A one-way ticket to Mars, apply now

0

Step right up and prove why you should get a one-way ticket to Mars! Well, wait — you might want to know a little more about the venture first.


A Dutch company called Mars One began looking Monday for volunteer astronauts to fly to Mars. Departure for the Red Planet is scheduled for 2022, landing seven months later in 2023.

The space travelers will return … never. They will finish out their lives on Mars, representatives from the nonprofit said.

"It's likely that there will be a crematorium," said CEO Bas Lansdorp. "It's up to the people on Mars to decide what to do with their dead."

Still, the company said it has received more than 10,000 e-mails from interested would-be spacefarers.

The one-way ticket makes the mission possible because it greatly reduces costs, and the technology for a return flight doesn't exist, according to Mars One's website. At a news conference, Lansdorp maintained that "no new inventions are needed to land humans on Mars."

Written By: Ben Brumfield and Elizabeth Landau
continue to source article at cnn.com

NO COMMENTS

    • In reply to #1 by QuestioningKat:

      Can we nominate anyone? I know a few people I’d like to ship off to Mars or at least to the Moon.

      Think about that man. If this happens, and is successful, school children will be taught about the people who first colonized another world until the end of the human race. Millenia from now these people may be seen as heroes and pioneers. Whoever ends up leading the colony will have his name burned into the pages of history.

      If that name is Hovind, then I will weep. Lets just send them to mars on the ‘test’ rocket.

    • In reply to #1 by QuestioningKat:

      Can we nominate anyone? I know a few people I’d like to ship off to Mars or at least to the Moon.

      You wouldn’t even have to go that far. Go up about 100 miles, then open the airlock.

      • A lot of those commenting seem to be arguing under the impression that the word ‘volunteer’ does not appear in the offer. If you are arguing it is irresponsible or unethical to allow someone to make this decision under their own free will, does you opinion also stretch to euthanasia? Or the fact that it doesn’t serve a foreseeable gain, well by that logic we would never have left Africa and almost any fun activity in your lives wouldn’t be ‘worth doing’, not to mention that a large amount of discoveries in science and invention came to being just because they could be.
        I think this is an amazing event and I look forward to 2022/2023 and feel very fortunate to live in age where such things are possible, I will have a smile on face whilst doing other pointless things like eating fast food and driving too fast.

  1. What a dreadful proposition. The expression “suicide mission” ought to just mean your odds are poor, not that your odds are zero. If we already have the technology to do this, then what is there to prove?

    • In reply to #3 by rjohn19:

      What a dreadful proposition. The expression “suicide mission” ought to just mean your odds are poor, not that your odds are zero. If we already have the technology to do this, then what is there to prove?

      Far from being dreadful, one could argue that this pioneering mission which would help permanently colonize a new world, would represent an amazing achievement and a leap forward towards our destiny of exploring the stars.

  2. Utter nonsense, bleak, pointless, and a sucidal ‘mission’ at best. Intense radiation, small quarters underground, VERY little to do but try and stay sane, and weakness from no gravity. This is beyond realistic. We can’t even get out of our own inner atmosphere and what do we find? Water floats in space. The only experiment of merit from the space station has been to confirm that tiny particles are attracted to each other, which makes bigger ones, then stars and planets, and then us. We cannot get off this planet in our evolved earth atmospheric bodies, and anything else is a waste. Send machines, that works. Talk about fiction and the first thing that comes to mind is space travel. No way, probably never. Better start paying attention to THIS planet, because we simply can’t leave. Ever.

    • In reply to #6 by PY:

      Utter nonsense, bleak, pointless, and a sucidal ‘mission’ at best. Intense radiation, small quarters underground, VERY little to do but try and stay sane, and weakness from no gravity. This is beyond realistic. We can’t even get out of our own inner atmosphere and what do we find? Water floats in space. The only experiment of merit from the space station has been to confirm that tiny particles are attracted to each other, which makes bigger ones, then stars and planets, and then us. We cannot get off this planet in our evolved earth atmospheric bodies, and anything else is a waste. Send machines, that works. Talk about fiction and the first thing that comes to mind is space travel. No way, probably never. Better start paying attention to THIS planet, because we simply can’t leave. Ever.

      wat.
      No gravity? Mars has only a little less than earth.
      While I don’t think we should send one way missions, the technology isn’t too far from a proper trip to mars, the main problem is a lack of investment. And yes, we can get out of the inner atmosphere, we’ve been to the moon, remember? The ISS has done a lot of good science, look it up. Newton was the one who taught us that particles attract each other. Our bodies not only evolved on earth, they evolved in a specific climate in africa, yet humans now live in geography and climate that we were not evolved to live in. The simple technology of clothes and fire have allowed us to live most places on the earth, and it is so common we rarely think of it. In the future we will think of living somewhere without a breathable atmosphere as nothing special. We have sent machines, but sooner or later we will send humans.

