Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: General Stuff
Unmanned Spaceflight.com > Mars & Missions > MSL
Pages: 1, 2, 3
remcook
here's a new space.com article about msl

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/te...lab_050105.html
YesRushGen
YES!!! They are considering what it will take to send TWO of the MSLs.

I really hope NASA will decide on two of them, particularly since the skycrane is an unproven method of landing.
chris
QUOTE (YesRushGen @ Jan 5 2005, 02:36 PM)
I really hope NASA will decide on two of them, particularly since the skycrane is an unproven method of landing.

I would guess that a good part of the cost is in development and testing, so two rovers may be better value. Does anyone know the cost associated with the MERs? i.e. were two rovers twice the cost of one, or not?
tedstryk
If there really are two of these, between the twin MSLs, the MERS, MRO, and the never ending Mars Global Surveyor mission, Phoenix is going to look kind of pitiful from an imagery standpoint.
djellison
I think it was actually not THAT cheap for the second rover. Something like $500M for the first and $300 for the second. Some would have you believe the second cost about 10c

Doug.
YesRushGen
It does seem a shame to spend the time and money developing a design and then only building one vehicle. I've tried to argue that case for even more copies of the MER design. MER is a proven design and seems it would not (relatively) cost much to send a couple of them on each launch opportunity. Everytime you build one it would be cheaper. Hell, you could even mass produce them.

Yes, MER is inferior in capability to MSL and future vehicles, but there's no reason (other than $$$ I suppose) we can't augment the "latest and greatest" with the "tried and tested."

I think down the road what we need is a "general Mars rover" or a "general Mars lander" where different instruments can literally be plugged in. You design the core of the thing one time, and then just build them. Heck, roll them off the assembly line. Outfit each one with some instruments of your choosing, then launch them. Built two for each launch opportunity.

Just my 0.02,

Kelly

PS... I think this idea was tried in the late 60's early 70's for orbiter/flyby spacecraft. Something called "Mariner Mark II" - eventually these evolved into the craft we now know as Voyagers 1 and 2 and no more were ever built. (Although Galileo I think was somewhat of a decendant)
tedstryk
Actually, the Voyagers and Galileo were Mariners. CRAF(Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby) and Cassini were the Mariner Mark II missions, but Cassini became a single mission following the cancellation of CRAF. In many ways, ESA's Rosetta reminds me of CRAF.
Marcel
Can someone tell me why there's no radioactive dating device planned for the MSL ? Rb/Sr or U235/U238 ratios could be usefull, when assessing layered outcrops like "Burn Cliffs" in their geological context.
centsworth_II
QUOTE (tedstryk @ Jan 5 2005, 11:01 AM)
Phoenix is going to look kind of pitiful from an imagery standpoint.

One thing Phoenix has that the others don't is an atomic force microscope. If it succeeds in taking the only truly microscopic images of martian sand grains and (hopefully!) ice crystals, I think that Phoenix will hold a unique place in the field of martian imagery.
djellison
Well - phoenix uses a combo of pathfinder heritage structure with MER heritage CCD's.

Now - if the combination allows a full MER CCD frame from the optics - then it will, infact, be slightly higher spatial resolution than MER ( 1022 x 1024 pixels in a 14.4 degree f.o.v. compared to MER's 16.6 degrees - and Pathfinders 256x248 over 14.4 degrees)

Given the fact that it will be in-situ for a long period of time, giving the time to allow a very low compression panorama thru all filters to allow super-resolution imagery of the full scene - I think Phoenix could be a much better imaging platform than MER given time smile.gif Pity it's going to what might be a very very boring place visually. Interesting science - but not a sexy sort of place. smile.gif

Doug
Pando
QUOTE
Pity it's going to what might be a very very boring place visually. Interesting science - but not a sexy sort of place.


Yeah, imagine if a stationary lander would land somewhere in Meridiani away from craters. About a meter down there is this wonderful bedrock but they can never reach it... All they can see is just soil and endless sea of blueberries... tongue.gif
tedstryk
That is what I was referring to (the problem of being stationary), not the quality of the images.

