OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

soph · 2003-02-23 19:51:19

How about this? We swap out only 4 crew members at a time (not 2 OSP launches, just one swapping 4), and leave the other 3, so we basically do 1 1/2 x shifts.

Every launch swaps 4 people, and since its less than 1/5 the cost, we can keep the crews running normal schedules of today by keeping staggered crew schedules.

Ad Astra · 2003-02-23 23:13:37

I also think that cargo and passengers should be separate; my problem is with NASA's lack of a plan to replace the cargo tranfer abilities of Shuttle and, to a lesser extent, Progress. It's clear that OSP cannot adequately fill this mission. I hope that NASA will looks towards Kistler or somebody to fill this critical role.

RobertDyck · 2003-02-24 01:40:56

Orbital Space Plane Program Level ? One Requirements Mission Needs Statement
The vehicle(s) and associated systems will support U.S. ISS requirements for crew rescue, crew transport, and cargo.
Requirements
1. The system, which may include multiple vehicles, shall provide rescue* capability for no fewer than four ISS crew as soon as practical but no later than 2010.

Not to worry, these requirements do include cargo but permit multiple vehicles. Since the ISS is the *INTERNATIONAL* Space Station, I would simply let Russia continue to provide Progress cargo spececraft, and let the European Space Agency provide the new one. However, the OSP requirements do include a cargo spacecraft.

I would suggest an expendable vehicle that can be launched by another ELV, say another Atlas V 401, then dock with the ISS. There is no need for the cargo craft to be reusable, or have redundant control systems. It could use a commercial off the shelf radiation hardened single board computer. It would need a pressure vessel to hold its cargo, and a docking hatch compatible with the ISS. It would require maneuvering thrusters and propellant tanks, a targetting radar system, and communications with the ground. That is all, it wouldn't need life support or any form of re-entry system.

Ad Astra · 2003-02-24 15:12:55

I do see a need for a vehicle that can safely return cargo to earth. The space station cargo is expensive hardware, and there is scientific value in being able to retrieve it. It may be possible, in the near future, to launch the Italian multipurpose logistics module on an expendible rocket and recover it with an inflatable heat shield. It's also possible to fly the shuttle in an unmanned configuration and perform this task, but the economics of this would be questionable at best. That's why I'm looking towards Kistler for this purpose. And, as reliable as Progress has been so far, it has limited payload capacity and is not reusable. I don't know whether the Kistler vehicle would be better suited towards delivering consumable supplies (like Progress) or scientific payload (like the shuttle.) But it still represents a capability that the ISS sorely needs.

RobertDyck · 2003-02-25 08:21:32

I believe the manned OSP can remove small articles, such as single rack-mount tray. Remember I suggested 1, 2, or 3 seats of the 4-astronaut OSP could be replaced with cargo for launch or return. The current shuttle would be needed to replace an entire rack frame. NASA's current plan is 3 fold: maintain the remaining shuttles, build an OSP as soon as possible, and develop a replacement for the shuttle. The Russian MAKS-OS is a medium size shuttle that could replace an entire rack from the Science module, although not an entire station module. The number of flights required for a medium size shuttle would be so low that there is no need for 2 such systems. In fact, with a manned OSP that has the ability to carry 4 astronauts or small quantities of cargo up and down, an expendable cargo supply ship, medium lift (now called heavy) expendable launch vehicles, and just one medium size shuttle, there would no longer be a need for a full-size shuttle. For me that is sad because I would truly like to see Shuttle-C as a true heavy lift launch vehicle, and it is only economical as long as you maintain shuttle infrastructure.

Ad Astra · 2003-02-26 11:47:08

In addition to OSP, I can see the need for a new space capsule. An enlarged Soyuz (Zarya) was considered and rejected for ISS; Apollo shapes have also been considered.

I've been looking at a slightly-modified version of the proposed "Big Gemini." It would have ample room for landing skids and a parafoil landing system (Using the X-38 design instead of the original Gemini paraglider.) I feel that such a landing system is necessary because parachuting to a spot on the ground has its dangers (as the Voskhod 2 crew learned) and landng in the ocean makes it likely the crew will be lost at sea.

