This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Exploration

TrumpSpace: #JourneyToMars Or #BackToTheMoon For NASA?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 22, 2016
Filed under , , ,
TrumpSpace: #JourneyToMars Or #BackToTheMoon For NASA?

NASA’s next stop–Mars or the Moon? John Grunsfeld and Paul Spudis argue for and against Mars and the Moon, Ars Technica
“Both men agree on one point: with NASA’s limited funds, even before possible cuts under a Trump administration, the space agency can’t do both. Sending astronauts to the Moon and establishing a colony would push human exploration of Mars into the second half of this century. Alternatively, making a direct push toward Mars would preclude any meaningful human exploration of the Moon. A choice must be made. For the last six years, NASA has continued developing a deep space capsule, Orion, as well as begun construction on a large new rocket, the Space Launch System, as the foundation of an exploration program. NASA has promoted a “Journey to Mars,” but in reality the space agency has taken no definitive steps to preclude either a Moon or Mars pathway. That decision will have to be made soon. Within the next four years or so, the space agency must start designing and building specific hardware, for landing and living on either the Moon or Mars.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

27 responses to “TrumpSpace: #JourneyToMars Or #BackToTheMoon For NASA?”

  1. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    Would that be “confident” in the sense of a comment I once heard about a technical paper? Someone said, “As soon as I saw the title and the author’s names, I expected it to be a total disaster. I was not disappointed.”

  2. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    The last dying gasp of the space states sponsored jobs boondoggles?

    A trade off for a commercial station would be the ticket. Once we commercial cargo, passenger services and a commercial destination, they can not blackmail the country for another boondoggle.

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      Hit the nail on the head. This article, along with the professionals interviewed in it, epitomizes the miopic view that Commercial Space has no contribution to make. I don’t understand why it is so difficult to drill this concept through people’s skulls. GSO comsat technology has been self-sustaining, and very lucrative, for more than 30 years. When was the last time NASA helped someone build a cable TV satellite? When was theast time NASA had to ask Congress for funding for one?
      Siting the examples of Apollo, Space Shuttle, ISS is fair. However, one thing is new…Space Act Agreement contracting. Well, it’s not really new, it’s been used for a very long time as a mechanism for NASA to shepard the development of Earth-focused Spin-offs of much smaller technologies. Now, COTS and CCDev are Space Act Agreement projects. So are current NASA tech-advancement projects for Deep-space propulsion and habitation.
      The moon and Mars are not either/or unless you buy in to the antiquated notion that Government sponsored space agencies have to do everything. The moon and Mars are now two sides of the same coin being tossed down the same timeline.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Just the fact that every single form of mechanical transportation has been commercialized and industrialized says vols. Why is it so hard to make the jump to commercial spaceflight.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      What exactly would energize anyone into building a private space station? How would it be funded, what would be sold there, how would any income be generated to pay for operation let alone design, development, and lofting?

      It’s pie in the sky, if you’ll excuse me. For all of the space crazy people, like me, whining on the sidelines, asking why we aren’t walking on Ganymede yet, I’ll ask the big question once again:

      How? and why? Why would any private company undertake a space station, an outpost on Luna, or a trip to Mars (where it appears Mr. Musk thinks the ‘settlers’ will fund the effort)?

      There’s nothing there. Nothing. Some ice that becomes rocket fuel? Seriously? We are long decades away from any idea how to make ice mixed with rock in low G into usable pure volatiles. We don’t know how to mind/process/store/move it.

      And even if we did, what then? Well-fueled rocket ships zooming about the solar system doing- what? Aside from spending money?

      Microwave beaming of power to Terra? Not. Gonna. Happen. Lots of reasons aside from the fact that it’s not shown to be effective. And climate change. And it’s too easily weaponized.

      Tourists? Really? Maybe. Ask Burt Rutan how that’s working out so far. Every single person strapping a rocket between their legs is equivalent to Alan Shepard. Heroes, every one of them. A rocket is so far from safe it can’t be calculated (accurately).

      Science? Sure. Send a robot.

      Glory? “Because it’s there”? Riiiiigggghhhttt.

