ISS - Beware the Bear

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-21 07:54:55

Seems like we started working on this station with a democracy and ended up working on it with a dictatorship. One wonders if international collaboration projects like this are such a good idea. Should we go to Mars with Putin?

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-21 08:01:23

If they want to hitch a ride in return for non-critical science payload, sure. Otherwise, no. No mission critical components should be supplied by anyone but the closest American allies (Japan, Australia, Britain. No France, Spain, Germany, etc).

dicktice · 2006-08-21 09:31:58

Hello? Does the possibility of getting our own orbital launch site practically in my back yard on the coast of Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, mean that you're neglecting Canada as an ally--or since we're on the same latitude as Baikonur, potential competition bidding for a follow-on ISS grocery delivery contract?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-21 13:13:22

Hello? Does the possibility of getting our own orbital launch site practically in my back yard on the coast of Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, mean that you're neglecting Canada as an ally--or since we're on the same latitude as Baikonur, potential competition bidding for a follow-on ISS grocery delivery contract?

Why stop there, we can put a launch site in Antartica, right on the south pole.

I think the equator is a more valuable launch site, that way you can add the Earth's spin to the launch velocity. The only problem is the lack or real estate the US has on the equator, though I think it has a few islands on the Pacific.

dicktice · 2006-08-21 17:56:55

The point is, we can have launch sites anywhere the landscape is suitable. Cape Breton is ideal. Look it up: It's the same latitude as Baikonur. Besides, Canada isn't anywhere near the Equator.

SpaceNut · 2006-08-21 19:25:26

Here are a few articles with the details for those that have not read them as of yet.

Orbital Dreams: New Launch Site in Hand for Private Spaceflight Firm a Canadian-American consortium known as PlanetSpace

The big view for where this is Cape Breton happens to be...

publiusr · 2006-08-22 18:07:11

Looks like an R-7 LV almost.

Finally the alt.spacers see the need for bigger rockets.

dicktice · 2006-08-22 19:20:54

Today's newspaper mentions a conection with Alexander Graham Bell, as follows:

[Quote] ... Last week, Planet Space confirmed it was looking at several Cape Breton sites to build a launch [site] for its hypersonic glider the Silver Dart. That's also the name of the first heavier-than-air flying machine to take flight in Canada. ... Geoff Sheerin, president of PlanetSpace, ... said last week that NASA wants to concentrate on deep space research and would be contracting out work to private companies to transport crew, fuel and cargo to the International space Station. He said those contracts would be worth billions of dollars and his company hoped to land one if it was able to launch the Silver Dart in the nxt few years. [Unquote]

The name is signifcant here in Canada. Here's the background: On Feb. 23, 1909, engineer J.A.D. McCurdy piloted the first powered airplane flight by a British subject in the British Empire – and made Canadian history. The plane was called the Silver Dart, and had been built by the Aerial Experiment Association, a group of like-minded aviation enthusiasts dedicated to creating a “practical aerodrome.” In this CBC radio clip, McCurdy – by then Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia – looks back at the event on its 40th anniversary. The flight took place on the frozen Bras d’Or Lake at Baddeck on Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia, near the home of AEA member Alexander Graham Bell. Before a crowd of astonished onlookers, McCurdy took off and piloted the plane for about half a kilometre along the shoreline before making a smooth landing. The Silver Dart was powered by a 40-horsepower Curtiss engine, and was built using steel tubing, bamboo, friction tape, wire, wood, and rubberized silk balloon-cloth. Besides McCurdy and Bell, the members of the AEA were engineer Casey Baldwin, motorcycle maker Glenn H. Curtiss, and Lieutenant Thomas Selfridge of the U.S. Army. In 1908, Selfridge died after crashing in a plane piloted by U.S. flight pioneer Orville Wright. He was the world’s first aviation fatality. After 46 successful flights, the Silver Dart met its end during a demonstration in Petawawa, Ont. for the Canadian military in August 1909. The plane landed awkwardly, flipped over, and was destroyed beyond repair. To commemorate the 50th anniversary of that first flight, volunteers from the Royal Canadian Air Force built a replica which was flown at Baddeck on Feb. 23, 1959. The replica is on display at the Canada Aviation Museum in Ottawa.

