Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-14 11:09:12

One, current lunar plans and propsals are geared towards a couple of lunar sorties a year, where whatever station is there is occupied for a little time, but most of the time it would remain unoccupied. Resupply is a real non-issue unless Moon Base Kennedy becomes the new rationale.
The military dosen't want big sats anymore- they want launch on demand, and they want constellations of micro sats that work in tandem and can function in an ASAT environment. Having one big sat system is untenable with asymetric warfare options. Airforce 2020 will explain all of this.
If you look at the budget details, Earth Science, aeronautical research, space astronomy, anything related to hard science in NASA is getting slashed or defunded. A lot of scientists are going to cry, or are crying, and those senators and congress people who have constutiencies in affected areas are going to cry "foul". Griffin gives the Administration a leg to stand on during the public debate.
For instance, the Hubble debate, or even ISS... you won't have a bean counter making the argument with the National Science groups, but a respected scientist. I'm not saying there are alterior motives for Griffin, it's all in line with the goals of this administration in relation to their space policy.

Although that is true, you could put forward the EELV+ argument based soley on NASA's likly inability to do SDV cheaply enough, where they would let costs spiral out of control, when EELV+ can do the job cheaply enough and is bascially a known quantity.

I disagree, the military will LOVE big satelites... when they start putting anti-surface/anti-aircraft weapons on them instead of cameras. "Big" is the only option for KEMs or SBLs.

Some cutting of hard science is probobly unavoidable unfortunatly, but there are lots more things that NASA does that aren't hard science and have nothing to do with exploration. Those things that aren't in NASA's job description should be the first things to go.

clark · 2005-03-14 11:12:27

Thus, we may have a better chance of learning what is really motivating the architects of the VSE, behind the curtain.

Behind the curtain? Little boys with rocket dreams.

Those things that aren't in NASA's job description should be the first things to go.

Space colonization isn't in their mandate.

But aside from the difference of opinion on military desires, I'm in agreement with you GCN.

BWhite · 2005-03-14 11:37:55

Although that is true, you could put forward the EELV+ argument based soley on NASA's likly inability to do SDV cheaply enough, where they would let costs spiral out of control, when EELV+ can do the job cheaply enough and is bascially a known quantity.

Don't underestimate the cost of Boeing brand pork sausage.

Even Boeing won't fly Boeing sats on Boeing launchers, because they are too expensive. That's why Boeing joined SeaLaunch and buys Zenit.

Russian medium lift as an EELV equivalent? I favor. Atlas may also be good, but it has Russian engines. Perhaps Lockheed can buy a license to manufacture Zenits and Angoras in Atlanta.

Delta IV [plus] as our HLLV? - - I am far less certain that Boeing pork will prove a cheaper brand than thousands of Florida jobs brand pork and if/when the political wheel of fortune turns in Washington, who will sustain the VSE?

An all Boeing VSE is very dangerous from a sustainability perspective.

= = =

Take settlement off the table and I say send robots and fund midnight basketball.

Mandates are political. We set the mandate.

= = =

Edit: Resource exploitation counts as settlement, IMHO, and will lead to permanent human emigration.

Edited By BWhite on 1110822753

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-14 12:33:14

The military wants some sort of weapon that is capable of penitrating and destorying deeply buried targets, right? Since it apears unliky that a ground-penitrating nuclear bomb (dropped from a bomber) will do the job without excessive collateral damage... So "Plan B" would be to use kenetic energy weapons, basically just a rod of dense metal (Tungsten) and drop it from orbit.

Or simply use them to destroy high-value softer targets with absolute impunity and a minimum of warning... Either way, you will need a large launch sat. to carry a sufficent number of rods to make it worthwhile, and given their mass, then a bigger rocket then EELV's today will be required, but you would need enough of them to give good global coverage, so you need something cheaper then SDV, and preferably able to launch more often (Boeing can go up monthly from the Cape').

As far as Boeing pork barrel, you could start off by threatening to use an uprated Atlas instead... competition and all. Anyway, Boeing gave the USAF a package deal on Delta-II rockets to launch the GPS constellations, and I bet they would do the same thing for NASA, given that the alternative is probobly down-selection.

I trust Boeing to keep the price to within an acceptable figure more then I do NASA to eliminate 75% of the Shuttle Army that it has held onto for dear life for thirty years no matter how stupid it was.