      What else ya got? Nothing? Me neither. Nada.

      Argh. And get off my lawn.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        “What exactly would energize anyone into building a private space station? How would it be funded, what would be sold there, how would any income be generated to pay for operation let alone design, development, and lofting?”

        If you have never heard of Bigelow Aerospace, I suggest you read everything published and then listen to every interview he has ever conducted. Every question you have posed has been already asked and answered.

        Just the fact that Russia has a list 300 potential customers that wanted to fly to the ISS at 20 – 25 million should tell you something about a potential market. The fact that Bigelow has signed MOU’s from countries that wanted to swim in the deep end of the pool with NASA and be on a space station should tell you something.

        The fact that since the ISS finally was completed and turned into a national lab with commercial opportunities and now is back logged should tell you something>>>

        “While a great deal of attention was paid to ISS during its construction phase, the Station – a National Lab of the United States – has been entrenched in its all-important utilization phase for the last five years, hosting thousands of astronomy, astrobiology, and physical and medical sciences experiments. Now, so great is the research demand on Station that the Program is facing a backlog of research and development requests as well as a shortage of crew time for those petitions.

        Station utilization efforts – science payoffs in space:

        As part of a standard review process multiple times per year, the International Space Station Program presented a status update to the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) earlier this month.”

        https://www.nasaspaceflight

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Mr. Bigelow has plans for two things.

          What’s the difference between a hotel on orbit and a hotel in Antarctica? The view. Not the fact that every item is provided from Earth, surely. This is not the start of a city. It is a very expensive offshore destination for very rich people who can afford to have caviar imported to orbit. From earth.

          As to the notion that Mr. Bigelow will provide space stations for smaller nations? These mini space stations would be akin to Mr. Bigelow’s hotel. And just like the ISS, completely incapable of self-sufficiency on any level.

          On the other hand, human ingenuity being what it is, one could imagine a situation where space station A has something that space station B needs; perhaps space station A is actually able to manufacture something and sell it to space station B. It’s a serious stretch but who knows. We humans are an avaricious bunch.

          (And yes I’ve seen about everything the formidable Mr. Bigelow has presented).

          Just trying to think Big Picture here. I’m trying to figure out why we don’t have a bigger presence in space. I’m trying to figure out what the smart people are thinking. I want to know why the smart people don’t see space as a place where we should be. Yesterday.

          This is my best answer. i’ve read widely on the subject. And I can’t find an author, writer, or thinker who can present a practical and logical way to establish a human settlement off planet without an expense. Lots of detail on HOW – Zubrin for instance. And lots of folks will wax poetic, all about humanity belonging into the stars. Me included.

          Sure.

          Show me the money.

          And show me a path that has the slightest cognate in human history.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            There is not a single city in the U.S. that is self sufficient. We are a community. There fore we count on the markets to provide what we need when we need it so every city does not NEED to be self sufficient. We SPECIALIZE each city and region has strengths weaknesses. Why do you believe that will be different as we spiral outward? Every area in space will be the same way based on the gravity gradients. Zero will specialize in that gravity gradient just like Lunar will provide a different on that certain manufacturing can take advantage of.

            You think to small.

            So habitats in space will be unable to grow food? Will not beable to manufacture certain goods?

            ” It is a very expensive offshore destination for very rich people who can afford to have caviar imported”

            I am just glad we have created the wealth that allows this to happen. It is a very LONG LIST of goods and services that got branded like you just did for the “very rich”

            Eye glasses used to be only for the very rich and mothers encouraged daughters to go after a man that wears glasses.

            Automobiles, refriderators, airplanes, telescopes etc etc etc etc etc

            All those products were over priced and usually almost hand made. those EXTRA normal profits automatically draws in capital. Then you get economy of scale and prices come down.

            We have over 300 years of economic data showing how the virtuous circle starts why anyone things it will not spiral outward is beyond me.

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          The fact that Bigelow has signed MOU’s from countries that wanted to swim in the deep end of the pool with NASA and be on a space station should tell you something.

          Actually they haven’t. It’s a common myth, repeated in Wikipedia, but it’s not true.