JonClarke · 2006-08-23 21:48:52

If they want to hitch a ride in return for non-critical science payload, sure. Otherwise, no. No mission critical components should be supplied by anyone but the closest American allies (Japan, Australia, Britain. No France, Spain, Germany, etc).

By the time we go to Mars it may well be the US who is the junior player. What role it gets to play then will depend how it treats prospective partners now.

Jon

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-24 05:39:09

Yes yes, (insert country here) will overtake the US, etc etc. Has been said before on more than one occasion.

RobertDyck · 2006-08-24 07:09:11

Seems like we started working on this station with a democracy and ended up working on it with a dictatorship. One wonders if international collaboration projects like this are such a good idea. Should we go to Mars with Putin?

International cooperation does a few things: it enables large projects that are too expensive for any one nation to afford alone, it includes the ingenuity of engineers of all member nations, and it promotes cooperation between nations rather than adversarial conflict. To politicians, the latter may be the greatest reason. A conflict with Russia, for example, would be a bad thing. The Middle East is a prime example why; Russia is traditional allies with Arab countries while America is allied with Israel. The Israel/Lebanon conflict could be aggravated and expand into regional war rather than a ceasefire.

Internal politics of a partnered nation are not your concern. America has a lot of learning to do when it comes to international cooperation. Your comment is a prime example. Russia has complained many times of America dictating operating terms of ISS; when they first wanted to send Dennis Tito, America refused. Russia pointed out they are an equal partner, not a subordinate, so America can't refuse to let Russia sell rides to space tourists. It's rather ironic that America claims to be the free market economy and Russia the socialist economy, but America didn't want to let commerce on ISS. In the end Dennis Tito (an American) went, but NASA insisted on a bunch of qualifications. Isn't the ability to speak more than one language one of those qualifications?

The ability to complete what you commit yourself to is a major measure of character. Americans put a great deal of emphasis on character, especially politicians. When you sell a project and convince others to commit money and resources on things that rely on the project you sold, the ability or inability to complete that project is a major measure of character. NASA promised in the late 1960s to build an international space station; western European countries have been counting on building their own modules for that station ever since. When the US announced space station Freedom, that was a great disappointment to them; it included one Canadian module but no other non-American modules. When Freedom was cancelled, Canada cancelled its module, instead contributing an arm. Now ISS is proceeding and Europe, Japan, and Brazil are counting on its completion for the modules they already built. Cancelling ISS, or scaling it back to the point of useless, or even scaling it back to the point that European/Japanese/Brazilian modules are useless would be a major blow to alliances. That would affect not only future projects, but military cooperation and trade.

Many Americans wanted to blame Russia when they had trouble launching the Russian Service Module (also known as the Mir2 core module); that delay was a major set-back in ISS construction. But America's trouble with the Shuttle has caused as many delays. Russia was able to deliver astronauts via Soyuz, and supplies and fuel via Progress; cooperation has been crucial to ISS. Bickering over internal Russian politics is not useful. After all, as Putin put it, Russia doesn't want Iraq style democracy.

Sure, everyone in the Mars Society would have preferred the International Space Station was built as 2 Skylab modules that western Europe could have tacked their modules on to. Those Skylab modules could have been launched with one Saturn V each, or even better would be to launch each Skylab workshop as a self-launching upper stage on a Saturn 1B as originally designed. Two Saturn 1B launches to complete the core of ISS would have cost a hell of a lot less than what we have now. The self-launching design wouldn't have included an airlock; that would have been launched on another Saturn 1B with an Apollo CSM in the first manned mission to the station. But that didn't happen, we have what we have; let's finish it and move on.

dicktice · 2006-08-24 08:28:02

You're a breath of fresh air, RobertDyke. Thank's for that.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-24 08:40:20

Seems like we started working on this station with a democracy and ended up working on it with a dictatorship. One wonders if international collaboration projects like this are such a good idea. Should we go to Mars with Putin?
International cooperation does a few things: it enables large projects that are too expensive for any one nation to afford alone, it includes the ingenuity of engineers of all member nations, and it promotes cooperation between nations rather than adversarial conflict. To politicians, the latter may be the greatest reason. A conflict with Russia, for example, would be a bad thing. The Middle East is a prime example why; Russia is traditional allies with Arab countries while America is allied with Israel. The Israel/Lebanon conflict could be aggravated and expand into regional war rather than a ceasefire.