I don't think that this new "Big Gemini" would be reusable, and it would not be a replacement for OSP. But there are some missions where an expendable capsule is preferred, such as returning astronauts from earth orbit after a successful mission to the moon or Mars.

Ad Astra · 2003-02-27 09:23:19

The OSP engineers have focused on an expendable launcher, and the participants on this forum have looked also at launch from a subsonic aircraft with an expendable fuel tank. But we need to ask ourselves whether we can do even better, and I believe the answer is yes.

I've done some basic calculations and I think that Bristol Spaceplanes has the right idea. Build an orbiter and mount it on a mothership which is essentially an SR-71 on steroids. The mothership flies on turbine / ramjet power to Mach 3 and 100,000 feet, then ignites a rocket and climbs to Mach 4 and outside the effective atmosphere. The orbiter would then ignite its engines and fly into orbit while the mothership descends and flies back to base. The beauty of the plan is that the orbiter only needs to be 65% fuel if kerosene propellants are used.

Such a system is possible with today's technology, but it would take over a decade for the industry to complete such a massive project. Whatever happened to the former attitude in America's aerospace industry, the one which designed and built the P-51 in 180 days? Or the one which took eight years to advance from suborbital flight to lunar landings? With the second world war and the cold war now a part of history, I feel that we do not have the motivation to undertake a major space development project at this time.

RobertDyck · 2003-02-27 10:29:17

Interesting idea, and Bristol Spaceplanes has very ambitious plans. Their Spacecab is supposed to carry a total of 6 people: 2 crew plus 4 passengers. Its mothership would fly on turbojets to Mach 2, then rockets to Mach 4 before separation. However, their Spacebus would have 50 seats and its mothership would fly on turbo-ramjet engines to Mach 4, then accelerate on rockets to Mach 6 before separation.

In the 1970's I heard the SR-71 could fly at Mach 3.6 but today they are saying it can fly "in excess of Mach 3" and aren't saying exactly how fast it can go. The XB-70 Valkyrie was supposed to fly Mach 3 and it was a bomber with 450 tonne loaded take-off weight. The Spacebus mothership would have a 400 tonne take-off weight. The double-delta wing design looks more like a Concord than a Valkyrie, but the Concord cruises at Mach 2.2 and has a maximum take-off weight of 185 tonnes. I call the Spacebus Booster quite ambitious.

Then again, the Valkyrie was developed 4 decades ago.

Ad Astra · 2003-02-27 17:56:01

The most accurate figures I've heard on the SR-71 was a top speed of Mach 3.5 (with Mach 4 possible, in theory, on a cold day) and a maximum ceiling of 100,000 feet.

Zubrin has some interesting comments on why the Blackbird is still the fastest in his epilogue to "Case for Mars." They make for excellent reading.

nirgal · 2003-02-28 15:08:07

What about the Aurora? Or Brilliant Buzzard?

Ad Astra · 2003-02-28 16:31:45

They might be out there. But it's too difficult to speculate about their capabilities, and the Air Force is being less than forthcoming with information about these so-called "black projects."

Ad Astra · 2003-03-03 15:13:24

Here's a great article describing the flawed shuttle design process, and hopefully engineers will take heed when the next manned launchers are created.

A few comments about the article, though, in that it leaves out a few drawbacks to the "ideal" system they have designed. The most important one is "coking," the tarring of hydrocarbon engines that makes them unattractive for RLVs. The NASA-MSC Fastrac engine was supposed to solve this, but I don;t think the engine was ever finished. The other was the inherently high mass/drag associated with reusable, flyback boosters. It would also be possible to parachute the boosters back in the same fashion as the SRBs, but NASA has done studies validating the economics of flyback boosters.

Interesting enough, a number of teams, including the Grumman-Boeing pairing, wanted to launch the shuttle on top of a Saturn V first stage as an interim step before the reusable first stage could be developed. J-2 engines would be used on a single-flight basis until the SSME was finished. Unfortunately, NASA decided in favor of an ET and segmented SRBs, which apparently have caused two fatal accidents out of 113 flights.

