from Brandi Carrier to everyone:    9:54 AM
Closed captioning can be turned on by clicking on the CC icon on the lower left corner of webex or by clicking (Ctrl+Shift+A). A separate closed captioning panel can then be turned on by clicking on the “...” (panel options) button on the lower right of the webex window and selecting the “Captions” option.
from Brandi Carrier to everyone:    9:55 AM
As a reminder, everyone will be muted on entry and should keep their microphones on mute. This meeting will be recorded. 
from Brandi Carrier to everyone:    9:59 AM
Welcome All. We will be getting started shortly. 
Closed captioning can be turned on by clicking on the CC icon on the lower left corner of webex or by clicking (Ctrl+Shift+A). A separate closed captioning panel can then be turned on by clicking on the “...” (panel options) button on the lower right of the webex window and selecting the “Captions” option.
As a reminder, everyone will be muted on entry and should keep their microphones on mute. This meeting will be recorded. 
from Priya to everyone:    10:02 AM
Never hear the "french-toast day" expression, but love the expression! Know exactly what you mean - hope everyone is safe and warm during the difficult weather events here in the US.
from Priya to everyone:    10:03 AM
*heard the expression
from Michael Meyer to everyone:    10:05 AM
In DC, it's TP that's the indicator
from Rody Stephenson to everyone:    10:05 AM
Will you have any close flybys of Deimos?
from Brandi Carrier to everyone:    10:09 AM

Please submit your questions or comments for our presenters to this chat window. We’ll compile and then relay your questions to the presenters during Q&A periods.

from Brandi Carrier to everyone:    10:10 AM
Closed captioning can be turned on by clicking on the CC icon on the lower left corner of webex or by clicking (Ctrl+Shift+A). A separate closed captioning panel can then be turned on by clicking on the “...” (panel options) button on the lower right of the webex window and selecting the “Captions” option.
from DEWAN to everyone:    10:26 AM
Report/publications on the initial findings of EMM's mission?
from Shannon Curry to everyone:    10:27 AM
Congrats Colin
from Hessa Almatroushi to everyone:    10:30 AM
@Rody actually we have a deimos image released last month in our sdc.emiratesmarsmission.ae ! Look for EXI data, orbit 100, Aug 30 2021
from Hessa Almatroushi to everyone:    10:32 AM
@DEWAN, we are writing papers at the moment to discuss our results. We will keep everyone updated as they are published. Meanwhile, we have papers published on the mission science and instruments here: https://link.springer.com/journal/11214/topicalCollection/AC_c40f42c145d0b65b56c8ef0492c4cfe6
from DEWAN to everyone:    10:35 AM
@Hessa Almatroushi, really appreciate it! will keep the updates.
from Michael Meyer to everyone:    10:35 AM
Colin, How can atm HCl be tied to the surface/perchlorates?
from Brandi Carrier to everyone:    10:42 AM
Please submit your questions or comments for our presenters to this chat window. We’ll compile and then relay your questions to the presenters during Q&A periods.

from Suniti Karunatillake to everyone:    10:48 AM
Thanks, Colin. What is TGO's mapping revealing of oxychlorine species transport and production in the atmosphere?
from Jeffrey Johnson to everyone:    10:50 AM
Will the onset of relay support for the ExoMars rover in June 2023 result in any reductions of relay support for MSL and/or Mars2020?
from Colin Wilson to everyone:    10:54 AM
@Jeff: the data relay dat volume is still a small fraction of the total TGO-Earth data fraction, so I don't think that the relay support should have to be reduced. I can check with Mission Operations team for a formal answer if needed.
from Jeffrey Johnson to everyone:    10:55 AM
@Colin--thanks, no formal answer needed.
from Josh Tubbs to everyone:    11:04 AM
Is there a potential landing site near the north or south caps that have been identified for a potential future mission?
from DEWAN to everyone:    11:04 AM
Emission variation of recent impact craters with similar surrounding lithology to decipher the influence of impact as a function of time and depth (T,P)?
from DEWAN to everyone:    11:07 AM
I mean IR emission
from Than Putzig to everyone:    11:09 AM
Does HEND/NS speak to the Mitrofanov findings with FREND at Valles Marineris?