      That being said, I don’t like this idea of a one way mission. I think we need to ease into colonizing mars gradually.

      • In reply to #7 by MahouShoujoMaruin:

        That being said, I don’t like this idea of a one way mission. I think we need to ease into colonizing mars gradually.

        I agree this plan to send four people on a one-way trip to Mars is very imprudent and irresponsible. Return trips need to be sorted out in practice before people are sent there. Work should be done towards terraforming Mars before people are sent to live there, at least to make the environment more hospitable for humans. Prior to that, only research bases for scientists should be set up on the planet, as in Antarctica, and Mars is a much less hospitable place than Antarctica.

        • In reply to #12 by Cairsley:

          I agree this plan to send four people on a one-way trip to Mars is very imprudent and irresponsible.

          It is indeed. Apart from crashing a gimmick based operation (if it ever gets off Earth in the first place), the most likely outcome is sending a bunch of amateurs to contaminate the planet (Their pictured airlock design indicates they have given no thought to this) : – and then isolating geriatrics in metal boxes, well beyond any support services or care-homes.

          Return trips need to be sorted out in practice before people are sent there.

          This is a major problem. while the gravity on Mars is less than Earth, a manned launch to orbit, is a major undertaking, almost as great a the Apollo launches. It is further complicated by communication time-lags.

          Work should be done towards terraforming Mars before people are sent to live there, at least to make the environment more hospitable for humans.

          That would be a major foot-shooting exercise.

          There is probably a lot of ice mixed with the sedimentary rocks below the surface. Mars is too small, too far from the Sun, and too cold for terraforming.
          Even if it was not, the attempt would destabilise the climate and the surface structure for thousands of years, making any manned settlement, surface travel or exploration very difficult. It would also destroy most of the scientific history of Mars, so making scientific investigations of its “geological” history and climate records, almost worthless.

          Prior to that, only research bases for scientists should be set up on the planet, as in Antarctica, and Mars is a much less hospitable place than Antarctica.

          Scientific bases should be the prime purpose of manned visits to Mars. (see my link @13)

          • In reply to #20 by Alan4discussion:

            Scientific bases should be the prime purpose of manned visits to Mars.

            Thanks for the input. Once a few scientific bases have been established there and some basic infrastructure is in place, package tours to Mars for curious Earthlings may be possible, provided of course that the customers pass the health exam. That in any case may be another century away yet.

          • In reply to #28 by Cairsley:

            In reply to #20 by Alan4discussion:

            Scientific bases should be the prime purpose of manned visits to Mars.

            Thanks for the input. Once a few scientific bases have been established there and some basic infrastructure is in place, package tours to Mars for curious Earthlings may be possible, provided of course that the customers pass the health exam. That in any case may be another century away yet.

            To get either on a viable basis. they will need to get big versions of the VASIMR rockets up and running in space so as to get the transit times down to months. (The prototype is already running on a test rig! )

            Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket

            On December 8, 2008, Ad Astra signed an agreement with NASA to arrange the placement and testing of a flight version of the VASIMR, the VF-200, on the International Space Station (ISS).[18] As of June 2012, its launch is anticipated to be in 2015

            http://www.adastrarocket.com/AdAstra-Release-July-27-2012-English.pdf

    • In reply to #6 by PY:

      Utter nonsense, bleak, pointless, and a sucidal ‘mission’ at best. Intense radiation, small quarters underground, VERY little to do but try and stay sane, and weakness from no gravity. This is beyond realistic. We can’t even get out of our own inner atmosphere and what do we find? Water floats in space. The only experiment of merit from the space station has been to confirm that tiny particles are attracted to each other, which makes bigger ones, then stars and planets, and then us. We cannot get off this planet in our evolved earth atmospheric bodies, and anything else is a waste. Send machines, that works. Talk about fiction and the first thing that comes to mind is space travel. No way, probably never. Better start paying attention to THIS planet, because we simply can’t leave. Ever.