Russian rockets just aren't going to be an option. Period. Ever... Learning how to build them over here will be expensive, and guess what? They are cheaper BECAUSE they aren't built here. So much of the cost is labor, dirt cheap in Russia, and not so much materials.

American rockets are also by-and-large more reliable then their Russian counterparts, and our EELVs have growth options that Russian rockets don't, largely due to our more advanced technology. Angara with five cores can't even top the Delta-IV HLV today, to say nothing of the weaker Zenit, and don't have much in the way of an update path.

Nor is outright buying Russian-made rockets an option either, since that would put VSE under veto power of Russia (and Putin).

clark · 2005-03-14 12:35:47

Take settlement off the table and I say send robots and fund midnight basketball.

Settlement isn't on the table. Settlement is a derivitve of the capability created by VSE.

I understand where you are coming from Bill, you're point of view is purpose driven. Exploration is great, but there should be more to it. A point. A lot of people look at scientific research in the same light, pure research is great, but they want to see a useful and tangible product.

That's the problem right now- we're ditching pure research for a Buck Roger's space program, and so the question remains, what's this going to do for us?

Human settlement is one answer, but it is rife with issues, and a lot of people see it as a silly fantasy.

What I see is decison to pursue private launch services, making NASA a consumer, using it to subsidze the cost of launch services and thereby enable the American launch services to provide a reduced price to the global market and increase market share. We've tried the old approach of NASA doing for itself, and not much has improved.

So what the space advocates have been advocating for for years, again, they are getting. If it is the optimal solution remains to be seen.

For the time being, Lockheed and Boeing are the rockets that will take whatever is being launched (by NASA) to space (at least related to VSE).

BWhite · 2005-03-14 14:08:18

Take settlement off the table and I say send robots and fund midnight basketball.
Settlement isn't on the table. Settlement is a derivitve of the capability created by VSE.

My point is that Griffin personally believes it should be on the table.

Edit: Repeat after me: inevitable outward migration

= = =

How fast? Reasonable people can differ but the goal remains the same.

Perhaps the settlement theme needs to be concealed or mislabeled as something else for temporary political reasons, but less than one year ago, Michael Griffin did tell Congress that spreading western civilization was the essential reason for space exploration.

His words, not mine.

All by itself, that moves the discussion forward.

= = =

Inevitable outward migration - -

Everything related to space exploration should be measured by simply asking "does this program or system help or hinder our species' inevitable outward migration into the solar system"

Edited By BWhite on 1110831088

BWhite · 2005-03-14 14:16:18

Can America, through its mastery of human space flight, have a similar influence on the cultures and societies of the future, those yet to evolve in the solar system as well as those here on Earth? M. Griffin

Who will own the future? Griffin's words, not mine.

Does Boeing help us master human spaceflight when Proton has the same capabilities for 40% of the cost?

South Korea is seeking a home grown launch capability patterned after Angora, not Delta. If American EELVs are so hot, why isn't South Korea working from an Atlas or Delta model?

= = =

http://www.astronautix.com/country/korsouth.htm]South Korea

Edited By BWhite on 1110832348

SpaceNut · 2005-03-14 14:20:04

If exploration only takes one trip by man to accomplish the task of answering that one question that machines can not or to even answer many questions in a short period of time. Is it really worth the added cost for manned flight without conlonization as its second step.

We went to the moon from Apollo 11 though to 16 and the finally decide to put a geologist on the last one. He answered more question on that one trip then all before him, am I right.

So if we only go as many times as we did during the apollo era or if we go to multiple sights that many times. IMO what science question can we not answer robotically that we must send that many missions with men if the choice is not to colonize as you go?

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-14 16:58:50

"South Korea is seeking a home grown launch capability patterned after Angora, not Delta. If American EELVs are so hot, why isn't South Korea working from an Atlas or Delta model?"

That would be because Angara was designed to scale DOWN, while Delta/Atlas have the ability to scale up. Neither NASA nor the USAF need a light launcher, Delta-II or a no-booster EELV work just fine.

"Does Boeing help us master human spaceflight when Proton has the same capabilities for 40% of the cost?"

Except that it doesn't have the same capabilities, Proton is considerably lighter then Delta-IV HLV is is hardly a match for Atlas-V 551, much less an improved Atlas-V "55X," tripple-barrel Atlas-V, or uprated Delta-IV HLV.

Even if Proton were free though, we would still be stupid to lay the future of American spaceflight in the jaws of the Bear.