Ted
OWW
QUOTE (Pando @ Jan 11 2005, 07:40 PM)
Yeah, imagine if a stationary lander would land somewhere in Meridiani away from craters. About a meter down there is this wonderful bedrock but they can never reach it... All they can see is just soil and endless sea of blueberries... tongue.gif

Wasn't the 2001 Lander supposed to go to Meridiani? Good thing it got canned then... laugh.gif
djellison
Yup - but - the orig '01 design included Marie Curie ( the sojourner development rover ) - and given that actually - almost wherever you go at meridiani, you're never far from some exposed rock - so it's APXS could have been deployed in that way. However - obviously - it's the RAT, MI, Mossbauer, Mini-TES and APXS combined that told the tale at Eagle Crater smile.gif

Marie Curie at Meridiani is an astonishing thought though - imagine the distance the little thing could have covered - (a few hundred m? )and we'd have been able to watch it do it as well smile.gif

Doug
tedstryk
It is too bad Marie Curie was cancelled. Maybe it will find a home on the 2011 Scout missions (I would really like to see a resurrection of the Urey concept, in which Marie Curie would feed samples to a lander that would date them. However, without the 2001 lander, this could be a budget buster).

Ted
djellison
I'd like to see MC set up as an educational project - with a bog standard imager setup in a mars yard and schools around the world can schedule a 5 sol misison with it.

Doug
gallen_53
Word on the street is that MSL will be delayed to 2013. Given that Mars Telecommunications Orbiter has been canned, this is like the other shoe dropping. My guess is that Mike Griffin needs the $ billion+ originally allocated towards MSL redirected towards CEV. Also it might have occurred to someone that getting Sky Crane's TRL up to flight qualification might be too hard (like impossible?). IMHO, this delay is equivalent to MSL being cancelled. MSR was effectively cancelled in the same manner by delaying it beyond the forseeable future.

It looks like we'll have to go back to the MER design if we want anything on the Martian surface after Phoenix.

It's not clear what the long term agenda is for Mars. Supposably CEV is being designed to enable Mars return. This would indicate that manned Mars exploration is actually intended and not simply hype to justify return to the Moon.
Marcel
QUOTE (gallen_53 @ Sep 8 2005, 06:15 AM)
Word on the street is that MSL will be delayed to 2013. 
*


Where did you get that news from ??

I true.......i am sad... sad.gif
djellison
2013? That puts it from being 4 years away to being 8 years away - that's just madness

Doug
tedstryk
QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 8 2005, 12:27 PM)
2013? That puts it from being 4 years away to being 8 years away - that's just madness

Doug
*


I wonder if an MER-C can be sent as a scout, perhaps with new instruments, in the interim. My big fear is that with MSL still on the drawing, after Phoenix there are no new missions in the construction pipelines, making the program much easier to cut.
gallen_53
QUOTE (Marcel @ Sep 8 2005, 12:11 PM)
Where did you get that news from ??

*


I won't name my source but this information was revealed at an important meeting. MSL being pushed back to 2013 has been the subject of hallway gossip for months. However this was the first time that I heard it said in a semi-official setting. MSL is toast (MSR can now be dismissed as fantasy). JPL needs to ready MER-C as an actual flight article and start building MER-D, E, F, etc. After Phoenix, the only American lander options for the Martian surface will be MER derived hardware and nothing else.
gpurcell
So, NASA is proposing to send a billion$+ mission that is going to depend on an 8-year old spacecraft as its only effective communications link?

Yeah, right. This is the same as a cancellation if it happens.
SFJCody
I would not be surprised if the first samples returned from Mars are collected by a manned mission.
Redstone
This is surprising news. Especially after Danzler (Solar System chief at HQ) seemed so determined to keep MSL on track for 2009. And after Theisinger, who is not a person who wears rose-tinted glasses, seemed to be so confident of the progress of MSL. And after NASA had cancelled MTO, presumably to free up resources for the Mars program.

Griffin has said he is not moving money from the Science Mission Directorate to Spaceflight. NASA did shift money that way for Return to flight, but Griffin said he would not do any more unless something extraordinary came up. Perhaps Katrina, and the addtional External Tank work is such a case. Money is being shifted within the science directorate. But if both MTO and MSL are cut/delayed, where is the money going? Hubble perhaps. Griffin has mentioned budget problems there.

