NASA: We're sending humans to Mars

  • NASA
  • Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mars Nasa
In summary: Mars-capable.Maybe by the time I'm 100, I'll have purchased a telescope, and will find Mars, and make a joke about one of the astronauts having a nasty cold. :)
  • #1
19,407
9,949
NASA Officially Announce Plans To Put Humans On Mars With Orion Space Capsule
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/02/orion-nasa-humans-mars_n_6255740.html

"We're sending humans to Mars! Watch our #JourneytoMars briefing live today at 12pm ET: http://www.nasa.gov/nasatv #Orion "

B33OkExCcAAKD5e.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I can't wait for the day that this actually happens. My family won't care but I sure will. What a time to be alive :)
 
  • Like
Likes elusiveshame, Peacemaker 501, OmCheeto and 1 other person
  • #4
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy
  • #5
I guess we'll see what happens over the coming years. :)
It's be great to see people land on Mars in my lifetime. Preferably before I'm 50.
 
  • #6
I hate to be a nay-sayer, but it took 22 years to launch the JWST, if it does fly in 2018 as planned, and that's an Earth orbiting satellite with no people on it. The budgetary environment has never been worse at any time in NASA history, it's not clear the scientific value in putting people on Mars in the first place, and there are a huge number of hurdles to get over. I have to think the 2030 timetable is pure wishful thinking, it doesn't even sound the least bit plausible to me. I'd like to be wrong, it would be great to see humans on Mars, but it would be lousy to see dead humans orbiting in the solar system for centuries. In my opinion, the first human on Mars will have to fund the trip themself, and will plan on a one-way trip. It seems like a generally better way to go would be to send advanced virtual reality hardware, and bring the experience of being on Mars back to Earth remotely. I'd rather know the timetable on that.
 
  • #7
NASA knows "No bucks without Buck Rogers". This whole thing looks like a Gruberesque attempt to improve NASA's dire budgetary situation.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #8
Drakkith said:
I guess we'll see what happens over the coming years. :)
It's be great to see people land on Mars in my lifetime. Preferably before I'm 50.

I was 2 years old when Gagarin became the first Earthing in space.
I would prefer they make it to Mars before I'm 100.

Hmmm... Have you ever seen the 1964 version of "First Men in the Moon". The final scene is of a very old man looking through a telescope at the moon.

2014.12.02.2322.fmitm.nasty.cold.jpg


Perhaps by the time I'm 100, I'll have purchased a telescope, and will find Mars, and make a joke about one of the astronauts having a nasty cold. :)



Ha! It's been a while since I've seen the movie. Watching the trailer, at about t=1:45, you'll see a long tunnel. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was thinking we should first set up a colony on the moon, excavate a really long linear tunnel, and build a rail gun to propel ships to the planets. I wonder if I got the idea from the movie?

Someone get me Elon Musk's phone number! :D
 
  • #9
Vanadium 50 said:
NASA knows "No bucks without Buck Rogers". This whole thing looks like a Gruberesque attempt to improve NASA's dire budgetary situation.

You're right about this. This whole thing smells of a PR stunt, or a "Look! A squirrel!" kind of misdirection. I wonder when the other shoe is going to drop.
 
  • #10
No matter what they are trying to get from this, I am still hyped. If the schedule works as planned and they launch the mission by the mid-2030's, then I would only be pushing my late 30's to early 40's. A perfect age for me to join this project ;)
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy, Greg Bernhardt and OmCheeto
  • #11
Call me a skeptic, sounds like a pipe dream without even a pipe.
 
  • #12
To put men on Mars by 2030 probably is a pipe dream but that doesn't mean that developing continued funding for a new generation of human carrying capsules isn't required right now if we are going to make it before ~2060. We presently don't have reliable capsules, even for Moon landings, IMHO and that includes the Apollo capsules which don't lend themselves to simple upgrading.

For some reason going back to the Moon doesn't generate the public hoopla like going to Mars does. Perhaps it's that jaded "been there, done that" viewpoint. So I think it was smart of NASA to bill it as a Mars device that maybe, just maybe, will be required to return humans to the Moon say in 3-4 years as a "qualifying test". That would be wise on several levels.
 
