|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Colds and a [Mars] colony
On Nov/17/2016 at 11:39 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 11:49 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 12:13 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Before we worry about what pathological microcobes might or might not be found on Mars, I would suggest we focus on getting a gravity lab into LEO ASAP so that we can study the known. We have exactly TWO data points on this subject. 0G == Bad 1G == Good .1G == Unknown (not there long enough) .38G == Unknown All other points between 0G and 1G also *unknown*. Ask the Japanese when they are done with their mouse/centrifuge experiments on ISS. The US CAM module never made it to ISS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centri...dations_Module The centrifuge would have provided controlled acceleration rates (artificial gravity) for experiments and the capability to: * Expose a variety of biological specimens that are less than 24.5 in (0.62 m) tall to artificial gravity levels between 0.01g and 2g. So, it could have held creatures larger than mice, but wouldn't have been able to accomodate human beings from the looks of it. True, but how often are mice, rats, and etc. used for stand-ins for humans in early research? It would have been a start, but NASA didn't complete it and launch it. It wouldn't have been enough of a 'start' to be helpful. If you want to take 50 years to get an answer, starting with mice is the way to go. You still have to build a human test facility. Such experiments with rodents can be very useful. That's why we do them. They aren't enough but they are useful. Imagine we had kept rats at one third g for 30 months. If the outcome had been: 1) The rats have lost bone mass to the point that we can't bring them back to a functional state on Earth. OR 2) The reduced gravity is sufficient to mostly avoid adverse health effects. In either case, we can't extrapolate the results to humans. Exactly. Which is why you don't waste the years and years to test with rodents. You've got to test with humans anyway, so just do it. But after outcome 1), many people would be willing to go to Mars and hope for the best. You would still want to be careful and monitor for health degradation. But the risks seem reasonable. After outcome 2) most people would want to do more experiments before going to Mars. I think you got your outcomes flipped. Yes you are correct on that. But I think you're wrong in any case. I think you'd get about the same number of people willing to go with no testing, unsuccessful rat testing, or successful rat testing. I don't think you see a significant swing until you've got human test results. There will always be some who will try to get a Darwin award. Sorry, but something being bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people, so I think your "Darwin award" comment is a bit off. I know that something bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people. I said above that "we can't extrapolate the results to humans". But if it is bad for rats it is very likely bad for humans. Would you try eating a mushroom that has unknown effects on humans but that is known to be lethal to rats? It could just as easily be applied to those who stay behind and thus fail the evolution to a spacefaring species. It's not as if it's either go to Mars without a centrifuge or some kind of medical palliative or corrective treatment, or stay forever on Earth. There are many possible ways to become a spacefaring species. Personally, I would be a little surprised if the Martian environment was very harmful to humans. I *think* that a centrifuge on Mars wouldn't be necessary. But it would be nice to know before we go. Alain Fournier |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Colds and a [Mars] colony
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Nov/17/2016 at 11:39 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 11:49 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 12:13 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Before we worry about what pathological microcobes might or might not be found on Mars, I would suggest we focus on getting a gravity lab into LEO ASAP so that we can study the known. We have exactly TWO data points on this subject. 0G == Bad 1G == Good .1G == Unknown (not there long enough) .38G == Unknown All other points between 0G and 1G also *unknown*. Ask the Japanese when they are done with their mouse/centrifuge experiments on ISS. The US CAM module never made it to ISS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centri...dations_Module The centrifuge would have provided controlled acceleration rates (artificial gravity) for experiments and the capability to: * Expose a variety of biological specimens that are less than 24.5 in (0.62 m) tall to artificial gravity levels between 0.01g and 2g. So, it could have held creatures larger than mice, but wouldn't have been able to accomodate human beings from the looks of it. True, but how often are mice, rats, and etc. used for stand-ins for humans in early research? It would have been a start, but NASA didn't complete it and launch it. It wouldn't have been enough of a 'start' to be helpful. If you want to take 50 years to get an answer, starting with mice is the way to go. You still have to build a human test facility. Such experiments with rodents can be very useful. That's why we do them. They aren't enough but they are useful. Imagine we had kept rats at one third g for 30 months. If the outcome had been: 1) The rats have lost bone mass to the point that we can't bring them back to a functional state on Earth. OR 2) The reduced gravity is sufficient to mostly avoid adverse health effects. In either case, we can't extrapolate the results to humans. Exactly. Which is why you don't waste the years and years to test with rodents. You've got to test with humans