Survey about Mars to gather ideas for a world

[SunlitZelkova]

I like building worlds. Just writing histories, listing facts, even making playlists with the music that might have been popular on the radio in certain decades.

I am currently working on two worlds. One where the USSR lands on the Moon first (among a myriad of other points of divergence) and one where the Constellation program succeeds.

I was originally considering two paths for the first one: One hyper realistic one with limited budgets and ambitions, and one with fantastic physics and technology where the Space Shuttle flies 7 times a week.

I've decided to go somewhat inbetween the two. Not so conservative that the US just builds a simple Moon base and sends astronauts to it for several years before closing down, but not one so fantastic it might as well be Star Wars.

I have what the 1960s in my world looks like completely down. But I've reached a crossroads where both the US and USSR have to decide what they want to do in the coming years.

There are basically three options-

1) Big space station

2) Moon base + small space stations

3) Crewed Mars landing

*An improved crew spacecraft to replace Apollo and Soyuz is automatically included.

Because of an improved international situation and domestic politics in this world, a crewed Mars landing is probably a given at some point in the future.

Now, it's just a matter of what to do in the meantime.

The pros and cons of space station or Moon base don't particularly matter- it's all about which best contributes to a Mars program.

I've done some light Googling, but I'd really like to hear from other people. It's a pretty old debate that is still going on, and it would be cool to hear from people more in the know about it (I myself mainly focus on space history rather than present day design decisions, and unfortunately there wasn't much serious discussion on how programs can contribute to others back in the 70s- mostly just wishlisting for cool rockets because they're cool).

Share your thoughts after voting and let's discuss!

Edited January 24 by SunlitZelkova

[tater]

46 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Share your thoughts after voting and let's discuss!

Your poll won't take a No on question 1 without also answering #2.

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Your poll won't take a No on question 1 without also answering #2.

Fixed!

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Haven't voted - but I am torn on the necessary part.  Probably smart to figure out how to build a habitat close to home and then go to the next hostile rock over to do it right. 

Could we design, build and test terrestrially and then deploy to Mars directly?   Probably. 

If there is a pressing need to go to Mars - even if something so small as a profit motive - then sure.  But if we are still in the "can we do a thing" mode? 

I'd think about the moon as a test platform with the political justification of 'possibly be able to rescue folks from the hideously dangerous endeavor' as opposed to the 'yer gonna die there no matter what' scenario. 

 

[tater]

I don't think the Moon is required at all. That said, the US has already sent humans to the Moon, so lessons learned at some level.

I'm reading the question a, "Is it required to test technology on the Moon before going to Mars?", hence my "No."

 

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, tater said:

I don't think the Moon is required at all. That said, the US has already sent humans to the Moon, so lessons learned at some level.

I'm reading the question a, "Is it required to test technology on the Moon before going to Mars?", hence my "No."

I agree its not required but probably smart.  Lots of issues with an surface base like digging down modules, using rovers and more advanced exploring like drilling core samples with an drill rig is useful both places and moon is probably harsher because more extreme temperatures and I assume the dust is worse on moon because pure vacuum. 

An large space station don't help much more than an small one but an space station would be essential as you will be living in one for a year going to mars. Exception is if you have 1/3 g spin gravity in part of it. 
Now an large station let you do more space science but this is of limited relevance on Mars. 

[AckSed]

I answered 'Yes' because although I think you can go to Mars in one shot, the advantage of building the Mars infrastructure on Luna means you can have practice with pressure vessels, partial gravity, life-support, ISRU, learning to mine in space-suits...

Plus, the energy needed to  lift, say, a spacecraft off the Moon is much smaller, and can use ISRU propellant e.g. aluminium/oxygen.

[magnemoe]

15 minutes ago, AckSed said:

I answered 'Yes' because although I think you can go to Mars in one shot, the advantage of building the Mars infrastructure on Luna means you can have practice with pressure vessels, partial gravity, life-support, ISRU, learning to mine in space-suits...

Plus, the energy needed to  lift, say, a spacecraft off the Moon is much smaller, and can use ISRU propellant e.g. aluminium/oxygen.

