ISS cutbacks

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-27 12:40:34

And the SDV will still need a cargo tug and cargo "tray" just like launching on Delta-IV HLV would.

Thats the way it is Robert, building spacecraft is simply not easy. There is no such thing as a "simple" spacecraft, only complex and very-complex... And yes it does have to be able to operate, powerd, on orbit for several days. At least a week if you want active deorbit options. Furthermore, the tray ought to be able to maneuver itself at least a little bit, since the tug would otherwise have to be quite complicated to negotiate the docking & maneuvering, particularly since the center of mass would change. And what other fuels are there besides toxic monopropellants and toxic hypergolics? Catylized peroxide engines don't have much push, and nonhypergolic combustables won't ignite fast enough. Cold gas? Even less push.

And each one of them will have to be designed custom for its payload probobly, given the different torque loads any unsymmetric masses will involve... And the thing has to be finished in no fewer than about two years, and be very light weight, so that the Delta-IV HLV or Proton would be able to loft the parts in the event that Shuttle-C is behind/canceld/etc... Clark is right that is a high-risk idea.

BWhite · 2004-07-27 12:40:34

Where do we get the money to build SDV? From Shuttle savings? That means the Shuttle isn't flying and nothing is being done to complete the ISS- and we don't know for sure that the end SDV will come in on time, on budget, and be able to do what we think it will...
Meanwhile, the ISS will only be staffed by two people, and we will limp along hoping nothing major happens that causes it to be abandoned or deorbited.
The idea has merit, but it has to much inherent risk.

We should have used the return to flight money (and time) on SDV. We didn't. IMHO because the Bush vison is myopic.

So go to Congress now (or in December) and say "orbiter is busted" and cannot be made safe. BUT we can fly 4-5 SDV each year from Canaveral by 2008 or 2009. Tile workers get laid off but relax Senator Nelson, your voters in Titusville will remain employed.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-27 12:53:01

Unfortunatly the SDV simply won't employ all the old Shuttle army AND still be affordable... infact, if it did, that would make sure it was unaffordable. You could afford to make an expensive Shuttle-C or a Moon ship... but not both.

clark · 2004-07-27 12:57:13

We should have used the return to flight money (and time) on SDV.

Weeeell, that may be, maybe.

So here is the thing, what can we do now? There has to be some wiggle room here, no?

Fly the shuttle as often as possible. I don't think they will get the flight rate they are looking for. While there is a fixed cost to flying the Shuttle, there is opportunity for savings from deffered flights (due to one reason or another). Redirect that money into a crash SDV program/alternative ISS cargo launch solution.

This reduces the risk because we haven't placed all out bets on black- now some of em are on red.

Two solutions for SDV/alternative: Use the money to build dedicated SDV. OR, use the money to subsidize the private industry to build their own version of something that will meet the same needs. No contract+plus. Just, "here is what we got, now do it."

BWhite · 2004-07-27 14:02:20

Fly 2 or 3 SDV per year to finish ISS and sell additional SDV at incremental cost plus 25%. In other words the fixed overhead that must be paid whether we fly no STS missions or 6 STS missions is NOT counted towards incremental costs.

As CGNRevenger says the incremental cost of SRBs and ETs and RS-68s is "relatively small" - - I will guess $200 - $300 million excluding all fixed overhead.

Bob Bigelow is one potential customer. Charge him $250 million to put a big TransHab based space hotel in LEO.

How many MER rovers could fit on a single SDV? Propose that a consortium of unversities each fund one MER each and divide the launch cost as many ways as possible. Spirit and Opportunity were built as a pair because the cost to build #2 was a tiny fraction of the cost to build #1.

Okay, build 10 and send up on SDV. Purdue funds 1. Caltech funds 1. MIT funds 1 and so on. . .

NASA's STS budget remains flatlined at 2004/2005 levels, we just get more bang for our bucks.

= = =

Each MER weighs about http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ … .html]2000 pounds - - shuttle C could lift at least a dozen with the cost divided equally among 12 universities who could use the expense to help train graduate students under JPL supervision.

clark · 2004-07-27 14:08:16

Fly 2 or 3 SDV per year to finish ISS and sell additional SDV at incremental cost plus 25%. In other words the fixed overhead that must be paid whether we fly no STS missions or 6 STS missions is NOT counted towards incremental costs.