BWhite · 2005-03-14 17:25:21

GCNRevenger, its all about global market share.

Protectionism ALWAYS loses, in the long run, unless we are protecting trade secrets that give a commercial advantage. If no one will buy US EELVs except NASA and DoD where does that leave us in 20 years? How do we encourage a launch industrry that can compete in the global market?

Or is the objective to keep Earth-to-LEO as a government monopoly essentially forever?

Will Bigelow ever buy Boeing lift?

= = =

If Toyota makes more efficient cars how do we encourage the Detroit auto makers to produce better cars?

By giving them a subsidy?

= = =

If we wish to starve the Russian launcher industry into permanent obliteration, for national security reasons, we need to do a far more effective job than at present. I believe we can contain the Russians for a while but if commercial space gets going, more money will flow to Russia than to the US.

Bigelow and the satellite launchers are already choosing Russia/Ukraine over American launchers, with a few Atlas tossd in.

Either take steps that will KILL OFF the Russian launchers or throw in the towel and buy them like crazy. Since option #1 may require nuclear war <snicker> postponing option #2 hurts us worse than it hurts them.

U of C classic economics 101 - - buying a more expensive domestic product for protectionism reasons hurts us more than them.

Remember, even Boeing buys Zenit for commercial missions!

= = =

On a technical note, do we agree with this from a space.com thread?

To soft-land a ton of something on the moon, it takes four to seven tonnes of propellant on LEO, depending on whether you wanna use LH2 with ISP~450 but with boiloff problems or some LOX-hydrocarbon combination with ISPs from 300-350. DeltaV required from LEO to lunar surface is about 6500 m/s, correct this far?

Slogging fuel is the #1 lift requirement for the VSE, right?

= = =

The US can build HLLV, right now. The Russians cannot, right now. Why compete on their home turf?

BWhite · 2005-03-14 17:34:52

Even if Proton were free though, we would still be stupid to lay the future of American spaceflight in the jaws of the Bear.

Ukraine is our friend, having given Putin a poke in the eye, right?

Zenit is Ukrainian.

Working for American capability is good and should be encouraged. A monopoly for buying exclusively American when its more expensive hurts us more than it hurts the Russians.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-14 18:44:16

Get off your globalization high and take your fingers out of your ears for a minute... this is not about "market share" or outsourcing or whatnot for one very simple reason: its not built here.

It is not built here

No launch solution of any kind that doesn't meet this simple criteria is acceptable to the defense agencies, period. No foreign nation must have power either directly or over their domestic companies to summerly cut off our access to launch vehicles. No matter how friendly they are, not now, not ever. Because of this, Congress will never eliminate American launch capabilities... and will get a "package deal" by having NASA use American boosters too, which makes the political side of the decision (cotinued below) even sweeter.

And at the moment, given the unpredictable political situation in that part of the world (Pro-reform politicans shooting themselves in the head... twice. Mysterious "gas poisoning" deaths. Poisoning canidates for prime minister?), even if they aren't made in Russia, that really doesn't improve matters much.

The other political situation, the one here in our own country, is likewise fairly simple... That Congress will not tollerate using them for VSE, that using non-American rocket capability would be politically unacceptable, no matter how cheap foreign rockets are.

You know how Griffin speaks of "spreading western culture" etc etc? The very fact that it would have to ride on a non-western rocket would not be fulfilling this goal. You say "match rocket to the need, etc etc"? It doesn't matter how much foreign rockets cost if they don't fulfill the real goal, now do they?

And yes, there is that element of national pride, which reached its zenith of this age in the Apollo landings. Going back to the Moon in an "international consortium" that we would be an "equal partner" or something won't go over well in Congress... nor would outsourcing, not cutting but actually selling overseas, so many aerospace jobs.

Speaking of outsourcing, it is obvious to me that if we are buying foreign rockets in bulk, that US medium & heavy rockets will see limited use for military and occasional crew/specialty flights, which has driven up their cost signifigantly. We have all this capacity, the Delta line can produce 40 cores a year, so if we use it then the costs can be discounted substantially.

Improving the capacity of our rockets will further enhance their value to be in the same ballpark (under $2,000/lbs sound good to you? Delta could make it happen), which makes the foreign option even worse. I shouldn't have to repeat myself yet again that Russian rockets are probobly a bit under-powerd compared to what NASA needs to execute VSE with a reasonable (and inexpensive) number of pieces, and aren't upgradable. Oh and our rockets blow up less too.