from Jeffrey Plaut to everyone:    11:14 AM
Crater IR signatures: Beddingfield, C. B., Moersch, J. E., & McSween Jr, H. Y. (2021). Icarus, 114678.
from DEWAN to everyone:    11:15 AM
Thanks, Jeffrey
from Shannon Curry to everyone:    11:25 AM
Agreed Rich
from Rody Stephenson to everyone:    11:31 AM
Will bit flips get worse with increaasing sunspot number?
from Roodra Manogaran to everyone:    11:31 AM
How can one tell if the water activity on Mars took place in a subaqueous or submarine environment?
from Alfred McEwen to everyone:    11:31 AM
radiation has no known impact on the bit flips
from Richard Zurek to everyone:    11:34 AM
Roodra:  Morphology and mineralogy can help differentiate between surface water activity and alteration by subsurface water.
from Jake Robins to everyone:    11:37 AM
puppy
from Jeffrey Plaut to everyone:    11:47 AM
ODY->InSight: You're welcome!
from Leslie Tamppari to everyone:    11:48 AM
MY 29 I think
from David Kass to everyone:    11:49 AM
Yes, the previous event was in MY 29.
from Ralph Lorenz to everyone:    11:51 AM
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103514005818
from DEWAN to everyone:    11:52 AM
Is there any study to delineate the noise due to the wind  actions from the ambient noise of Mars itself and utlilization of this ambient noise recorded by InSight?
from Ralph Lorenz to everyone:    11:52 AM
(sorry, wrong paper - Elysium dust devil track analysis pre-mission was https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103515005229 )
from William Banerdt to everyone:    11:57 AM
@DEWAN: All the background noise we see seems to be from the atmosphere or the lander. The ambient Mars noise appears to be below the SEIS detection threshold. We have a bunch of people who are analyzing the noise to see what it can tell us about both the subsurface and the atmosphere.
from DEWAN to everyone:    11:58 AM
Thanks, William
from William Banerdt to everyone:    12:01 PM
hi Scott! At this point, we have pretty much verified many of the assumptions we made in the 90s. The one thing that we did not anticipate was the relative lack of events larger than magnitude 4. For a full network we need to be global, and that would take a minimum of a half-dozen stations. Of course, there are still some major advances that could be done with 2 or 3 stations.
from William Banerdt to everyone:    12:03 PM
@Suniti: Geochemstry is not my strongest suit, but right now most of our analyses are pointing toward the 3-layer model, which I believe give a bulk crustal composition consistent with GRS measurements at the surface.
from Colin Wilson to everyone:    12:06 PM
Hi Bruce, question about Mars seismometry post-Insight. Short of a dedicated seismometry mission, how useful can small seismometers with imperfect wind shields be?
from Bethany Ehlmann to everyone:    12:09 PM
https://kiss.caltech.edu/final_reports/Access2Mars_final_report.pdf
from Claire Newman [she,her] to everyone:    12:24 PM
Mars 2030, sponsored by "The Martian II" - why not!?
from Serina Diniega she/her, JPL to everyone:    12:27 PM
ha, yes, was about to ask about FBC :-)
from Serina Diniega she/her, JPL to everyone:    12:30 PM
This discussion seems to focus on how often missions can be sent. Did discussion include consideration of workforce/budget implications for operation of such missions, including into extended missions? This is an issue now - we have so many in extended missions which is great, but that requires $ which then can't be spent on new missions. In thinking about a full annual budget, how long did you assume these missions will last?
from Brandi Carrier to everyone:    12:31 PM
Please submit your questions or comments for our presenters to this chat window. 

from Suniti Karunatillake to everyone:    12:32 PM
What do you consider the optimal balance in the frequent-affordable-bold strategy for prioritizing recurrent versus new payloads? 
from Lauren Holt to everyone:    12:32 PM
Do you expect to get these low-cost Mars missions into the upcoming Planetary Decadal? 
from Will Brinckerhoff to everyone:    12:34 PM
This study and this initiative (FAB) is great! Mars is the destination that has a real chance of realizing this in fact but it's still very very challenging to implement over time. How to reconcile with the NASA Science goal or even expectation that missions (especially competed missions) need to make a major leap in returned results to be worthy (or selectable). The need to be super ambitious seems to be baked into the system still...
from John Whitehead to everyone:    12:34 PM
Dave Masten (commercial propulsion) was on the KISS team, did he offer insight about making Mars arrival more affordable?
