A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » UK Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old March 18th 07, 07:56 AM posted to sci.space.history,rec.org.mensa,sci.physics,uk.sci.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,139
Default Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

We're losing our trusty magnetosphere at the ongoing rate of 0.05%/
year, and that's supposedly not such a big deal, even though ISS/ESS
has to avoid that ever expanding SAA lethal contour at all cost.
-
Brad Guth

  #92  
Old March 19th 07, 01:12 PM posted to sci.space.history,rec.org.mensa,sci.physics,uk.sci.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,139
Default Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars.
Give or take a thousand years, and we're either toast and/or we're
becoming Mars like.

We're deep into achieving our point of no return, of the ongoing GW
thawing process of losing our surface ice caps, while all of that
nifty Mars sequestered ice isn't going anywhere without a good enough
moon for keeping that planetology core and of a surface of interactive
tidal forced environment(s) alive and kicking, as is very much the
case for mother Earth.

Pat Flannery:
"Subject: Very wet Mars?"
As in thirty-plus feet deep water over its entire surface if melted?

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/15marsice/

Mars polar aquafur/aquifer ice is certainly worth our knowing about,
as it represents the grim remainder of what obviously used to be a
geothermally active and only somewhat atmospheric protected planet
before having lost it's essential magnetosphere.

Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt.
All the water upon Earth and within it's wet atmosphere might
represent as much as 9,000'(2.743 km) as covering a smooth orb. Thus
30+'(9.15 m) in depth of covering such a wussy little orb as Mars is
hardly worth a good spit. At that near vacuum, what would the rate of
evaporation be? Would there be any salty remainders?

Perhaps Mars was a mostly a swamp and/or of some other geothermally
forced muck like fresh water planet, whereas otherwise the necessary
quantity of Mars salt simply doesn't seem to coexist, as though it had
been nearly entirely missed upon getting its fair share of salt to
begin with, or perhaps as having subsequently been strip-mined or
somehow otherwise having its salt extracted.

Is there yet an unknown atmospheric process of having extracted salt
from such a cold and dry environment? (I don't think so)

If whatever deposited such massive amounts of rock salt and ocean
volumes of salty water upon Earth (roughly 1.5e19 kg of Na) should
have happened at roughly the same time for the benefit of Mars, as
then perhaps our Mars probes should have been operating fairly deep
within the remainders of such Mars salt, of having at least 1.5e17 kg
of whatever Na to deal with.

Have those salty types of minerals and percentage or PPM worth of
whatever's Martian rock salt been established from those robotic
samples taken and processed thus far?

Is salt too complicated of an element as to detect, much less
quantify?

Are there per chance any signs of Martian diatoms to behold?

Other than going by way of various observational derived speculations,
as to our having interpreted upon what sort of looks as though it's of
a Mars salt like substance, it seems as though our very own reactive
moon with its argon and sodium atmosphere has offered more solids of
salt to behold than Mars. What gives?

As I've said before, there's little argument from myself that Mars
once upon a geothermally forced time had surface water, and that it
still does have a wee bit of local or deposited salt, though as of
thus far it's simply not indicating as having near enough (Na) volume
or bulk as to hardly matter, especially if such salt(s) had been once
upon a time made wet enough as for sustaining other significant life
(meaning intelligent, as to being of something more worthy than mere
microbes and/or diatom like spores).

If Mars once offered as little as 1% the surface volumes of water as
Earth, whereas such there should have been those remainders of its
global salt (say at least 1% of our 1.5e19 kg = 1.5e17 kg), and
thereby even that scant 1% worth of our terrestrial salt is what
actually represents quite a great deal of salt to have kept hidden on
Mars.

What I'm otherwise driving at, is simply pondering the research based
notions, that Mars is much older than Earth, and that Earth is much
older than Venus, and that our somewhat recent moon (as having arrived
since the last ice age) that's so much bigger and nearby than most
seems a whole lot more salty than Mars, almost as though this solar
system was assembled over a great period of time, as we've been
dragged along by the likes of the Sirius star/solar system, and of
likely having received a few items from its vast Oort cloud of icy
moons and planet sized debris.