  • #13
enorbet said:
To put men on Mars by 2030 probably is a pipe dream but that doesn't mean that developing continued funding for a new generation of human carrying capsules isn't required right now if we are going to make it before ~2060. We presently don't have reliable capsules, even for Moon landings, IMHO and that includes the Apollo capsules which don't lend themselves to simple upgrading.

I think I see the reason a Mars mission has been bandied about this week. The first test flight of the new Orion spacecraft is set to launch tomorrow morning (Dec. 4, 2014 @ 0705 EST):

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/nasa-orion- spacecraft -test-flight/

For some reason going back to the Moon doesn't generate the public hoopla like going to Mars does. Perhaps it's that jaded "been there, done that" viewpoint. So I think it was smart of NASA to bill it as a Mars device that maybe, just maybe, will be required to return humans to the Moon say in 3-4 years as a "qualifying test". That would be wise on several levels.

Orion is intended to be the manned craft which follows the Space Shuttle, to allow the US a way back into space flight without relying on Russian rockets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_( spacecraft )
 
  • #14
Ken G said:
... I have to think the 2030 timetable is pure wishful thinking, it doesn't even sound the least bit plausible to me.
I couldn't agree more, sadly.
 
  • #15
I'll take a manned Mars mission seriously when we have an established moon base. It makes no sense without that first step.
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy
  • #16
What's the rate at the moment? $/kg to Earth orbit? ~3k? And how much mass/person (food, water, oxygen) for how long? To Mars?
 
  • #18
It sounds like we have some agreement then. Back to the moon. :)

I just did some preliminary calculations on my moon based rail gun.
A 550 MW solar array* would generate enough power in 100 minutes to propel a Greyhound bus to Mars in only 12 weeks.

I'm currently ignoring the engineering problems involved with boring a tunnel from one side of the moon to the other. (3500 kilometers!)
I'll leave that to Christopher Nolan. :rolleyes:

Speaking of Christophers, Chris Hadfield appears to have some reservations. But he's a Canuck. What the heck do they know?

On the other hand, isn't MIT a reputable institution?
Hadfield isn't the only one doubting this project. Doubters at MIT have calculated that "living on Mars" will last only about 68 days before the colonists die.
[ref]

oo)*I'm currently bashing a bunch of people on FB, regarding the world's largest solar farm, which has an output of 550 MW.
 
  • #19
OmCheeto said:
On the other hand, isn't MIT a reputable institution?

You'd think so, but apparently they employ some shady professors like Jonathan Gruber, who, although he maintains a lucrative consulting practice, his clients never heard of.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #20
I think Ceres would be a better place to go, expected to have a thick mantel that is largely water ice. Nearly 1000 km diameter.
Humans could tunnel into the ice and make an underground habitat, safe from vacuum, radiation, space debris.
More interesting place than Mars. Dawn spacecraft is following Ceres along its orbit, gradually catching up with solar powered ion thrusters.
If successful should arrive at Ceres spring 2015, i.e. in a few months.

I favor robotic space exploration over human, as a general rule, but if humans are to colonize any time soon, don't bother with Moon or Mars, make it somewhere nice and icy.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/fulltraj.jpg [Broken]
You can see on the full trajectory map that the craft is now within 0.007409 AU of Ceres. the two dots are barely separable on the map. Here are some images from the craft's perspective.
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/live_shots.asp
I guess 0.007 AU is around a million km.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
  • #21
For context to post #20 on previous page:
marcus said:
I think Ceres would be a better place to go, expected to have a thick mantel that is largely water ice. Nearly 1000 km diameter.
Humans could tunnel into the ice and make an underground habitat, safe from vacuum, radiation, space debris.
More interesting place than Mars. Dawn spacecraft is following Ceres along its orbit, gradually catching up with solar powered ion thrusters.
If successful should arrive at Ceres spring 2015, i.e. in a few months.