I truly believe that the shuttle would have been a much better vehicle if NASA and the Air Force had flown the X-20 Dyna Soar and gained experience in operating an orbital space plane before diving into the mammoth Space Shuttle. The shuttle is a remarkable technological achievement, but it never turned out to be practical.

soph · 2003-03-03 15:15:50

The Saturn V would have cost as much in itself as the entire Shuttle does now.

And the Columbia accident's cause is unknown. It probably wasn't the ETs, in fact. I've heard various ideas as to why it happened.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-04 00:56:54

Thanks, Ad Astra, for that article on the development of the shuttle.

This sort of analysis is probably best adjudicated by people like our very own Robert Dyck, who have their fingers on the pulse of rocket development and efficiency. It would be interesting to hear what they think of this fairly damning piece of journalism!

The F1 engines from the Saturn V first stage, though they doubtless had their drawbacks, were apparently big, powerful, and reliable. And it seems they were capable of significant incremental improvement as technology moved forward. All right, they were 'big dumb boosters' lacking the sophistication of an SSME with its high specific impulse, but it does look as though their use could have resulted in a safer, much cheaper, and possibly more versatile vehicle.
Not that the technology of the shuttle isn't an absolute marvel! I'm sure most people see it as an engineering tour-de-force. But Ad Astra's article implies it was a hotch-potch of overlapping compromises; the worst compromise being that of the safety of the crew!

One of the most fascinating and potentially inflammatory parts of the article describes what could have been simple human jealousy and hubris. The author insinuates that the mothballing of the F1, after only a few years of spectacularly successful performance, may have been decided by people who simply wanted to outdo Werner Von Braun!! A thought that becomes all the more sobering when you think it might have cost the lives of 14 astronauts.
???

RobertDyck · 2003-03-04 06:40:54

There are several factors the author of this article has left out. First and foremost is the fact that shuttle development was started in the early 1970's. This was the end of the Apollo program. Only 8 years had passed from John F. Kennedy's speech, at which time Mercury astronauts were flying on top of Redstone ICBM's, to men walking on the Moon. People honestly believed that the core of the international space station would be an upgraded Skylab module. The timeline was construction of a moon base during the 1970's and 1980's, a space shuttle and space station by 1980, and manned mission to Mars by 1990, latest. The great advances in technology from a humble Redstone to a Saturn V brought the expectation of highly efficient and routine rockets for the next generation vehicle. I remember seeing NASA's announced contenders for space shuttle designs. The leading design was a two stage to orbit, fully reusable launch vehicle. The booster stage would be a lifting body with wings, a single pilot and jet engines for a powered landing. The orbiter would be a pure lifting body. Although this design had greatest safety and the lowest operation cost, its development cost was more than congress was willing to pay.

NASA then decided to develop a simple space taxi. This would carry astronauts and just a little luggage to a space station. This small spacecraft was called the space shuttle, but congress cut funding to NASA again. NASA then had to get funding from the military. The military wanted a vehicle to service their new K7 spy satellite. The crew taxi was expanded to include a cargo bay designed to surround the K7; that created the space shuttle we know today.

Maintenance cost of the current shuttle was never supposed to be as high as they are now. It was designed to fly 100 missions per orbiter, with a total of 400 missions by 1990. The shuttle was supposed to be retired at that time and a second generation shuttle would replace it. The engines were not supposed to be serviced as often as they are now. It was intended to fly with minimal maintenance between flights; that was the point of a reusable spacecraft.

The point of replacing the F1 with SSME engines was not a slight against Werner Von Braun, it was an attempt to replace the giant Saturn V with something new, modern, efficient, and more compact. At the time the final shuttle design was announced it was a great disappointment for (then young) space fans such as myself. It was the design with the lowest development cost short of plopping an OSP on top of an expendable rocket, and it was the least safe. No one I know of considered use of solid rockets safe for human flight, much less a segmented rocket strapped to the side of a liquid hydrogen tank. Recovery of the SRBs was clumsy and expensive, the shuttle was supposed to get away from ocean recovery. Worst of all, the external tank was not reusable.