anyway, so just do it. But after outcome 1), many people would be willing to go to Mars and hope for the best. You would still want to be careful and monitor for health degradation. But the risks seem reasonable. After outcome 2) most people would want to do more experiments before going to Mars. I think you got your outcomes flipped. Yes you are correct on that. But I think you're wrong in any case. I think you'd get about the same number of people willing to go with no testing, unsuccessful rat testing, or successful rat testing. I don't think you see a significant swing until you've got human test results. There will always be some who will try to get a Darwin award. Sorry, but something being bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people, so I think your "Darwin award" comment is a bit off. I know that something bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people. I said above that "we can't extrapolate the results to humans". Yet you said "Darwin Award", as if people could and should do such an extrapolation and those who did not were stupid. But if it is bad for rats it is very likely bad for humans. So you think you CAN extrapolate from rats to humans, even though you've said that you cannot extrapolate from rats to humans. Would you try eating a mushroom that has unknown effects on humans but that is known to be lethal to rats? Depends on how hungry I was. Do you eat chocolate? It's known to be poisonous to dogs (which are usually the next animal subject after rats). So are a number of other things that we can eat. Do you eat blue cheese, licorice, poppy seeds, bitter almonds, or rhubarb? All are known to be poisonous to rats. It could just as easily be applied to those who stay behind and thus fail the evolution to a spacefaring species. It's not as if it's either go to Mars without a centrifuge or some kind of medical palliative or corrective treatment, or stay forever on Earth. There are many possible ways to become a spacefaring species. Personally, I would be a little surprised if the Martian environment was very harmful to humans. I *think* that a centrifuge on Mars wouldn't be necessary. But it would be nice to know before we go. Yes, it would be NICE to know, but how much time are you going to spend finding out instead of going? How long will it take to fund and build a human-sized variable gravity experiment? -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Colds and a [Mars] colony
On Nov/19/2016 at 4:31 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/17/2016 at 11:39 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 11:49 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 12:13 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Before we worry about what pathological microcobes might or might not be found on Mars, I would suggest we focus on getting a gravity lab into LEO ASAP so that we can study the known. We have exactly TWO data points on this subject. 0G == Bad 1G == Good .1G == Unknown (not there long enough) .38G == Unknown All other points between 0G and 1G also *unknown*. Ask the Japanese when they are done with their mouse/centrifuge experiments on ISS. The US CAM module never made it to ISS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centri...dations_Module The centrifuge would have provided controlled acceleration rates (artificial gravity) for experiments and the capability to: * Expose a variety of biological specimens that are less than 24.5 in (0.62 m) tall to artificial gravity levels between 0.01g and 2g. So, it could have held creatures larger than mice, but wouldn't have been able to accomodate human beings from the looks of it. True, but how often are mice, rats, and etc. used for stand-ins for humans in early research? It would have been a start, but NASA didn't complete it and launch it. It wouldn't have been enough of a 'start' to be helpful. If you want to take 50 years to get an answer, starting with mice is the way to go. You still have to build a human test facility. Such experiments with rodents can be very useful. That's why we do them. They aren't enough but they are useful. Imagine we had kept rats at one third g for 30 months. If the outcome had been: 1) The rats have lost bone mass to the point that we can't bring them back to a functional state on Earth. OR 2) The reduced gravity is sufficient to mostly avoid adverse health effects. In either case, we can't extrapolate the results to humans. Exactly. Which is why you don't waste the years and years to test with rodents. You've got to test with humans anyway, so just do it. But after outcome 1), many people would be willing to go to Mars and hope for the best. You would still want to be careful and monitor for health degradation. But the risks seem reasonable. After outcome 2) most people would want to do more experiments before going to Mars. I think you got your outcomes flipped. Yes you are correct on that. But I think you're wrong in any case. I think you'd get about the same number of people willing to go with no testing, unsuccessful rat testing, or successful rat testing. I don't think you see a significant swing until you've got human test results. There will always be some who will try to get a Darwin award. Sorry, but something being bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people, so I think your "Darwin award" comment is a bit off. I know that something bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people. I said above that "we can't extrapolate the results to humans". Yet you said "Darwin Award", as if people could and should do such an extrapolation and those who did not were stupid. But if it is bad for rats it is very likely bad for humans. So you think you CAN extrapolate from rats to humans, even though you've said that you cannot extrapolate from rats to humans. No you can not extrapolate from rats to humans. If it is lethal to rats you can't conclude it is also lethal for