Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

Ad Astra · 2003-08-31 22:25:24

It seems like OSP is getting less ambitious by the day as NASA strives to accelerate the time schedule while keeping the budget down. Although the vehicle will be fully autonomous (eliminating the need for pilots,) it will still carry only four astronauts to ISS. Novel maneuvering engines and better heat shields will probably be out of the question, as it will be cheaper and faster to use improved versions of shuttle-based systems.

If the images released by Boeing are any indication, a modern version of Apollo may be in the cards. I've read all of the pro-capsule and anti-capsule rants on spacedaily.com, and I tend to think that a lifting re-entry will be better for the de-conditioned crew, but a capsule might suffice when the obvious weight savings are factored in.

NASA essentially had a choice between building a cheap spacecraft that will fill a short-term need (replace the manned launch abilities of the shuttle ASAP) or building a more expensive but more durable OSP that could support larger crews aboard either the ISS or a larger, follow-on station. Although I can forsee the need both for a cheap capsule and a more luxurious space plane, it appears that NASA is choosing the former and not the latter.

nirgal · 2003-09-04 19:21:44

And that's exactly the right choice!

RobertDyck · 2003-09-04 21:46:11

Can the capsule be reused? Using conventional thrusters and a proven heat shield may be a good choice. Keeping the capacity down to 4 astronauts and no cargo should permit reducing the launch mass, which reduces the launch vehicle required so it reduces operational cost. Reduced long term on-going cost means a reliable system and a good investment. I would like to see launch mass reduced so the OSP can be launched by an Atlas V or Delta IV with a single common core module and no solid rocket boosters. An X-38 based lifting body could land at the salt flats where it could be recovered by a flat bed medium truck with dual rear axle and a truck crane. An HL-20 based lifting body could land on a runway. The key is landing on land where you don't need an armada of ships to recover the spacecraft. Is the capsule going to use the Russian system of touch-down rockets to permit landing on land? Can it land with sufficient precision to hit the salt flats? Most importantly I repeat; can the capsule be reused?

Spider-Man · 2003-09-04 23:17:14

No no no, we all have it wrong...

Dr. Zubrin points out that having the last stage of a multistage spacecraft be the only part that is reused doesn't make any sense (the shuttle was a fine stepping stone towards a fully reusable OSP, but that never happened thanks to Nixon's budget cuts). Because he writes so brilliantly and requires no paraphrasation, here is a paragraph right from his book Entering Space (1999; p. 29):

The Shuttle is a fiscal disater [he mentions this earlier, regarding how the Shuttle is not at all useful because there is not enough payload that needs to go to orbit to justify the program, or the incredibly expensive ground crews] not because it is reusable, but because its technical and programmatic bases are incorrect. The Shuttle is a partially reusable launch vehicle: Its lower stages are expendable or semi-salvageable while the upper stage (the orbiter) is reusable. As aesthetically pleasing as this configuration may appear to some, from an engineering point of view this is precisely the opposite of the correct way to design a partially reusable launch system. Instead, the lower stages should be reusable and the upper stage expendable. Why? Because the lower stages of a multi-staged booster are far more massive than the upper stage; so if only one or the other is to be reusable, you save much more money by reusing the lower stage. Furthermore, it is much easier to make the lower stage reusable, since it does not fly as high or as fast, and thus takes much less of a beating during reentry. Finally, the negative payload impact of adding those systems requires for reusability is much less if they are put on the lower stage than the upper. In a typical two-stage-to-orbit system, for example, every kilogram of extra dry mass added to the lower stage reduces the payload delivered to orbit by about 0.1 kilogram, whereas a kilogram of extra dry mass on the upper stage causes a full kilogram of payload loss. The Shuttle is actually a 100-tonne-to-orbit booster, but because the upper stage is a reusable orbiter vehicle with a dry mass of 80 tonnes, only 20 tonnes of payload is actually delivered to orbit. From the amout of smoke, fire, and thrust the Shuttle produces on the launch pad, it should deliver five times the payload to orbit than a Titan IV, but because it must launch the orbiter to space as well as the payload, its net delivery capability only equals that of the Titan. There si no need for 60-odd tonnes of wings, landing gear, and thermal protection systems in Earth orbit, but the Shuttle drags them up there (at a cost of $10 million per tonne) anyway each time it flies. In short, the Space Shuttle is so inefficient because it is built upside down.