          They’ve only signed one MOU at the national level, with UAE. It has a couple of mutual-promotion agreements with groups like Space Florida and a British scientific instrument manufacturer, but it has zero prospective customers except NASA with BEAM.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Actually, 300 potential customers at $20-$25 million per ticket doesn’t tell me all that much. First, that’s just $6 to $7.5 billion. How many of those people would pay another $20 million to do it again? How elastic is the market? If you took the cost of a ticked down to $10 million, would you attract 300 more customers, or just 50? Also, I’m not sure what the people on that list thought they would get. Did they think they would get to do a spacewalk as part of the trip? For a $20 million dollar vacation, they may have some expectations about the quality of the food, accommodations, etc. If you disappoint them, you aren’t going to get repeat business or positive reviews.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            That shows there is a market… when you can only lift 15 per year, like soyuz, … that is a back logged market.

            Of the 8 commercial customers that went into LEO, one did a reflight or 12% and the cost was closer to 35 million a flight.

            Until we have domestic transportation and a domestic commercial destination a lot of those questions are still unanswered. But you either people a person like Bigelow, who has commited 500 million and built a factory, says about a potential customer base or you believe he is lying about his statistics.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Actually, I don’t have to either agree with Mr. Bigelow or believe he’s lying. Statistics come with uncertainties, and surveys and market research especially uncertain sorts of statistics. People also make high-risk, high-payoff investments. Mr. Bigelow may be perfectly honest but looking at the data and the risks optimistically. I’m just say the data isn’t enough for me to be convinced. Maybe that’s the pessimistic interpretation.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Bigelow has stated there is a LARGE market of 2nd and 3rd tier countries hat are interested once there is commercial transportation. Now either he has talked to those state players or he hasn’t. If he has talked to them they either told him they were interested or he lied. Or they lied to him. I still say, a person doesn’t toss a half billion at a crap shoot. He has stated there are MANY states that want access… You either believe it and his statements or you don’t.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            >He has either talked to those state players or he hasn’t.

            That’s certainly true.

            >If he has talked to them they either told him they were interested or he lied.

            Pronouns. They (those “state players”) may have told him that _other_people_ in their country were interested. They could be wrong about that. They may have under- or overestimated the number of potential customers. _They_ may have lied to Mr. Bigelow, or may have been optimistic and gave him a rosy impression. _They_ can’t say whether or not these potential customers may change their minds (the potential customers don’t even know that.)

            By they way, do you (or does anyone other than Mr. Bigelow) have a number to go along with “MANY” states?

            As for “tossing a half billion at a crap shoot”, lots of people have gotten very rich (well, much richer) doing exactly that. You need to have that much money, and you need to be able to afford losing it. (How much is Mr. Bigelow worth? If he’s worth a few billion, he won’t be impoverished if he loses his investment.) If he stands to make $5 billion, if things work out, then ten-to-one odds of success would justify the risk. That’s how investors make money: By balancing the benefits and risks. Some are perfectly fine with investing on something speculative and risky.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            When Bigelow gave the Gate I & II reports to NASA he gave a presentation and said that, because the Commercial crew was taking longer ( this was after congress kept cutting the amount that NASA requested) he said he would not sign up customers until there was transportation. At that time he talked about how they were only going to offer full modules or half mods but because of requests they also added a 1/3 of a module. After that offer was made he said a lot of nations became interested. at the 25 million for two months it would be 150 million a year. If two countries did a partnership they could each rotate two people a year for about 180 million on six month stays./

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Historically, commerce hasn’t been the only motive for colonization. Often, the colonists were people who simply (and strongly) didn’t want to live where ever they were. Religion, not commerce, produced the first colonies in New England and Utah. You could add personal, political and philosophical motives to religion. So a viable colony doesn’t have to be profitable; it has to be sustainable.

        Of course, you could ask why someone who felt that way would want to colonize Mars rather than Antarctica. Then we’d get into a discussion of legal status and associated difficulties. I’m just pointing out a non-commercial motive.