Will SDV do what we need it to do in order to finish the ISS? hat's the fundamental problem- if there is ANY uncertainty, it's a non starter.

additional elements that have to be added to make the plan work only increase the risk and cost and unknowns. So developing the SDv with expectation that a space tug will be developed in tandem to do the last mile guidance is a non-starter. Shutting down the Shuttle for a big unknown is a non-starter.

Bob Bigelow is one potential customer. Charge him $250 million to put a big TransHab based space hotel in LEO.

Yeah, but we can't force him to fly American... so we can't plan on it (and this keeps NASA in the cargo business BTW)

How many MER rovers could fit on a single SDV? Propose that a consortium of unversities each fund one MER each and divide the launch cost as many ways as possible. Spirit and Opportunity were built as a pair because the cost to build #2 was a tiny fraction of the cost to build #1.

Okay, so they get one shot every two years... we need communication upgrades to make it work... I don't want to be a killjoy, but...

BWhite · 2004-07-27 14:10:28

The point is PlanBush does NOTHING to escape the single payor system with US Tax dollars are the sole funding source and does nothing to seek "two for one" deals on technology development.

First return to flight. Then throw it all away.

Finish ISS. Then abandon it as obsolete.

Dumb.

Morris · 2004-07-27 14:16:41

And that's why NASA can't legally buy Soyuzes from the 'naughty Ruskies'

Ahhh, all these little details. Thanks very much!

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-27 14:21:46

The point is PlanBush does NOTHING to escape the single payor system with US Tax dollars are the sole funding source and does nothing to seek "two for one" deals on technology development.
First return to flight. Then throw it all away.
Finish ISS. Then abandon it as obsolete.
Dumb.

Thats correct Bill,

Because we said that we would. Agreements were signed. Treaties. Diplomats. Etcetera... this is a contract you simply cannot break. The Shuttle is the only vehicle which can pull off the construction without extra risk or development beyond providing a patch kit and robot arm extension.

At least we are getting out of it just as soon as we can.

Smart.

Morris · 2004-07-27 14:26:14

Does anyone know if any real research project has ever been completed on the ISS? Were any even scheduled before completion?
Yes, 'lots' of smelting experiments, greenhouse stuff, etc etc. It's not that there is *nothing* being done up there at all, it's just that the output could be orders of magnitude higher with a bigger crew...

Good. I am relieved and very interested in what has been accomplished, especially the "greenhouse" stuff.

And thanks for the link.

clark · 2004-07-27 14:32:07

The alternative is to cut the Shuttle and *hope* NASA budget dosen't get raided to pay off the debt. Even OMB pointed out that discontinuing the Shuttle called into question NASA's budget, and discontinuing ISS would open up the possibility that we don't need manned exploration in space, and if that's the case, NASA dosen't need all that money.

Morris · 2004-07-27 14:36:17

The ISS is just make work to ensure the survival of the shuttle. It would have made more sense to have had more than one station but saying that the ISS as initially envisaged was supposed to be a construction platform, this needless was dropped due to cost.
There are 4 main science disciplines that would be accomplished in orbit, they are Astronomy, Earth study, Microgravity research and finally spacecraft operations( satellites and manned spacecraft). It would have made sense to have had spacestations for each discipline. This could have been done cheaper than the ISS as it only needs soyuz type stations to do the amount of research that the ISS does.
It would be more efficient as an example Earth study (atmosphere and ground ) would really need a polar orbit. Microgravity would prefer a higher orbit. And space station operations would have had benefitted from just having 4 stations to work on, oh and a space tug. The Esa columbus science module was to have its own power and life support system and was to be substantially larger than it is now. Nasa vetoed it as it would have shown that the rest of the ISS is not needed to service the module.
Too many corners where cut too many compromises where made to get the ISS in space for the eventual price tag of over 100 billion $us why cant we have had something that didnt leak have really strange bangs and noises and allowed our astronauts a quiet place to sleep.
The ISS is a wonder, I wonder how someone let it happen

Thanks much for the info on the proposed research modules. I would be interested in more info about the ESA Columbus module.

I guess the biological research comes under microgravity.

Morris · 2004-07-27 14:43:34

...then why not retract our cold shoulder to the Chinese and give them a challenge: build an ISS hab module. It's nothing they couldn't handle given they have six years to make one and near-slave labor availible to them.
But if the station will be limited to four or six people we might as well turn it over to Paul Allen right now.

A couple of interesting ideas, if only to indicate to TPTB that the current state of affairs is just a continuation of the boondoggle.

Even Paul Allen can't afford to staff it, but he and a group of his equals to be responsible for overall management of the program, now there's an idea. :band: I wonder how much they could trim off the NASA costs and still complete the whole thing? Or come up with a better alternative?