So essentially, making the orbiter reusable means adding extra stuff to it (wings, heat shield tiles, specific engines and thrusters, etcetera), which makes it much heavier. And there is a limit to the launch capacity of the booster that lifts it out of the atmosphere. What will go to orbit now has less available room for payload, meaning that it is that much less valuable a spacecraft.

Zubrin's book is incredible. As much as I loved The Case for Mars, I think this one actually tops it, and succeeds beyond it. I highly recommend it to anyone ? truly, this all should be in the public ken. After all, its what their taxes pay for.

Algol · 2003-09-05 12:09:37

He fails to point out though, that the upper stage is far more complex and expensive to build than the lower stages.

The lower stages are generally expendable because they are relatively cheap to replace, wheras the upper stage (in the OSP, but not for a cargo launcher) includes life support, in-orbit manuvering systems, communication systems..... its a space craft, you get the idea, i shant go on. This is why i like the resusable capsule idea, its a simple design that minimises the ammount of extra weight needed to make it reusable, whilst actually remaining fully reusable.

If youre just shooting cargo into space, then theres no need to keep the final stage because it would be a fairly simple piece of eqipment, and Zubrin is correct in those respects.

This is why NASA is now moving towards seperating crew and cargo. From a scientific standpoint, the shuttle was designed to fly into space for a week, conduct microgravity research and return. We now have the ISS, which provides a convenient platform for conducting this research, and it is much cheaper and simpler to have astronauts who can 'commute' (every 6 months ??? ) to and from the station to perform experiments. The only capability that would be missed by the loss of the shuttle would be the ability to return large peices of equipment to earth (the OSP will have a small cargo-carrying capability).

RobertDyck · 2003-09-05 12:17:58

If all you want is an expendable capsule on an ELV, then there is one already available; it's called Soyuz. Why reinvent the wheel? It only carries 3 astronauts/cosmonauts but the Soyuz-TM and Soyuz-TMA capsules are already developed and the Soyuz-FG launch vehicle costs $50 million in 1999 dollars.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-05 19:20:10

Time and again, things like this are discussed in these pages. Intelligent and rational contributions by the likes of Robert, Algol, Nirgal, Ad Astra, Spider-Man and others are put forward and mulled over. Useful and constructive responses are made and concepts refined.
It seems to me that groups like the one above routinely reach logical and practical conclusions about how to build economical, reliable, sensible spacecraft.

Why the hell can't NASA figure out how to do the same?!!

When you think of all the money they've wasted on half-baked ideas, we could easily be strolling around on Mars today; and with billions of dollars in change in our space-suit pockets too!!!
When they say NASA's hierarchy needs a complete overhaul, they ain't just whistlin' Dixie!! It gets me sooo steamed up!
:angry:

mcshlong · 2003-09-06 11:59:18

What we need is very simple.

A cheap way to move cargo and people into space.

Perhaps one that changes very little over time and can be reconfigured to lift differant payloads easily. i.e. Adding boosters.

Oh yah and no new technology that isn't proven like space planes ect...

Whala... rockets and capsules. [sarcasm on]What a concept.[/sarcasm off].

How complicated is this really ?

I'm not in favor of investing in totally new technology for our main launch systems.

Palomar · 2003-09-06 14:11:12

Shaun: "Why the hell can't NASA figure out how to do the same?!!"

*We know the answer to that, I think: Bureaucracy. Red tape. They have figured out how to do the same. But we know NASA is on a leash, and we know who the master is (U.S. Gov't).

Shaun: "When you think of all the money they've wasted on half-baked ideas, we could easily be strolling around on Mars today; and with billions of dollars in change in our space-suit pockets too!!!
When they say NASA's hierarchy needs a complete overhaul, they ain't just whistlin' Dixie!! It gets me sooo steamed up!"

*Well I'm certainly -not- condoning it, but of course they have to spend a certain amount of money on projects and push papers around to make it SEEM as though they are busy, and in order to get further funding.

It's all the fault of Uncle Sam. And thanks to Bush, the U.S. economy is in the toilet, will probably stay there for some time; also, it is estimated that rebuilding Iraq will cost $29 billion per year, and on top of that we've got a large number of our population getting old and wanting to retire (baby boomer generation). The greying of this nation isn't a laughing matter; it'll all start really picking up steam in 2010, and I have to admit I'm NOT looking forward to living in a society overpopulated with senior citizens (no offense to dicktice, please understand).

I just honestly do not foresee NASA and the U.S.A. getting folks to Mars any time soon.