It also makes those projects more expensive, and it introduces the temptation to take as much time as you like in completing it as all your potential compedators are on board with you. I think if JFK extended his hand in friendship with the USSR and planned to go to the moon in a joint mission, we still would not have gotten there.
Also it seems to me that Russia is not a traditional ally of Arab countries. Russia by tradition is an Orthidox Christian country, only a minority of their people are Muslims, and some of those muslims have conducted terrorist operations against the Russian people, but opposing the United States in all things takes precidence in Russia over fighting Islamo-facism. If Russia is trying so hard to be our adversary, trying to see to it that Iran gets nuclear weapons and trying to kill Americans by proxy in their foreign policy, what the heck are we doing building an International space Station with them? Russia is not the same country that we started the project with, that country was a democracy, not an empire. I'm sorry that Russia's only sense of self worth is in opposing us in all things that matter, I wish it were otherwise.

Commodore · 2006-08-24 09:10:24

Half the time, you can't get agencies within goverments to properly colaborate. What makes anyone think a project requiring multiple agencies of mulitiple goverments to colaborate would not have crippling problems? Particularly when all parties, within and between goverments, are required to dance the contradictory dance of both looking out for #1 and stroking everyone elses ego.

The only reason we've gotten this far on the ISS is because of the overwhelming inertial force of the US Congress. No other country has the combination of resources and will to do anything on their own.

Future international projects require 1 leader to set the technical standards and provide the core hardware and support. And a suitable launcher. Partners can provide supplementary, compatable hardware as long as they can launch it.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-08-24 10:42:47

Seems like we started working on this station with a democracy and ended up working on it with a dictatorship. One wonders if international collaboration projects like this are such a good idea. Should we go to Mars with Putin?

International projects sometimes work well like that Cassini-Huygens trip but thanks to politics they mostly become an international failure. Working with the Ruskies hasn't been the best for NASA, and Putin might us it as leverage to blackmail to US
into forking out more space dollars
but as much as some of us would like to
we can't blame everything on foreigners like the Chinese, French, Canadians, Russians...the USA's biggest problem is itself, bad policy from US Presidents that cut the heck out of the program or come up with grandoise plans ( Carter, Bush Snr, Clinton ) and years of neglect for NASA's manned space flight.

After the Saturn rocket got binned, the Ruskies were making a comeback launching various space station projects and clocking up record time in space while US had no real way of putting space labs into space even if it really wanted to. The USA's best years for space were with Apollo and the Voyager/Viking missions while STS program has been something of a disaster. The Space Shuttle labs were pathetic they cost billions to launch, could only do material/bio science studies for a few days and only watch the zero-g effects on chemicals or the human body for a very short period of time before making the expensive STS trip home. The beauty of the Russian designs is that they had dedicated launchers Soyuz for manned astronaut/cosmonaut flight and Proton launcher for labs and other payloads. After Challenger and the bad PR from the death of teacher Christa McAuliffe people started asking serious questions about Shuttle, cost a billion per launch, no longer seems to be a safe system and will cost the US tax payer almost $200 billion when the Shuttle finally retires. As for the USA's astronauts, it has been the Soyuz that has been keeping the USA's manned program alive.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-24 11:58:36

The beauty of the Russian designs is that they had dedicated launchers Soyuz for manned astronaut/cosmonaut flight and Proton launcher for labs and other payloads. After Challenger and the bad PR from the death of teacher Christa McAuliffe people started asking serious questions about Shuttle, cost a billion per launch, no longer seems to be a safe system and will cost the US tax payer almost $200 billion when the Shuttle finally retires. As for the USA's astronauts, it has been the Soyuz that has been keeping the USA's manned program alive.

We should not have allowed ourselves to get in a position to depend on the Russians for anything. If their is a gap between the ending of the Shuttle program and the beginning of the CEV, we should close that gap by funding both programs properly. I think its worthwhile to finish up the ISS just to have something for all the money we've spent. I do not want to repeat the experience with the ISS however. I am very reluctant to do a join mission to the Moon or Mars with international partners because of what happened with the ISS. Maybe we can sell it, make it operate profitably, or turn it into a space hotel. The ISS cost way more than it should have, but at least we have something in orbit now, and that's the best I can say for the ISS program.

