A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Manned Mars Mission



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 26th 13, 04:20 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Robert Clark[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Manned Mars Mission

"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
....
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/602/1



Some good stuff in there. I'll note they make a decent case for why ISRU
for the Moon is probably pointless, and developing that technology does
you no good on Mars.

Having an atmosphere on Mars, even the one it has, makes a HUGE
difference.




Since that article was written, the evidence for near polar ice on the Moon
has gotten stronger. Also some of these sites are near locations of near
continual solar illumination so stations there could be powered by solar
power.
The advantage of getting the propellant from the Moon is that you could
have nearly unlimited amount of propellant available for the mission, which
is not the case if that huge amount of propellant had to be launched from
Earth's deep gravity well.


Bob Clark

  #2  
Old July 26th 13, 04:59 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Manned Mars Mission

In article ,
says...

"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
...
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/602/1

Some good stuff in there. I'll note they make a decent case for why ISRU
for the Moon is probably pointless, and developing that technology does
you no good on Mars.

Having an atmosphere on Mars, even the one it has, makes a HUGE
difference.


Since that article was written, the evidence for near polar ice on the Moon
has gotten stronger. Also some of these sites are near locations of near
continual solar illumination so stations there could be powered by solar
power.
The advantage of getting the propellant from the Moon is that you could
have nearly unlimited amount of propellant available for the mission, which
is not the case if that huge amount of propellant had to be launched from
Earth's deep gravity well.


At least in the short term, the water ice on the Moon isn't free for the
taking. The ice has to be mined, processed into LOX and LH2, and
delivered to a suitable assembly point (e.g. an earth/moon Lagrange
point) in order to take advantage of this "nearly unlimited amount of
propellant". That's going to take quite an investment in reusable space
transportation infrastructure.

Developing a LEO based LOX/LH2 fuel depot would seem to be a logical
first step. A logical second step would be another depot at a more
suitable deep space assembly/launch point (again, likely an earth/moon
Lagrange point). Next would be a reusable lunar lander. After all
that, you can finally focus on developing a polar lunar water mining and
processing facility.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #3  
Old July 28th 13, 06:13 AM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Inva Lid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Manned Mars Mission


"Robert Clark" wrote in message
...
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
...
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/602/1



Some good stuff in there. I'll note they make a decent case for why ISRU
for the Moon is probably pointless, and developing that technology does
you no good on Mars.

Having an atmosphere on Mars, even the one it has, makes a HUGE
difference.




Since that article was written, the evidence for near polar ice on the
Moon has gotten stronger. Also some of these sites are near locations of
near continual solar illumination so stations there could be powered by
solar power.
The advantage of getting the propellant from the Moon is that you could
have nearly unlimited amount of propellant available for the mission,
which is not the case if that huge amount of propellant had to be launched
from Earth's deep gravity well.


Bob Clark


better check out the orbital techniques getting from the moon to mars, it is
not easy

also any man going to mars will be blind by the time he comes back
(radiation)

there is no reason MAN has to go to mars, all can be done by robots, and Man
has to carry everything, all water, all medical, all poop paper, all
clothes,
(remember you cant wash clothes in outer space) all oxygen, all nitrogen,
all food (how many cubic feet of food does it take for 1 man? for 3 years?
how long will a 55 gallon drum of peanut oil last one man ?
How many girls are going ?


  #4  
Old July 28th 13, 01:08 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Manned Mars Mission

we arent ready to send humans to mars. we dont have the bucks, we dont have the boosters to cut the travel time to a reasonable length, we have zero experience in deep space manned flights......

so get tons of bucks, build a nuke booster, visit some asteroids to get some real deep space experience, send lots of mars rovers to build the habitat for the first
manned mars mission. explore mars with unmanned vehicles.....

or send astronauts on some half baked attempt and know in advance the crew wll likely die from lack of planning.........

while people ponder this you might as well figure out how to fix congress, because our country is on the brink of collapse from a ineffective congresss thats too busy politicking to do the peoples business.
  #5  
Old July 29th 13, 01:24 AM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Manned Mars Mission



"Robert Clark" wrote in message ...
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
...
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/602/1



Some good stuff in there. I'll note they make a decent case for why ISRU
for the Moon is probably pointless, and developing that technology does
you no good on Mars.

Having an atmosphere on Mars, even the one it has, makes a HUGE
difference.