I favor robotic space exploration over human, as a general rule, but if humans are to colonize any time soon, don't bother with Moon or Mars, make it somewhere nice and icy.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/fulltraj.jpg [Broken]
You can see on the full trajectory map that the craft is now within 0.007409 AU of Ceres. the two dots are barely separable on the map. Here are some images from the craft's perspective.
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/live_shots.asp
I guess 0.007 AU is around a million km.
Here's a "current events" quote from http://dawnblog.jpl.nasa.gov/2014/11/28/dawn-journal-november-28/
==quote Dawn blog 28 November==
...
...If the spacecraft stopped thrusting just when Ceres captured it, it would continue looping around the massive body in a high, elliptical orbit, but its mission is to scrutinize the mysterious world. Our goal is not to be in just any arbitrary orbit but rather in the particular orbits that have been chosen to provide the best scientific return for the probe’s camera and other sensors. So it won’t stop but instead will continue maneuvering to RC3. Ever graceful, Dawn will gently thrust to counter its orbital momentum, keeping it from swinging up to the highest altitude it would otherwise attain. On March 18, nearly two weeks after it is captured by Ceres’ gravity, Dawn will arc to the crest of its orbit. Like a ball thrown high that slows to a momentary stop before falling back, Dawn’s orbital ascent will end at an altitude of 47,000 miles (75,000 kilometers), and Ceres’ relentless pull (aided by the constant, gentle thrust) will win out. As it begins descending toward its gravitational master, it will continue working with Ceres. Rather than resist the fall, the spacecraft will thrust to accelerate itself, quickening the trip down to RC3. There is more to the specification of the orbit than the altitude. One of the other attributes is the orientation of the orbit in space. (Imagine an orbit as a ring around Ceres, but that ring can be tipped and tilted in many ways.) To provide a view of the entire surface as Ceres rotates underneath it, Dawn needs to be in a polar orbit, flying over the north pole as it travels from the nightside to the dayside, moving south as it passes over the equator, sailing back to the unilluminated side when it reaches the south pole, and then heading north above terrain in the dark of night. To accomplish the earlier part of its new approach trajectory, however, Dawn will stay over lower latitudes, very high above the mysterious surface but not far from the equator. Therefore, as it races toward RC3, it will orient its ion engine not only to shorten the time to reach that orbital altitude but also to tip the plane of its orbit so that it encircles the poles (and tilts the plane to be at a particular orientation relative to the sun). Then, finally, as it gets closer still, it will turn to use that famously efficient glowing beam of xenon ions against Ceres’ gravity, acting as a brake rather than an accelerator. By April 23, this first act of a beautiful new celestial ballet will conclude. Dawn will be in the originally intended orbit around Ceres, ready for its next act: the intensive observations of RC3 we described in February. - See more at: http://dawnblog.jpl.nasa.gov/2014/11/28/dawn-journal-november-28/#sthash.HacYSU7c.dpuf
==endquote==
RC3 is their name for the intended orbit around Ceres, which is polar (so that over time it can survey the whole surface) and within about 13,000 km or 8000 miles of surface.
So capture is early March 2015 and detailed observation (if all goes as planned) begins in April 2015.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy
  • #22
could someone please explain why we don't create a huge (miles long) pipe tube, electromagnetic launcher the components would be nice and light easy to assemble and the acceleration wouldn't kill off the astronauts while giving them a pretty good exit speed towards mars.(yes its in space not on earth)
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Vanadium 50 said:
NASA knows "No bucks without Buck Rogers".
Er...yeah, I knew what you meant. ;)

But I agree -- I'm not holding my breath.
 
  • #24
dragoneyes001 said:
could someone please explain why we don't create a huge (miles long) pipe tube, electromagnetic launcher the components would be nice and light easy to assemble and the acceleration wouldn't kill off the astronauts while giving them a pretty good exit speed towards mars.(yes its in space not on earth)
If it were "nice and light", and you tried to launch a heavy space ship, you'd end up launching the launcher.
Unless you launched counter weights in the opposite direction. That would work.