Agree but the huge benefit of the moon is that you can evacuate in 7 days and get in some parts who is broken in the time to set up an moon mission + 7 days.  On mars usually more than an year. 
The dV budget is not that different unless you want to go fast. 

[Spaceception]

I think generally, no. If you want to go to Mars, go to Mars. Send robotic probes and landers/rovers to get an idea of the environment on the way and at the surface, build equipment suited for Mars, build a rocket suited for Mars, don't get distracted with a different goal before you even get started.

At the same time, as your setting seems to still have an active Moon program, it never hurts to leverage that for eventual Mars missions, and you're losing a useful foothold if you abandon it, so I said 'yes' in the context of your world. Though time and resources shouldn't be spent shuffling your feet there, so I only said a decade for development before pushing on.

And while there wasn't an option for Moon + space stations, I think space stations derived from modules you intend to use for Mars missions would be useful steps in development, like the Gemini program through Apollo 7, before we actually started sending humans to the Moon. Testing each major component, vehicle, and some stages of flight near Earth before doing it for real. I think that's something we would do, especially as the space program is young, and we're still figuring things out.

I think Nautilus-X is an interesting concept to look at, since (at a glance) it looks like it's designed off of the ISS, but with upgrades or new capabilities based on things we learned, like inflatable habitats and a rotating centrifuge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X 

[tater]

Lunar bases/exploration certainly doesn't hurt, but it is also not required. Mars is not the Moon, it's different enough, and hard enough that I don't think there's a huge amount of overlap. Any testing required—say life support systems that can function without any repairs for years can just as well be tested in LEO. I'd argue that the huge added cost of testing on the Moon is counter productive. Test in LEO.

Edited January 25 by tater

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, tater said:

say life support systems that can function without any repairs for years can just as well be tested in LEO.

For the transfer vehicle, sure. For testing in a gravity well, there may be a bit of a difference in operation. Oops, lunar gravity is half that of Mars, so your point still stands…

I suppose the best bet is a test system landed with the propellant synthesis plant two years before any crew…

Edited January 24 by StrandedonEarth

[SunlitZelkova]

12 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Haven't voted - but I am torn on the necessary part.  Probably smart to figure out how to build a habitat close to home and then go to the next hostile rock over to do it right. 

Could we design, build and test terrestrially and then deploy to Mars directly?   Probably. 

If there is a pressing need to go to Mars - even if something so small as a profit motive - then sure.  But if we are still in the "can we do a thing" mode? 

I'd think about the moon as a test platform with the political justification of 'possibly be able to rescue folks from the hideously dangerous endeavor' as opposed to the 'yer gonna die there no matter what' scenario. 

 

I think a test habitat in Earth’s vicinity is necessary, but I’m skeptical of how the Moon could be useful in testing it. We more or less have had something akin to a Mars Transfer Vehicle running continuously in orbit for decades- the ISS. Why do we need to do it on the Moon too?

Things that need to be tested under a little gravity, like landers and surface habs, could be done on Earth, which is closer to Mars than Moon because it had atmosphere.

On the other hand, it should be noted that IRL in the 70s and in my world, there is a significant Moon lobby. The 60s saw the creation of a decent sized lunar science community and they would have a big voice in deciding a post-Apollo goal.

7 hours ago, magnemoe said:

I agree its not required but probably smart.  Lots of issues with an surface base like digging down modules, using rovers and more advanced exploring like drilling core samples with an drill rig is useful both places and moon is probably harsher because more extreme temperatures and I assume the dust is worse on moon because pure vacuum. 

An large space station don't help much more than an small one but an space station would be essential as you will be living in one for a year going to mars. Exception is if you have 1/3 g spin gravity in part of it. 
Now an large station let you do more space science but this is of limited relevance on Mars. 

A space station would help with studying how a Mars Transfer Vehicle will behave over long periods of time.

But I’m skeptical of why things that need to be tested under gravity, like landers and surface habs, can’t be done on Earth.

6 hours ago, AckSed said:

I answered 'Yes' because although I think you can go to Mars in one shot, the advantage of building the Mars infrastructure on Luna means you can have practice with pressure vessels, partial gravity, life-support, ISRU, learning to mine in space-suits...

Plus, the energy needed to  lift, say, a spacecraft off the Moon is much smaller, and can use ISRU propellant e.g. aluminium/oxygen.