According to the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group website, the MSL Project Science Group is supposed to meet at the end of November, and the Project Mission and System Review is supposed to occur in December. MEPAG itself is due to meet in November. Any big change to MSL probably would be noted here, perhaps even before NASA announces it.

The recent requests for proposals posted by JPL on their acquisitions website, including a coring device and the descent radar, are still there. This is another place that may give some clues.
gallen_53
QUOTE (SFJCody @ Sep 8 2005, 10:44 PM)
I would not be surprised if the first samples returned from Mars are collected by a manned mission.
*


In all seriousness, this maybe the only practical way to do a Mars sample return. People pay lip service to the forward contamination of Mars but the real worry is bringing back some sort of Andromeda Strain. By having the samples collected by astronauts, they could do a preliminary biological analsysis in situ. Keep in mind that exploring Mars is by definition an extremely dangerous activity (BTW, I'd be happy to volunteer). The added risk of dying from an Andromeda Strain is probably many orders-of-magnitude smaller than dying from explosive decompression or from an unknown-unknown like a brittle solid rocket motor O-ring or a chunk of foam hitting an RCC leading edge.
gallen_53
QUOTE (Redstone @ Sep 9 2005, 02:36 AM)
This is surprising news. Especially after Danzler (Solar System chief at HQ) seemed so determined to keep MSL on track for 2009. And after Theisinger, who is not a person who wears rose-tinted glasses, seemed to be so confident of the progress of MSL. And after NASA had cancelled MTO, presumably to free up resources for the Mars program.
*


Wait and see. They're currenly laying off the Life Science people at NASA Ames and will probably do the same to the aeronautics people at Ames and Langley in about a year. They're doing this to free up cash for CEV's development which will be on a very tight budget. MSL is a very expensive project with some serious technical issues. NASA's future depends upon the success of CEV. I can imagine Griffin thinking that MSL should wait until after CEV is flying.
dvandorn
If MSL does just get put off to 2013 and not canceled outright, perhaps this means that MTO can be re-instated with a program re-start sometime in 2009 or 2010, after most of the CEV development money will have been spent?

I *really* want that fat data pipe to make MSL a real telepresence explorer. If we're going to do this, we really should do it *right*!

-the other Doug
edstrick
In the good news department: (on space.com, havent checked SpaceX yet)

Elon Musk (formerly Paypal, now SpaceX) has announced plans to follow the Falcon 1 and 5 launch vehicles (Pegasus and Delta-2 class) with Falcon 9. $35 million targeted launch price for a launch with the large diameter fairing. Falcon 9 is to have slightly higher capability to low earth orbit as Evolved Expendible Launch Vehicles (Atlas 5 and Delta 4), Including (I think) the heavy lift versions), but at much lower cost. They're intending recovery and reusability, but have to prove that, so they're not including that savings in projected pricing.

Granted, the first Falcon 1 has to fly.. but....
gallen_53
QUOTE (edstrick @ Sep 9 2005, 08:11 AM)
Elon Musk (formerly Paypal, now SpaceX) has announced plans to follow the Falcon 1 and 5 launch vehicles (Pegasus and Delta-2 class) with Falcon 9.  $35 million targeted launch price for a launch with the large diameter fairing.  Falcon 9 is to have slightly higher capability to low earth orbit as Evolved Expendible Launch Vehicles (Atlas 5 and Delta 4), Including (I think) the heavy lift versions), but at much lower cost.  They're intending recovery and reusability, but have to prove that, so they're not including that savings in projected pricing.
*


I heard some hallway gossip that Falcon will be launching a hypersonic cruise vehicle for the USAF. This story might(?) be based upon confusing the name of the cruise vehicle with the name of Musk's launcher. Supposably the aeronautical engineering and thermal protection requirements for this cruise vehicle are amazing (SR-71 and AMaRV level stuff). Does anyone know anything about this?
RNeuhaus
QUOTE (edstrick @ Sep 9 2005, 03:11 AM)
In the good news department:  (on space.com, havent checked SpaceX yet)

Elon Musk (formerly Paypal, now SpaceX) has announced plans to follow the Falcon 1 and 5 launch vehicles (Pegasus and Delta-2 class) with Falcon 9.  $35 million targeted launch price for a launch with the large diameter fairing.  Falcon 9 is to have slightly higher capability to low earth orbit as Evolved Expendible Launch Vehicles (Atlas 5 and Delta 4), Including (I think) the heavy lift versions), but at much lower cost.  They're intending recovery and reusability, but have to prove that, so they're not including that savings in projected pricing.