But my moon launcher is 2,160 miles in length( = the equatorial diameter of the moon).
At 3 g's, it only accelerates the craft to a speed of 14,300 meters/sec. ( = 32,000 mph)
The launch takes about 8 minutes.
And as I stated earlier, the trip to Mars would only take 12 weeks at that speed. (best case)
I have no idea how they'd slow down once they got there.

A 12 mile long launcher in space, with a 3g force launch acceleration, would only achieve a velocity of 1,100 m/sec, and extend the travel time to 3 years.
Hmmm... The ISS orbits the Earth at 7,800 m/sec.

This is starting to look like a homework problem.
 
  • Like
Likes dragoneyes001
  • #25
up the G's to 5 which is plenty within keep em alive.(probably a bit sick after a few miles of it but definitely alive)
also i did expect a couple engines on the outside of the tube to counter the initial backwards push as the ship got moving. the rest should be smaller thrusters.

or let's merge our ideas forget burrowing through the moon make the rail go the entire circumference of the moon with the end straightened out in the direction of the Earth to add a slingshot on top of the rail speed.

no need to slow down that much at Mars let the primary ship slowly reduce its speed in orbit around Mars while smaller craft peal off to land.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
dragoneyes001 said:
up the G's to 5 which is plenty within keep em alive.(probably a bit sick after a few miles of it but definitely alive)
also i did expect a couple engines on the outside of the tube to counter the initial backwards push as the ship got moving. the rest should be smaller thrusters.

or let's merge our ideas forget burrowing through the moon make the rail go the entire circumference of the moon with the end straightened out in the direction of the Earth to add a slingshot on top of the rail speed.

no need to slow down that much at Mars let the primary ship slowly reduce its speed in orbit around Mars while smaller craft peal off to land.
Your last name isn't "Wells" is it. You think very much like someone I met on another science forum about a decade ago. Quite the mad scientist. I liked him.

I played with "G forces" quite a bit. (spreadsheets have been my best science tool for several years now, since I forgot how to do "real" math)
It didn't seem to have much of an effect.

I also calculated the centripetal force on a Greyhound bus, circling the moon at 14,000 m/s.
It turned out to be 10 times the force of a Greyhound bus on earth. I decided not to go there.

ps. A Greyhound bus has a mass of ≈32,000 kg. I chose this vehicle, as I thought I heard that the astronauts were going to spend the trip in an Apollo capsule sized vehicle. It seemed kind of nightmarish to me. I think someone mentioned "the first murder in space" earlier. I concur.

I also agree with Marcus. Unmanned exploration makes much more sense at the moment. I'm not a big fan of Plato, but his; "The world is just a bunch of shadow puppet shows" statement, strikes me as true. I traveled extensively when younger, but recently, I've discovered that looking at pictures from other peoples trips, is at least as enjoyable.

And as for the "Buck Rodgers" theory?
Bam!
NASA nailed the perfect moment of Amerimbecilangst;
Imbi; "How much did we pay in taxes to get to a comet? Waste of money!"
Voice; "The Europeans did it. It didn't cost you a penny."
Imbi; "What!? Who let them get ahead? Thanks Obama! Grrrrrrrr... Mars!"
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy, enorbet and dragoneyes001
  • #27
OmCheeto said:
Speaking of Christophers, Chris Hadfield appears to have some reservations. But he's a Canuck. What the heck do they know?
If you look closely at The Eagle that brought Armstrong to the moon you should see a small sticker that says "Made in Canada".
 
  • #28
OmCheeto said:
I'll leave that to Christopher Nolan.
So Chris Nolan retired from hockey and is now in space - :))
 
  • #30
256bits said:
If you look closely at The Eagle that brought Armstrong to the moon you should see a small sticker that says "Made in Canada".
I did not know that. But I'm old, and forget things. And I was only 10 years old at the time, so I probably didn't care.
But retrospectively, that was pretty amazing that humanity went from zero people in space, to men on the moon, in only 8 years.
 
  • #31
marcus said:
I think Ceres would be a better place to go, expected to have a thick mantel that is largely water ice. Nearly 1000 km diameter.
Humans could tunnel into the ice and make an underground habitat, safe from vacuum, radiation, space debris.
Why is that an advantage? Humans could tunnel into Mars as well, which also has a little atmosphere to help out with radiation and descent.