What is the advantage of leaving from the Moon if you have to launch everything from Earth in the first place?

Would 10 small launches from Earth to Moon to build a Mars vehicle on the Moon cost less than 3 big launches from Earth to build the same thing in LEO?

5 hours ago, Spaceception said:

At the same time, as your setting seems to still have an active Moon program, it never hurts to leverage that for eventual Mars missions, and you're losing a useful foothold if you abandon it, so I said 'yes' in the context of your world. Though time and resources shouldn't be spent shuffling your feet there, so I only said a decade for development before pushing on.

And while there wasn't an option for Moon + space stations, I think space stations derived from modules you intend to use for Mars missions would be useful steps in development, like the Gemini program through Apollo 7, before we actually started sending humans to the Moon. Testing each major component, vehicle, and some stages of flight near Earth before doing it for real. I think that's something we would do, especially as the space program is young, and we're still figuring things out.

I should have added more context. It’s 1969 but the downsizing of NASA was well underway by the time the Soviets surprised everyone by landing first. So it’s going to take a lot of money to restart Saturn V production. On the other hand, the Vietnam War ended earlier due to stronger political pressure over general science and technology vs. war. So the course of the funding is going to look more like how the Soviets cancelled N1 but then went all in on Mir + Buran, instead of cancelling Apollo and underfunding the lone Space Shuttle. Except in this case it will be *option/Moon base or space station* + Mars landing.

So Apollo isn’t exactly an “active” Moon program. It’s very much in position for cancellation, only the Saturn V is really guaranteed to survive to the 1980s. There are no serious Moon base studies going on, and Apollo is still on track to end with 20.

I personally favor the space station option because it is applicable to a Mars Transfer Vehicle. I feel like the transit through interplanetary space is the most dangerous and unknown aspect of a Mars mission (in 1969). In contrast, stuff that needs to be done under gravity could be done on Earth. Not to say it is best done on Earth, but if you are trying to limit things for budget reasons (think like you’re the White House Office of Budget and Management rather than NASA Administrator), Moon base feels easy to eliminate while space station can actually do things you can’t on Earth.

———————————

It sounds like I have already decided to go with a space station, and to be honest I am leaning toward it, but I still want to hear opinions. I like this discussion we have going.

[tater]

Didn't realize this is a sort of Eyes Turned Skywards counterfactual from the early 70s.

Still a station to test life support. Characterize how long it can run between fixes, look at the amount of consumables it uses during a nominal Mars mission (including parts), and assume that all those are needes for the Mars flight—plus some margin. Test Mars landers by landing them—of course this assumes it can be automated, vs crew required at that time period.

(I concentrated on poll, vs 1st post, and never got to it since I had to reply that I could not vote)

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I’m skeptical of how the Moon could be useful in testing

So - I'm a little outside my expertise - but I suspect that testing big earth movers / large assembly vehicles in a low gravity environment with temperature extremes may be useful... Although, frankly regolith on the airless moon is likely a harsher environment than the Martian soil that has at least been weathered. 

The problem is that almost every single construction project runs into problems.  Things you forget or issues you did not even know would be issues.  This is especially true the moment you start to dig - which is true of literally every construction project. 

Unless you plan to just land a habitat and allow it to be surface laid?  If there is any assembly required? 

We are spitballing. 

My thoughts, however on the 'rescue the person' thing still stands.  If it's all automated?  Pfft.  Then it's just money. 

I really don't know - again, just spitballing 

[darthgently]

The only advantage to leaving from the Moon I can think of is if the fuel, or other bulk consumable (water?) for use on trip to Mars were harvested on the Moon.  Or perhaps a lunar based electromagnetic launch system or similar.

[Arugela]

This needs multiple choices. If we can get an ssto or other cheap method to get large things up(and/or for cheap) but not people for safety reason. why not robots and space stations and limited people travel. I wonder if that would be possible before cheap people flight. This is assuming stuff that is cutting edge that might be able to do one before the other.

I would prefer majority advanced robotic exploration and space stations for redundancies. The redundancies are for safety of people eventually or resources for aborting missions locally or full returns.

IE, Build(/test) then explore.