from Than Putzig to everyone:    12:34 PM
Decadal heard from MASWG
from Bethany Ehlmann to everyone:    12:35 PM
HEard from Masten, Astrobotic, INtuitive Machines, SpaceX, Lockheed, First Mode and other as commercial partners who input, yes
from James Kaufman to everyone:    12:37 PM
I'm skeptical that the CLPS model can be applied to Mars.  There's a reason that several different Mars landing systems (propulsive, airbags, sky crane, etc.) have been developed, namely a single landing technology cannot reach all landing sites.  This is a result of atmospheric density, landing altitude, latitude, etc.  Comments?
from Bethany Ehlmann to everyone:    12:38 PM
Indeed @James. This goes to different standard "types" of missions IDed in the report. Some science can be accomplished with  small hard landers with little precision. Others require controlled descent and some of the more complex systems you mention. 
from Elizabeth Frank to everyone:    12:39 PM
I agree that the CLPS model is not 100% transferable to Mars for that exact reason. That's why hard landers were discussed, and for missions that require soft landings, we considered keeping that a JPL mission element while having the surface elements come from the commercial sector, as an example.
from Abigail Fraeman she|her to everyone:    12:39 PM
Will: We're optimistic a FAB program could still make progress address key science goals with small spacecraft.  The "frequent" strategy is also supposed to mitigate the need for a single mission to answer it all.
from James Kaufman to everyone:    12:43 PM
If Omicron does not subside to a reasonable level, is there a chance the meeting might be futher postponed?
from Lauren Holt to everyone:    12:47 PM
It seems that alot of long-duration missions are going in the nuclear direction. Is that what you may expect for the Low-cost missions to Mars exploration as well? STMD, DOE and DOD have proposals out for this technology development
from Bruce Jakosky to everyone:    12:47 PM
Where is the raise hand feature in webex?
from Brandi Carrier to everyone:    12:48 PM
For the discussion period, feel free to add thoughts or comments to the chat window, and if you would like to add something verbally please raise your hand. This can be done by clicking (Ctrl+Shift+R) or by hovering your mouse over your name in the webex participants list and clicking on the hand icon. 
from Shannon Curry to everyone:    12:52 PM
Laurie- I am sure that will come up in our panel discussions. Understanding propulsion and thermal in the low cost context will naturally be central to a successful program or class
from Than Putzig to everyone:    12:52 PM
Where is time? All I see is "May".
from Luca Montabone to everyone:    12:53 PM
@Shannon: I would also add that understanding com in the low cost context is central
from Jonathan Bapst (he/him) to everyone:    12:57 PM
For those who might not remember their 'homework' assignment: Please see the 2nd meeting circular here: https://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/meeting/2022-01/VM14%202nd%20Information%20Circular.pdf
from David Beaty to everyone:    12:58 PM
With regards to science that could be done by humans, MEPAG has for many years tried to write scientific objectives without comment on what kind of mission could implement them.
from Don Banfield to everyone:    1:00 PM
We're also due for an overall MEPAG Goals refresh... If the proposed Goal IV SAG is long, that will delay the overall MEPAG Goals update as well.
from Brandi Carrier to everyone:    1:03 PM
if you would like to add something verbally please raise your hand. This can be done by clicking (Ctrl+Shift+R) or by hovering your mouse over your name in the webex participants list and clicking on the hand icon. 
from Richard Zurek to everyone:    1:03 PM
MASWG SSC:  100-300M including launch
from Daniel Glavin to everyone:    1:06 PM
methane seems to be limited to the surface for example...
from Claire Newman [she,her] to everyone:    1:07 PM
Good net flux measurements at the surface - momentum, heat, dust/sand, trace gases (water vapor, methane, etc.) are really vital.
from Marguerite Syvertson to everyone:    1:07 PM
Knowing the varied and large number of options of smallsats in the commercial world could allow us a "plug and play" mode of using a preselected (I use that term loosely) group of satellites with instruments that can either provide continuing infrastructure type observations (weather, etc) or be more rapidly responsive to discoveries. Having a regular way to get these smallsats to Mars might open up a new range of mission size.
from Claire Newman [she,her] to everyone:    1:08 PM
As just one example: understanding how dust storms begin comes down to how the dust is lifted, which we still don't understand well.