Granted, the first Falcon 1 has to fly.. but....
*

click here for more details.
Interesting option, the prices goes down after the technology is mature like the computer prices that drops every year. Now it is no longer to hear a thoushand millions dollars to send an unmanned spacecraft like to Vikings, perhaps few hundreds millions like ones as Hayabusa and others ESA small projects with improved technologies. Let us see what will be the Chinese's rockets prices.

Rodolfo
gallen_53
QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Sep 9 2005, 03:53 PM)
click here for more details.
Interesting option, the prices goes down after the technology is mature like the computer prices that drops every year. Now it is no longer to hear a thoushand millions dollars to send an unmanned spacecraft like to Vikings, perhaps few hundreds millions like ones as Hayabusa and others ESA small projects with improved technologies. Let us see what will be the Chinese's rockets prices.

Rodolfo
*


There is a fair amount of "creative" math in ELV pricing. The Chinese heavily subsidize their Long March ELVs because it supports their ICBM development program. The real market is getting payload into geosynchronous orbit. That's much harder to do than launching a small payload into an inaccurate Low Earth Orbit (which SpaceX has yet to achieve). I admire Elon Musk. He made one fortune on top of another and then had sense enough to get out before the Dot Com imploded. Musk then took much of that money and invested it in ELV development. He's competing toe-to-toe against Lockheed-Martin and Boeing. Those guys play hardball, e.g. unfair marketing, use of crooked politicians for government subsidy, etc. Musk has put himself into a very tough industry.
vjkane2000
I'm skeptical about this postponement -- at least for budget reasons. Griffin has been moving money from other projects, most noteably MTO to fund MSL.

I see this mission happening unless (1) it turns out to be technically infeasible or (2) it's technically feasible but the budget explodes. If either of those happen, I think that we'll see a series of cheaper rover missions, probably solar powered (no high or even mid lattitude missions) and possibly some solar powered stationary deep drilling missions. You might see some/much of the MER reused, but with some significant redesign to allow another instrument (say the RAMAN spectrometer that had to be dropped which could sense organic chemicals) to be added. But you are in a situation of diminished returns without serious new instruments. We already know that Mars was once wet. What do we learn of global significance by confirming it at more sites? We need new instruments on the surface to make new discoveries.

By the way, on another forum, one of the science instrument engineers is saying they are not hearing anything about this rumored slip. I would not be surprised if the presentation was not addressing contingency planning. I've worked on similarly big projects, and you do have contingency plans that include descoping and schedule delays and they are talked about in review meetings. So, without seeing the slides used, I'm a skeptic.
BruceMoomaw
I have trouble visualizing MSL's cancellation, too. Gary`Allen himself has been, I think, for some time a fan of turning the Mars exploration program into a whole series of MERs sent to different places -- but the science value of this is seriously limited. The "Follow the Water" phase of Mars exploration is in the process of being wrapped up; MSL was intended to initiate the next phase, "Follow the Carbon" -- that is, look for traces of possibly biological organic compounds, so that the most concentrated and interesting deposits could be selected as targets for sample-return missions.

Now, JPL has been dabbling in the possible design of an intermediate-scale rover, "MER-C", that might be able to carry both devices to collect and grind up surface material and organics detectors for that material ( http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/2219.pdf ). My attempts to get more information on this from JPL have been fruitless; they tell me that they intend to keep the details under wraps for now. But it's clear from that chart alone that both its analytical capabilities and its number of collected samples would be very severely limited compared to MSL. We may see some such intermediate-scale rovers dispatched to various locations on Mars AFTER one or two MSLs have given us a better idea of just what to look for, but I doubt we'll see them first. (And that's not even to mention MSL's other important new function: providing far better mineralogy than the introductory-stage type carried out by the MERs. This is necessary to get a better understanding of what kinds of surface geological and climate processes have been taking place on Mars, and thus what kinds of sites seen from orbit are most likely to be promising fossil locations.)