A critical view with today's knowledge would say that a double pointed external tank such as the Russian MAKS is much better than a cylindrical tank because it positions the main engines directly beneath the center of gravity. The asymmetry of thrust vector is also a good point (SRBs pointing in a slightly different direction than the SSMEs), and the single engine system of the MAKS does resolve that. The innovative use of kerosene/LOX or LH2/LOX by a single RD-701 engine is a remarkable achievement, but just wasn't available when the shuttle was designed. MAKS was designed in the late 1980's.

Finally, don't blame NASA for developing a single launch vehicle that is jack of all trades and master of none. They originally intended a space plane that would carry astronauts to the space station. Cargo would be delivered by a separate single-stage-to-orbit rocket that would splash down in a custom built circular pool at the cape.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-05 01:57:24

Thanks for the interesting background information, Robert. It just goes to show how changing circumstances and random political decisions conspired to actually produce the hotch-potch of compromises described in that article.
Arguably, it's the democratic system (or at least its misuse) which is responsible for the deaths of those astronauts. There's always enough cash for pork-barrelling and for buying representatives another term in office but there's often too little money available for sensible long-term designs or plans! Isn't it typical that the shuttle design which cost least to develop at the time, but would cost more later and be less safe for the crew, was the one chosen by congress?!
There's got to be a better system than democracy! This short-term, near-sighted, to-hell-with-it-as-long-as-I-get-back-into-office-next-election kind of mentality is the scourge of today's society. It's remarkable that such a system has produced any progress at all since it replaced monarchies in the western world!

Sometimes I despair of humanity and its constant attention to selfish, self-centred, and self-serving behaviour. Doesn't anyone think of duty and higher purpose any more?
Sheesh!!
???

Palomar · 2003-03-05 07:12:26

Arguably, it's the democratic system (or at least its misuse) which is responsible for the deaths of those astronauts. There's always enough cash for pork-barrelling and for buying representatives another term in office but there's often too little money available for sensible long-term designs or plans! Isn't it typical that the shuttle design which cost least to develop at the time, but would cost more later and be less safe for the crew, was the one chosen by congress?!
There's got to be a better system than democracy! This short-term, near-sighted, to-hell-with-it-as-long-as-I-get-back-into-office-next-election kind of mentality is the scourge of today's society. It's remarkable that such a system has produced any progress at all since it replaced monarchies in the western world!

Sometimes I despair of humanity and its constant attention to selfish, self-centred, and self-serving behaviour. Doesn't anyone think of duty and higher purpose any more?
Sheesh!!
???

*I've come to oftentimes marvel that the human race has progressed as it has, or that we were ever on the moon at all. I've been reading about the politics and government of 18th century France and England; it's astounding that both nations continued to chug along, despite royals and nobles behaving as though the national treasuries were their personal cookie jar, peasants (the only folks working and having to pay taxes) were always on the brink of starvation and died early deaths from malnutrition and overwork, and despite the fact that all offices in the government were either inherited or purchased.

If many humans in the West are incapable (for whatever reason; short-sightedness, etc.) of the wonderment of science, the desire for space exploration/travel, many others would only advocate such a thing for sheer personal fame/gain/notoriety.

It's amazing that the tiny percentage of humans who love science and progress for the sake of science and progress have managed to bring the rest of humankind this far, considering all the selfishness, egoism and corruption...besides apathy.

As it goes with Westerners in this regard, I don't get it. Some level of selfishness and egoism can't be avoided when we're talking about humans...but I wonder how much further we'd be advanced if "ME, ME, ME" weren't always getting in the way.

How much of doing something -- anything -- is simply done for the sake of loving it? Not much, it seems (pardon my cynicism).

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-03-05 08:11:30

I agree with you 100% on this one, Cindy...

Just think of the all the so-called "reality shows" that are clotting the airwaves these days...and the persistantly high ratings they get. Talk about a bunch of self-serving people...