from Don Banfield to everyone:    1:08 PM
to add to Serina's response: orbital remote sensing struggles to reveal info below 5-10km altitude.  >50% of Mars atmospheric mass is below that and fundamental processes only occur there (radiative balance, aeolian processes, surface-atmosphere exchange).
from David Kass to everyone:    1:09 PM
Following on to Don:  In addition many of the processes in the boundary layer is occurring at small, turbulent scales such as dust devils.
from Joe Parrish to everyone:    1:12 PM
It would be fantastic if we could address multiple arcs with one (still small) mission.
from carol stoker to everyone:    1:13 PM
Does this  program idea (which caps at Discovery class) rule out Mars as a candidate for New Frontiers?
from Joe Parrish to everyone:    1:13 PM
Also, think of this as a first of a series…
from Bethany Ehlmann to everyone:    1:13 PM
Small can also make very focused measurements, based on recon of the past
from Michael Mischna to everyone:    1:14 PM
Two possible paths…Sscs in parallel to see how different arcs play out, or choose an Ssc that allows for branching in many directions based on discoveries that are made by that mission.
from Serina Diniega she/her, JPL to everyone:    1:14 PM
Agree with Bethany. The recon is key as a pro and con of small is the focused on localized ... but if we can pick the sites well and understand how they fit into the whole, that really enhances what we can do with such instruments
from Chad Edwards to everyone:    1:14 PM
@Carol - I don't see this as precluding Mars concepts as candidate for NF, but rather opening up a new low-cost element of the overall MEP mission portfolio.
from Briony Horgan she|her to everyone:    1:14 PM
Yeah I think it would be good to leave any small program open so that novel ideas and "recon of the past" missions can be proposed, along with those that make progress along an arc.
from Serina Diniega she/her, JPL to everyone:    1:17 PM
with regards to what these can lead into ... it seems important to consider how the Mars investigations fit in with broader science questions, including the small missions. SMD/PSD funding gets more and more stretched, and so everything gets pushed to be more interconnected
from Briony Horgan she|her to everyone:    1:19 PM
@Serina it will be extremely important to tie mission arcs to Decadal Survey priorities
from Than Putzig to everyone:    1:19 PM
How can we best advocate for funding this program? Are we going to continue 'eating our own'? Dwindling extended mission funds and falling selection rates for R&A funding are already worrisome.
from Don Banfield to everyone:    1:21 PM
We've already prioritized the gamut of goals in the MEPAG goals document.  I worry selecting a few arcs will result in a set of in-crowd questions, and those left out in the cold still.  Recognizing the need to "sell" this to congress etc., can't we sue the science prioritization already community defined in the MEPAG Goals document?
from Don Banfield to everyone:    1:22 PM
use, not sue.
from Timothy Titus to everyone:    1:22 PM
And on top of funding levels - add in the UFM like SPD41 revisions
from Serina Diniega she/her, JPL to everyone:    1:23 PM
Comments on the proposed updated SPD-41: Science Information Policy are solicited through March 4: https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?solId={3612D133-135D-24D2-BC4C-17EFAC73F8E7}&path=&method=ini 
from Bethany Ehlmann to everyone:    1:25 PM
I think infusing smaller missions back into the MEP expands opportunities for the commuity, not diminishes them, Than. Exciting new data and new leadership and participation oppotunities for young people will invigorate the MEP and present a clear set of exciting future-looking activities for the funders for our nation's strategic goals at Mars. Such grows the program
from James Wray to everyone:    1:26 PM
Agreed!
from Andrew Annex to everyone:    1:27 PM
+1
from Michael Meyer to everyone:    1:27 PM
must start a new before the current ends
from Don Banfield to everyone:    1:31 PM
We imagined ways that entertainment or advertising could bring in real funds (of order mission-level), but I think we worried it wouldn't be sustainable.
from Shoshanna Cole she/her to everyone:    1:33 PM
Can we also discuss aging infrastructure that we now tend to take for granted? We're depending on orbital spacecraft that are into several extended missions to do essential tasks (communications relays for landed spacecraft, recon for new landing sites and localization for ongoing landed missions (e.g., HiRISE, CRISM)), and as Shannon noted yesterday, the DSN is also having issues. Many of the missions we're envisioning depend on these critical, aging assets.