I think in the future, government should pay for these programs, but it should not run them. Sending people to Mars is not profitable, so a private company won't do it without the government paying for it, but if the government were to pay for it, and private industry were given a free hand on how to conduct this operation most efficiently, then I think they can do it very well. All the government needs to do is supply the proper incentives, and not pick winners and loses, the results should determine those. I think a prize system of government paying after the fact for certain results obtained by private companies, is a very promising way to proceed.

RedStreak · 2006-08-24 21:21:28

The Russians are capable of alot, but I treat them as a player standing on a wobbly stool, much as China.

If they balance right and have a little luck, such as with their Phobos-Grunt probe, they certainly they may reach the Moon if not Mars. However just look at their current budget as well as their track record. They have noteworthy successes but they're rarely had consecutive ones.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-25 08:41:21

Putin is about as reliable a partner in a joint manned Mars mission as he is a reliable partner in the War on Terrorism.

RobertDyck · 2006-08-25 09:16:12

Future international projects require 1 leader to set the technical standards and provide the core hardware and support. And a suitable launcher. Partners can provide supplementary, compatable hardware as long as they can launch it.

Do you know the definition of democracy? What's the difference between democracy and dictatorship? Domination is not compatible with freedom; every time you attempt to dominate someone, you reduce your own freedom. If freedom or liberty is the goal then domination is not a game you can win. Engineers or any development environment works best as a collaborative project, not a hierarchical authority structure. Development of space hardware is a development project. Scientists and engineers work by learning from each other and with each other, not any sort of hierarchical authority structure. That's one reason why space makes such a great tool to build international cooperation and lead to democracy.

Let me give you one technical example. NASA spent $10 million to develop a pen that would work in zero gravity. The Russians used a pencil. That's an often touted example, details are that the space pen also works in extreme temperatures (-45 to 120°C, -50 to 250°F) and has an estimated shelf life of 100 years. Russia used a mechanical pencil. A hunk of graphite won't burn without oxygen, and won't degrade with time; it'll handle just about the same conditions. The reason this happened was someone in Russia just thought of it.

NASA had difficulty devising a recycling life support system. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, and the Shuttle all used pressurized oxygen, scrubbed CO2 with lithium hydroxide, and removed smells with activated charcoal. After Russia lost the Moon race, they built space stations. They built Salyut space stations 1 through 7. Not all were a success, but Russia kept at it and improved the technology. An improved module based on Salyut 7 was the core module of Mir. An improved model of that was built for Mir-2, but launched for ISS; it's now called the Service Module. Russia developed a recycling life support system by keeping it simple: filter water from the cabin dehumidifier and urine collection tube, don't worry about wash water or feces. Oxygen was recycled by electrolysis of water. It didn't recycle 100% of water or oxygen, in fact it's closer to 50%, but it worked well enough. The Mir-2 module was going to recover water from feces, but they didn't launch that toilet. The point is a combination of ingenuity and just plain sticking with it resulted in developments that America never accomplished. Now after seeing Russia's design, we can improve it to produce close to 100% recycling, but that's after the fact. Again, engineers learn from each other.

I'm getting into technical stuff again. That's easier for me to deal with. The point is attempting to be a dictator with any development doesn't work. I'm surprised Americans attempt to do this. A common accusation is the central agriculture authority under the Soviet Union left farmers as employees of a large organization; they treated any equipment breakdown as a vacation. If a tractor or combine broke, rather than fixing it they called the central authority to send out a mechanic and took a break. That produced inefficient agriculture. Why do you think an American central authority would work any better?

clark · 2006-08-25 10:01:19

democracy is not always suitable outside of a social instution. why do all viewpoints need to be represented equally in the development of a space plan?

Somebody comes up with an idea. Somebody executes that idea. Others work towards the goal outlined in the execution of said idea.

As an example, Apollo was done in record time precisely because everyone followed the leader.

We have gone nowhere since because we try to accomadate everyone instead of sticking to a game plan.

Democracy has its place, but i don't think it is ideally suited for the development of space.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-25 10:28:04

democracy is not always suitable outside of a social instution. why do all viewpoints need to be represented equally in the development of a space plan?
Somebody comes up with an idea. Somebody executes that idea. Others work towards the goal outlined in the execution of said idea.
As an example, Apollo was done in record time precisely because everyone followed the leader.
We have gone nowhere since because we try to accomadate everyone instead of sticking to a game plan.
Democracy has its place, but i don't think it is ideally suited for the development of space.