BWhite · 2004-07-27 15:08:07

We should have used the return to flight money (and time) on SDV.
Weeeell, that may be, maybe.
So here is the thing, what can we do now? There has to be some wiggle room here, no?
Fly the shuttle as often as possible. I don't think they will get the flight rate they are looking for. While there is a fixed cost to flying the Shuttle, there is opportunity for savings from deffered flights (due to one reason or another). Redirect that money into a crash SDV program/alternative ISS cargo launch solution.
This reduces the risk because we haven't placed all out bets on black- now some of em are on red.
Two solutions for SDV/alternative: Use the money to build dedicated SDV. OR, use the money to subsidize the private industry to build their own version of something that will meet the same needs. No contract+plus. Just, "here is what we got, now do it."

Actually I agree.

"Ground orbiter NOW!" is a good talking point because it focuses on the extreme option yet to develop SDV and fly orbiter does cover more bets and allows an ISS completion architecture where a SDV tosses up 2 ISS payloads, then 6 - 8 weeks later orbiter launches; then 1 week later a 2nd SDV launches 2 more ISS paylaods.

5 payloads per orbiter flight and the orbiter docks with the SDV payload and uses its engines to drag the components to ISS. If an Orbital Recoveries station keping module were used you could do the same with Proton - put an orbiter up with an ISS module then send a truss up on Proton with attitude control and a docking point and use orbiter to collect the truss.

Knocking 6 orbiter flights off the schedule should easily pay for 6 Proton shots plus design of an attitude control mechanism and a docking point.

= = =

Oh yeah, we can't pay the Russians. More falling on our own sword to prove a point.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-27 16:18:20

And the SDV will still need a cargo tug and cargo "tray" just like launching on Delta-IV HLV would.
Thats the way it is Robert, building spacecraft is simply not easy. There is no such thing as a "simple" spacecraft, only complex and very-complex... And yes it does have to be able to operate, powerd, on orbit for several days. At least a week if you want active deorbit options. Furthermore, the tray ought to be able to maneuver itself at least a little bit, since the tug would otherwise have to be quite complicated to negotiate the docking & maneuvering, particularly since the center of mass would change. And what other fuels are there besides toxic monopropellants and toxic hypergolics? Catylized peroxide engines don't have much push, and nonhypergolic combustables won't ignite fast enough. Cold gas? Even less push.
And each one of them will have to be designed custom for its payload probobly, given the different torque loads any unsymmetric masses will involve... And the thing has to be finished in no fewer than about two years, and be very light weight, so that the Delta-IV HLV or Proton would be able to loft the parts in the event that Shuttle-C is behind/canceld/etc... Clark is right that is a high-risk idea.

Completing ISS with Delta-IV Large may be a good idea. More launches (one launch to replace each Shuttle flight) gives the factory justification for being. You have to keep launch volume above a certain level to justify infrastructure. But Shuttle-C is a vehicle large enough for Mars Direct or construction of a lunar base. Maintaining Shuttle infrastructure does not include orbiter maintenance. That was the most complex part of Shuttle, how much would be saved by scrapping the orbiter alone? How much cheaper would Shuttle-C be vs. Shuttle?

We could argue that the cargo pallet doesn't have to be as complex as you claim. We could argue that a pallet designed for Delta-IV Large or Proton would be easier to build than for Shuttle-C. However, since congress has approved funding to return Shuttle to flight, I don't think any alternative method to finish ISS will be considered. We're whistling in the wind. I actually think Shuttle is still a good ship, but it has to be treated with respect: you can't neglect the heatshield tiles or SRB joints. But if it's only use is to construct ISS, then congress has opted for the most expensive construction method available. The high cost of Shuttle can only be justified if you actually use it. But they aren't going to use it, they're going to build ISS then scrap it. :bars2:

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-27 17:21:50

Shuttle-C is enough for a small Mars or medium Lunar mission, though I don't know about a real Lunar "base" persay. It would be great to have spent the RTF money on Shuttle-C instead, but I think its iffy if Shuttle-C could have been built soon enough to finish the ISS before the station simply becomes too old to bother with.

There is also a risk, a risk that the people running the Shuttle program won't be able to keep costs under control when building/flying Shuttle-C... too much trying to retain employees that really, really need to go to keep costs down as painful as that may be.