So in my opinion, "protectionism" wins. Bigtime... If you are thinking down the road a ways when private industry needs large-scale space access, then nobody offers a launch vehicle cheap enough, even the Falcon-V would be too pricey. Then America builds Shuttle-II, and crushes all our compeitors cold with sheer technology.

"Remember, even Boeing buys Zenit for commercial missions!"

Oh, and this has ZERO to do with government missions.

BWhite · 2005-03-14 19:51:03

To carry CEV and our astronauts?

An American launcher. No argument. :;):

But to carry 5,000 kg tanks of methane or LH2 or LOX to help propel CEV to the Moon? Buy Dneper or Zenit or a 5 segment SRB. And when no one is looking, rendevouz and mate that fuel tank to your CEV.

Whatever is cheapest per pound to LEO. Remember, for every ton of net lunar payload we need four tons of fuel.

= = =

If the goal is prestige, HLLV will be far, far better because we can easily build and launch BIG rockets while the Russians cannot re-constitute Energia any time soon. And Energia is relatively puny in any event.

Mate four 5 segment SRBs to a stretched ET with RS-68s and a cryogenic upper stage, and the Florida launch watchers will see a far more impressive show that any puny Delta IV will ever give.

= = =

If its about being economical, buy Russian/Ukrainian.

If its about showmanship buy BIG shuttle derived. Made in America!

If we are not going to stay, to colonize or mine lunar resources, then why are we going?

Form follows function. What rocket the VSE uses should require us to first define WHY we even have a VSE.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-14 19:52:00

More fun with numbers...

Say that Boeing were to build Delta-IV HLV tripple-barrel with all the goodies, and it could lift 45MT. NASA orders no less then, say, 11 per year, and Boeing gives them a modest discount of 10% from the $200M pricetag... That would come out to be about $1800/lb.

I'm sure that the added cost more then makes up for the superior capacity, superior reliability, and lack of "NIH" difficulties over Zenit.

Whatever is cheapest to LEO is not nessesarrily the cheapest deal, since mating those bulk fuel tanks to the vehicles will not be cheap and easy, since the fuel tanks must have at least rudimentary attitude control and docking guidence.

Also, the smaller the tank the fuel comes in, the more money you waste launching fuel tanks rather then fuel in them.

I would also say that exploration is also about the "climb a mountain" reason, irrespective of material gain or scientific enlightment... we go because its there. Taking the whole country along for the ride, after a fasion, is an adventure that none of us could ever afford. Individually that is.

As mentioned before, SDV has the horrible risk of being fatally expensive if NASA can't resist holding on to The Army. EELV is capable, affordable, and available. SDV has not proven or even offerd a credible answer to questions concerning these attributes.

BWhite · 2005-03-14 19:58:10

Say that Boeing were to build Delta-IV HLV tripple-barrel with all the goodies, and it could lift 45MT. NASA orders no less then, say, 11 per year, and Boeing gives them a modest discount of 10% from the $200M pricetag... That would come out to be about $1800/lb.

If the numbers hold, it may be the best deal. . .

Now, how do we lower that number going forward?

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-14 20:01:26

I doubt that any American-made rocket of any real size will beat ~$1,500/lb... if you want a lower price, then you build Shuttle-II.

It takes a certain amount of man-hours with practical methods to build a rocket of sufficent size to hold a sufficent amount of rocket fuel that delivers an unchanging amount of energy per pound, and since labor costs will rise with inflation, then the cost of a rocket of a given size and capacity will not change much without a radical improvement in technology.

The only way out of this mess is to stop throwing the rocket away.

BWhite · 2005-03-14 21:08:33

I doubt that any American-made rocket of any real size will beat ~$1,500/lb... if you want a lower price, then you build Shuttle-II.
It takes a certain amount of man-hours with practical methods to build a rocket of sufficent size to hold a sufficent amount of rocket fuel that delivers an unchanging amount of energy per pound, and since labor costs will rise with inflation, then the cost of a rocket of a given size and capacity will not change much without a radical improvement in technology.
The only way out of this mess is to stop throwing the rocket away.

Sadly, I may agree with you more than you might know.

Therefore, we need to find more money for the VSE since my real point - - [underneath everything else] - - is that the proposed budgets aren't really large enough to do what most of us really want to do. To a large extent the VSE is about pretending to have a space program that actually does something meaningful.