Edited January 25 by Arugela

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Didn't realize this is a sort of Eyes Turned Skywards counterfactual from the early 70s.

For All Mankind is an entertaining TV show but is garbage as far as properly depicting how space programs and societal development works. I’ve decided to do my own version, to a certain extent.

2 hours ago, tater said:

Still a station to test life support. Characterize how long it can run between fixes, look at the amount of consumables it uses during a nominal Mars mission (including parts), and assume that all those are needes for the Mars flight—plus some margin. Test Mars landers by landing them—of course this assumes it can be automated, vs crew required at that time period.

Agreed. What I’m thinking of right now is that there actually is… taking into account this is the 1970s with stagflation… no restart of Saturn V production. Instead Apollos 15, 19, 20, and even 17 and 18 are canceled to create a pool of Saturn Vs for a Mars mission and space station. Apollo 13 still has its problem, but this time Nixon gets his way and cancels all further Apollo missions afterwards. This leaves 7 Saturn Vs available for a Mars mission.

I’m thinking the development campaign goes like this-

Stage 1: Skylab A launches into LEO. Four missions are flown to it. We learn how to do space station ops. This stage ends in 1974 (Skylab still has delays and doesn’t launch till 73). Missions are progressively longer here, starting at 20 days and escalating to 90 days in space.

Stage 2A: Skylab B, heavily modified to serve as a prototype MTV hab module, is launched in 1975. 3 missions are flown simulating a complete Mars mission.

Stage 2B: A prototype NERVA module is launched, and does a complete mission to Mars orbit to verify engines can function that long. Maybe it carries Viking 1 and 2 simultaneously there.

Stage 3: The Mars mission. Based on the proposed Mars mission that was going to come at the end of the original STS program, I’m assuming it’s going to take a single, reduced size “Skylab C” (with only three crew) and three S-IVB sized NERVA stages to propel this thing to Mars. That uses up the last of the Saturn Vs. This would take place in 1979 or the early 80s. Unfortunately mass limitations mean the time on the surface is only 15 days.

After that, all hardware would be used up. The US would emerge having possibly discovered life on another planet and landed the first man and woman on Mars. In this environment I have no idea what proposals for successor programs would look like. But that’s a question for the future.

TL/DR: The space station option seems the most fiscally and politically viable to me.

57 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

So - I'm a little outside my expertise - but I suspect that testing big earth movers / large assembly vehicles in a low gravity environment with temperature extremes may be useful... Although, frankly regolith on the airless moon is likely a harsher environment than the Martian soil that has at least been weathered. 

The problem is that almost every single construction project runs into problems.  Things you forget or issues you did not even know would be issues.  This is especially true the moment you start to dig - which is true of literally every construction project. 

Unless you plan to just land a habitat and allow it to be surface laid?  If there is any assembly required? 

We are spitballing. 

My thoughts, however on the 'rescue the person' thing still stands.  If it's all automated?  Pfft.  Then it's just money. 

I really don't know - again, just spitballing 

Well, you’re right about colonization. In an expedition scenario it might not be necessary though. They would just be doing science, with little mining involved. IIRC the most recent proposed NASA mission architecture doesn’t even use ISRU (not DRM 5.0, I’m talking about the Deep Space Transport or whatever it’s called).

5 minutes ago, Arugela said:

This needs multiple choices. If we can get an ssto or other cheap method to get large things up(and/or for cheap) but not people for safety reason. why not robots and space stations and limited people travel. I wonder if that would be possible before cheap people flight. This is assuming stuff that is cutting edge that might be able to do one before the other.

I would prefer majority advanced robotic exploration and space stations for redundancies. The redundancies are for safety of people eventually or resources for aborting missions locally or full returns.

IE, Build(/test) then explore.

Well the premise is sending people to Mars. The question wouldn’t really matter if we primarily used robots.

[kerbiloid]

1. Low gravity, its health effects. The Martian crew should either stay for three years in orbit, or spend 1.5 of them at .4 g.
This (both) should be tested on the Moon base, in a full-time Martian flight simulation.

2. The ship should stay intact for three years, and it can't be supplied or serviced from the Earth.
The ship should be tested at the Moon, where they can return at any moment.