humans. But if you have no other evidence, you can say it is likely lethal to humans. The word likely is important here. I also said up there "There will always be some who will try to get a Darwin award". The word try has its purpose in that sentence. I can't say that it would be enough for whoever follows that route to actually earn the Darwin award. But it certainly is a way to try to get one. Would you try eating a mushroom that has unknown effects on humans but that is known to be lethal to rats? Depends on how hungry I was. Do you eat chocolate? It's known to be poisonous to dogs (which are usually the next animal subject after rats). So are a number of other things that we can eat. Do you eat blue cheese, licorice, poppy seeds, bitter almonds, or rhubarb? All are known to be poisonous to rats. Chocolate, blue cheese, licorice, poppy seeds, bitter almonds and rhubarb are known to not be poisonous to humans. What we are discussing is things of unknown effects to humans. I have said from the very start that you can't extrapolate. I don't know why you want to do so. It could just as easily be applied to those who stay behind and thus fail the evolution to a spacefaring species. It's not as if it's either go to Mars without a centrifuge or some kind of medical palliative or corrective treatment, or stay forever on Earth. There are many possible ways to become a spacefaring species. Personally, I would be a little surprised if the Martian environment was very harmful to humans. I *think* that a centrifuge on Mars wouldn't be necessary. But it would be nice to know before we go. Yes, it would be NICE to know, but how much time are you going to spend finding out instead of going? How long will it take to fund and build a human-sized variable gravity experiment? An experiment with rats could be done in a few years. There is no need to delay colonisation of Mars to do such an experiment. Unless the experiment does give unfavourable results. If the results are unfavourable, it might be worth it to delay colonisation. Alain Fournier |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Colds and a [Mars] colony
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Nov/19/2016 at 4:31 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/17/2016 at 11:39 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 11:49 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 12:13 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Before we worry about what pathological microcobes might or might not be found on Mars, I would suggest we focus on getting a gravity lab into LEO ASAP so that we can study the known. We have exactly TWO data points on this subject. 0G == Bad 1G == Good .1G == Unknown (not there long enough) .38G == Unknown All other points between 0G and 1G also *unknown*. Ask the Japanese when they are done with their mouse/centrifuge experiments on ISS. The US CAM module never made it to ISS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centri...dations_Module The centrifuge would have provided controlled acceleration rates (artificial gravity) for experiments and the capability to: * Expose a variety of biological specimens that are less than 24.5 in (0.62 m) tall to artificial gravity levels between 0.01g and 2g. So, it could have held creatures larger than mice, but wouldn't have been able to accomodate human beings from the looks of it. True, but how often are mice, rats, and etc. used for stand-ins for humans in early research? It would have been a start, but NASA didn't complete it and launch it. It wouldn't have been enough of a 'start' to be helpful. If you want to take 50 years to get an answer, starting with mice is the way to go. You still have to build a human test facility. Such experiments with rodents can be very useful. That's why we do them. They aren't enough but they are useful. Imagine we had kept rats at one third g for 30 months. If the outcome had been: 1) The rats have lost bone mass to the point that we can't bring them back to a functional state on Earth. OR 2) The reduced gravity is sufficient to mostly avoid adverse health effects. In either case, we can't extrapolate the results to humans. Exactly. Which is why you don't waste the years and years to test with rodents. You've got to test with humans anyway, so just do it. But after outcome 1), many people would be willing to go to Mars and hope for the best. You would still want to be careful and monitor for health degradation. But the risks seem reasonable. After outcome 2) most people would want to do more experiments before going to Mars. I think you got your outcomes flipped. Yes you are correct on that. But I think you're wrong in any case. I think you'd get about the same number of people willing to go with no testing, unsuccessful rat testing, or successful rat testing. I don't think you see a significant swing until you've got human test results. There will always be some who will try to get a Darwin award. Sorry, but something being bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people, so I think your "Darwin award" comment is a bit off. I know that something bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people. I said above that "we can't extrapolate the results to humans". Yet you said "Darwin Award", as if people could and should do such an extrapolation and those who did not were stupid. But if it is bad for rats it is very likely bad for humans. So you think you CAN extrapolate from rats to humans, even though you've said that you cannot extrapolate from rats to humans. No you can not extrapolate from rats to humans. If it is lethal to rats you can't conclude it is also lethal for humans. But if you have no other evidence, you can say it is likely lethal to humans. The word likely is important here. Uh, you just extrapolated from rats to humans. I also said up there "There will always be some who will try to get a Darwin award". The word try has its purpose in