More interesting place than Mars.

Why so?
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Hello Mhes,
since you mentioned atmosphere helping with descent (e.g. parachutes) I will point out that it is costly to set things down on Mars surface and even more costly to get them up off the surface and in orbit.

The dawn (ion drive) craft is currently approaching Ceres gradually and will be captured by Ceres gravity around March 2015.
Ceres escape velocity is small. 500 meters per second

Water is valuable. Mars is comparatively dry and rocky, largely hardened volcanic residue. I would say it would be thankless job to bore tunnel into most places on Mars.

With Ceres, I am assuming (we will know more soon) that there is a thick outer ice layer that one could essentially melt a tunnel into. Not like boring into rock.

With a source of energy, to make heat and light, one could have several LAKES in ice caverns on Ceres. One lake might be home to aquatic life.

Another lake might be used for cooling the settlement's power plant.
====================

Why more interesting? I suspect Ceres is considerably OLDER material. More interesting to study.
Mars has undergone volcanism, geological changes similar to Earth, loss of volatiles. I suspect Ceres is closer to primordial solar system material.

Also more interesting to live in Ceres caves than in Mars caves, I suspect. Fun and challenging to learn how to thrive and remain healthy in lower gravity.
3% of Earth gravity. Humans could, of course FLY with their own muscle power, in a cavern's atmosphere. Flight could be a good way of getting exercise.:w

Surface gravity 0.28 m/s2
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Thanks for the response!

marcus said:
Hello Mhes,
since you mentioned atmosphere helping with descent (e.g. parachutes) I will point out that it is costly to set things down on Mars surface and even more costly to get them up off the surface and in orbit.
In other words, the difficulty of getting in/out of the larger gravity well trumps any advantages bestowed by the atmosphere (i.e. descent braking, radiation block)?

Water is valuable.
Good point. Plenty of oxygen in the surface material of the rocky planets and moons, but hydrogen seems to be rare on Mars.

Mars is comparatively dry and rocky, largely hardened volcanic residue. I would say it would be thankless job to bore tunnel into most places on Mars. With Ceres, I am assuming (we will know more soon) that there is a thick outer ice layer that one could essentially melt a tunnel into. Not like boring into rock.
Perhaps, though I'm skeptical. The large amount of energy required to heat and melt ice would melt several times as much common rock (Si, Al, Fe oxides).

...Fun and challenging to learn how to thrive and remain healthy in lower gravity.
3% of Earth gravity. Humans could, of course FLY with their own muscle power, in a cavern's atmosphere. Flight could be a good way of getting exercise.:w

Surface gravity 0.28 m/s2
Or 1/6th that of the Moon. I would have thought the Moon's gravity to be a low side limit for long term healthy and effective human operation.
 
  • #34
Mars is in the development stage, and people only hamper
 
  • #35
A note of caution for deep space exploration from today's edition of spaceweather.com (12/7/14).

GROWING PERIL FOR ASTRONAUTS?
NASA's successful test flight of Orion on Dec. 5th heralds a renewed capability to send astronauts into deep space. A paper just published in the journal Space Weather, however, points out a growing peril to future deep space explorers: cosmic rays. The title of the article, penned by Nathan Schwadron of the University of New Hampshire and colleagues from seven other institutions, asks the provocative question, "Does the worsening galactic cosmic ray environment preclude manned deep space exploration?" Using data from a cosmic ray telescope onboard NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, they conclude that while increasing fluxes of cosmic rays "are not a show stopper for long duration missions (e.g., to the Moon, an asteroid, or Mars), galactic cosmic radiation remains a significant and worsening factor that limits mission durations." This figure from their paper shows the number of days a 30 year old astronaut can spend in interplanetary space before they reach their career limit in radiation exposure:

missionduration_strip.gif


According to the plot, in the year 2014, a 30 year old male flying in a spaceship with 10 g/cm2 of aluminum shielding could spend approximately 700 days in deep space before they reach their radiation dose limit. The same astronaut in the early 1990s could have spent 1000 days in space.