At least our somewhat salty moon, as being so massive and nearby, is
what's more than making up for the ongoing loss of Earth's core energy
that's supposedly somewhere in the range of shedding 78 mw/m2, whereas
our moon's gravity of tidal forced influence has been so much so
helping that it has become by far our primary GW consideration like
none other. Obviously adding our global dimming soot into the ongoing
GW demise of our frail environment that's also losing its portective
magnetosphere at the daunting rate of -.05%/year isn't exactly
helping, at least not any more so than our artificial methods of
having been evaporating water that's only adding to our atmospheric
cache of having to hold said water vapor, which currently ranges
anywhere from 13e12 tonnes to as much as 150e12 tonnes, depending
entirely upon whichever hocus-pocus or conditional physics driven
science you'd care to take to the bank.

It's as though we don't hardly know of or much less appreciate our
very own Earth, yet having spent countless billions upon billions,
while having essentially invested decades of our very best talents and
resources upon going after whatever's further away than Venus seems
almost sadistic, if not insane.
-
Brad Guth

  #93  
Old March 19th 07, 07:38 PM posted to sci.space.history,rec.org.mensa,sci.physics,uk.sci.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,139
Default Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

Instead of these all-knowing folks telling us their same old
mainstream infomercial crapolla, such as informing us as to how
supposedly wet Mars had once been, tell us what we don't know about
our highly unusual moon, about Venus, or about the Sirius star/solar
system that might relate to those pesky ice ages and otherwise of our
ongoing GW fiasco, that sees no apparent end in sight as long as we
keep holding onto that nasty moon of ours.

Here's another slightly corrected/polished contribution, as intended
for those that see no problems whatsoever with their excessively
spending most all of our hard earned loot on their off-world hobby,
that which seems to include their continued snookering of all the rest
of us village idiots.

(it's no wonder these silly Usenet clowns see nothing the least bit
wrong with our resident warlord's actions, as well as accepting upon
whatever our government has done in the past or plans upon doing in
the near future is all perfectly OK, as long as they get to do their
thing at the same expense and/or demise of others)

How about instead of our wasting such supposed talents, draining our
best resources and having mostly lost precious time, why not instead
they should be talking to us about our somewhat salty old moon that's
not of Earth, telling us when that big old icy sucker arrived and of
how we subsequently obtained our seasonal tilt. If they're so gosh
darn smart, as such they can start off by telling us of whatever it's
going to take for relocating our moon, such as out to Earth's L1, so
that a significant and/or perhaps do-everything lid can once and for
all be placed upon our GW fiasco, that's going to need all the help it
can get.

Unfortunately, our "Taboo/Nondisclosure Moon" actually doesn't hold
much of a candle to the fire that's continually burning up all of
those hard earned billions upon billions of dollars, as for getting
badly spent on behalf of Mars, or of worse yet upon whatever it's
taking for going far beyond.

In spite of all that blown loot and lost time on behalf of whatever
life might have once upon a time existed on Mars, that at best sucks
real bad, and/or is of life that's going to remain as damn spendy to
boot, if not a touch lethal to our environment. If Mars life was ever
into kicking any serious butt, it's having done such without benefit
of having all that much salt, as well as having gone without a
magnetosphere or a worthy moon to boot. Titan and possibly Ceres, or
even Sedna with it's reddish ice offers more life worthy butt kicking
potential than Mars, and we obviously can't humanly go to/from either
of those places, much less return with anything worthy of humanity or
that of salvaging our badly failing environment.

An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars.
Give or take another iffy thousand years, and we're either toast and/
or we're soon enough on the road to becoming Mars like.

We're rather deep into achieving our point of no return, of the
ongoing GW thawing process of losing our surface ice caps, while most
all of that nifty Mars sequestered ice isn't going anywhere without a
good enough moon for keeping that planetology core and whatever
surface of interactive tidal forced environment(s) alive and kicking,
as is very much the case for mother Earth.