Remember my bias - - if we don't stay or begin to exploit resources, why bother with $16-20 billion per year for human spaceflight, especially if we need to slash science to fund it?

Even Michael Griffin had been saying he wants $5 billion more per year. Read his older testimony from the last 2 - 3 years.

Political realiity is that the taxpayers won't fund much more through the federal budget. So where do we find more money? If the mountain won't come to us, what mountain might we travel to? :;):

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-14 21:09:44

I want to wave my arms and state one more time that the current EELVs are by no means intended to be the ultimate end of their designs, on the contrary, they are infact the most rudimentary entry-level models. That big first "E" stands for "evolve" you know.

The Atlas-V still uses the small-diameter Centaur with the under-powerd RL-10 engines. Fatten up this stage to be the same diameter as the payload faring and equip it with the new RL-60 engine, and you can expect a big performance increase. Tens of percent over the stock 55X model perhaps.

The Delta-IV's main engine, the RS-68, uses an ablative nozzle to reduce engine complexity. If this engine were instead fitted with a simplified (maybe modled after the Russian RD-0120 nozzle) regenerative loop nozzle and some modest enhancements could improve the specific impulse & thrust substantially... and increase payload carriage more then unit cost. It could likewise bennefit from the improved performance of the RL-60 upper stage engine.

Both rockets could bennefit from using Lithium/Aluminum alloys in their fuel tanks and support structures, which could make a big difference for Delta with its large tanks, and save a few more tonnes.

The list of upgrades goes on
---
As far as needing more money for Shuttle-II and payloads to fly on it, yeah we will. But right now, I don't think that the need for such a vehicle is pressing enough to be "real" to congressmen, at least for the moment.

So, we build the initial foothold base, perminant habitation on the Moon, test LOX/He3/H2O mining technologies, perfect power/LSS/suit systems, and learn to live on the Moon...

Then makes the sales pitch. "We need Shuttle-II if we are going to expand beyond a base camp. It will cost $4Bn per year. Here is what you can expect for your investment..."

BWhite · 2005-03-14 21:15:30

Heh! That last post is even starting to persuade me! :;):

SpaceNut · 2005-03-15 07:04:21

Protectionism versus capitalism if one wants to safe guard against actions of Russia and to keep American business going. You can do a few things to make them compete on the price level. One is to over buy there cheap comodity which has a ripple effect on the builder. They must add staff, equipment and such which cause a price rise for the item. The other is to stop buying the commodity all together which has a simular effect if the builder does not right size the business to the work load.

American examples cost burden was shuttle not flying of which those that work for Nasa are now being given the axe. When the crystal ball of the past should have told them to furlow some of the staff shortly after the shuttle burned up.
Pricy product of Boeing and Lockheed as compared to other nations vehicles that can be purchased.

BWhite · 2005-03-15 11:05:39

Say that Boeing were to build Delta-IV HLV tripple-barrel with all the goodies, and it could lift 45MT. NASA orders no less then, say, 11 per year, and Boeing gives them a modest discount of 10% from the $200M pricetag... That would come out to be about $1800/lb.
If the numbers hold, it may be the best deal. . .
Now, how do we lower that number going forward?

Can Boeing deliver 45MT for $180 million?

You assume 495 MT annually? 33 barrels for this purpose only?

= = =

If it is really 35MT @ $240 million each based on 33 barrels then an SDV tanker might well beat those numbers.

So its all bean counting, isn't it?

Edited By BWhite on 1110906595

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-15 14:34:13

I think that Delta could, or at least get pretty close; the USAF got a discount rate for bulk Delta-II rockets when it was building the GPS constellation.

SDV may very well beat these numbers, but its not just about numbers, you must also consider the other drawbacks of SDV...

1: It doesn't exsist, only the boosters are flight-proven
2: The Shuttle Army would have to be 75% eliminated to reach cost parity with "super Delta." Do you think that NASA can achieve this?
3: SDV has inferior flexibility for intermediate payloads
4: SDV flight rate would be limited if you needed something sooner rather then later (Military payloads, emergency supplies)
5: It will cost several billions of dollars to develop, which will be amoratized over a relativly small number of flights, or must come out of the rest of the budget someplace.

clark · 2005-03-16 09:02:07

I don't place much stock in what Griffin has said in the past. He was wearing a different hat, working a different job. Personal opionion and utterings take a back seat to the President's policy. The President's policy is loud and clear, and Griffin isn't going to change any of it.