      Foolish unimaginative drivel. Go to your cave.

      • Capt: I’m messing with your childhood dreams, which is why you have taken this personally. There are many comparisons between believing in living forever and messing with people’s views of space travel and the greater future of the human race. Both concepts conclude that there is a better way, and unfettered hope ‘out there” somewhere that is more promising than the reality of our current existence. As if ‘unimaginable drivel’ is the true problem and all we need to do is believe and try harder. It is not. The universe is indifferent. The wilfull ignorance is the promised land… or the promised ‘space’. It is simply not going to happen somewhere else. What is going to happen is that the pollution, exploitation, overpopulation and improbable model of commerial growth leads to climate destruction on the only place we are able to live, Earth. Dream of human expansion into the universe is the narcissim of mammals with brains, nothing more. We need to fix this place Bloodeye. There is no other way we will make it.

        In reply to #8 by Capt. Bloodeye:

        In reply to #6 by PY:

        Utter nonsense, bleak, pointless, and a sucidal ‘mission’ at best. Intense radiation, small quarters underground, VERY little to do but try and stay sane, and weakness from no gravity. This is beyond realistic. We can’t even get out of our own inner atmosphere and what do we find? Water floats in space. The only experiment of merit from the space station has been to confirm that tiny particles are attracted to each other, which makes bigger ones, then stars and planets, and then us. We cannot get off this planet in our evolved earth atmospheric bodies, and anything else is a waste. Send machines, that works. Talk about fiction and the first thing that comes to mind is space travel. No way, probably never. Better start paying attention to THIS planet, because we simply can’t leave. Ever.

        Foolish unimaginative drivel. Go to your cave.

  3. I have to say I think this is utterly pointless, and that’s not something I would tend to say in this context.
    I think space travel is essential to our development as a species, NASA up until now has provided us with great aspirational acheivments and technology garnered in that struggle.
    But this is just vanity.

    Mars is not a habitable place, it’s not just a toxic atmosphere we have to contend with there, there’s also an incredibly low atmospheric pressure, deadly levels of radiation and widely varying temperatures.
    If it is possible to land someone on Mars with our current technology it is not worth doing, it is only worth doing if the striving for such an acomplishment will gain us further knowledge and/or technology. All of which can be done without a single human being leaving Earth’s atmosphere, with the advent of immensly complex probes such as Curiosity manned space travel is irrelevant.

    I may of course change my mind if someone can argue that having humans on Mars would be more useful for scientific endevours than remote control laboratories like Curiosity, but so far I don’t see it.
    And if we’re talking about colonisation, pretty soon we’re going to have enough problems trying to survive on Earth, let alone a MORE toxic environment. I’d say focus such attention down here.

  4. In reply to #12 by Cairsley:
    Work should be done towards terraforming Mars before people are sent to live there, at least to make the environment more hospitable for humans.

    That’s a very ambitious proposition, especially as if we had the ability to terraform planets we wouldn’t need to worry about climate change on Earth.

    • In reply to #14 by Seraphor:

      In reply to #12 by Cairsley:
      Work should be done towards terraforming Mars before people are sent to live there, at least to make the environment more hospitable for humans.

      That’s a very ambitious proposition, especially as if we had the ability to terraform planets we wouldn’t need to worry about climate change on Earth.

      Certainly some irony there. I do not even know whether temperatures at the Martian equator are high enough for terraforming to be worthwhile. Alan4Discussion at #20 seems to have put paid to that idea.

  5. First off. they want to make it a reality TV show, so that’s sort of icky.

    But to all the people saying this is a bad idea because of the suicide nature of it, I have to say that I might not agree if people who are going are people who don’t expect to live long anyway. There’s something dignified and graceful about a person making the decision, “well, I know I don’t have much time left, so I may as well take this as an opportunity to volunteer for one of those things thats useful but you can’t ask a person with their whole lives ahead of themselves to do it.”

    Sort of like the old people in Japan who volunteered to go in to the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster because for them shortening their remaining lifespan isn’t as tragic as it would be for a younger person.