What's going on? Cosmic rays are intensifying. Galactic cosmic rays are a mixture of high-energy photons and subatomic particles accelerated to near-light speed by violent events such as supernova explosions. Astronauts are protected from cosmic rays in part by the sun: solar magnetic fields and the solar wind combine to create a porous 'shield' that fends off energetic particles from outside the solar system. The problem is, as the authors note, "The sun and its solar wind are currently exhibiting extremely low densities and magnetic field strengths, representing states that have never been observed during the Space Age. As a result of the remarkably weak solar activity, we have also observed the highest fluxes of cosmic rays in the Space Age."

The shielding action of the sun is strongest during solar maximum and weakest during solar minimum--hence the 11-year rhythm of the mission duration plot. At the moment we are experiencing Solar Max, which should be a good time for astronauts to fly--but it's not a good time. The solar maximum of 2011-2014 is the weakest in a century, allowing unusual numbers of cosmic rays to penetrate the solar system.

This situation could become even worse if, as some researchers suspect, the sun is entering a long-term phase of the solar cycle characterized by relatively weak maxima and deep, extended minima. In such a future, feeble solar magnetic fields would do an extra-poor job keeping cosmic rays at bay, further reducing the number of days astronauts can travel far from Earth.

To learn more about this interesting research, read the complete article in the online edition of Space Weather.
 
<h2>1. What is the timeline for sending humans to Mars?</h2><p>NASA has set a goal to send humans to Mars in the 2030s. However, the exact timeline is still being determined and will depend on various factors such as budget, technology advancements, and international partnerships.</p><h2>2. How will humans survive on Mars?</h2><p>NASA is currently conducting research and testing various technologies to support human life on Mars. This includes developing advanced life support systems, protective space suits, and growing food in space. Additionally, astronauts will undergo extensive training and preparation before embarking on the journey.</p><h2>3. What are the risks involved in sending humans to Mars?</h2><p>Sending humans to Mars is a complex and challenging endeavor. Some of the potential risks include exposure to radiation, isolation and psychological effects, and technical malfunctions. NASA is continuously working to mitigate these risks through research, testing, and development of advanced technologies.</p><h2>4. Will humans be able to return from Mars?</h2><p>Yes, NASA's plan is to send humans to Mars and bring them back safely to Earth. This will require advanced spacecraft and propulsion systems, as well as careful planning and execution of the mission.</p><h2>5. How will sending humans to Mars benefit us?</h2><p>Sending humans to Mars will not only expand our knowledge of the universe and our place in it, but it will also lead to technological advancements that can benefit us on Earth. It will also pave the way for future exploration and potential colonization of other planets.</p>

1. What is the timeline for sending humans to Mars?

NASA has set a goal to send humans to Mars in the 2030s. However, the exact timeline is still being determined and will depend on various factors such as budget, technology advancements, and international partnerships.

2. How will humans survive on Mars?

NASA is currently conducting research and testing various technologies to support human life on Mars. This includes developing advanced life support systems, protective space suits, and growing food in space. Additionally, astronauts will undergo extensive training and preparation before embarking on the journey.

3. What are the risks involved in sending humans to Mars?

Sending humans to Mars is a complex and challenging endeavor. Some of the potential risks include exposure to radiation, isolation and psychological effects, and technical malfunctions. NASA is continuously working to mitigate these risks through research, testing, and development of advanced technologies.

4. Will humans be able to return from Mars?

Yes, NASA's plan is to send humans to Mars and bring them back safely to Earth. This will require advanced spacecraft and propulsion systems, as well as careful planning and execution of the mission.

5. How will sending humans to Mars benefit us?

Sending humans to Mars will not only expand our knowledge of the universe and our place in it, but it will also lead to technological advancements that can benefit us on Earth. It will also pave the way for future exploration and potential colonization of other planets.

Similar threads

  • Aerospace Engineering
6
Replies
183
Views
11K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Aerospace Engineering
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
923
  • Aerospace Engineering
2
Replies
52
Views
18K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
15
Views
3K
Back
Top