Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Are Nuclear Powered Mars Rovers a Good Idea? 173

Posted by Cliff
from the got-any-better-ideas dept.
meatybeans writes "NASA officials are meeting today, with concerned residents around Cape Canaveral, regarding the power system for the upcoming Mars Science Lab mission. MSL is going to be like our current rovers on steroids. The plans call for a larger, heavier rover with a lot more juice for gadgets. This meeting however brings to light the issue of the power system for the MSL. The Mars Science Lab originally called for a nuclear power source, much like the Cassini and New Horizon missions use. Some vocal opposition to this has been voiced in the past. As a result, NASA has backup plans to employ solar power and small amounts of RTG's ? if arguments against straight nuclear for MSL win out. As with most, things 'NIMBY' ? seems to be in full effect when it comes RTG's. Does the recent success of the rovers show us that RTG's are not needed for Mars exploration? Are 1:420 odds of an accident that bad? Finally, are the hearings that are taking place between NASA and the public really just a formality in the name of public relations?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Nuclear Powered Mars Rovers a Good Idea?

Comments Filter:
  • Yes (Score:5, Funny)

    by 6Yankee (597075) on Friday September 29, 2006 @06:32AM (#16242783)
    Of course it's a good idea! Ship all the evil nukuler stuff to Mars and the terrrrrists can't get their hands on it!

    For now.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Chelloveck (14643)
      Of course it's a good idea! Ship all the evil nukuler stuff to Mars and the terrrrrists can't get their hands on it!

      Yeah, we tried that seven years ago, and ended up blowing the moon clear out of its orbit. Now you want the same for Mars?

  • Unnecessary (Score:5, Funny)

    by tygerstripes (832644) on Friday September 29, 2006 @06:33AM (#16242789)
    Why don't they just use batteries? I hear Sony has a surplus.
    • by jamesh (87723)
      I wonder what Sony is doing with all of their unexploded batteries? I hope they aren't stored too close to each other. Sending them into space would be a good way to dispose of them...

      Maybe they could use them as rocket fuel? Strap a few to the underside of the probe and bring it along to a Linux conference where Alan Cox is present. That's sure to send it on its way.
      • by ultranova (717540) on Friday September 29, 2006 @09:31AM (#16243993)

        I wonder what Sony is doing with all of their unexploded batteries? I hope they aren't stored too close to each other. Sending them into space would be a good way to dispose of them...

        Sell them to terrorists, of course. "Nobody move, he has a Sony battery! Now calm down, son..."

      • by Nutria (679911) on Friday September 29, 2006 @10:24AM (#16244655)
        I wonder what Sony is doing with all of their unexploded batteries?

        Dump them into the ocean. It's pretty big.

        Besides, out of sight, out of mind.

        • As the co-chair of the Mercury Coalition with Stephen Colbert, I second your project. We must remember that mercury is delicious, and lithium tasty to all ocean life.
        • by CptNerd (455084)
          No, no, no!

          We should use them in a reconstituted Orion project, where instead of lobbing a nuke out the back, let a battery off against the presser plate!

          Hm, maybe that's why they kept the name!

          (BTW, I hope no one thinks I'm being serious. If you do, you got problems...)

  • Yes, of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29, 2006 @06:38AM (#16242809)
    Yes, of course they're a good idea. People should get over their irrational fear of decaying nuclei.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ozmanjusri (601766)
      People should get over their irrational fear of decaying nuclei.

      They already use some nuclear power. Each rover has eight Radioisotope Heater Units, powered by Plutonium 238, so it's not fear that's preventing the use of RTGs.