Since that article was written, the evidence for near polar ice on the
Moon has gotten stronger. Also some of these sites are near locations of
near continual solar illumination so stations there could be powered by
solar power.
The advantage of getting the propellant from the Moon is that you could
have nearly unlimited amount of propellant available for the mission,
which is not the case if that huge amount of propellant had to be launched
from Earth's deep gravity well.


Other than the fact that you have to lift all the infrastructure from Earth
to the Moon in the first place to harvest that ice.

For the foreseeable, I'm willing to bet Earth based fuel and oxidizer will
be far cheaper than getting it from the Moon.


Bob Clark


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #6  
Old August 2nd 13, 09:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 481
Default Manned Mars Mission

On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:20:55 AM UTC-4, Robert Clark wrote:
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message

...

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/602/1








Some good stuff in there. I'll note they make a decent case for why ISRU


for the Moon is probably pointless, and developing that technology does


you no good on Mars.




Having an atmosphere on Mars, even the one it has, makes a HUGE


difference.










Since that article was written, the evidence for near polar ice on the Moon

has gotten stronger. Also some of these sites are near locations of near

continual solar illumination so stations there could be powered by solar

power.

The advantage of getting the propellant from the Moon is that you could

have nearly unlimited amount of propellant available for the mission, which

is not the case if that huge amount of propellant had to be launched from

Earth's deep gravity well.





Bob Clark


Dr. Mark Roth has developed suspended animation for trauma treatment. This process is easily adapted for other uses, such as space colonization.

The US military revealed following Fukishima in 2011 that it had an effective anti-radiation drug, Ex-Rad that would make people impervious to radiation encountered in interplanetary space.

Ice has been detected below the surface of Mars. Snow has been filmed on Mars. Water is present there and easily retrieved.

These two innovations, with a few others, make Mars immediately colonized, particularly if no effort is made to return the volunteers who are sent to Mars.

So, consider a Proton rocket with a Briz-M upper stage that carries 5,000 kg on an interplanetary trajectory. The fairing for this upper stage consists of a 4.35 m diameter and 3.30 m long cylinder topped by a 4.35 m diameter cone that's 6.10 m tall.

An astronaut in a long-duration mechanical counter-pressure space suit with an ablative thermal protection parachuting down after performing a re-entry from a trans-Mars journey is what we send.

Astronaut: 85 kg
3D printed highly parallel life support: 2 kg
ILC Dover Mechanical Counter Pressure suit: 12 kg
Jalbert Parafoil: 16 kg* (configured for Mars operation)

Total 115 kg

This is your payload, plus consumables.

In a controlled atmosphere about 1 kg of CO2 must be scrubbed out of the air each day. Apollo used lithium hydroxide to absorb CO2. You may recall that adapting CM scrubbers to LEM fans was a challenge during the rescue of Apollo 13.

2 LiOH(s) + CO2(g) → Li2CO3(s) + H2O(g)
48 44 74 18
1.09091 1.00000 1.68182 0.40909

The ISS uses a reverse Sabatier process using hydrogen to absorb CO2 to produce water and methane.

CO2 + 4 H2 -- CH4 + 2 H2O
44 8 16 36
1.00000 0.18182 0.36364 0.81818

The hydrogen scrubber removes 6x the CO2 for a given amount of material than the Lithium Hydroxide based scrubber. Hydrogen scrubber also produces twice as much water per kilogram of CO2 scrubbed. The methane gas may also be evaporated to reject heat into the vacuum of space.

Since using hydrogen and oxygen as propellant gives the needed consumables let's look at hydrogen as the scrubber of choice.

It takes half a day to launch, do Mars injection, and do a final check out before entering suspended animation. It takes another half a day prior to planet fall to awaken, prepare and prepare for entry. It takes a week to recover supplies and develop a water source. This is eight days. Adding four days for handling emergencies, this is a total of 12 days of supplies.

This translates to 2.18184 kg of hydrogen to absorb 12.00000 kg of CO2 and produce 9.81818 liters of water and 4.36364 kg of methane gas which is liquified and evaporated to reject heat from the spacesuit.

The mass breakdown of other metabolic parameters is as follows: 0.84 kg of oxygen, 0.62 kg of food, and 3.52 kg of water consumed, converted through the body's physiological processes to 0.11 kg of solid wastes, 3.87 kg of liquid wastes, and 1.00 kg of carbon dioxide produced.

So over 12 days this translates to 10.08 kg of oxygen, 7.44 kg of food and 42.24 liters of water. Subtracting out the 9.82 liters of water obtains 32..42 liters created by reacting 3.60 kg of hydrogen with 28.82 kg of oxygen in a fuel cell at a steady rate producing 320 Watts of electrical power along with 172 Watts of heat over the 12 day period.