from Bruce Jakosky to everyone:    1:33 PM
There also are new players in the game, such as the United Arab Emirates.  Certainly, they've looked at the US-developed strategies along with the current state of the science in determining their directions.  There are additional countries who are moving into these areas.
from Marguerite Syvertson to everyone:    1:34 PM
Looking at how the Earth observation community has commercialized might be useful for partnering.
from Michael Meyer to everyone:    1:35 PM
interesting idea - point to relevance to future
from Paul Niles to everyone:    1:35 PM
Perhaps the mission arc concept can be adopted for the Goal IV update? Thus defining different potential mission science arcs for different human architectures to Mars?
from Bethany Ehlmann to everyone:    1:35 PM
@Steve. Affordable landing and Commercial partners was also MASWG FInding #7/8 more prose there and in KISS report talking about how this has worked in other aspects of space that used to be solely govt
from Michael Mischna to everyone:    1:35 PM
@kass.  I like that idea from a programmatic perspective
from Steve Ruff to everyone:    1:35 PM
Understood Bruce.  But I wonder how to engage new players, especially governments.
from Will Brinckerhoff to everyone:    1:36 PM
Is proposing a small "half-size" Discovery mission to Mars, if programmatically invited, a realistic entry point? Granted Discovery would just be in addition to MEP opportunities. Just thinking that DIscovery might not be able to afford say 2 selections but maybe 1.5. Stating that the mission addresses a mission arc objective would be a win theme...
from Andrew Annex to everyone:    1:36 PM
I agree with Shoshanna, I don't see that concern addressed here, but there is a lot of potential for commerical/ESDMD collaboration to solve those issues. 
from Bruce Jakosky to everyone:    1:36 PM
Steve,  Difficult problem.  We (LASP) have been intimately involved in the UAE mission(s), but they approached us rather than the other way around.
from James Kaufman to everyone:    1:37 PM
Two comments:
from Than Putzig to everyone:    1:37 PM
We are all aging assets...
from Steve Ruff to everyone:    1:37 PM
Got it, Bethany.
from Bruce Jakosky to everyone:    1:40 PM
Scott, it isn't clear that the current human side is interested in investing money in Mars at this time.
from carol stoker to everyone:    1:41 PM
I agree with Scott's comment. 
from Daniel Glavin to everyone:    1:41 PM
I personally think the more we could couple science with human exploration goals/needs, the better.
from carol stoker to everyone:    1:42 PM
Another thing that human exploration needs to know prior to sending humans to exploit ice resources is whether or not those near surface ices host viable martian organisms. 
from Serina Diniega she/her, JPL to everyone:    1:43 PM
@Daniel - as stated above for entertainment, it's not clear how sustainable that is since the human program gets pulled in different directions so frequently.
from Marguerite Syvertson to everyone:    1:43 PM
Agree with Scott, looking for mutual (but potentially separable) goals could strengthen the program. Also with SpX interest in going to Mars (human eventually), it makes me think that there's commercial interests we could build upon.
from J Andy Spry to everyone:    1:43 PM
Agree with Scott. The human side of the house is a customer for data from science instruments.
from Than Putzig to everyone:    1:44 PM
Isn't the NASA contribution to I-MIM funded above the SMD/HEO level? 
from Richard Davis to everyone:    1:44 PM
Than it's an agency mission assigned to SMD to execute. 
from Than Putzig to everyone:    1:46 PM
So I think it goes toward what Scott was saying.
from Don Banfield to everyone:    1:46 PM
Distilling Scott's comments: Other People's money is likely HEO. Growing the pie also likely pushes us toward showing arcs that aim towards HEO as well.  Doesn't this suggest there isn't really any other approach the substantially grows Mars Exploration and create a "new program". I suspect he's right.
from Serina Diniega she/her, JPL to everyone:    1:46 PM
At a risk of derailing things a bit: Does I-MIM show up in the SMD budget? or higher up in the NASA budget? Even if the money comes in "separate" from SMD (or Mars), there is an impact on SMD (and Mars) in their carrying it.