We may very well see MSL further delayed, especially given the fact that the current US space program looks strikingly like the last few chapters of Gibbon's study of the Roman Empire. But I have great trouble seeing it replaced by a series of more unelaborated MERs. As for replacing the unmanned Mars program with a specifically human-oriented one with all the remaining unmanned missions just being preparations for that -- a la Apollo -- see http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055 , in which it's reported that "Since the arrival of Mike Griffin and the departure of Craig Steidle, all detailed human Mars mission planning has been de-emphasized. According to NASA sources, this is due, in great part, to looming budget constraints facing the Griffin administration. Sources suggested that the main elements of the architecture review now focus on ISS assembly, CEV design and development, and human lunar exploration." They do intend to design the early Exploration Architecture in such a way that it can later be adapted to manned Mars missions, but that's a very different matter from initiating a manned Mars program immediately.
lyford
Bruce thanks for that pdf link....

I notice they estimate MER-C at 226.6 kg - would that put it over the current airbag limit? I wonder if this would be a skycrane candidate as well....
tedstryk
QUOTE (lyford @ Sep 12 2005, 02:36 AM)
Bruce thanks for that pdf link....

I notice they estimate MER-C at 226.6 kg - would that put it over the current airbag limit?  I wonder if this would be a skycrane candidate as well....
*


I would certainly support this mission IF MSL is delayed to 2011 or 2013, especially with improved instrumentation. I wonder how much off-the-shelf hardware could be used.
BruceMoomaw
One more note in support of the idea that a manned Mars program is not currently being emphasized: Griffin has also ordered an indefinite delay in the "Mars Human Precursor" missions initiated by Bush and intended primarily to detect environmental hazards and in-situ resources for manned Mars landings (along with tests of useful technologies for both unmanned and manned missions). The first mission, until now, was supposed to fly in 2013.

As for flying MER-C if MSL is faced with a delay until 2013: I'm inclined not to go along. When you look at the science payload MER-C could carry, it's less than half that of MSL -- in fact, it's less than the Mars GCMS package that is the single main experiment on MSL! Any replacement organics analyzer on MER-C would have to be much smaller and less capable, in a situation in which detailed chemical analysis is important. For instance, the "Mars Organics Detector" proposed by Jeffrey Bada has much less ability to detect organics -- in fact, no ability at all to identify compounds except for PAHs and amino acids -- and it can't do isotopic analyses at all.

If MSL does get bumped to 2013, this will leave us with no mission at all in 2009 and only one Mars Scout in 2011. This is not automatically dreadful -- one can argue that an aoccasional breather in the launch schedule might actually be useful in order to properly digest and interpret the data gathered by previous missions -- but I do wonder whether this total delay might be used to launch TWO Mars Scout orbiters of some type, each with a com relay package added to maximize data return from MSL.
Redstone
I didn't think this news deserved a new thread, so I put it here.

LOCKHEED MARTIN AWARDED CONTRACT TO DESIGN THE MARS SCIENCE LAB AEROSHELL

Worth noting is this fact:
QUOTE
The MSL heatshield will be the largest ever built at about 4.5 meters (15 feet) in diameter. For comparison, the heatshields of the Mars Exploration Rovers measured 2.6 meters (8.5 feet) and Apollo capsule heatshields measured 3.9 meters (12.8 feet).

Lockheed Martin is also drawing upon this expertise in its bid for NASA’s Crew Exploration Vehicle that will utilize a capsule design 5 meters (16.5 feet) in diameter.

By the way, the MSL website also has some new material on it, including some new images of spacecraft plans. These images are pretty detailed and show the MMRTG in place.
djellison
Looks like a hatch there behind the rover to mount the MMRTG on the pad, like NH.

Here's a thought. Why does the cruise stage need Solar Arrays when there's the MMRTG inside the aeroshell? It's not as if pulling power from it would 'use up' the RTG.

Doug
chris
I guess for redundancy. if there was any problem with the lander -> cruise stage power connection, you lose the entire mission.

Chris
djellison
Ahh - another thought.

I've seen drawings that show the cruise stage to include a small-ish HGA ( on the order of 50cm or so ) which will be used, I presume, for the normal cruise phase downlink of healthchecks etc.

Perhaps that dish has its own transponder which requires an ammount of power greater than the constant output of the RTG - and they'll want constant downlink for tracking during the cruise I'm sure.