        I think sustainability is the real obstacle. I don’t think a fully self-sufficient colony is realistic. Equipment would break down and have to be repaired, and local manufacture of some parts (e.g. microchips) would not be possible without a huge initial investment in infrastructure. On the other hand, importing everything (e.g. food) would also be unrealistic. The money would have to come from somewhere.

        Some money would have to come from somewhere. But that doesn’t have to be a huge amount of money, and it doesn’t have to be income inherent to being in space. Some well-paying professions can be done more or less anywhere. A good computer programmer, willing to accept a very low standard of living, could clear $250,000 to pay for imported, replacement chips. If someone paid their own way, NASA might cover some incremental costs by paying them to do field geology, operate lab mass spectrometers (instead of doing sample returns) or fix robotic rovers.

        So the real question, in my mind, is how much initial infrastructure could such a non-commercial colony have, and how much money would they need for imports? If they could get enough infrastructure to be largely self-sufficient, and thereby minimize import costs, they might be able to scrape by at an affordable few hundred thousand per person per year. Of course, that does depend on the transport costs. Mr. Musk things something in that price range is achievable for a trip to Mars. If so, then presumably a couple hundred kilos of cargo (no life support requirements) would be possible for that price as well.

  3. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Which is why the first step in commercial spaceflight is earth to LEO. If cost can be reduced, the market will increase.

  4. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    The day Dennis Tito wanted to go into space, and it turned that others did too, Congress and NASA knew there was a dual use potential market out there. Did they embrace it or ridicule it?

  5. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    I’ve began reading Spudis’ book (I tend to catch a few pages here and there, this is a quick brain dump), one theme repeated is how everyone forgot VSE directives was to learn how to make use of resources such as Moon. Everyone heard about the Moon but focused on Mars leaving the Moon as a brief stepping stone. VSE suffered in many ways including lots of time on requirements and mission definitions when making critical decisions were deferred. Mars was not considered the only destination, the Moon was important to learn how to develop cislunar transport, learn to develop facilities, harness materials, etc. Then we have this “follow the water” in search for life where many focus on what used to be water on Mars. But wait, LCROSS detected tons of water in craters on the Moon’s poles. There’s your water for making the most powerful rocket fuel, shielding, drinking, etc. Spudis also talked about the Clementine mission, derived from SDI’s Brilliant Pebbles work, in contrast to numerous lunar missions proposed by scientists over the years but NASA never approved.

    I have bias towards the Moon because this “Journey to Mars” (which is always 20 years into the future) is as bankrupt as controlled fusion. And forget this nonsense of mining He3 because we will always be “ten years away” from developing a fusion reactor.

    What is with this Apollo style mode of going into space? Where everything is lifted from the deepest gravity well in the inner solar system and used only once?

    Dr. Spudis mentioned of trying to formulate policy among different groups. Scientists want to understand the Universe. Aerospace companies want to get contracts to build the most expensive spacecraft. Bureaucrats want to manage continuing programs.

    Addl note: Dr. Spudis’ blog has interesting comments readers, some quite debatable.

  6. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    “We need CITIES”

    Sorry, Mike, but that’s just plain silly. Think about what a city actually IS: a place where people live, sure, but the lifeblood of every city is trade. Always has been through time, starting with the earliest human settlements. Any human geographer or anthropologist will attest.

    And these settlements depended on cheap transportation as well as available places to support the second great leg of civilization: agriculture.

    I could go on (and have repeatedly, I know, with Kieth’s indulgence). But Luna/Mars are very poor places to put a city of any sort for the reasons above.

    Perhaps you imagine a million folks living on the moon, growing food hydroponically; sufficient human mass to support show repair and dry cleaning and all of the other services we provide one another at a slight markup. Maybe.

    But human settlements have grown in a very organic way, from the smallest places where a few families pitch tents to the great cities of our planet. Is it even possible to ‘jump-start’ such a city? Pouring trillions into the place until it is self-sustaining? And do we even have the tech to do it?

    So, Merry Christmas to my space crazy friends. Takes one to know one.

  7. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Thoughtful reply. And I’ll answer your point when I’m not sitting on the beach.