Other nations around the globe had better start putting THEIR heads together.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-09-06 19:53:18

generation). The greying of this nation isn't a laughing matter; it'll all start really picking up steam in 2010, and I have to admit I'm NOT looking forward to living in a society overpopulated with senior citizens

Old, by young in mind and body !
The aging is true in all other nation with technical and scientific capabilities: France, Germany etc
You all remember what Rumsfeld said about the OLD Europe right ?

I think the reasons people were so quickly aging in the past and looked so old were mostly due to:
No vaccination in early infancy,
No antibiotic therapy,
No efficient dental healthcare,
Excessive heavy work during childhood (I am not so old but, as a grandson of a farmer, I had to do some of that heavy work in my childhood, which in today's standard would look inapropriate, times change),
Some genetic inbreeding due to lack of easy communication (the introduction of the bycicle corrected that)
And of course inadequat or insufficient food.

Today, none of that is anymore a problem, so a 60 years old man of 2003 should be able to perform and look like a 40 years old of 1930 (say before WWII). And this is true for many people (look at the many good looking joggers of 50 and more). In addition to reduce aging, it has also been translated in size increase. Some, like the US, have also enjoy a "vigor of the hybrid" genetic effect due to the "melting pot" while other, like France, didn't enjoy that until very recently (which the effects are not visible yet, but I am sure in the future we'll see something).
However, as we know, other recent plagues counterbalance these apparent advantage:

Excessive physical work is replaced by stress at work
Excessive food (unless you are a physical worker to justify the intake, most likely you eat too much and more than your ancestors)
Toxic molecules in the food and air (general pollution) and substances abuse,
Constant exposition to new allergenic molecules or pathogens, bacterias or virus, especially in big cities (and because more and more of the population lives in big cities versus countryside).
Lack of value for certain tasks (administrative etc), compare with a farmer who, even poor, has still to manage his small bussiness, this and other difficult social environnement, or lack of social environnemnt. In short, new socio-psychological problems have a strong impact on our health (stress can favorise cancer for example).
All this translate in a "weakening of the mind and body" which decrease our life expectency.
So a 60 years old "should" look like a good looking 40 of the past, but many will not enjoy this shift unfortunatly.
My point is that a 60 years old of today, physically fit and experienced, has his place in a Mars mission.

(About the genetically modified crops: my opinion is that we will know ONLY in 50 years if it was safe or not to use them. If you want to discuss that, lets open a more specific thread.)

Algol · 2003-09-08 12:16:20

How feasible do you think it would be for private industry to purchase one or more OSP's (once they're designed and built), and use them to ferry paying customers to a hotel module on the ISS or even their own mini station for holidays?

clark · 2003-09-08 13:21:29

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c … 083top.xml

First Boeing Delta 1V Heavy Candidate to Launch the OSP Is Assembled for Tests
By Craig Covault
September 6, 2003

The first U.S. Air Force/Boeing "Delta IV Heavy" Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, a strong candidate to be the next U.S. manned launch vehicle, has been assembled here in preparation for rollout to Launch Pad 37B for several months of checkout before a demonstration flight in May 2004.

The nearly 2-million-lb.-thrust vehicle combines three Delta IV common booster cores and three Rocketdyne liquid oxygen/hydrogen RS-68 engines.
The IV Heavy, and its enlarged upper stage, powered by an advanced version of the Pratt & Whitney RL10 oxygen/hydrogen engine, is designed to place more than 50,000 lb. in low-Earth orbit and nearly 30,000 lb. into geosynchronous-transfer orbit. Once fully stacked and loaded with propellant, the vehicle will stand 235 ft. tall and weigh more than 1.6 million lb.
As a vehicle already integrated and about to head to the pad, the Delta IV Heavy is a leading candidate to launch NASA's planned Orbital Space Plane (OSP) starting about 2008. The vehicle will supplement the shuttle on crew transfer missions to the International Space Station and expand human operations beyond Earth orbit. "We certainly believe the Delta IV Heavy has a bright future in the OSP program," said Dan Collins, Boeing's Delta IV project manager.

Looks like the US is developing some heavy lift... hehe

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-08 19:35:16

Sounds promising!