    For a young healthy person to do this, yeah that’s dumb. But as an alternative to Dignitas? It’s a fine idea.

  6. It may sound weird but what worries me is the possibility of reproduction. I don´t think it is sensible to go on a suicide mission, but if they are adults, they can do what they want with their lives. Now, assuming they land safely and not having much anything to do other than jus survive, what happens if a woman gets pregnant? Let’s suppose it doesn’t end in miscarriage due to the unhospitable nature of the place… giving birth to a child on Mars… would it not be a kind of child abuse for the poor creature? Could he really survive, let alone have any chance of a normal life? If some cults are a real danger to children here on Earth, what about a bunch of people who go to a kind of physical hell?
    Sorry if it is off-topic, but I am very sensitive to parenting issues of late.

    • In reply to #16 by permafrost:

      It may sound weird… the possibility of reproduction…
      Sorry if it is off-topic

      ‘Tis not weird or off topic. Being pregnant and giving birth anywhere besides Earth – I can’t even imagine it. Moreover, no baby of mine would be “experimental” in any scenario.

      No more egg hatching for me so I might go, if Chris Packham does too ;p

  7. In reply to #15 by Steven Mading:

    First off. they want to make it a reality TV show, so that’s sort of icky.But to all the people saying this is a bad idea because of the suicide nature of it, I have to say that I might not agree if people who are going are people who don’t expect to live long anyway. There’s something dignified and graceful about a person making the decision, “well, I know I don’t have much time left, so I may as well take this as an opportunity to volunteer for one of those things thats useful but you can’t ask a person with their whole lives ahead of themselves to do it.”Sort of like the old people in Japan who volunteered to go in to the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster because for them shortening their remaining lifespan isn’t as tragic as it would be for a younger person.For a young healthy person to do this, yeah that’s dumb. But as an alternative to Dignitas? It’s a fine idea.

    I haven’t any qualms with the fact that it’s a suicide mission, I think living out the remainder of your life, whatever that may be, on the toxic wasteland of Mars is a perfectly fair trade for global fame and entry into the history books as ‘the first man/woman on Mars’ should one wish to make that trade.
    I don’t think people with severe illnesses should be going as the trip and living conditions there would take quite a toll and to force someone to undertake that without adequate palliative care would be quite cruel.
    Although that said, if ANYONE is going on a one way trip to Mars palliative care will eventually be necessary. But I think the idea is to stage a mission to enable people to LIVE on Mars, not just to DIE on Mars, and sending terminal patients to Mars will not serve that goal.

  8. In reply to #16 by permafrost:

    It may sound weird but what worries me is the possibility of reproduction. I don´t think it is sensible to go on a suicide mission, but if they are adults, they can do what they want with their lives. Now, assuming they land safely and not having much anything to do other than jus survive, what happens if a woman gets pregnant? Let’s suppose it doesn’t end in miscarriage due to the unhospitable nature of the place… giving birth to a child on Mars… would it not be a kind of child abuse for the poor creature? Could he really survive, let alone have any chance of a normal life? If some cults are a real danger to children here on Earth, what about a bunch of people who go to a kind of physical hell? Sorry if it is off-topic, but I am very sensitive to parenting issues of late.

    A perfectly valid concern. It may be part of their health checks that they agree to be sterilised, or undertake more radical contraceptive techniques, but they come with their own health risks.
    If reproduction becomes a possibility then we would need to provide them with everything they need for raising children, and it would become an all-or-nothing mission to colonise the planet.

  9. “Anyone 18 or older may apply via video but there is an application fee — $38 for U.S. applicants. The money will fund the mission…”

    Is this the same mob, by any chance, who are ‘selling’ real estate on the moon?

  10. In reply to #29 by Alan4discussion:

    Many thanks for the cyberlinks on electromagnetic thrusters. I think Ad Astra’s Rocket Company’s response (footnote 29 to the Wikipedia article) to Robert Zubrin’s criticism of the VASIMR helps to put these developments in perspective. Below are its last two paragraphs:

    “In the near term, using solar-electric power at levels of 100 kW to 1 MW, VASIMR® propulsion could transfer heavy payloads to Mars using only one to four first-generation thrusters in relatively simple engine architectures. By optimizing the ratio of power to total vehicle mass at an appropriate specific impulse, significant cost savings over chemical in-space propulsion can be realized. This application should be attractive for a methodical, cost-effective, long-term plan of Mars exploration in which infrastructure and supplies are pre-positioned at Mars by slow cargo flights in advance of faster human transits. This is a capability that can be demonstrated first at relatively low power levels in support of robotic exploration, and then grow as space electric power generation improves.