      My guess is that weight is the problem. NASA's standard General Purpose Heat Source RTG generates about 290W and weighs about 60Kg, while the rover's existing power system weighs about a third of that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rei (128717)
      RTGs can be nice, but they're not without problems. Anything that involves working with plutonium-238 is expensive (it's made from Np-237, and you can only recover that very slowly from nuclear fuel; then you have to irradiate it. You can also make it from Americanium, but that's also very costly). If you don't use something with a reasonably long half-life like Pu-238, you don't have the ability to have "unexpectedly long lifespans" like the MERs have had. While you have "power" for a long time, you do
  • by SirBruce (679714) on Friday September 29, 2006 @06:48AM (#16242853) Homepage
    As I pointed out in the Victoria Crater story, there are places a solar-powered rover can't really explore effectively, or for very long. You can't just land the current MER rovers "anywhere" on Mars and expect them to work. An RTG-powered rover will work longer and better than a MER rover, assuming all other things are equal (not breakdowns elsewhere). Suppose instead Spirit and Opportunity had been RTG-powered... would we now be saying, "Hey, these RTGs work great, so why bother with solar probes anymore?"

    But the real answer to your quest is that RTGs aren't dangerous, so the entire premise of the question is flawed. A launch failure isn't going to make Florida a radioactive wasteland. We've launched dozens of RTGs in past missions. The last big "outcry" was over the Cassini mission, and NASA made the correct decision and launched anyway. Hopefully they'll make the correct decision again and use RTGs for the future rovers like MSL. Bottom line: it's not any more risky to launch an RTG powered probe than a solar powered one, so you use RTG power for the missions that need it and solar power for the missions that need it.

    Bruce
    • As I pointed out in the Victoria Crater story, there are places a solar-powered rover can't really explore effectively

      On the other hand an RTG powered rover would be really heavy, for about the same amount of power you would get from solar cells (assuming illumination is available). Getting into Victoria may be a case of sliding down those sandy slopes into the crater with no possible chance of getting out. A much heavier rover may well get bogged on the way down and either get stuck or turn over.

      On sandy

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by theCoder (23772)
        On the other hand an RTG powered rover would be really heavy, for about the same amount of power you would get from solar cells (assuming illumination is available).

        [emphasis added]

        I don't know how well RTGs compare to solar cells for power production (I would expect they produce more, but maybe not), but the crucial point is that there isn't sufficient illumination on many parts of Mars for solar power to be workable. There is only a narrow latitude band near the Martian equator that can support the solar
    • by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Friday September 29, 2006 @08:17AM (#16243365) Homepage Journal
      But the real answer to your quest is that RTGs aren't dangerous, so the entire premise of the question is flawed. A launch failure isn't going to make Florida a radioactive wasteland. We've launched dozens of RTGs in past missions.

      Don't forget that we've blown up a few of them, too. The original RTGs were designed to be burned up in the atmosphere. (Russia even burned one up over Canada.) So far, there are no nuclear wastelands because of it. NASA quickly figured out, however, that burning up expensive nuclear fuel in the atmosphere was probably not the best idea. So they started cladding the fuel in tough containers designed to withstand a launch failure.

      Those containers have been proven twice. Once on the Nimbus launch vehicle (which was destroyed by the range officer) and the other was the emergency landing of Apollo 13. The Nimbus RTG was recovered from the sea bed, washed off and resused. The Apollo 13 unit fell in the Troga Trench and has been sitting there unpenetrated.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        If you are referring to Cosmos 954 crashing in the Northwest Territories, that wasn't a RTG. It was a nuclear reactor on a satellite. From Wikipedia, it is a BES-5 reactor fueled with U-235. According to one source ( http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/RORSAT/RORSAT .html [svengrahn.pp.se]), there was 30 kg of 90+% enriched U-235 (as U-Mo alloy) in the core. Power output was 3kW, obtained by thermoelectric generators. The heat source is fission, not decay heat.
        • by jafac (1449)
          Holy fuck. Whatever did they need 3kW for on a satellite?
          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            Holy fuck. Whatever did they need 3kW for on a satellite?

            EXT. VILLA PATIO

            The beam strikes the president like the finger of god. He vaporizes. The waiter turns back with the asked-for sugar to find a smoking hole where the President once stood.

          • by dbIII (701233)
            Holy fuck. Whatever did they need 3kW for on a satellite?

            It was an old spy satellite. Those things were/are in highly ellipical polar orbits which took them relatively close to the ground so solar panels to drive the sensing gear were out of the question due to being in the upper atmosphere at high velocity at times.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by baffo (126216)
        > The Apollo 13 unit fell in the Troga Trench and has been sitting there unpenetrated.