that sentence. I can't say that it would be enough for whoever follows that route to actually earn the Darwin award. But it certainly is a way to try to get one. How's that again? Does that phrase mean something different to you than it does to the rest of the planet? Would you try eating a mushroom that has unknown effects on humans but that is known to be lethal to rats? Depends on how hungry I was. Do you eat chocolate? It's known to be poisonous to dogs (which are usually the next animal subject after rats). So are a number of other things that we can eat. Do you eat blue cheese, licorice, poppy seeds, bitter almonds, or rhubarb? All are known to be poisonous to rats. Chocolate, blue cheese, licorice, poppy seeds, bitter almonds and rhubarb are known to not be poisonous to humans. What we are discussing is things of unknown effects to humans. I have said from the very start that you can't extrapolate. I don't know why you want to do so. I don't. I want to skip the rats, since rat data doesn't necessarily tell us anything. You're the one who keeps extrapolating from rats. You're the one who said if a food was lethal to rats it was probably lethal to humans. I just asked you about some foods that are toxic to rats but non-toxic to humans. It could just as easily be applied to those who stay behind and thus fail the evolution to a spacefaring species. It's not as if it's either go to Mars without a centrifuge or some kind of medical palliative or corrective treatment, or stay forever on Earth. There are many possible ways to become a spacefaring species. Personally, I would be a little surprised if the Martian environment was very harmful to humans. I *think* that a centrifuge on Mars wouldn't be necessary. But it would be nice to know before we go. Yes, it would be NICE to know, but how much time are you going to spend finding out instead of going? How long will it take to fund and build a human-sized variable gravity experiment? An experiment with rats could be done in a few years. There is no need to delay colonisation of Mars to do such an experiment. Unless the experiment does give unfavourable results. If the results are unfavourable, it might be worth it to delay colonisation. So you're willing to extrapolate from rats. You're even willing to just skip the testing entirely. 'Darwin Award' material... -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Colds and a [Mars] colony
Le Nov/20/2016 à 10:20 AM, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/19/2016 at 4:31 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/17/2016 at 11:39 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 11:49 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 12:13 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Before we worry about what pathological microcobes might or might not be found on Mars, I would suggest we focus on getting a gravity lab into LEO ASAP so that we can study the known. We have exactly TWO data points on this subject. 0G == Bad 1G == Good .1G == Unknown (not there long enough) .38G == Unknown All other points between 0G and 1G also *unknown*. Ask the Japanese when they are done with their mouse/centrifuge experiments on ISS. The US CAM module never made it to ISS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centri...dations_Module The centrifuge would have provided controlled acceleration rates (artificial gravity) for experiments and the capability to: * Expose a variety of biological specimens that are less than 24.5 in (0.62 m) tall to artificial gravity levels between 0.01g and 2g. So, it could have held creatures larger than mice, but wouldn't have been able to accomodate human beings from the looks of it. True, but how often are mice, rats, and etc. used for stand-ins for humans in early research? It would have been a start, but NASA didn't complete it and launch it. It wouldn't have been enough of a 'start' to be helpful. If you want to take 50 years to get an answer, starting with mice is the way to go. You still have to build a human test facility. Such experiments with rodents can be very useful. That's why we do them. They aren't enough but they are useful. Imagine we had kept rats at one third g for 30 months. If the outcome had been: 1) The rats have lost bone mass to the point that we can't bring them back to a functional state on Earth. OR 2) The reduced gravity is sufficient to mostly avoid adverse health effects. In either case, we can't extrapolate the results to humans. Exactly. Which is why you don't waste the years and years to test with rodents. You've got to test with humans anyway, so just do it. But after outcome 1), many people would be willing to go to Mars and hope for the best. You would still want to be careful and monitor for health degradation. But the risks seem reasonable. After outcome 2) most people would want to do more experiments before going to Mars. I think you got your outcomes flipped. Yes you are correct on that. But I think you're wrong in any case. I think you'd get about the same number of people willing to go with no testing, unsuccessful rat testing, or successful rat testing. I don't think you see a significant swing until you've got human test results. There will always be some who will try to get a Darwin award. Sorry, but something being bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people, so I think your "Darwin award" comment is a bit off. I know that something bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people. I said above that "we can't extrapolate the results to humans". Yet you said "Darwin Award", as if people could and should do such an extrapolation and those who did not were stupid. But if it is bad for rats it is very likely bad for humans. So you think you CAN extrapolate from rats to humans, even though you've said that you cannot extrapolate from rats to humans. No you can not extrapolate from rats to humans. If it is lethal to rats you can't conclude it is also lethal for humans. But if you have no other evidence, you can say it is likely lethal to humans. The word likely is important here. Uh, you just extrapolated from rats to humans. No I am not extrapolating. I am not saying that you can conclude that if it is lethal to rats then it is lethal to humans. That would be extrapolating. I am saying that if it is lethal to rats it is likely lethal to humans. Those two things aren't the same. But I guess from a guy who doesn't accept definitions from the dictionary when those definitions don't suit his needs I will just have to accept that you won't agree. Alain Fournier |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Colds and a [Mars] colony