Griffin will work with the other agencies to look for technology synthesis and areas of overlap. Airforce will work on some elements of our space program that are integral to their needs, DOD their own, NRO their own, etc.

What is happening now is that NASA is moving away from the hard science and aeronautical research- their primary mandate, in order to help develop capabilites in these other agencies.

Airforce research is looking to field test a mega-watt space based laser in 2010-2012. They're also pursuing their own reusable space vehicle.

GCN is right, we ain't buying rockets from others, and we are keeping the EELV for a while. Military would love more options (which is why Falcon is getting some support), but hitching rides on foreign carriers does not fit into the military space doctrine of deny and control, launch on demand. And for all intents and purposes, NASA exsists to further US national security.

Developing the SDV is not in line with current projected space policy. The military dosen't need it, and NASA would have nothing for it to do while they wait around for CEV. We pursue SDV now, and we then have to justify the capability. We would be able to launch 100 tons, to where? For what? 100 tons of what? For how many people? CEV is slated to hold a handful of people.

I agree, you want to start colonies, you're going to need SDV (and then some). However, we are not in the business of setting up colonies off world. VSE is not about colonies, it's about forward projection and the advancement of space based capabilities. Yes, it can be interpreted (due to bias) that it is everything under the sun, but it isn't. It leaves the options open. That's the mistake in analysis so many are falling into.

What VSE ultimeltly is will be decided by some future generation. This is merely a start... an exploration into possibilites, not a prescription for the next 100 years.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-16 09:42:57

What? No, NASA isn't soley a wing of the USAF, thats silly.

What isn't silly though is that if both agencies need to put many big things in space, that both agencies should go into it together and take advantage of the economies of scale.

NASA is throwing away mostly things that aren't hard science, technology development that doesn't have much near-term payoff, and isn't under the aegis of aerospace that NASA was created for.

I don't think that it is unreasoanble to assume that NASA's job is to establish "beach heads" on other worlds and help to open the spacelanes to get there. In order to do that, we need to be able to set up shop for a minimum of cost, which CEV and the rest of the VSE should be oriented to do.

Being that there is no massive technological or economic advantage over a simple SDV over improved EELV, and until we know that SDV won't break the bank, then EELV is the only game in town.

BWhite · 2005-03-16 10:06:53

Yes, it can be interpreted (due to bias) that it is everything under the sun, but it isn't. It leaves the options open. That's the mistake in analysis so many are falling into.

A mistake perhaps encouraged by those trying to sell the "Vision" to the American people. :;):

Like I said in the other thread, false advertising.

= = =

If we want a beach head, GCNRevenger, use HLLV to launch a Bigelow/Transhab space hotel and offer free room and board to whoever can get there by private launch from the US.

Musk's man-rated Falcon V would work just fine for this purpose.

Congress & NASA pays for the HLLV one throw hotel and after two dozen guests stay for free, we auction it off to the highest bidder and repay the Treasury.

= = =

But DoD does NOT want lots of civilians messing about in space, so we will get EELV only and for the next 30 - 50 years some uniformed folks will collect rocks and we will be told to "ooh" and "aah" :;): ???

Edited By BWhite on 1110989480

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-03-14 11:09:12

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#27 2005-03-14 11:12:27

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#28 2005-03-14 11:37:55

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#29 2005-03-14 12:33:14

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#30 2005-03-14 12:35:47

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#31 2005-03-14 14:08:18

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#32 2005-03-14 14:16:18

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#33 2005-03-14 14:20:04

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#34 2005-03-14 16:58:50

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#35 2005-03-14 17:25:21

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#36 2005-03-14 17:34:52

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#37 2005-03-14 18:44:16

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#38 2005-03-14 19:51:03

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#39 2005-03-14 19:52:00

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#40 2005-03-14 19:58:10

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#41 2005-03-14 20:01:26

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#42 2005-03-14 21:08:33

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#43 2005-03-14 21:09:44

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#44 2005-03-14 21:15:30

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#45 2005-03-15 07:04:21

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#46 2005-03-15 11:05:39

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#47 2005-03-15 14:34:13

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#48 2005-03-16 09:02:07

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#49 2005-03-16 09:42:57

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

#50 2005-03-16 10:06:53

Re: Griffin nominated for NASA post - SpaceRef link to testimony

Board footer