Pat Flannery:
"Subject: Very wet Mars?"
As in thirty-plus feet deep water over its entire surface if melted?

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/15marsice/

Mars polar aquafur/aquifer ice is certainly worth our knowing about,
as it represents the grim remainder of what obviously used to be a
geothermally active and only somewhat atmospheric protected planet,
that is before having lost it's essential magnetosphere.

Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt.
All the water upon Earth and within it's wet atmosphere might
represent as much as 9,000'(2.743 km) as covering a smooth orb. Thus
30+'(9.15 m) in depth of covering such a wussy little orb as Mars is
hardly worth a good spit.

At that near vacuum, what would the rate of evaporation be?
After the great thaw, would there be any salty remainders?

Perhaps Mars was a mostly a cool swamp and/or of some other
geothermally forced muck like fresh water planet, whereas otherwise
the necessary quantity of Mars salt simply doesn't seem to coexist, as
though it had been nearly if not entirely missed upon getting its fair
share of salt to begin with, or perhaps as having subsequently been
strip-mined or somehow otherwise having its salt extracted.

Is there yet an unknown atmospheric process of having extracted salt
from such a cold and dry environment? (I don't think so)

If whatever deposited such massive amounts of rock salt and ocean
volumes of salty water upon Earth (roughly 1.5e19 kg of Na) should
have happened at roughly the same time for the benefit of Mars, as
then perhaps our Mars probes should have been operating fairly deep
within the remainders of such Mars salt, of their having at least
1.5e17 kg of whatever Na to deal with.

Have those salty types of minerals and of their percentage or PPM
worth of whatever's Martian rock salt been established from those
robotic samples taken and processed thus far?

Is salt too complicated of an element as to detect, much less
quantify?

Are there per chance any signs of Martian diatoms to behold?

Other than going by way of various observational derived speculations,
as to our having interpreted upon what sort of looks as though it's of
a Mars salt like substance, it seems as though our very own reactive
moon with its argon and sodium atmosphere has offered more solids of
salt to behold than Mars. What gives?

As I've said before, there's little argument from myself that Mars
once upon a geothermally forced time had surface water, and that it
still does have a wee bit of local or deposited salt, though as of
thus far it's simply not indicating as having near enough (Na) volume
or bulk as to hardly matter, especially if such salt(s) had been once
upon a time made wet enough as for sustaining other significant life
(meaning intelligent, as to being of something more worthy than mere
microbes and/or diatom like spores).

If Mars once offered as little as 1% the surface volumes of water as
Earth, whereas such there should have been those remainders of its
global salt (say at least 1% of our 1.5e19 kg = 1.5e17 kg), and
thereby even that scant 1% worth of our terrestrial salt is what
actually represents quite a great deal of salt to have kept hidden on
Mars.

What I'm otherwise driving at, is simply pondering the research based
notions, that Mars is much older than Earth, and that Earth is much
older than Venus, and that our somewhat recent moon (as having arrived
since the last ice age) that's so much bigger and nearby than most
seems a whole lot more salty than Mars, almost as though this solar
system was assembled over a great period of time, as we've been
dragged along by the likes of the Sirius star/solar system, and of
likely having received a few items from its vast Oort cloud of icy
moons and planet sized debris.

At least our somewhat salty moon, as being so massive and nearby, is
what's more than making up for the ongoing loss of Earth's core
thermal energy, that's supposedly somewhere in the range of shedding
78 mw/m2, whereas our moon's gravity of tidal forced influence has
been so much so helping that it has become by far our primary GW
consideration like none other. Obviously adding our global dimming
soot into the ongoing GW demise of our frail environment that's also
losing its protective magnetosphere at the daunting rate of -.05%/year
isn't exactly helping, at least not any more so than our artificial
methods of having been evaporating water that's only adding to our
atmospheric cache of having to hold said water vapor, which currently
ranges anywhere from 13e12 tonnes to as much as 150e12 tonnes,
depending entirely upon whichever hocus-pocus or conditional physics
driven science you'd care to take to the bank.