3. The 3-year long unsupplied ship should be redundant, have a lot of supplies onboard, the medical centrifuge is probably necessary.
It's actually a heavy orbital station with engines. It should be in any case studied at the Earth, outside the radiation belts, so the Moon is an obvious choice.

4. The less cryofluids you have to deliver to orbit and pump (btw nobody did it yet), the less chance of something going wrong and preventing the whole flight.
So, a multi-megawatt nuclear tug looks much less sick idea than the orbital cryogenic festival planned by any project.
You should:

• build a nuclear tug with huge cryostats and docking ports in LEO;
• deliver water tanks (they can stay in LEO for decades);
• attach them to the tug;
• build the ship at the tug;
• slowly spiral the tug with attached water and ships to the outer limits of the Earthdom, say to the Moon orbit, with ion thrusters, powered by its nuke reactor;
• shut down the reactor;
• send the crew to the lunar hotel;
• send a servicing brigade from the Moon to check and prepare the systems;
• evacuate the brigade;
• engage the reactor full power, electrolyze the water, and store the LOX and LH in the tug's huge cryostats, being actively cooled by the now-low-power reactor;
• shut down the reactor;
• send the crew to the ship from the lunar hotel;
• on their arrival, pump the cryofuel from the tug cryostats into the ship's hydrolox booster propellant tanks;
• send somebody with a zippo to light;
• run from the very high Earth orbit, spending the possible minimum of cryofuel, as most part of the delta-V has been already provided by the tug reactor and ions, by delivering the ship and the fuel to the very high orbit (lifting it from the gravity well);
• spiral the tug back to the LEO, probably dropping the empty water tanks into the lunar crater, where the lunar workers will grab them and use for metal, and prepare the next Martian ship;
• return the jettisonned hydrolox booster to the Moon by the low-thrust solar-powered ions, and drop it into the same scrap crater.

The same Martian ship is also a standard orbital station design, to be built for LEO, HEO, MoonO, LMartianO.

Have a hypergolic (i.e. dense and storable) booster braker behind the ship to insert the LMartianO.
Have four lateral hypergolic boosters around the ship to return from LMaO to the Earth.
All of them are also an additional rad protection around the ship.
Connect their fuel tanks to let any engine be out of order without mission failure.
Attach the Gigantor-like solar panels radially.

Separate any system of the ship into the Mir-like radially attached modules around the core module with crew, so they can shade it from radiation. Stick them radially, between the lateral boosters, so the whole structure looks 3d.
Put them in two groups, front and rear, to have the habitat in between, shaded from every direction.

Sover the whole assembly with lightweight honeycomb protective panels (anti-rad, anti-met, anti-sun).

So, the ship will look like a rounded brick.

To repurpose the design into the standard orbital station, just replace the lateral and the rear boosters with lateral and rear station modules and trusses.
This design can be used for any LEO, HEO, interplanetary (including the Pluto) stations and ships, as in any case the travel time should not exceed two or three years in zero-g.
When you have the Orion drive, attach it behind. The ship stays same.

First of all: there is no such thing as "Martian flight", there is "study of Mars", requiring many flights.
It's by orders of magnitude more complex problem than the lunar flights.

Edited January 25 by kerbiloid

[darthgently]

I think you'd need an event to explain total Apollo cancellation (historically pushed for budget reasons) somehow turning into a fairly spendy and focused push to Mars.  But other than that I'd definitely read this with suspended disbelief and interest

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, darthgently said:

The only advantage to leaving from the Moon I can think of is if the fuel, or other bulk consumable (water?) for use on trip to Mars were harvested on the Moon.  Or perhaps a lunar based electromagnetic launch system or similar.

Think exporting fuel off the moon will require something more like an industrial town than an base. More so if this was set over 50 years ago so little automation. 
I and other talk about learning to build an base on the moon helping building it on mars. 
Also water at the pole was not really an thing back then. Oxygen and aluminum yes but its not very practical for an mars ship  
 

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, darthgently said:

I think you'd need an event to explain total Apollo cancellation (historically pushed for budget reasons) somehow turning into a fairly spendy and focused push to Mars.  But other than that I'd definitely read this with suspended disbelief and interest

I say Apollo works out like the soviet N1 project with lots of problems and the N1 works like Apollo so the soviet is the first to land on the moon. 
US doubles down and want to go to mars. 
I noted its an mars landing or an moon base who make them pretty similar in scope and in this sense mars makes sense, I guess the US also landed on the moon as training but the main point was an smallish space station to test life support and humans in over a year in zero g. 