I just don't see why so many people work so hard (the # of hours worked here in the U.S. is higher than it has been in generations), and make all this money, and yet the rate of depression and unhappiness is higher than ever. Doesn't anyone see what's wrong with this picture?? Dang, I'd rather be poor and happy than rich and miserable...lol. So precious few people do things purely for the joy of doing them...and yet these are the ones that have advanced the human race to where it is today.

Not to be a misanthrope here, but I sometimes wish the Western world would slip into a severe economic depression for a few years just so people would get back to what life *should* be about, instead of running up their credit cards at the 'mart and having to work like the dickens to pay for it, not to mention running roughshod over others to "get ahead."

I'll leave it at that... ???

B

RobertDyck · 2003-03-05 08:14:50

There's got to be a better system than democracy! This short-term, near-sighted, to-hell-with-it-as-long-as-I-get-back-into-office-next-election kind of mentality is the scourge of today's society. It's remarkable that such a system has produced any progress at all since it replaced monarchies in the western world!

I am in favour of democracy. Although I advocate an international system that permits and tolerates diversity in national governments, I am proud that Canada is a democracy. After all, it is part of the principles of democracy to permit the people who live in a country to decide what values and systems they want to establish to govern themselves. If they choose a bad system, it is not up to the citizens of some other country to bail them out. We can advise and suggest, but in the end the citizens of any country must live with the decisions they make. A dictatorship is an easy and potentially efficient system of government. It can make quick decisions and doesn't have to pay for a congress or parliament with the salaries and expenses of all its representatives not to mention their pork barrel projects. However, the citizens literally risk their lives on the benevolence of the dictator they select. Then how do you get rid of him/her if the dictator turns out to be a tyrant. It's a high-stakes game with the lives of the citizens.

Furthermore, the citizens don't have to think or make decisions with a dictatorship, so it's easy. Unfortunately many people in a representative democracy think they don't have to think either. Surprise! You do. I blame the voters who put a bad representative in office. Many people in Canada are apathetic and feel they can't do anything. I receive a letter every fall from a Member of Parliament asking me what the focus for the federal government should be from a Western Canada point of view. It is a form letter he sends to all constituents who bother to correspond with him. This year I sent a long, multi-page letter. One of the points was to keep the focus on the budget, maintain the surplus and pay off the debt, don't give billions of dollars to municipal governments but focus on national projects, and don't give federal money to post-secondary education. I included a copy of the letter I sent to the provincial education minister which detailed how to reduce tuition cost without costing tax dollars, and pointed out how most of the points of that letter are being implemented. I also wanted the GST rebate system replaced with a reduction in personal income tax. I made a big deal of holding elected representatives accountable to the voters, and wanted municipal bills paid for by municipal taxes so voters could hold municipal officials accountable at election time. The same for provincial bills. Not everything in my letter was done, but there was no new federal money for the education system, the promised hand-out to municipalities was cancelled, and the budget made a big deal of making the government accountable to voters. A group of MP's of which my representative is a member pushed for cancellation of the GST rebate system, although they didn't succeed. Although there was a total of 25 billion dollars in new federal spending over 2 years, it's not as bad as it was going to be. My letter did have an impact on the federal budget for this country.

By the way, when I sent my letter to the provincial education minister a couple years ago, his executive assistant said he had all the deputy ministers do a formal study of my letter. Then I got a very pretty letter from the minister himself thanking me for the letter and stating which points he intended to implement. One of those points was included in the premier's State of the Province address that year. Nobody mentioned me, the elected officials are taking credit for my ideas, but the important thing is that it's getting done.

So pardon me if I hold you the American voter accountable for the actions of your elected officials. It is up to you to continue to push them to do the right thing. If your senator or representative starts pushing for short-term, near-sighted projects then give him hell. If he doesn't listen to you then raise hell in your constituency. Representatives can get panicky at demonstrations and rallies in their own riding regarding a position they hold on a bill. Send a written letter to your representative and senator asking what they are doing to ensure NASA builds a good replacement for the space shuttle; one that is safe, permits frequent visits to space, and has a low operational cost. Ask them whether they intend congress to pay for the up-front cost of such a reliable system. If they don't reply then you can start by raising hell on this message board, but you will have to get more involved locally.