When your talking about governments and government agencies that use taxpayers dollars, those governments ought to be accoutable to the people whose taxpayer money they spend, Dictators are not so accountable, they tax people whether they like it or not and the money gets spent on whatever the dictator likes, not want the people want. Russia has devolved into a dictatorship again. Dictators want to expand their empires, Russia will probably do so at the expense of ourselves or our allies. If we get invovled in a collaborative project with them, it would involve technology transfers, and Russia may in turn transfer that technology to the Iranians so they can build missiles and target our cities with nuclear weapons. Russia has been playing the spoiler in the international arena, trying to buy as much time as they can for the Iranians, with endless talk, so the Iranians can build their nuclear bomb. Since the Russians insist ob being our adversaries in these life and death issues, I see no reason why we should partner with them in space missions. Do you? If you are an astronaut, would you want to share a space capsule with your enemy, who in other circumstances might be trying to shoot you down in your fighter jet? Whose to say he won't shove you out the airlock while your asleep? I think its best to go on these space missions with those people you can trust. I wouldn't want to go to Mars with an Iranian either. the best missions are when everybody is on the same side and the respective governments are not fighting each other on Earth.

clark · 2006-08-25 12:22:37

dude, governments fight. Last I checked, I had no personal beef with any Iranian or any Russian.

But perhaps Russians and Iranians are evil, i mean, after all, their governments are evil. So it only follows...

paranoid nut job.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-26 07:57:35

International cooperation does a few things: it enables large projects that are too expensive for any one nation to afford alone, it includes the ingenuity of engineers of all member nations, and it promotes cooperation between nations rather than adversarial conflict. To politicians, the latter may be the greatest reason. A conflict with Russia, for example, would be a bad thing. The Middle East is a prime example why; Russia is traditional allies with Arab countries while America is allied with Israel. The Israel/Lebanon conflict could be aggravated and expand into regional war rather than a ceasefire.
It also makes those projects more expensive, and it introduces the temptation to take as much time as you like in completing it as all your potential compedators are on board with you. I think if JFK extended his hand in friendship with the USSR and planned to go to the moon in a joint mission, we still would not have gotten there.
Also it seems to me that Russia is not a traditional ally of Arab countries. Russia by tradition is an Orthidox Christian country, only a minority of their people are Muslims, and some of those muslims have conducted terrorist operations against the Russian people, but opposing the United States in all things takes precidence in Russia over fighting Islamo-facism. If Russia is trying so hard to be our adversary, trying to see to it that Iran gets nuclear weapons and trying to kill Americans by proxy in their foreign policy, what the heck are we doing building an International space Station with them? Russia is not the same country that we started the project with, that country was a democracy, not an empire. I'm sorry that Russia's only sense of self worth is in opposing us in all things that matter, I wish it were otherwise.

Absolutely

To expand a bit... this sounds like a logical extension of the great Diversity Fallacy, where having input from different viewpoints is always a good thing... but I digress:

There can be a bennefits to having different engineering philosophies and methods, but there is also an inefficiency of trying to tie these together into one system. If the differing methods are too dissimilar, this inefficiency can (and does in the ISS case) eliminate if not exceed the bennefits.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-26 08:23:32

"Internal politics of a partnered nation are not your concern."

Excuse me? Is that since Americans are stupid and too... unenlightend to be permitted concern?

And aren't you the one big on consensus? So, its okay for Russia to give America the finger over what goes on aboard the ISS, but not vice versa? We are "equal partners" after all, and preventing anybody who passes a flight physical but who really shouldn't be on the fairly dangerous station is a valid concern. The Russians have played fast and loose with space safety for decades, with several very near misses. That nobody has died on Mir is a miracle.