It's as though we don't hardly know of or much less appreciate our
very own Earth, yet having spent countless billions upon billions,
while having essentially invested decades of our very best talents and
resources upon going after whatever's further away than Venus seems
almost sadistic, if not insane.

We can't even honestly accomplish our moon's L1, much less the moon
itself, yet a fuzzy if not hocus-pocus future of spending more than a
trillion per decade seems likely without hardly a dollar going towards
resolving our need of accomplishing a substantial cache of solar and
wind derived renewable energy, much less for extracting from the
energy that's existing between Earth and our moon.

Doing Venus isn't 1% the cost of accomplishing the same task for
Mars. At least you can efficiently go about your business (if need be
all 19 months worth of it) as safely within that composite rigid
airship, transporting yourself safely above the geothermally toasty
surface of Venus, without hardly expending energy or having to ever
set a hot foot on that deck.
-
Brad Guth

  #94  
Old March 29th 07, 06:31 PM posted to sci.space.history,rec.org.mensa,sci.physics,uk.sci.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,139
Default Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

Wow! would you folks take a look at all the Usenet retractions.
Downright impressive, isn't it, to see all of these mainstream rats
jumping off their own good ship LOLLIPOP.

The moon will never again smack into Earth, that is unless something
Sedna like manages to hit just exactly right, and the odds of that
ever happening are as they say astronomical. If anything, we're
losing our grip upon our salty moon, that's still in the process of
losing mass. Unfortunately, we'll have lost our protective
magnetosphere long before having entirely lost the warm and fuzzy
tidal benefits of our moon.

This following was a reply to a perfectly nifty contribution via
"rick_sobie".
rick_sobie:
There was no moon, or surely, they would have drawn it,
in some cave, at least once. Somewhere you would think.


We seem to have obtained those 10,000 BC and of much older images in
the realm of 15,000 BC, if not a bit older, of such intelligent
produced records sharing perfectly valid indications by way of such
old art as having depicted our environment illuminated by the sun,
though as always w/o moon. The moon became a part of human culture as
of something more recent than 10,000 BC, as did those indications of
folks having to migrate due to the seasonal changes which didn't seem
to be the case before noticing that we had such a moon and those nofty
tides to deal with.

I think the moon for what it really is, might have been depicted
by the short funny people of South America.

http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica146.jpg
http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica147.jpg
I tend to agree. So what's the approximate age of the "Labyrinthina"
moon?

Noah's most recent flood of perhaps 2250 ~ 2350 BC is yet another
indication of Earth having been impacted, and most likely getting our
environment further deposited with additional ice, that which most
likely got here by way of our icy proto-moon, that's also remaining
nearby as a somewhat unusually salty orb. However, besides the
ongoing thaw from the last ice age Earth will ever see, whereas the
original flood(s) of 5,000 ~ 5600 BC or perhaps the initial big one of
9600 BC is what could easily have been derived from the initial impact
by such as an icy proto-moon, as well as for that event having
established Earth's seasonal tilt. By all rights there would have
been multiple secondary shards of that salty ice raining down upon
Earth, whereas from time to time as those massive spacebergs of salty
moon ice having returned via their associated orbital path, returning
to the approximate origin of that initial lunar impact being Earth and
naturally of their own origin being the moon itself. (I'm thinking
Arctic ocean basin forming, as such being one of the more likely
points of initial contact, and in any event it most likely wasn't a
one time icy encounter, meaning there should have been multiple floods
over an extended period of time, not to mention a few antipode events)

Earth's reformation via multiple impacts and of those unavoidable
antipode related events is every bit as real of planetology formation
as it gets. Those massive yet unusually shallow craters upon our moon
(due to that surface having been protected by a thick layer of ice) is
proof positive that such horrific sorts of cosmic or local solar
system encounters did in fact happen. However, mention the Bible and
all of hell breaks lose within most any scientific realm, especially
by way of those pretending at being Old Testament thumpers that claim
to know all there is to know, but only if it's in a very Jewish way.