        Meanwhile, deep in the ocean, a subacquean race of sentient beings is slowly unravelling the mysteries of nuclear power. In a few centuries they will emerge from the waters in their might! Beweaponed with terrifying RTG powered... mmm... cuttlefish?
      • by dbIII (701233)

        The original RTGs were designed to be burned up in the atmosphere. (Russia even burned one up over Canada.)

        I'm hoping the Kosmos satellites used something a bit different in scale because the Canadians were paticularly pissed off about relatively large chunks of radioactive material spread around a lake and an expensive cleanup. The story in the Reader's Digest written about a year afterwards implied that some material was found using aircraft with detection gear - which would mean a pretty hot radioacti

    • Not in my back yard! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LWATCDR (28044)
      I would like to point out that the "outcry" over Cassini really wasn't a case of NIMBY. I live in south Florida not too far from the Cape. I have no problem with RTGs and frankly I know of only a single person that was worried about. She also bought a lot of wheat for and heirloom seeds back in 1999 for the end of the world. I spent a long time calming her down and explaining RTGs to her. Even she now doesn't have a problem with them.
      Frankly it is a few nut jobs that make good news stories. There are severa
  • by WindBourne (631190) on Friday September 29, 2006 @06:51AM (#16242871) Journal
    Even if the launch system fails, the question should be, what happens to the fissile material? And the answer? Absolutely nothing. It is in a container that is meant to withstand that. All in all, it would still be in one piece. The advantage of nukes is that a great deal more science can go on for a LONG time (and at a lighter weight). Considering that there is no real risk, we really should use them.
    • by Detritus (11846)
      Pu-238 is not fissile.
    • by Like2Byte (542992)
      I did a study of the Cassini mission's RTGs while I was in college. Even if the RTG's broke, the ceramic-like material they're made of is designed to "clump" which leads to easy collection and disposal or recycling. In the end, it was determined that there is more radiation from the Earth's natural background radiation than that from any incident that a catastrophic failure of the launch vehicle could cause.

      The Bottom Line: The activists should have been out picketing their local cement supplier/home buil
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Ash Vince (602485)
      Actually no, if the launch fails very late on after the container has left the atmosphere but before it escapes earths magnetic field then the container would have to withstand re-entry.

      Anyone who has studied re-entry will tell you this is bad. The container could quite easily (no atmosphere to slow it down in space) attain speeds of the order of 1000+mph (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae15 8.cfm). Something travveling at this speed hitting the atmosphere will get hot, very hot. I am sorry I
  • Russian Mars Train (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29, 2006 @06:52AM (#16242877)
    I think it's a great idea. The Russian space agency had plans for a nuclear power "Mars Train" in the 60s. It was manned as well. Mars train [russianspaceweb.com].
  • by 99luftballon (838486) on Friday September 29, 2006 @06:53AM (#16242889)
    In a cost/benefit analysis the nuke option makes sense. If you can get a larger rover that can move faster it opens up many new vista. I mean, I love the current Rovers for lasting so long but they move slowly and are too small to get past many geological barriers. A larger rover could carry more equipment and move farther and faster.

    No-one likes the idea of the power source rupturing but on a planetwide basis it's not a major issue. Mars has probably received more radioactive material from comets et al than would be found in the battery and as we're not going to get there for another twenty years at best harm to humans isn't an issue. The worst result for us would be the plethora of B-movies about the radioactivity causing hyper-evolution that turns algae into ravening Martian monsters that look suspiciously CGIed.

    But maybe the whole strategy is wrong. Instead of a few big rovers make lots of little ones. You get a better sampling of a variety of areas on the planet for your budget and it matters less if a few don't survive the trip.
  • Result of accident? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bl4d3 (697638) on Friday September 29, 2006 @06:54AM (#16242891)
    Would it result in more radiation than an "open air" nuclear explosion test? What does it compare to?
    • by bcmm (768152)
      A dirty bomb. Dunno how big. It's not a nuclear explosion, it's a lot of rocket fuel + some radioactive stuff.
      • by fotbr (855184)
        Except the radioactive material is encased in a manner designed to survive such events.