Hydrogen for CO2 scrub: 2.20 kg
Hydrogen for Fuel Cell: 3.60 kg
Oxygen for Fuel Cell: 28.82 kg
Oxygen for Breathing: 10.08 kg
Food: 7.44 kg
Other consumables: 2.86 kg

Sub-Total: 55.00 kg

Astronaut & Suit: 115 kg

Total: 170.00 kg

Once a water supply is found it will take 90 days to deploy an aeroponic farm and raise and process a crop, along with animals (also brought along in suspended animation). Stored food must be brought along for this period. This is an additional 74.4 kg of food and 28.6 kg of other consumables.

Freeze dried food (120 days): 74.4 kg
Other consumables (120 days): 28.6 kg

Sub-total: 103.00 kg

Running total: 273 kg

A dozen people in lightweight vacuum molded cylindrical canisters each 1 meter in diameter and 2.1 meters long, are positioned in three layers of four canisters. Two are end to end across the diameter of the fairing, one is on either side of this pair. Each of these is 22 kg in weight. A total of 264 kg.

Adding 22 kg to 273 bring the total to 295 kg per astronaut. A dozen astronauts total 3,540 kg. The balance of supplies and tools landed on Mars in a separate module totals 1,460 kg.

So, the astronauts are launched toward Mars aboard the Proton. They take Ex-Rad just prior to launch. When on orbit they check out their equipment in flight, which includes a group space walk around the carrier craft. Any difficulties causes the astronaut to deorbit and return to Earth to try again. Once check out is complete, they return to their carrier craft. Once injected into a trans-Mars orbit, the astronauts then inhale Dr. Roth's special mixture of gases which suspends their oxygen consumption, and they are kept in suspended animation by their spacesuit cooling down to near freezing for the duration of the trip. They are automatically warmed and awakened prior to planet fall, and undergo another group space walk with exercises to come to full alertness, before planet fall. Each astronaut enters the atmosphere separately and dives down to the recovery point behind the supply ship and carrier. Each deploys a parasail designed to operate in the Martian atmosphere (which is similar to 80,000 ft on Earth). Each carries their own supplies of food and water for the 12 day and 120 day period facing them.

Anyone with medical or mechanical difficulties has the resources to re-enter stasis until the resources are available to restore them to operation. The conditions on Mars are such that long-term hibernation is possible with minimal equipment.

The large parafoil is reconfigured as shelter for the astronauts, for the animals, and for the crops. A total of 2,000 sq m is in this way converted to crop area, sufficient to feed and clothe a dozen people.

The 12 people require;

Hydrogen for CO2 scrub: 2.20 kg (producing CH4 and water)
Hydrogen for Fuel Cell: 3.60 kg (producing water)
Oxygen for Fuel Cell: 28.82 kg (producing water)
Oxygen for Breathing: 10.08 kg (producing water vapor & CO2)

in every 24 hour period.

An array of lightweight inflatable concentrators that mass 243.4 kg and occupy 320 sq m of collector area. When deployed on Mars inflatable thin film optics focus sunlight on Mars to a sulfur iodine target that reduces water to hydrogen and oxygen with 65% efficiency. Each 320 sq m is capable of reducing 137.4 liters of water to 122.1 kg of oxygen and 15.3 kg of hydrogen.. A total of 5.8 kg of hydrogen and 38.9 kg of oxygen are used by the astronauts. The balance is used to supply animals and crop area.

A 15 kW fuel cell setup, equipped to make use of the 5 kW of waste heat, makes this extra water, along with additional melt water. This masses 311 kg..

12 chickens: 52.8 kg
Feed (120 days): 27.2 kg

Sub-total: 80.0 kg

4 goats: 440.0 kg
Feed (120 days): 160.0 kg

Sub-total: 600.0 kg

1,460 kg mass budget - 991 kg (Power/Farm animals) = 469 kg balance

There are other tools and seeds. The most important is the processing of CO2 to CH4. Since there is a lot of CO2 and H2O on Mars, along with sunlight, we are not limited by the scrubbing operation for the farm animals and astronauts. Initially 10 kg per day of CH4 is produced. This is further processed by chemical processing equipment to form acetylene which is then used to create any variety of plastics including conductive and semiconductive plastics. A self-replicating 3D printer capable of printing all its parts (including controls) is capable of making 80 square meters per day of tough transparent air tight material that is assembled into additional housing, farming, and crop areas. As additional machinery is created the rate of production increases. Even so, at 10 kg and 80 square meters per day, enough crop area for another person may be added every two days. The requirement for other components increases the time to a new person every two weeks.