As far as system costs, development is anybody's guess... I hear estimates around $1-3Bn and as high as $10-12Bn to develop, and from $300M to >$1Bn per flight. The hardware will cost at least $200M, so I think that $500M per flight on development $5-8Bn is a reasonable figure.

Plus you would still need to develop the tug (Shuttle is not well suited to the task, limited OMS capability and orbit loiter) and a Hab module with CLSS plus $100M a year to buy an extra two Soyuz flights a year.

The current Space Shuttle, in its man-rated form with all its delicate tiles and edge-of-limit engines, as a launch vehicle is a miserable, horrible, TOTAL failure. Costing now tripple, perhaps quadruple or even more than rockets able to launch similar masses (Delta-IV).

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-27 18:35:33

The big problem is the hatch and down-mass... the Progress-B and ESA ATV both use the Russian docking hatches, which have specialty guidence hardware that the American node ports do not... they don't need it for Shuttle's robot arm. Hence, they are NOT suitable for docking.
The ISS laboratories are built around the standard science rack, a big cabinate sized package that holds the experiments in an essentially self contained, drop-in box. Just hook up the umbilicals and screw it into place.
Problem: The science racks do not fit through the Russian hatches. The science racks do not fit through the Russian hatches. Neither do the batteries very well. Or gyroscopes. Or other large hardware.
Problem: The ISS requires signifigant quantities of water to generate oxygen and drinking supplies for a full compliment of crew. Without the US HAB modules' fancy recycling LSS system, this is not going to change. Shuttle uses fuel cells, which basicly allow it to bring several tons of water to the ISS for "free" as it makes it on orbit, saving lots of bulk mass.
Problem: To do useful science on ISS, you must have a means of getting signifigant payloads back down to Earth intact. Soyuz simpy cannot fulfill this role, nor is any other cargo ship. Only Shuttle can do this.

Well that's silly. Here's a brilliant save-the-day plan to make the non-shuttle station servicing work: put an androgynous American docking node on the vehicle. Doy! Just swap out the Russian docking adapter for an American one and we can use the American hatches. I know, I know, it's not as simple as ripping it out and bolting a new one on Armadillo-style, but it's a rather minor design swap. It's not like we're trying to turn the ATV into the shuttle here, we're just fitting a science rack through the door.

Well, the water is a bit more of an issue. Again, we need a hard-core hab on the ISS, and even if it's beyond Bigelow's or China's capibilites, I'm sure that Russia could build a suitable one. To get payloads down, let's make our Ariane V super-ATV reusable. The shuttle is a very poor example of a reusable space vehicle, SpaceShipOne is a good one. A lot of people look at the shuttle and think that it proves that making reusable orbital rockets is infeasable, but it doesn't prove that any more than it proves that one rocket can launch every payload. If we avoid all of the NASA beuracracy crap, a shuttle-size payload reusable ATV could be made in time and with a small investment.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-27 18:59:02

Oh really?

So you want to go and re-design the whole front half of the ESA's ATV which has already had its design finalized... and then go and modify the US nodes with new docking guidence hardware, which will have to be attached by Shuttle anyway. And you want to increase the flight rate substantially? I don't know if they can build Ariane-V rockets quickly enough.

The Progress-B is too small to hold science racks any which way, even if the door were larger.

I don't think the ATV or anything like it is suitable as a reuseable vehicle, it will NOT be a trivial easy cheap quick modification. The solar panels would have to be jettisoned, the fuel tanks replaced (hypergolics), heavy heat shield has to some how cover either the engines OR the docking hatch, thermal blankets on the outside, and then you have to add parachutes & airbags, plus finally do some serious engineering work to make it all happen. And don't forget that anything you add (heat shield) will cut into the already small payload mass (Ariane-V hamperd by high ISS inclination). And then you have to worry about water/ground landing and pickup.

And no, I don't know if the Russians CAN build a closed oxygen/carbon loop LSS system for a hab module. Have they ever before? Do they have the money? How will the thing be launched? Etcetera etcetera... China? Bigelow? Not a chance.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-27 19:47:48

The Russians are technically very capable; they're just broke. Given the idea of a Sabatier reactor, I'm sure they can make it work. Recycling wash water and an incinerating toilet, given the goal their engineers can accomplish it. If they had the money; unfortunately they don't.