    But such improvements point squarely to the need for advanced nuclear electric power. In this realm, much remains to be done and development work is a long-term effort that must not be delayed. Ad Astra has explored the scaling of the VASIMR® technology to multi-megawatt engines driven by nuclear electric power and conducted interplanetary mission studies of very high power architectures. These studies yield a wide range of fast interplanetary mission options with one-way trip times to Mars ranging from four to just over one month, depending on the performance of the nuclear power source (generally specified in kilograms/kilowatt). It is abundantly clear that the nuclear reactor technology required for such missions is not available today and major advances in reactor design and power conversion are needed. However, a number of serious research studies have been conducted that point to reactor and power conversion designs that meet the kg/kW required for such a mission. Again, much remains to be done, and closing the door on these possibilities on the basis of the relatively primitive state of our present nuclear space technology would be highly premature.”

    • In reply to #30 by Cairsley:

      It is abundantly clear that the nuclear reactor technology required for such missions is not available today and major advances in reactor design and power conversion are needed. However, a number of serious research studies have been conducted that point to reactor and power conversion designs that meet the kg/kW required for such a mission. Again, much remains to be done, and closing the door on these possibilities on the basis of the relatively primitive state of our present nuclear space technology would be highly premature.”

      This nuclear technology needs to be developed if interplanetary travel to use resources in the Solar-System is to be viable.

      Another advantage with VASIMR propulsion, is that it could evolve into a fusion drive for interstellar probes or missions.

      I made some comments and links on this on earlier discussions. http://www.richarddawkins.net/news-articles/2012/12/19/tau-ceti-s-planets-nearest-around-single-sun-like-star#

    • In reply to #30 by Cairsley:

      Many thanks for the cyberlinks on electromagnetic thrusters. I think Ad Astra’s Rocket Company’s response (footnote 29 to the Wikipedia article) to Robert Zubrin’s criticism of the VASIMR helps to put these developments in perspective.

      The innovation of VASIMR is the variable throttling, to weigh efficiency against higher required acceleration.

      @30 – This application should be attractive for a methodical, cost-effective, long-term plan of Mars exploration in which infrastructure and supplies are pre-positioned at Mars by slow cargo flights in advance of faster human transits. This is a capability that can be demonstrated first at relatively low power levels in support of robotic exploration, and then grow as space electric power generation improves.

      Ion Electric engines without this variable thrust, are already in use in space, but operate with a low thrust and low acceleration over a long period, with initially low speeds.

      Ion Propulsion

      The Dawn spacecraft uses ion propulsion to get the additional velocity needed to reach Vesta once it leaves the Delta rocket. It also uses ion propulsion to spiral to lower altitudes on Vesta, to leave Vesta and cruise to Ceres and to spiral to a low altitude orbit at Ceres. Ion propulsion makes efficient use of the onboard fuel by accelerating it to a velocity ten times that of chemical rockets. This efficiency is measured in terms of the specific impulse of the fuel (Isp).

      Dawn’s engines have a specific impulse of 3100 s and a thrust of 90mN. While a chemical rocket on a spacecraft might have a thrust of up to 500 Newtons, Dawn’s much smaller engine achieves an equivalent trajectory change by firing over a much longer period of time. The figure below shows the specific impulse and thrust of different thruster types. (See comparison chart on link)

      Alt Text
      >

      The ion thruster is powered by large solar panels. The power ionizes the fuel (Xenon) and then accelerates it with an electric field between two grids. Electrons are injected into the beam after acceleration to maintain a neutral plasma.

      Ion Thruster Sets World Record

      While the Dawn spacecraft is visiting the asteroids Vesta and Ceres, NASA Glenn has been developing the next generation of ion thrusters for future missions. NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) Project has developed a 7-kilowatt ion thruster that can provide the capabilities needed in the future.