Feeding in a spacesuit has been worked out by NASA in the early 1960s. Rejecting the liquid and solid wastes were worked out also by Paul Webb again in the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit

A Proton-M launch vehicle equipped with a hydrogen fueled Бриз-М (Briz-M) upper stage can place 5,000 kg on a lunar trajectory launched from Russia.

http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/russia/launch/proton.htm

So, the Proton costs $85 million per launch - from ILS.

The suit and related hardware $11 million to build each copy, with five ordered, plus $55 million non-recurring charge - ILC Dover

The Mars Module $125 million to build each copy, with five ordered and $625 million non-recurring engineering - from Kruchnikev

5 Proton Launches: $ 425 million
5 Mars Module: $1,250 million
35 suits & PLSS: $ 110 million

TOTAL: $1,785 million

$1,785 / 60 = $29.75 million per person.

Marketing, Training and Management: $10.50 million per person.

TOTAL COST PER PERSON: $40.25 million

It would be cool if we could send all sixty in a single shot during synodic alignment launching five Protons in quick succession.

To get a spot as one of the sixty buyers must put $40.25 million in escrow. This money is held until all sixty spots have been sold. Then a release of $1,000,000 per month from each account to the project company for six months until the second milestone is achieved. And so on every six months until the service is delivered to each client.

Buyers are free to trade their spots with others by operating through the project company. As the launch date approaches, prices may be expected to rise, and until custom suits are created and training is successfully completed, there is no objection to trading. However any rise in price is split evenly between buyer and provider. Buyer's are responsible for the entire base price through their escrow account.

All buyers must agree to bear all risks associated with the project and release the project company from the same. All hardware work in process, and know-how is retained by the project company.

Buyers may nominate others to travel for them and arrange to share in any benefits. The project company is necessarily a party to these arrangements and will incur a fee based on the arrangements and how they must be managed..

I am more than happy to accept deposits today for 2019 delivery of five Mars one way flights involving sixty adult buyers and their nominees.

Cheers
William Mook
  #7  
Old August 2nd 13, 12:52 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Martha Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 371
Default Manned Mars Mission

On 7/28/2013 1:13 AM, Inva Lid wrote:
"Robert Clark" wrote in message
...
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
...
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/602/1



Some good stuff in there. I'll note they make a decent case for why ISRU
for the Moon is probably pointless, and developing that technology does
you no good on Mars.

Having an atmosphere on Mars, even the one it has, makes a HUGE
difference.




Since that article was written, the evidence for near polar ice on the
Moon has gotten stronger. Also some of these sites are near locations of
near continual solar illumination so stations there could be powered by
solar power.
The advantage of getting the propellant from the Moon is that you could
have nearly unlimited amount of propellant available for the mission,
which is not the case if that huge amount of propellant had to be launched
from Earth's deep gravity well.


Bob Clark


better check out the orbital techniques getting from the moon to mars, it is
not easy

also any man going to mars will be blind by the time he comes back
(radiation)

there is no reason MAN has to go to mars, all can be done by robots, and Man
has to carry everything, all water, all medical, all poop paper, all
clothes,
(remember you cant wash clothes in outer space) all oxygen, all nitrogen,
all food (how many cubic feet of food does it take for 1 man? for 3 years?
how long will a 55 gallon drum of peanut oil last one man ?
How many girls are going ?


=================================================

Hi, Bob. You say,

also any man going to mars will be blind by the time he comes back
(radiation)


How does this happen? Where is it documented?

But I particularly notice your observation,

there is no reason MAN has to go to mars, all can be done by robots,

and Man
has to carry everything, all water, all medical, all poop paper, all
clothes,


which I think reflects thinking that is much too narrow and limited.
Because, if our actions don't respond to reality, they fail to achieve
long term effect. (Look at Washington!) And the well established
reality is our human existence here on Terra is certainly subject to
risks ranging from religious cranks who can access today's technology,
to improbable astronomical events like a strange quark planet killer.
Yes, some of those risks are vanishingly small, but they are *non zero*
and there are a lot of them. Thus we cannot set a number to sum up
those risks, but *they exist* and if we are rational, then we do
something about it.