Here's yet another best effort research paper via "trustbible", that's
worth our considering, as to having shared this alternative view that
happens to include notions of getting Mars involved, of which at best
is only remotely possible. I still don't entirely agree with that
notion of Mars, especially since it's well enough understood that Mars
hasn't even its fair share of salt, although our moon is in fact
somewhat salty and otherwise downright weird about having such an
unusual geology of formation that's clearly not being allowed as
honestly understood, at least not to nearly the extent of what we're
learning about Mars that was apparently a mostly fresh water little
planetology environment before having lost its protective
magnetosphere.
http://www.trustbible.com/noah.htm
I'm not saying the Bible is as trustworthy as we'd like it to be,
however it's certainly next to the best available record of actual
events that took place, along with loads of faith-based
embellishments, with obviously some subjective analogy applications on
behalf of those interpretations, by having improved upon whatever
others likely wanted to believe, because it gave further meaning or
greater importance as to their existence (unfortunately, that's still
the infomercial forced norm as of today, including as to how our
government typically gets whatever published into textbooks, pretty
much as they'd like to stick, as representing their one and only
record of what's not exactly or even remotely accurate as to what
actually happened, or much less honest as to why such things happened)
-
Brad Guth

  #95  
Old May 1st 07, 03:50 AM posted to sci.space.history,rec.org.mensa,sci.physics,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

It's supposedly taking the equivalent of 2e20 joules, or roughly
7.2e21 KW worth of gravity force(Fg), for the task of mutually holding
onto our moon, or vise versa.

How much of that energy is getting transferred into Earth? ( 3.6e21
KW ?)

How about 0.0001% = 3.6e15 KW (that's only 7.04 KW/m2, or 3.322e-3 W/
m3 [excluding our atmosphere])
-
Brad Guth


  #96  
Old May 1st 07, 07:44 PM posted to sci.space.history,rec.org.mensa,sci.physics,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

The perfectly good analogy of "G=EMC^2 Glazier", as to contemplating
the "What if (on White Dwarfs)" of a given 4X or 5X solar mass going
postal, such as from that original Sirius B kicking out a few assorted
Oort cloud items while going red-giant, as such isn't all that
unlikely. In fact, it seems as though entirely more common place and
therefore more likely than not, especially interesting as our Sol gets
within better range of using our somewhat wussy gravity to further
attract upon whatever's headed our way.

The Milky Way's 225MY cycle is what also indicates lots of those more
frequent local stellar cycles (such as Sirius), thus not all of our
stellar surroundings remain forever in redshift.

The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood, by Nordström
et al., as having been further improved by Hipparcos data:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?optio... d=42&lang=en

Of whatever accumulates as cosmic ice surviving in interstellar space,
especially as for eventually cruising anywhere near 1AU of a Sol like
star, as such requires a fairly substantial volume and/or gravity
worthy core of a cool enough rock (perhaps not unlike 7.35e22 kg), and
otherwise hosting some degree of a protective atmosphere, even if such
an atmosphere is primarily sustained via those icy vapors.

I've asked of others; What is the "R" value of ice as insulation?
Eric Swanson:
Thermal Conductivity, Ice at 0 C = 2.22 (W/m K)

Data for other temperatures found he
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ic...ies-d_576.html


Thermal Conductivity of -0°C ice = 2.22 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K = 0.45)
Thermal Conductivity of -5°C ice = 2.25 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K = 0.444)
Thermal Conductivity of -10°C ice = 2.3 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K = 0.435)
Thermal Conductivity of -30°C ice = 2.5 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K = 0.4)

In a few other honestly deductive words of my best dyslexic encrypted
wisdom, whereas an ejected icy covered (Sedna like) proto-moon is
entirely livable if you are adequately sequestered within/under such a
protective layer of ice, especially nifty on behalf of sufficiently
intelligent folks, plus capable of hosting all sorts of other DNA
that'll survive such an extended interstellar trek, such as getting
safely away from that white dwarf of a star that used to be of a 4X or
greater solar mass to begin with.