        It happened, and it worked. Go look up the the Nimbus mission that was destroyed by a range-safety-officer.
    • by Ironsides (739422) on Friday September 29, 2006 @07:15AM (#16243003) Homepage Journal
      Would it result in more radiation than an "open air" nuclear explosion test? What does it compare to?

      A Radioisotope Thermal Generator (RTG) basically using nonfisile radioactive material as a heat source to create electricity. This is what has powered the two Voyager probes for the past 30 years. The amount of readiation released is effectively zero. An open air nuclear explosion releases several kilograms worth of fisile material into the atmosphere.

      Oh, and as to the dangers of RTGs in case of a launch accident. We've actually launched radioactive material on a rocket where the rocket exploded partway into the flight. The nuclear material was recovered inside it's intact casing and reused on a later mission.

      There is zero danger involved here.
    • by Scarblac (122480)

      It's a clump of radioactive material, no chain reaction is taking place, so absolutely not comparable to a nuclear explosion. It's just that a RTF uses 3-4 kg of Plutonium, which is a highly radioactive and poisonous material. In case of an accident, if it were to spread around an area, that area would be contaminated.

      However, they've always used extremely rugged containers, that can survive rocket explosions leaving the block of plutonium intact.

  • New meme? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bcmm (768152)
    We need more articles like this, e.g.:
    Are nuclear powered [iPods|laptops|hackers|furbies] a good idea?
    Seriously though, the answer is nearly always obvious: probably not, because it's not really very safe.
  • wrong question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 192939495969798999 (58312) <infoNO@SPAMdevinmoore.com> on Friday September 29, 2006 @07:05AM (#16242937) Homepage Journal
    the correct quesion should be, 'what's wrong with continuing to build solar rovers that we need a nuclear one? So far, the solar ones haven't stopped running, so I'd say that solar is a home run.
    • Re:wrong question (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ironsides (739422) on Friday September 29, 2006 @07:12AM (#16242979) Homepage Journal
      'what's wrong with continuing to build solar rovers that we need a nuclear one?

      Solar powered rovers can't
      1) Operate in shadow for long
      2) Supply enough power if you want more insturments
      3) Work through the martian winter
      • by z0idberg (888892)
        Oooooh - so close! Caught on the warning track.

        Hit the weight room solar power.
      • by Carnildo (712617)
        On the other hand, RTG rovers have a fixed lifespan. A solar rover can keep going until the mechanical parts fail or funding runs out, while a RTG rover will stop running when the radioactive material decays too far.
        • by Ironsides (739422)
          Chances are that the machine will fail prior to the RTG stopping. The Voyager probes have been running for 30 years, but they are in a vacuum. Chances of any mechanical piece of equipment running for that long wihtout maintenance are quite low. Actually, if we built it in such a way that the RTG could be removeable, it could be re-used in later missions if it was extracted and placed in new robots, thus saving weight and money, or used for say, powering any manned missions. Actually, I think these RTGs
        • Not true. Solar panels decay over time, too, producing less and less power and effectively limiting the rover's life. So do the batteries that hold the electricity that the solar panels generated.

          Eventually, even if nothing else on the Mars Rovers failed, the solar panels would no longer produce enough energy to make the robots move...and that would be the end of the exploration part of the mission.

    • 'what's wrong with continuing to build solar rovers that we need a nuclear one?

      Well, for one, this new rover is going to be much larger than the previous ones. More equipment = more power, and I imagine a nuclear fuel source would have a much higher energy/weight ratio than solar panels.

  • Their power was expected to last 90 days, it's lasted over three years.
    It's the /other/ parts that keep going bad.

    More power might be able to mean more spare parts, though..
    • by hcdejong (561314)
      That's been due to luck (wind cleaning the solar panels more than expected), and planning/keeping limitations in mind (not driving the rovers into dark/shadowy places). For some part of those 3 years, the rovers have been stationary, because they didn't have sufficient power to move/needed to preserve what little power they had to keep essential functions running.
  • Whose backyard? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot@kei[ ]ead.org ['rst' in gap]> on Friday September 29, 2006 @07:09AM (#16242969) Homepage
    My question is, why are these people afraid of a *single* launch malfunctioning and scattering waste in their area, when the US Air Force still has planes launched 8all the time* from *all over the country* that have strategic nuc lear weapons on them? They are never fired, for sure, but any plane accident could cause just as much damage as an accident with one of these NASA launches. In fact the weapons likely have even more dangerous material in them, for obvious reasons.