The U.S. Hab was cancelled because Nasa proceeded with TransHAB without explicit congressional approval. I think they learned that lesson: get approval before spending money. Fine, done, now let's accomplish something worth while on ISS. That means a Closed Life Support System. Nasa knows how to make one, let's restore the U.S. Hab. Whether it's a metal can or an inflatable TransHAB doesn't matter; the LSS does matter. The LSS need to be proven over an extended period in Earth orbit before going to Mars or the Moon. The only feasible place to do it is ISS. That means restoring the U.S. Hab in one form or another. I'm confident that after the rest of ISS is built a U.S. habitat module will be sent up. All you lobbyists out there can harp on that.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-27 19:59:52

A HAB module? Depends on how badly we want to get rid of the ISS... even with the Hab, you gotta have a cargo ship of some sort and docking hatch modifications and the extra $100M for Soyuz. But I can see it happening, unfortunatly.

As for LSS testing in Earth orbit, I really still don't see the need. It handles gasses predominantly. It handles a few liquids, which can be piped under pressure... Now why on Earth or above can't this be tested here on Earth? Gasses behave exactly the same way up there, and liquids under pressure will too. Very little if any of the device will behave differently in Zero-G... You could afford to build multiple LSS units and do all manner of tests concurrently, or test componets to failure, all in the comfort of a NASA field office.

Edit: Oh yes, and i'd like to comment about the Space Ship One reference... well guess what, SpaceShipOne is not a spaceship at all, its a rocket powerd Cessna... it would have to handle dozens of times the heating it experienced if it were returning from orbital velocities.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-27 20:06:30

Liquid droplets in an air stream behave quite differently than on Earth. Wear of moving parts is quite different. Astronauts floating around in zero-G grab onto hand-holds that they wouldn't touch when their feet are firmly planted on the floor. A pressurized hull experiences wear and metal fatigue that doesn't happen under zero pressure; especially when also experiencing space radiation, thermal cycles, micrometeroid impacts, and stress from other modules floating about and wiggling their attachment points. Add to that the stress from reboost and you have something quite different from a walk-about simulation in a hanger at Johnson Space Center.

If it was so easy then Mir wouldn't have had any problems.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-27 20:14:15

Oh really?
So you want to go and re-design the whole front half of the ESA's ATV which has already had its design finalized...

Yep, that's the gist of what I was saying. Remove the Russian docking node and replace it with an American one. It does require a pretty big redesign but it doesn't require any time-consuming re-routing of major systems, it's not like we're turning an ATV into the Enterprise here.

and then go and modify the US nodes with new docking guidence hardware, which will have to be attached by Shuttle anyway. And you want to increase the flight rate substantially? I don't know if they can build Ariane-V rockets quickly enough.

No, that's not what I said. I seem to rcall that that the Progresses used on Mir were essentially remote-controlled in to dock, why not use that system here? Just hook up a radio recever to the re-supply vehicle and a camera and pilot it in. The flight rate may or may not need to be increased substantially, but I don't see why they couldn't launch Arianes as fast as shuttles.

I don't think the ATV or anything like it is suitable as a reuseable vehicle, it will NOT be a trivial easy cheap quick modification. The solar panels would have to be jettisoned, the fuel tanks replaced (hypergolics), heavy heat shield has to some how cover either the engines OR the docking hatch, thermal blankets on the outside, and then you have to add parachutes & airbags, plus finally do some serious engineering work to make it all happen. And don't forget that anything you add (heat shield) will cut into the already small payload mass (Ariane-V hamperd by high ISS inclination). And then you have to worry about water/ground landing and pickup.

All right, fair enough. Perhaps there's been a communciations breakdown again. I didn't mean to redesign the current ATV, I meant design a new one (Perhaps using as many of the original systems as applicable) and I just called it an ATV because "Automated Transfer Vehicle" seemed to describe what it needs to do. If the Araine V can't handle a reusable heavy-duty ATV then we might have to use Protons. But hey, those are cheaper anyway and can lift more weight. Speaking of Protons, if Russia ends up designing a hab, they could use one of those to launch it, sparing us one shuttle flight. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but something.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-27 20:20:57

*checks off the list...*

-There won't be many moving parts beyond valves and pumps, which since they fit so tightly, do indeed wear the same way on Earth.

-Astronauts won't be floating around grabbing hoses and wiring burried behind closed doors and gratings of the nondescript beige box of the LSS system, which is bolted to the walls.

-The LSS system will almost certainly reside INSIDE the pressure hull like the Russian one so pressure fatigue won't be a factor, with only limited protrusions for the occasional venting and wiring, if even that. Ditto for micrometeoroid and external thermal issues.

-Space radiation can be simulated on the ground, and most common materials have already been subjected to radiation damage studies in the nuclear reactors and such and their behavior is well known.