from James Kaufman to everyone:    1:46 PM
Three comments:  1) I second Don Banfield's comment made at 1:21 PM  (A lot of effort has been expended in producing the Goals document -- Don't do anything that provides favoritism to one goal vs. another).  2) The science arcs presented by MASWG should be interpreted as EXAMPLES.  Individuals/teams should be able to propose their own science arcs.  3) However, in a competed mission model, there's no guarantee that one evaluation panel will rate a science arc as high value from one solicitation to the next. (Translation:  Mission funding is a very fickle process!)
from Bethany Ehlmann to everyone:    1:48 PM
here, here, Michael!
from Daniel Glavin to everyone:    1:48 PM
Is there life on Mars, and if so, did it evolve independently from Earth. 
from Shoshanna Cole she/her to everyone:    1:50 PM
That second part of what @Daniel said is important, and our ability to answer it will be affected by landed missions (contamination of Mars could preclude our ability to answer it)
from Daniel Glavin to everyone:    1:51 PM
@Shoshanna - I agree with you, although we are learning now that the pristine samples returned by the Apollo crews are not that horribly contaminated by biology/organics, so there is hope...
from Kennda Lynch to everyone:    1:52 PM
There are small life detction missions that might be able to fit into the Discovery and/or New Frontiers class.
from carol stoker to everyone:    1:52 PM
Icebreaker was (and is) a life detection mission that was proposed to Discovery.
from Luca Montabone to everyone:    1:53 PM
Search for life can be a scientific objective for human missions...this is my opinion as a non specialist :-)
from Brian Wade to everyone:    1:53 PM
Is Icebreaker being proposed again?
from Sanjay Vijendran ESA to everyone:    1:53 PM
@Scott: what about an astrobiology penetrator mission into an old ice region? We've done some work at ESA on such mission concepts in the past, carrying organics detection instruments.
from Bethany Ehlmann to everyone:    1:53 PM
concur that definitive biosigs require more than SSC. But that is fine. Search for life is one component of the grand undertakings at Mars. Understanding habitats, where they are, and evolution as well as preparing for humans are other key and related aspects
from Serina Diniega she/her, JPL to everyone:    1:54 PM
Agree with Luca. Also, with all the other places being looked at for life/habitability in the solar system, I don't think Mars comes out so obviously at the top for that area. 
from Kennda Lynch to everyone:    1:54 PM
There are other small concepts being worked for life detctrion missions at the Discovery & New Frontiers levels
from Shoshanna Cole she/her to everyone:    1:55 PM
@Kennda do you know of any small spacecraft life detection mission concepts?
from Will Brinckerhoff to everyone:    1:56 PM
The other part of the nail that Michael M hit on the head is the challenge of communicating the importance of a *series* of missions (especially small missions) to the public. This is a non-trivial job that must be accomplished: how to get the public on board with "building up an understanding or a capability at Mars over a long period of time". This version of the story could be told to support astrobiology or human exploration (the two goals that the public can readily identify with). Not to discount the importance of Mars system/planetary science, developed this way, for the sake of science!
from David Kass to everyone:    1:56 PM
@Brandi: While the next step in an arc may not be immediately funded, the first mission has still set up the next step.  Maybe we rotate among the arcs?
from Luca Montabone to everyone:    1:56 PM
Understanding weather! :-)
from carol stoker to everyone:    1:57 PM
@Kennda good point!
from Shoshanna Cole she/her to everyone:    1:57 PM
@Kennda those are important questions
from Will Brinckerhoff to everyone:    1:57 PM
+1 @Kennda
from Don Banfield to everyone:    1:58 PM
+1 Shannon... if you miss a mission now with only flagships, you're out for a decade.  we need more missions to keep involvement from all parties on shorter itmescales.
from Serina Diniega she/her, JPL to everyone:    1:58 PM
@Shannon, when you say dedicated funding, it is to keep the missions flowing, or keep the science work and scientists (and that knowledge base) in the community until the next mission can be flown?
from Bruce Jakosky to everyone:    1:59 PM
The MAWG report identified five science objectives, of which search for life was only one.
from James Kaufman to everyone:    1:59 PM
@David Kass   Rotating between arcs wil take decades to complete a single arc!  Plus, ensuing discoveries will supplant the importance of the arc, i.e., one new discovery could create a new arc that is more important than a ppreviously defined arc.
from Daniel Glavin to everyone:    1:59 PM
good point.  But no life on Mars is also very interesting (if that could ever be proven)
from John D Rummel to everyone:    1:59 PM
Searching can go on for a long, long, time...