    • by Shakrai (717556)

      You do know that SAC no longer exists, right? And even during the Cold War the days of 24 hour alerts and constantly having a portion of the fleet airborne stopped after the accident at Palomares Spain in 1966. After that SAC would send nuclear armed planes into the air only during alerts (i.e: Yom Kipper War).

      In fact according to treaty and announcements by both sides the only forces that are currently deployed with nuclear weapons are SSBNs -- the Ohio Class SSBNs [wikipedia.org] and the various types of Russian "boom

      • by d3ac0n (715594)
        Erm.. That would be the Yom Kippur war. Kippers are little fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kippers). Yom Kippur is a Jewish Holiday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur).

        /spelling nazi

        As far as the rest of your post, you hit the nail on the head. Well said.
        • by Sheridan (11610)
          Yum, kippers!

          (Sorry - couldn't resist.)
          --
          I know what you're thinking, but I am not a nut-bag. -- Millroy the Magician

    • Humans are not very good at assessing risk. Most people will tell you that it's safer to drive than fly. However, statistically, you're more likely to die in a car accident than in an airplane.
    • My question is, why are these people afraid of a *single* launch malfunctioning and scattering waste in their area, when the US Air Force still has planes launched 8all the time* from *all over the country* that have strategic nuc lear weapons on them?

      Incorrect. Routine [airborne] carriage of nuclear weapons ceased in the 1960's after the Thule and Palomares accidents.
    • why are these people afraid of a *single* launch malfunctioning and scattering waste in their area, when the US Air Force still has planes launched 8all the time* from *all over the country* that have strategic nuc lear weapons on them?
      Because these RTGs are going into rovers that the article summary describes as being "on steroids", and Congress says steroids are bad.
  • I'm quite sure other launch facilities are quite as capable of getting the payload off the ground. I'm quite sure Russia wouldn't mind getting that baby into the air, without asking what's on board.

    And cheaper too.
    • by steveo777 (183629)
      IIRC, they are using the earth's rotation for momentum during the launch. The closer to the equator, the more momentum they've already got. It's a lot easier then launching something into orbit, then re-boosting it to Mars, or even to a simple geosyncronis orbit (or however you spell that). So, basically Florida is the best bet since Hawaii is so small and it would be more than impracticle to ship equipment there.
    • Actually we buy the Pu238 in for the new rovers from Russia [wikipedia.org] so they'd have no need to ask.
  • by turgid (580780) on Friday September 29, 2006 @07:17AM (#16243005) Journal

    They're a brilliant idea.

    Seriously, educate yourself of RTGs if you're worried about launch safety.

    Secondly, as others have pointed out, they're an excellent, long-lasting, power source.

    A thought just struck me. For much more additional cost, you could make the robots bigger and heavier with much bigger solar panels. They could have batteries big enough to hold several days' charge.

    I'll go with the RTGs, which last decades and result in a smaller, more reliable, and more manoeverable vehicle.

    Anyway, I'm sure the Martians are more radiation-hardened than we are, what with that thin atmosphere.

    • by gevmage (213603) *

      A thought just struck me. For much more additional cost, you could make the robots bigger and heavier with much bigger solar panels. They could have batteries big enough to hold several days' charge.

      I'd guess (based on comments by the head of the current rover project and stuff I've read) that the current rovers are at the large end of the design envelope for solar powered rovers. Larger vehicle, larger panels and batteries...but that means heavier chassis, more weight to move, heavier motors to move

  • by AWeishaupt (917501) on Friday September 29, 2006 @07:27AM (#16243049)
    Scores, if not hundreds, of RTGs have been used in space exploration, going back to the '60s. There have only ever been three - iirc - incidents where the RTG's have been breached, resulting in detectable radioactive release.

    Despite always having been controversial, RTGs have been proven safe.