-Other modules won't be a factor, since the LSS unit will be a single package bolted to the walls. Attach points can be checked with a torque wrench every few weeks if need be and the bolts themselves have rubber washers & lock nuts.

-Launch dynamics can be predicted and built to compensate, and tested on the ground too (vibration tables, centrifuges) for lots less than launching it.

Soooo that leaves us with liquid drop behavior, which can be studied by rides on the Vomet Comet on the cheap. No problems here that I can see for ground testing.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-27 20:39:52

The trouble with simply putting a bigger door on an ATV-style vehicle is, the ISS doesn't have docking guidence hardware on the US nodes. Using the Russian docking system would require redesigning it and its software for the different size hatch, different hatch couplings, new clamps, different electrical supply voltage, different computer hookups, etc... and the new hardware would HAVE to be launched by Shuttle, there is no other way.

Designing the simple throw-away ATV took several years and half a billion dollars... plus will cost a pretty penny each at $185M including launch. You want to make somthing much, much more complicated that has to weigh about the same and be reuseable? Oh yes, and the Proton rocket is not substantially more powerful than the Ariane-V either, and the Ariane also launches communications/weather/GPS satelites so you have to share the left over available launch rate.

Building such a vehicle with a heat shield and TPS and parachutes and air bags and new docking hatch and so on isn't going to be a walk in the park, I imagine it would cost at least a billion dollars and cost around $300M each with launch on Ariane-V or Zenit-II. Awfully high price for only a few metric tonnes each trip now and then. (ESA ATV can haul about 9MT of cargo... take several tonnes off for reentry gear and such)

RobertDyck · 2004-07-27 20:53:57

So, no need for in-space testing. Apollo 1 should have launched directly to the Moon. Wait a minute: Apollo 1 had a fire and killed all astronauts. Doh!

Apollo 7 spacecraft-lunar module adapter panels had not fully deployed, five spacecraft windows fogged because of improperly cured sealant compound, chargers for batteries returned 50-75% less than expected, and fuel cells overheated. Apollo 11 almost landed on rocks, when it did touch down it had 2 seconds of fuel left. Apollo 12 had lightning strike and incapacitate first stage control, they were able to use backup control until first stage separation. Apollo 13 had oxygen tank #2 explode. Apollo 14 had loose solder short the abort switch, the computer had to be reprogrammed to disble the abort. Apollo 16 had orange juice in a suit drink bag, it leaked into the microphone and soaked the astronaut's head. Charles Duke had to wash the helmet, reapply anti-fogging agent to the visor, and blow orange juice out of the microphone before it would work again. Juice is also suspected of causing a sticky valve in the LM environmental control system.

It's not the problems you think of, it's the ones you don't.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-07-27 12:40:34

Re: ISS cutbacks

#52 2004-07-27 12:40:34

Re: ISS cutbacks

#53 2004-07-27 12:53:01

Re: ISS cutbacks

#54 2004-07-27 12:57:13

Re: ISS cutbacks

#55 2004-07-27 14:02:20

Re: ISS cutbacks

#56 2004-07-27 14:08:16

Re: ISS cutbacks

#57 2004-07-27 14:10:28

Re: ISS cutbacks

#58 2004-07-27 14:16:41

Re: ISS cutbacks

#59 2004-07-27 14:21:46

Re: ISS cutbacks

#60 2004-07-27 14:26:14

Re: ISS cutbacks

#61 2004-07-27 14:32:07

Re: ISS cutbacks

#62 2004-07-27 14:36:17

Re: ISS cutbacks

#63 2004-07-27 14:43:34

Re: ISS cutbacks

#64 2004-07-27 15:08:07

Re: ISS cutbacks

#65 2004-07-27 16:18:20

Re: ISS cutbacks

#66 2004-07-27 17:21:50

Re: ISS cutbacks

#67 2004-07-27 18:35:33

Re: ISS cutbacks

#68 2004-07-27 18:59:02

Re: ISS cutbacks

#69 2004-07-27 19:47:48

Re: ISS cutbacks

#70 2004-07-27 19:59:52

Re: ISS cutbacks

#71 2004-07-27 20:06:30

Re: ISS cutbacks

#72 2004-07-27 20:14:15

Re: ISS cutbacks

#73 2004-07-27 20:20:57

Re: ISS cutbacks

#74 2004-07-27 20:39:52

Re: ISS cutbacks

#75 2004-07-27 20:53:57

Re: ISS cutbacks

Board footer