Just 100 meters of -30°C ice is good for insulating: 250 W/K
1 km of that same -30°C ice is good for insulating: 2.5 KW/K
100 km of -30°C ice becomes worthy of insulating at 250 KW/K

Obviously the thermal conduction of such ice is somewhat less (better
insulating) as for what's existing directly upon or near the rocky
surface (R/m/K = 0.45), as is otherwise the more thermally conductive
ice and snow that's likely capable of becoming something near 45 K
(-228°C) at the upper most surface of being exposed to the very worse
of whatever such a local interstellar trek would likely amount to a
heat transfer of 5.34 W/mK, with otherwise an average interstellar
medium that's worthy of perhaps something less than 98 K (-175°C)
losing 4.57 W/mK.

Unfortunately, I'm still that village idiot or pesky messenger from
hell that's suggesting our icy proto-moon as having arrived in a
lithobraking and Earth seasonal tilting fashion, though only as of the
last ice age this planet will ever see, while packing along as much as
262 km worth of surface ice and/or as having collected such volumes of
compacted salty Oort snow on deck, much of which becoming those extra
volumes of salty oceans and ice deposited upon Earth.

Perhaps you folks can manage to further add or subtract your best
swag, as to expanding upon the what-if of this icy DNA transport
analogy that's pretty much all Guth going yaysay postal, as to my
limited mindset favoring a good deal of panspermia influx, up to that
of accomplishing a full blown intelligent design effort that obviously
hasn't turned out quite as well as originally planned, unless absolute
hell on Earth was their intended outcome.
-
Brad Guth

  #97  
Old May 1st 07, 07:47 PM posted to sci.space.history,rec.org.mensa,sci.physics,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

How much global warming(GW) is our moon good for?

It's supposedly taking the equivalent of 2e20 joules, or roughly the
equal of 7.2e21 KW worth of gravity force(Fg), as representing the
equivalent in centripetal force(Fc) of mutually holding onto our moon,
or vise versa.

How much of that energy is getting transferred into Earth? ( 3.6e21
KW ?)

How about allowing 0.0001% = 3.6e15 KW (that's only 7.04 KW/m2, or
rather 3.322e-3 W/m3 [excluding our atmosphere], or perhaps as little
a 3.25 mw/m3 including the volume of our wet atmosphere)

Gravity is a real measured force, and the associated energy of that
force is clearly going somewhere other than into thin air (sort of
speak). Much of earth's surface and especially of its interior is not
a solid, and such stuff (including our polluted and wet atmosphere) is
affected by and thus moved along by gravity, unavoidably causing
friction. Earth's moon is considerably more than a thousand fold of
greater mass per ratio of it's planet than any other moon within our
solar system, with the exception of those little binary icy planets or
the likes of Oort cloud debris that simply arnt all that robust to
start with, and our moon is certainly close and fast moving enough to
having a significant tidal impact (inside and out) upon our
environment.

moon (IR)radiance w/m2 = ?
Like a mirror that's better at reflecting IR photons (better than
Earth's albedo that's contributing an IR planetshine worth of 266 w/
m2, whereas that naked and physically dark moon unavoidably creating
those secondary/recoil worth of FIR photons is why there's a fairly
substantial IR/FIR influx that's measurably good for having
contributed a little something of extra energy influx to our GW
situation. (too bad we still haven't established a moon L1 science
platform for actively telling us this essential information)

In the past I've asked the question; are we being global warmed to
death by our moon?

In more ways than not, I believe the regular laws of physics and of
the best available science has been telling us the truth, that in fact
we are being warmed to death by our moon that has only been with us
since the last ice age this planet will ever see.

Too bad we're not ever going to get smart enough for relocating that
nasty moon of ours out to Earth's L1.
-
Brad Guth

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Space Calendar - May 24, 2006 [email protected] History 0 May 24th 06 04:12 PM
Space Calendar - March 23, 2006 [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 March 23rd 06 05:18 PM
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 [email protected] History 0 January 28th 06 01:42 AM
Space Calendar - October 27, 2005 [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 October 27th 05 05:02 PM
Space Calendar - February 25, 2005 [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 February 25th 05 05:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.