    Even if you run the space probe from solar cells, you cannot have analytical instruments such as Alpha particle X-ray spectrometers and Mossbauer spectrometers without radioactive sources.
  • I guess it depends on whether you're going to launch 420 of them, and what an "accident" means :-)

    A chunk of metal falling into the sea probably isn't too worrying, but a nuclear device exploding and showering particles over a city, mmm, slightly more problematic...
    • ...but a nuclear device exploding and showering particles over a city, mmm, slightly more problematic...

      An RTG enclosure is designed to survive a launch vehicle failure (read: *KA-BOOM*) with no release of radioactive material.
      • by hob42 (41735)
        Kinda like the space shuttle is "designed" to send astronauts into orbit and safely back to earth.

        Why does "designed to survive" mean it absolutely will? You have to look at possible failures throughout the design, not just in the launch vehicle. So why not consider what happens if it explodes and showers particles over a city?

        When it comes down to it, though, this isn't an H-bomb exploding over Orlando, it's a single release of radioactive material that some here are equating with the radon that 6% of amer
  • Suppose ordinary reactors are used (not these RTGs). What would be the problem? I guess they aren't active during launch or even transit, so what could happen is the breakdown on the surface of Mars. A small one at that. Isn't that enough safety distance? ;-) Even if we go there soon, does it really matter?
    • by amliebsch (724858)

      Suppose ordinary reactors are used (not these RTGs). What would be the problem?

      I think the chief problem is that traditional steam reactors are much more complex and that nobody to my knowledge has ever designed a steam reactor that small. It also seems much more prone to failure. One tiny coolant leak, for example, or a steam loop leak, and you're screwed.

  • Are marsians complaining about?! What then.
  • I have no problem with RTG's. It has been conclusively shown that RTG's are safe even when launch fails. What hasn't been shown is what happens when a RTG impacts Earth at 10km/s or more, as would be the case in a gravity assist gone wrong.
  • I mean, according to the article, lots of other RTGs have been launched without complaint, so it's not the launch site that's the problem.

    NIMBY must be protecting the people with houses on Mars, that's the only logical explination (`sarcasmd --on` and we know NIMBY is logical, `sarcasmd --off`).

    So, where do I get my Martian house!?
  • Next question?

    -1, Bloody Obvious?
  • This meeting however brings to light the issue of the power system for the MSL. The Mars Science Lab originally called for a nuclear power source, much like the Cassini and New Horizon missions use. Some vocal opposition to this has been voiced in the past.

    You know I'm sick and tired of driving around in oil powered vehicles. We should have nuke powered vehicles that only need filling once when manufactured and they last for the life of the vehicle. We'll never get it though because the anti-nuke lobby woul
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Farmer Tim (530755)
      We'll never get it though because the anti-nuke lobby would be absolutely horrified at the thought of any nuke powered vehicle accident.

      But on the other hand, the idea that a collision between two nuclear-powered cars equates to an implosion bomb would improve driver safety no end, so the road safety crowd will support it.
  • Well if the energizer bunny is anything to go by, then we should have the rovers powered by bunnies :)
  • by argStyopa (232550) on Friday September 29, 2006 @01:30PM (#16248003) Journal
    Are they safe? Yes. Shutup. We're launching.
    If you long haired hippy freaks don't like it, tough.
  • I would just like to point out that nuclear power sources are already there. The Mars Rovers, Spirit, and Opportunity contain radio-isotope heaters to stave off the chilly days and nights of the red planet. Granted, this is a much smaller power source (and the only energy being recovered is heat), but I would like to point out that sending nuclear power sources out is nothing new.

    http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/is_sever e_environments.html [nasa.gov]
  • These protesters seem to be the same kind of (confused) people that send me these emails. Posting a real one:

    Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
    From: barbaros bozkir <akobaros@yahoo.com>
    To: makarov@vad1.com
    Subject: about log houses

    Dear Authority
    Me and my wife we live in Turkey. I found your address in your webside.
    We have some questions about wooden houses.
    In Turkey there also are two wooden house firm. Holger-Honkamajat and
    Finahsap. We contacted&#160; both firms. But we want to get cor

Message from Our Sponsor on ttyTV at 13:58 ...

Working...