Maybe that's it?

(BUT - those new drawings dont show the little fold out HGA that I'd seen previously.)

Doug
mars_armer
It's also possible that they can't deal with the waste heat of the RTG while encapsulated, so they don't plan to activate it until very late.
chris
QUOTE (mars_armer @ Mar 30 2006, 03:42 PM) *
It's also possible that they can't deal with the waste heat of the RTG while encapsulated, so they don't plan to activate it until very late.


As I understand it, the waste heat will be there anyway, as its is generated by the decay of the plutonuim, and you can't switch that on and off. The heat generated is not affected at all by how much power is being drawn.

Chris
mars_armer
That's right, of course. The plutonium generates heat that must be dealt with at all times.

So I don't have a clue why solar arrays are needed on the cruise stage.

[The reason I was confused was because I remembered that RTG's are filled with Xenon until they get into space. Before they are vented, the outer case is cool enough to touch and the electrical output is much lower. After venting, the case gets hot. But none of that matters, since the total heat from the Pu decay is always there. So my comment wasn't very smart.] unsure.gif
odave
Does the cruise stage have its own processor, or does the MSL processor run the whole show (a'la MER IIRC)? Maybe they wanted to eliminate the wiring needed to run power/signals up from MSL in that case huh.gif
djellison
Well - given that they will want to conduct instrument checkout and so forth, I cant imagine them having a second CPU unit in there - it would be a bit of a waste. The rover's guts will have all the interfacing and grunt the spacecraft would ever need I'd have thought. 4.5m entry body...wow...it's a big animal.

Doug
centsworth_II
The Skycrane is there in the diagram. Isn't it supposed to be tested this summer? I hope that goes well.
BruceMoomaw
Belive it or not, the actual tests (as opposed to simulations) aren't scheduled until 2007. They seem to have a lot of confidence in this thing; I hope it's not misplaced.
Jim from NSF.com
QUOTE (mars_armer @ Mar 30 2006, 11:42 AM) *
That's right, of course. The plutonium generates heat that must be dealt with at all times.

So I don't have a clue why solar arrays are needed on the cruise stage.

[The reason I was confused was because I remembered that RTG's are filled with Xenon until they get into space. Before they are vented, the outer case is cool enough to touch and the electrical output is much lower. After venting, the case gets hot. But none of that matters, since the total heat from the Pu decay is always there. So my comment wasn't very smart.] unsure.gif


RTG case temps are over 100C
PhilHorzempa



As this thread deals with a variety of MSL issues, I want to bring up the
subject of a REAL name for the MSL. If NASA is serious about "reaching out"
to the public, then the MSL needs a name that the average American can
identify with.

I genuinely hope that NASA doesn't repeat the Politically Correct game of
having school children choose the name. In my opinion, this PC procedure
produced awful results for the ME Rovers. Of course, NASA chose the names
suggested by a young orphan from Siberia to make it all even more purely PC.

Here we are, as Americans, celebrating the Bicentennial of the great Voyage
of the corps of Discovery, the Lewis and Clark expedition. What a perfect choice
for the 2 intrepid explorers on Mars. It would have connected Americans, especially
students to a crucial episode in our history, particularly as the 2 ME Rovers
have been scouting Mars for just about as long as the Lewis and Clark expedition.

However, NASA threw away such a golden "opportunity" to connect the public
with these Mars Rovers. Instead, we got the Disney version - Spirit and
Opportunity. Where are the names of other bold missions of space exploration,
such as Pioneer, Mariner, Pathfinder and Voyager?

From what I can surmise, I think that Steve Squyres would agree with my
agrument, but I don't presume to speak for him. In fact, why weren't the
engineers and scientists who labored on the ME Rovers for years given a say
in naming their creations?

In fact, that is one of the advantages of the Discovery, NF and Mars Scout
missions, that they get to choose the names of their space probes.

So, let's see if we can come up with a list of inspiring names, that NASA could
choose from, for the MSL craft. I think that most of the UMSF community are
adults, so why does NASA limit their naming contests to school children?

My suggestion would be Mars Prospector.


Another Phil
BruceMoomaw
I don't even want to THINK about what NASA will name the next Mars rover. The idea makes me nauseous.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.