Alain Fournier wrote:
Le Nov/20/2016 à 10:20 AM, Fred J. McCall a écrit : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/19/2016 at 4:31 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/17/2016 at 11:39 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 11:49 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/15/2016 at 12:13 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Before we worry about what pathological microcobes might or might not be found on Mars, I would suggest we focus on getting a gravity lab into LEO ASAP so that we can study the known. We have exactly TWO data points on this subject. 0G == Bad 1G == Good .1G == Unknown (not there long enough) .38G == Unknown All other points between 0G and 1G also *unknown*. Ask the Japanese when they are done with their mouse/centrifuge experiments on ISS. The US CAM module never made it to ISS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centri...dations_Module The centrifuge would have provided controlled acceleration rates (artificial gravity) for experiments and the capability to: * Expose a variety of biological specimens that are less than 24.5 in (0.62 m) tall to artificial gravity levels between 0.01g and 2g. So, it could have held creatures larger than mice, but wouldn't have been able to accomodate human beings from the looks of it. True, but how often are mice, rats, and etc. used for stand-ins for humans in early research? It would have been a start, but NASA didn't complete it and launch it. It wouldn't have been enough of a 'start' to be helpful. If you want to take 50 years to get an answer, starting with mice is the way to go. You still have to build a human test facility. Such experiments with rodents can be very useful. That's why we do them. They aren't enough but they are useful. Imagine we had kept rats at one third g for 30 months. If the outcome had been: 1) The rats have lost bone mass to the point that we can't bring them back to a functional state on Earth. OR 2) The reduced gravity is sufficient to mostly avoid adverse health effects. In either case, we can't extrapolate the results to humans. Exactly. Which is why you don't waste the years and years to test with rodents. You've got to test with humans anyway, so just do it. But after outcome 1), many people would be willing to go to Mars and hope for the best. You would still want to be careful and monitor for health degradation. But the risks seem reasonable. After outcome 2) most people would want to do more experiments before going to Mars. I think you got your outcomes flipped. Yes you are correct on that. But I think you're wrong in any case. I think you'd get about the same number of people willing to go with no testing, unsuccessful rat testing, or successful rat testing. I don't think you see a significant swing until you've got human test results. There will always be some who will try to get a Darwin award. Sorry, but something being bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people, so I think your "Darwin award" comment is a bit off. I know that something bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people. I said above that "we can't extrapolate the results to humans". Yet you said "Darwin Award", as if people could and should do such an extrapolation and those who did not were stupid. But if it is bad for rats it is very likely bad for humans. So you think you CAN extrapolate from rats to humans, even though you've said that you cannot extrapolate from rats to humans. No you can not extrapolate from rats to humans. If it is lethal to rats you can't conclude it is also lethal for humans. But if you have no other evidence, you can say it is likely lethal to humans. The word likely is important here. Uh, you just extrapolated from rats to humans. No I am not extrapolating. I am not saying that you can conclude that if it is lethal to rats then it is lethal to humans. That would be extrapolating. I am saying that if it is lethal to rats it is likely lethal to humans. Those two things aren't the same. Perhaps not, but both are extrapolations from rat data to human beings. Do you not know the meaning of 'extrapolation'? But I guess from a guy who doesn't accept definitions from the dictionary when those definitions don't suit his needs I will just have to accept that you won't agree. I guess a guy who doesn't know the difference between a primary definition, a secondary definition, and the same word having multiple definitions (like your example of "circuit") can just go perform anatomically unlikely acts on himself. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Musk's Mars colony a racist plot (says a minority "scientist") | RichA[_6_] | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | April 23rd 15 12:50 AM |
An American Colony on Mars! | Marvin the Martian | Policy | 22 | July 25th 09 01:38 AM |
Every square alright cycles will overall rock the colds. | Rose Spillett-Delles, M.P.S.E | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 13th 07 01:13 PM |
Distance from on man to a colony is very great Moon or Mars | boblpetersen1 | Misc | 13 | November 18th 04 09:27 PM |
Mars Colony hours, minutes, seconds | Fidcal | Astronomy Misc | 1 | February 2nd 04 04:00 PM |