The ability to complete what you commit yourself to is a major measure of character... the ability or inability to complete that project is a major measure of character

Blah blah, more nebulous emotional right-brain rhetorict. When a government considers doing something expensive, it ought to take stock of the bennefits versus the cost. If the costs far outweigh the bennefits, which it obviously does in the case of the ISS, then by all rights doing that thing is a bad idea. Is going through with a bad idea, spending vast sums of money for virtually nothing in return, a virtue? Certainly not... and no other country - all ultimately governed by self-interest - could blame us for it unhypocritically. If there were nothing to be gained, none of the other countries would be involved in the ISS project, so why should we be expected to now?

That would affect not only future projects, but military cooperation and trade.

Says you. Spaceflight is just not that big on those countires' radars. Ditching the ISS, which is obviously bad for America, would be on a temporary and minor issue with the ISS partners. The ones that matter anyway, Russia can take a long walk out a short airlock.

Many Americans wanted to blame Russia when they had trouble launching the Russian Service Module (also known as the Mir2 core module); that delay was a major set-back in ISS construction. But America's trouble with the Shuttle has caused as many delays.

You are being deceptive, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised... Russia's delay with the ISS program was that the Russian government failed to live up to their end of the bargain because they didn't want to, they didn't want to put the reasources in required. America's Shuttle problems are the exact opposit, being a technical failure that was not caused by government apathy to live up to our half of the deal. I think NASA even bailed out the Russians to the tune of several hundred million dollars, which I believe was likely extortion on their part.

And to top it off, Putin is a dictator and an enemy of freedom, "not wanting democracy" in government is perhaps the slogan of a facist.

Edit: Oh, and if national self-interest isn't valid when doing the helping eachother/holding hands/international cooperation thing, then where is your outrage over Russia charging the US for Soyuz seats?

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-26 08:54:48

Do you know the definition of democracy? What's the difference between democracy and dictatorship? Domination is not compatible with freedom

Democracy works pretty well for governments, but not so well with engineering! There must ultimately be a final authority, since different engineers want to do things different ways. They do not always work best as a collaboration, and infact the ISS is a textbook example where is does poorly.

The more complicated a project is, the less collaboration is a good thing too.

NASA spent $10 million to develop a pen that would work in zero gravity

Thats a filty lie, a classic anti-NASA libel, and just isn't true. Enough with the lies and revised history.

But while speaking of writing utensils, the Russian option would require a pencil sharpener, and thanks to zero gravity the materials resulting from sharpening or writing will float around in the cabin. Including graphite dust. Which is electrically conductive. Not to mention the outgassing of mildly toxic chemicals from the wood, adhesives/paint, and isoprene rubber.

NASA had difficulty devising a recycling life support system... Now after seeing Russia's design, we can improve it to produce close to 100% recycling, but that's after the fact

I doubt that, I bet you just made that up, prove it.

The point is attempting to be a dictator with any development doesn't work

Actually, it does. Trying to relate an engineering project to political structures of government is silly, and you are just invoking it to stir up more nebulous emotional touchy-feely support for your twisted point of view.

Speaking of politics, I think its a pretty likely that Russia used the ISS and NASA's Shuttle troubles as a way to get leverage over America concerning Iran and the INA law (with its subsequent defacto repeal). International collaboration doesn't always yeild closer, stronger ties. On the contrary, it is a two-way street, and Russia has used it against us to secure its own aims.

And you want us to jump in bed with these people and tie our future in space to their whim? I think not.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-08-21 07:54:55

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#2 2006-08-21 08:01:23

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#3 2006-08-21 09:31:58

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#4 2006-08-21 13:13:22

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#5 2006-08-21 17:56:55

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#6 2006-08-21 19:25:26

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#7 2006-08-22 18:07:11

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#8 2006-08-22 19:20:54

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#9 2006-08-23 21:48:52

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#10 2006-08-24 05:39:09

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#11 2006-08-24 07:09:11

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#12 2006-08-24 08:28:02

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#13 2006-08-24 08:40:20

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#14 2006-08-24 09:10:24

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#15 2006-08-24 10:42:47

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#16 2006-08-24 11:58:36

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#17 2006-08-24 21:21:28

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#18 2006-08-25 08:41:21

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#19 2006-08-25 09:16:12

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#20 2006-08-25 10:01:19

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#21 2006-08-25 10:28:04

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#22 2006-08-25 12:22:37

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#23 2006-08-26 07:57:35

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#24 2006-08-26 08:23:32

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

#25 2006-08-26 08:54:48

Re: ISS - Beware the Bear

Board footer