    Note that Kansas City grows food and trades widely with neighbors. The history of the west is in large part – not entirely- the story of trading posts, located on rivers or obvious trails, depending on trade.

    Later.

  8. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    Alternately, we need decent sized mines for highly profitable resources like platinum group metals and helium-3 — and that runs afoul of the Outer Space Treaty

    Have you ever read OST? It doesn’t prevent (actually it guarantees) the utilisation of space resources.

    It merely prevents claims of non-operational sovereignty. That is a good thing, or else nations would already be squabbling over who owns the moon. The Russians, who landed the first vehicle, or the Americans, who landed humans, or the Chinese, who claim ownership by tradition.

    Once you have a physical operation, the OST guarantees sovereignty and jurisdiction over the equipment and personnel, and prevents others from interfering in the site. The OST also requires that signatories create a regulatory framework for non-government space users, as the US did with its asteroid mining legislation.

    The OST doesn’t specify about ownership of extracted resources, but legal precedent of ownership of returned samples is well established, so they would appear to come under the “constructed in space” clause of OST.

  9. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    [I split off the Moon Treaty stuff. I tend to be long winded anyway, but specifically went on a bit of a drunkard’s walk.]

    the OST by itself doesn’t prohibit some kinds of resource use on the moon, but the limits of what might be allowed are quite uncertain. So American astronauts can bring back a few hundred pounds of specimens from several lunar landing sites, that’s fine. Ditto for Russian Luniks and Chinese rovers. Dandy.
    But could the Anaconda Copper Mining Corporation dig a mine on the moon and process thousands of tons of ore each day […]? That doesn’t seem so obvious

    What part of the OST would provide a distinction between those two cases based on volume or profit? “Use” of outer space is free for all mankind, and facilities and activities are protected under national sovereignty, and signatories are required to avoid interfering in other nations’ activities. The treaty doesn’t talk about ownership of returned material, but it doesn’t prevent it either, so inherently that would default back to existing national and international laws, which themselves default to ownership and sovereignty. You dig it, you own it.

    [Actually, IMO, the sovereignty language is actually a little too strong. It doesn’t allow for abandonment and salvage.]

    The only ambiguous case, IMO, is physically moving an otherwise unaltered object. For example, if your nation/company spends 20 years moving a small but valuable asteroid into an orbit around Earth more convenient for exploitation, can another nation/company quickly set up their own mining facility on the mostly unaltered asteroid (even using their activities to block you out. Provided they don’t interfere with your propulsion module.) I suspect that precedent will favour the long-modifier over the claim-jumper, but it’s not clear how much has to be done to turn a raw “celestial body” into a “facility”.

    The OST is outdated, in particular by the notion that space exploitation will be limited to the US, Russia, and other earthly nations.

    IMO, the OST is nearly perfect for our past, current, and near-future level of development. It permits free travel (remember that before OST, allowing orbits to overfly “national airspace” was a gentlemen’s agreement between US and USSR, with no grounding in law.) It protects the sovereignty of even unmanned facilities, preventing (or at least reducing) the interference with other nation’s
    orbital infrastructure.

    Without just those two elements, the commercial satellite industry would be impossible.

    Additionally, it prevents nations from claiming astronomical bodies, moon, Mars, in their entirety (which would cripple any possibility of development or colonisation by anyone except that nation.) It also prevented (or at least limited) the creation of orbital nuclear missile platforms.

    It doesn’t reflect that someday colonies might exist on the moon and elsewhere, that lunar resources ought to be the property of lunar settlers,

    In a way, it does. The “operation” of an Earth-controlled colony is protected, the sovereignty over the colony itself is protected. Including laws of ownership and even title within the colony.

    (A colony doesn’t even have to belong to the nation that launched the colonists, provided another “flag nation” accepts sovereignty. It’s subtle, but the OST uses similar language to things like maritime treaties that permit changing “flag nation” status of ships.)

    But it prevents a nation arbitrarily claiming large areas around a colony for itself, especially not claiming entire worlds: moon, Mars, etc. That means that other nations can found rival colonies, provided they don’t interfere with the original colony.