Ad Astra · 2003-03-05 10:51:13

Steering the thread back to the original topic...

If OSP is launched by an ELV, would it be that hard for LockMart, Boeing, or Arianespace to uprade their launchers with re-usable boosters? I'm certain NASA wouldn't fund the upgrade, but it might be appealing to the companies because it reduces launch costs and increases profit margins.

I think the Atlas V is most suited for this upgrade because its RD-170 engine is derived from the re-usable RD-180. "All" LockMart needs to do is add fins, landing gear pods, a scissor wing, and jets to the Atlas V booster core. Ditto for the Delta IV.

Man-rating and then upgrading the Ariane 5 will be a taller order because I'm leery of the SRBs, and it would be impractical to add wings to an SRB casing. Arianespace has studied various flyback boosters, it's just a matter of implementing the best configuration.

A partly-reusable OSP presents some interesting opportunities. It will be cheaper to fly on a per-mission basis than shuttle, safer due to the all-liquid propulsion, and potentially able to fly polar orbit missions from Vandenberg AFB.

dicktice · 2003-03-05 12:28:28

Ad Astra: I'm a bit flummoxed by all the acronyms, but to be specific, how do you propose to survive atmospheric reentry heating simply with the addition of wings to your rocket body? By the way, I used to work for Lockheed Missiles and Space Corporation and, since they acquired Martin Aircraft Corportation...have they officially shortened their name to "LockMart," by which you refer to them--or what?

nebob2 · 2003-03-05 14:00:14

It was still Lockheed-Martin last time I looked.

Ad Astra · 2003-03-05 16:35:59

I enjoy using LockMart just to keep things short.

Booster separation would occur at much lower speeds and altitudes than a spacecraft in orbit; think of the speed and altitude of shuttle boosters separation. Buzz Aldrin's Starbooster concept calls for staging between Mach 3 and Mach 6. A heat-sink structure would suffice. My only concern with modifying existing boosters to fly back is that the thin-walled propellant tanks might not be able to survive the bending loads of flight without major modifications.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-05 17:41:50

Just one more short off-thread post.
Thanks Cindy and Byron for coming back with your comments on human-nature and politics. All very true!
And, Robert, I am extremely impressed that your letter brought about those beneficial changes - impressed that you took the time and trouble to get involved, and impressed that your parliamentarians were humble enough and sensible enough to actually listen!! I congratulate you.

Palomar · 2003-03-06 09:08:45

There's got to be a better system than democracy! This short-term, near-sighted, to-hell-with-it-as-long-as-I-get-back-into-office-next-election kind of mentality is the scourge of today's society. It's remarkable that such a system has produced any progress at all since it replaced monarchies in the western world!
So pardon me if I hold you the American voter accountable for the actions of your elected officials. It is up to you to continue to push them to do the right thing.

*Shaun is Australian.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-02-23 19:51:19

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#27 2003-02-23 23:13:37

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#28 2003-02-24 01:40:56

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#29 2003-02-24 15:12:55

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#30 2003-02-25 08:21:32

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#31 2003-02-26 11:47:08

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#32 2003-02-27 09:23:19

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#33 2003-02-27 10:29:17

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#34 2003-02-27 17:56:01

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#35 2003-02-28 15:08:07

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#36 2003-02-28 16:31:45

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#37 2003-03-03 15:13:24

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#38 2003-03-03 15:15:50

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#39 2003-03-04 00:56:54

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#40 2003-03-04 06:40:54

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#41 2003-03-05 01:57:24

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#42 2003-03-05 07:12:26

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#43 2003-03-05 08:11:30

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#44 2003-03-05 08:14:50

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#45 2003-03-05 10:51:13

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#46 2003-03-05 12:28:28

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#47 2003-03-05 14:00:14

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#48 2003-03-05 16:35:59

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#49 2003-03-05 17:41:50

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#50 2003-03-06 09:08:45

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

Board footer