[SunlitZelkova]

7 hours ago, darthgently said:

I think you'd need an event to explain total Apollo cancellation (historically pushed for budget reasons) somehow turning into a fairly spendy and focused push to Mars.  But other than that I'd definitely read this with suspended disbelief and interest

Basically the same dynamic with how Skylab B (already existed and would be cheap to launch) got cancelled but we ended up spending tons on the Space Shuttle (didn't exist and cost tons to develop). Same dynamic, different programs.

Also, because my Mars program relies on so much legacy tech instead of new stuff, it wouldn't cost as much as the Boeing 1969 proposal or Von Braun's Mars mission proposal.

As far as things with Congress goes-

Spoiler

Basically soon after the Soviets land on the Moon, the majority of Democrats decide to switch to a narrative that the Vietnam War is costing too much in fortune and lives that would be better directed to improving American society and science. Nixon doesn't want to be seen as the man who lost the Space Race, so he decides to continue it by declaring that the US will land the first man on Mars. NASA goes forward with their big Integrated Program Plan (original STS) proposal, but the Office of Budget and Management destroys it and turns it into my program that only has a single landing and uses mostly surplus Apollo hardware (even the lander will probably be based on the LEM). After Nixon and Ford leave office, Carter follows the new "science line" of the party and continues funding. But either once the sole landing takes place or even if the Soviets beat the US to Mars, Reagan is probably going to come around and cancel most NASA missions in favor of robotic spaceflight.

Earth political history still mostly works out like it did IRL, except the Boeing SST gets built and sees service in small numbers. I haven't decided whether I'm going to have the Soviets beat the US to Mars or not yet. Their Mars mission would be based on Salyut tech and the RD-0140 nuclear thermal rocket.

It isn't a "for sure" point of divergence in the same way you can say "if the Soviet submarine fired a nuclear torpedo accidentally during the Cuban Missile Crisis" there would be World War III for sure. It requires people not being robots and instead coming up with different ideas, and making different decisions. The manner by which the Soviets land on the Moon first also requires this. If you believe in the inevitability of history (a sort of dialectical materialism) you won't find the story compelling at all, but if you believe in the power of free will and choice, it becomes a bit more plausible.

[darthgently]

13 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Reagan is probably going to come around and cancel most NASA missions in favor of robotic spaceflight.

Is this historical?  Can't remember his exact angle but I recall he was very proud of our astronauts

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

Is this historical?  Can't remember his exact angle but I recall he was very proud of our astronauts

David S.F. Portee, a space historian who runs the No Shortage of Dreams blog, says "Reagan wasn't interested at all until after he saw a few Shuttle landings." It should be noted that even if he continued funding of the Shuttle, it was both his administration and Congress that were responsible for dragging their feet so long Space Station Freedom had to become the ISS.

I think that portion of the story is tentative though. I have no idea how the direction of spaceflight and government interest would go once we actually land humans on Mars (whether that be in the 80s or in the 2030s). I haven't thought much about it, I'm mainly focused on the general political history (which isn't that much affected by spaceflight) right now.

Now that I think about it though, in the aftermath of a program with only a single Mars landing and no hardware left, I could see the successor program becoming something like SLS... designed to keep America looking sort of good in space competition with the USSR, but also mainly to put money into Congressional districts. The ending of my Mars program isn't too unlike that of the Space Shuttle.

And a return to the Moon might make sense from the POV of both a NASA administrator helpful to still do something big post-Mars, but not quite as expensive as expendable repetitive Mars missions.

On the other hand, given the technology they would be building off of would be Saturn series tech and not Space Shuttle, maybe it would be more capable than SLS.

Another factor is what the Soviets are doing. I haven't decided if I want them to build a Moon base or take the same space station route as NASA. But unlike Skylab, any Soviet station would be permanent and easily accessible by Soyuz. So it might be hard to end piloted spaceflight while the Soviets are still doing it.