Of which the only option we have, is let's extend our human culture out
to space *ASAP* so that when this Terra-killer comes along, we don't
have all our eggs any longer in this one single basket.

Which is my core argument against sending out robots to do our
exploring. Somehow, we must learn to live in space, and to do that, we
must *do that,* not ship out machines.

I think effective recycling depletes your argument. And again, how do
we learn to do that? ??

Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Fri 2013 Aug 02]



  #8  
Old August 2nd 13, 01:38 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Helmut Wabnig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default Manned Mars Mission

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:52:12 -0400, Martha Adams
wrote:

On 7/28/2013 1:13 AM, Inva Lid wrote:
"Robert Clark" wrote in message
...
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
...
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/602/1



Some good stuff in there. I'll note they make a decent case for why ISRU
for the Moon is probably pointless, and developing that technology does
you no good on Mars.

Having an atmosphere on Mars, even the one it has, makes a HUGE
difference.




Since that article was written, the evidence for near polar ice on the
Moon has gotten stronger. Also some of these sites are near locations of
near continual solar illumination so stations there could be powered by
solar power.
The advantage of getting the propellant from the Moon is that you could
have nearly unlimited amount of propellant available for the mission,
which is not the case if that huge amount of propellant had to be launched
from Earth's deep gravity well.


Bob Clark


better check out the orbital techniques getting from the moon to mars, it is
not easy

also any man going to mars will be blind by the time he comes back
(radiation)

there is no reason MAN has to go to mars, all can be done by robots, and Man
has to carry everything, all water, all medical, all poop paper, all
clothes,
(remember you cant wash clothes in outer space) all oxygen, all nitrogen,
all food (how many cubic feet of food does it take for 1 man? for 3 years?
how long will a 55 gallon drum of peanut oil last one man ?
How many girls are going ?


=============================================== ==

Hi, Bob. You say,

also any man going to mars will be blind by the time he comes back
(radiation)


How does this happen? Where is it documented?

But I particularly notice your observation,

there is no reason MAN has to go to mars, all can be done by robots,

and Man
has to carry everything, all water, all medical, all poop paper, all
clothes,


which I think reflects thinking that is much too narrow and limited.
Because, if our actions don't respond to reality, they fail to achieve
long term effect. (Look at Washington!) And the well established
reality is our human existence here on Terra is certainly subject to
risks ranging from religious cranks who can access today's technology,
to improbable astronomical events like a strange quark planet killer.
Yes, some of those risks are vanishingly small, but they are *non zero*
and there are a lot of them. Thus we cannot set a number to sum up
those risks, but *they exist* and if we are rational, then we do
something about it.

Of which the only option we have, is let's extend our human culture out
to space *ASAP* so that when this Terra-killer comes along, we don't
have all our eggs any longer in this one single basket.

Which is my core argument against sending out robots to do our
exploring. Somehow, we must learn to live in space, and to do that, we
must *do that,* not ship out machines.

I think effective recycling depletes your argument. And again, how do
we learn to do that? ??

Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Fri 2013 Aug 02]




sending two men to Mars.
Mission time 2 years.

One man dies.
How do you "bury" him in space?


w.
  #9  
Old August 2nd 13, 06:08 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Manned Mars Mission

On 8/2/13 11:37 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
Now NASA is measuring the pressure behind eye of astronauts on the ISS
to access this damage. These physically debilitating effects after 6
months or more in zero G such as eyesight damage, radiation, and bone
loss are a big reason why I favor shorter flights to Mars.



The eye damage may be from radiation and not the zero-g environment.


  #10  
Old August 2nd 13, 07:17 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Manned Mars Mission

"Helmut Wabnig" wrote in message
news


sending two men to Mars.
Mission time 2 years.


You'd most likely send more than 2 folks (more likely 6 people).


One man dies.
How do you "bury" him in space?


Easy. Perform ritual based on her personal beliefs.
Wrap body.
Place in airlock
Vent to space (more likely have 2nd astronaut give her a slight nudge of
delta-V to make sure she eventually enters a slightly different orbit.)




w.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

 




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
One-way Manned Mission to Mars. [email protected] Space Station 8 May 4th 08 11:51 PM
One-way Manned Mission to Mars. [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 9 May 4th 08 11:51 PM
One Way Manned Mission to Mars. [email protected] Space Shuttle 68 April 8th 08 05:45 PM
One Way Manned Mission to Mars. [email protected] Policy 68 April 8th 08 05:45 PM
One Way Manned Mission to Mars. [email protected] History 68 April 8th 08 05:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM.


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.