    And IMO, those are a good combination of traits to support colonisation.

    Once the colony (or group of colonies) declares its independence, things… get more interesting. But as an independent “nation”, that colony is obviously no longer a signatory of the OST and therefore isn’t bound by it. Hell, until it renegotiates them, it’s not really bound by any of Earth’s international laws and treaties.

    At some point, the OST would need to be modified to recognise that 50 million Martians have the right to claim sovereignty over all of Mars, and to control it and its nearby orbital volume entirely. But that’s a long way into the future. We can wait a little longer before we scrap something that is actually pretty close to ideal for getting us to that point.

    I’d be surprised if the OST needs to be changed within a century of its creation.

    [I can come up with preferred alternatives, of course. But those would be my preference, it doesn’t mean a single nation-state would ever agree. Realistically, OST is as good as it gets. You only need to look at the Moon Treaty or Sea-Floor Convention to see how bad things could have gotten.]

  10. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    and the fact that some nations cooked up a later Moon Treaty to control such endeavors suggest that most nations on earth are not agreed on all out lunar development. (I understand the Moon Treaty has not become international law;

    Hell, it only has four signatories (with only India and France having an actual space program) and 17 observers (with none having a meaningful space program.)

    Hence…

    I point to it as something which some nations would like to see become law.)

    Clearly not.

    Aside, while I consider the Moon Treaty a dumb thing, if there was an actual interest in its provisions by member nations, they could already by using it to do interesting things.

    For example, Article 11 of the Treaty seems to require an international regulatory “regime” be established to collect taxes on lunar activities and apportion them out for the good of all signatories.

    If any of the signatory and negotiating nations believed in that clause, they could have set one up already. While no-one is yet exploiting lunar resources, in the last thirty six years the member nations could have made a start working out the structure and operation of such an international regime using current activities as a guide.

    For example, member nations could have created an international space agency funded by implementing taxes on the existing commercial space activities of each of those nations (such as satellite operations). This international agency could use that funding to create projects that benefit those nations in general, as well as providing benefits to developing nations in particular.

    For example, funding space tech research. Funding Earth-science programs. Funding low cost remote communication systems in developing countries. Etc etc.

    That would then establish a framework for expanding that agency once we are capable of actually mining the moon.

    I had an even longer spiel, but doing some research, a lot of the mythology about the Moon Treaty (that it prevents ownership, requires international taxation, etc) is apparently based on a misinterpretation of the intent of the original Treaty negotiations. And international treaty law specifically bars interpretations which “leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.” Put simply, a treaty can’t be stupid. Therefore any interpretation of a treaty which leads to a stupid outcome is, by definition, wrong.

    Even the “international regime” to regulate lunar activity and “equitably share” the resources isn’t as ominous (and communistic) as it seems. In negotiations, the language was specifically chosen to be consistent with other international laws/treaties that aren’t interpreted to create an international tax system and prevent private property.

  11. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    I don’t think any of the cities you mention were really “jump started.” Some were “government, or at least communal projects of some kind” as you put it, but none went from an empty field to a complete city overnight. They started as town and grew from there. For the sort of extraterrestrial city/colony you’re suggesting, it isn’t viable below a certain size. I can only think of a few cities that went directly from a decision to turn an empty field into a city, to construction, to the full-fledged city, with nothing in between. Brasilia in 1956-1960, Cologne, around 50, and not a whole lot else off the top of my head. Even Washington, D.C., although a planned city, wasn’t completed for decades after it was inhabited and functioning as a center of government.

  12. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    Do you mean a Falcon is a third the price of a comparable Delta or Ariane? You said a “full third less”, but a Falcon 9 sells for $60 million (as of June 2016 and allowing booster recovery.) I can’t find a price for the nearest comparable (probably a Delta 9450), but Deltas were averaging $225 million in 2014 and the Delta IV heavy was about $350 million.

    In the 1980s and 1990s, there was very little work done to reduce launch costs, which is why you didn’t see much change or improvement. The Falcon’s low costs are inherent to the design, not the economies of scale you may be thinking of.