah, I wrote an article on this very subject: The Case for Space
http://writings. mike-combs. com/case_ spc.htm

> Question: I know that the moon can supply us with the vast majority of

> building materials we'll need for habitats, but thinking long term,
> will it and the asteroids be able to provide us with *everything* a
> human colony would need? Or will we still have to 'import' certain
> materials from earth and/or other planets?

My attitude is that Mars provides very little or nothing that couldn't
be had from the right combination of asteroids. The two big things that
Mars aficionados tend to point to is water, and carbon from the CO2
atmosphere. But Carbonaceous Chondritic asteroids are obviously good
sources of carbon, and can be 10-20% water by weight.

I've heard arguments that only on Mars will water-based geological
ore-concentration processes have produced useful concentrations of
elements like copper or uranium. Number one; this is speculative until
we have ground truth. Number two; I think aluminum (plentiful on the
moon) can replace copper for most applications, and I doubt that the
people living outside the shadow of a planet will have much use for
uranium as a power source. (They might have some use for it if
interested in nuclear rockets.) But even if this point is valid, things
like copper and uranium represent very small percentages of what we need
in comparison to materials like steel and glass and concrete.

I've heard a case made for harvesting nitrogen from the atmosphere of
Mars for sale to orbital habitats. I'd have to admit that I've more
recently come to accept that even CC-type asteroids are not quite as
chock full of nitrogen as I'd been lead to believe as a youngster. The
point was made that nitrogen can be usefully concentrated in planetary
atmospheres in comparison to other gasses due to its tendency to NOT
react readily. So although I've had a tendency to totally dismiss
planets as sources of raw materials of any kind, I might have to allow
that a possible exception might be nitrogen, at least until that era
when we're harvesting ice from so far out into the Solar System that
useful amounts of ammonia can be found in it. That said, I still can't
help but wonder if some point to the atmosphere of Mars as a source of
nitrogen for atmosphere dilutant in space habitats because they're
pulling for development of Mars and are desperate to come up with
anything which might conceivably be an economical export.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Why couldn't this method be used on the gas giants or Titan or Venus? i don't know the nitrogen content off hand but the other gases could be seperated and used as well no?

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: hetrevillion@...: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:38:34 -0700Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Terraforming Mars

Instantly invite friends from Facebook and other social networks to join you on Windows Live Messenger.
https://www.invite2messenger.net/im/?source=TXT_EML_WLH_InviteFriends

Generating electrical power from the tether would slow
the satellite down; you have to expend energy to raise
the orbit with a tether or any other method. See
David Brin's short story "Tank Farm Dynamo" for an
explanation of the physics.

http://www.davidbrin.com/tankfarm1.html

Ed

--- harvey trevillion wrote:

--- On Tue, 6/10/08, Ed Minchau wrote:

From: Ed Minchau
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Terraforming Mars
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 9:53 PM

Generating electrical power from the tether would slow
the satellite down; you have to expend energy to raise
the orbit with a tether or any other method. See
David Brin's short story "Tank Farm Dynamo" for an
explanation of the physics.

http://www.davidbri n.com/tankfarm1. html

Ed

Thanks Ed, I knew that , but forgot. I think the other gases could be used as propulsion to station-keep the satellite.
Harvey

Recent Activity

1
New MembersVisit Your Group

Odd News
You won't believe
it, but it's true

Special K Group
Join the challenge
and lose weight.

Healthy Living
Learn to live life
to the fullest
.