      An ion thruster produces small levels of thrust relative to chemical thrusters, but does so at higher specific impulse (or higher exhaust velocities), which means that an ion thruster has a fuel efficiency of 10-12 times greater than a chemical thruster. The higher the rocket’s specific impulse (fuel efficiency), the farther the spacecraft can go with a given amount of fuel. Given that an ion thruster produces small levels of thrust relative to chemical thrusters, it needs to operate in excess of 10,000 hours to slowly accelerate the spacecraft to speeds necessary to reach the asteroid belt or beyond.

      The NEXT ion thruster has been operated for over 43,000 hours, which for rocket scientists means that the thruster has processed over 770 kilograms of xenon propellant and can provide 30 million-newton-seconds of total impulse to the spacecraft. This demonstrated performance permits future science spacecraft to travel to varied destinations, such as extended tours of multi-asteroids, comets, and outer planets and their moons.

  11. I think you cynics have the wrong idea. This is not a suicide mission: Its a 21st century Mayflower colonizing the new world, settling just enough to prove the feasibility of living there so as to encourage more colonists. These adventurers, they’re not in it for fame and glory, but to build a future few dare to hope for: A Martian Civilization. (The Mayflower only had supplies for a one way trip too.)

    This mission is privately funded: It is the right of private individuals to spend their money how they wish.
    It is voluntarily manned: the volunteers have the right to decide to dedicate their lives to this.
    Lastly, Think of how often naysayers have claimed x was impossible, simply because they couldn’t understand it. Some poeple, it seems, feel that if they personally can’t figure it out, than no one can. I beseech these people to learn some humility.

    Many here claim Mars is not habitable: That is why they’re not on the project. The whole point of this is to find out what it would take to make it work.

    As to the extreme and unfounded pessimism of PY’s comments: We do not know if colonizing Mars is feasible. It will be an extreme challenge, sure, but we humans are ingenious and adaptive, so the only way to find out for sure would be to try, and try HARD.

    • In reply to #31 by Cosine Stdioh:

      You really would do better to read the linked discussion before commenting.

      I think you cynics have the wrong idea. This is not a suicide mission: Its a 21st century Mayflower colonizing the new world, settling just enough to prove the feasibility of living there so as to encourage more colonists.

      There are already much better thought through plans for a Mars science base, http://www.bis-space.com/what-we-do/projects/project-boreas rather than this amateurish stunt, – as I linked at 13

      These adventurers, they’re not in it for fame and glory, but to build a future few dare to hope for: A Martian Civilization. (The Mayflower only had supplies for a one way trip too.)

      They are a bunch of amateurs recruited as a media stunt which will probably never get off Earth!

      This mission is privately funded: It is the right of private individuals to spend their money how they wish. It is voluntarily manned: the volunteers have the right to decide to dedicate their lives to this.

      They do not have aright to contaminate and mess up one of the few planets where we can build bases.

      Lastly, Think of how often naysayers have claimed x was impossible, simply because they couldn’t understand it.

      Nobody who is informed is saying a Mars base is impossible: – only that this plan is poorly thought out, and very likely to fail at some stage. – Probably at some early stage.

      Some people, it seems, feel that if they personally can’t figure it out, than no one can. I beseech these people to learn some humility.

      Could I recommend that that you learn to do some basic research and adopt some humility before accusing (some) others of your own shortcomings – and read my link to the plans the professionals have drawn up for a properly organised base on Mars.

      Many here claim Mars is not habitable: That is why they’re not on the project. The whole point of this is to find out what it would take to make it work.

      There is a huge amount of information available for those who look for it.

      As to the extreme and unfounded pessimism of PY’s comments:

      I agree with you on this. There are many people around who said exactly the same, about satellite launches decades ago. – They are probably using cellphones, the internet and weather information on a regular basis now!

      We do not know if colonizing Mars is feasible.

      With research, it is scientifically and technically feasible. It is the finance and political will, which is in question.

      It will be an extreme challenge, sure, but we humans are ingenious and adaptive, so the only way to find out for sure would be to try, and try HARD….

      I agree – but we have to try smart too. I spotted flaws in their plans almost immediately (on issues such as their airlocks). Flaws which have already been addressed in plans made by other people and described in published material.

  12. In reply to #34 by Alan4discussion:

    Many thanks for the rundown on where they are at with the space travel technology. I wondered what xenon was, until I googled it. I was obviously not very good at chemistry.

Leave a Reply