Thanks for bringing this stuff to our attention, Clark. Your browsing has brought to light quite a bit of interesting info. and much of it is encouraging for the likes of us space nuts.
Maybe there's more method to NASA's madness than meets the eye (?) ...
???

clark · 2003-09-09 11:23:28

Thanks Shaun,

Maybe there is more madness to our method than meets the eye... :laugh:

RobertDyck · 2003-09-09 12:07:36

It's good to hear they are continuing development, but I thought everyone knew about the Delta IV Large, which is the Delta IV Heavy. 50,000 pounds is 22,680kg but the specifications according to Encyclopedia Astronautica are actually 25,800kg (56,880 pounds) to 185km orbit at 28.5?. The Atlas V 551 is rated at 20,050kg (44,200 pounds) to the same orbit. Of course they can lift less weight to a higher orbit.

clark · 2003-09-09 12:26:38

A brave new world...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article … 84,00.html

A Return to Apollo?
Searching for alternatives to the Space Shuttle, NASA looks back to an old friend
By BROWARD LISTON

NASA has seen the future, and it is the space capsule. Seven months after the Columbia debacle the agency is giving serious consideration to bringing back a new version of the Apollo capsule, the expendable spacecraft that served the U.S. space program during its glory days in the 1960s through the mid-1970s. Supporters say they are not retreating into the past so much as waking up, at last, to the dangers of attempting spaceflight with winged shuttles, a notion given ample support by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report released last week. Boosters on Capital Hill, in the aerospace industry and even inside the astronaut corps point out the capsule has is a more versatile design: it is modular and can be outfitted to the specific needs of any mission. And unlike the shuttle, it can venture beyond low Earth orbit, which means the U.S. could once again send astronauts to the moon.

Expediency is another factor; with the shuttle fleet vulnerable, NASA cannot afford to spend 10 years developing a space plane, as it had planned to before February. The agency would like to test a new vehicle by 2006.
NASA and its Congressional allies will have an easy time pitching a quick return to space to the public, which continues to support space exploration by impressive margins. Safety is a harder sell, since NASA has been touting the shuttle system as safe since the very beginning, and superior to every other spacecraft ever flown. As one Congressional source put it, "If NASA goes with the capsule design, you'll hear a lot about our ability to return to the moon. This may take us there, but that's secondary. Safety is the number one issue. Safety is driving the design."

hehe, higher orbit....

RobertDyck · 2003-09-09 12:52:17

NASA has seen the future, and it is the space capsule. Seven months after the Columbia debacle the agency is giving serious consideration to bringing back a new version of the Apollo capsule, the expendable spacecraft that served the U.S. space program during its glory days in the 1960s through the mid-1970s. Supporters say they are not retreating into the past so much as waking up, at last, to the dangers of attempting spaceflight with winged shuttles, a notion given ample support by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report released last week.

When in doubt, scream and shout, run about. If first you don't succeed, cry snivel and quit.

The capsule is a more efficient design for an expendible spacecraft. It is lower mass and simpler. However, it cannot be reused. A reusable OSP would only provide access to a space station, but we need an armada of many different ships, not something that is expected to be everything for everyone. We could use a Soyuz descent module to return from Mars, but a reusable OSP to get astronauts to the ISS, an expendible launch vehicle to lift modules to ISS, a remotely piloted tug to move satellites and station modules to different orbits or different locations on ISS, and an unmanned cargo ship to deliver cargo to ISS. The OSP should be configurable to ferry station science experiments including entire drawers from a science rack to and from the ISS. The unmanned expendible cargo ship can deliver new racks. Eventually (hopefully soon) we should have a SSTO RLV sized as a space taxi.

Returning to an expendible capsule on top of an expendible launch vehicle is a giant step backward to Apollo. Been there, done that. The Russian Soyuz is currently fulfilling that function. Shouldn't we be talking about a small, reusable OSP that is at least a step toward a SSTO RLV?

clark · 2003-09-09 13:09:49

What kind of shoes do you wear? Nevermind.

Let's put this OSP 'shape' aside for a moment, shall we?

Fact, we will now launch people and cargo seperatly, right? That's the future that everyone pretty much agrees on. Indeed, it's codified in the design requirements for the OSP, right?

Okay, so it isn't reusable. Hmmm, well, is the Shuttle? Yes, well, er, um, that is to say it IS reusable once we painstakingly retile the darn thing.

Oh, so the Shuttle is reusable, but the tiles are not. Hmmm...

Okay, what about the fact that fishing people out of the ocean is such a step backward, afterall the Shuttle had wings so it could fly.

All true, but the Shuttle was given wings to meet Airforce requirements, and seeing as how the Airforce dosen't use the Shuttle anymore, and seeing as how we have lost more astronauts on a Wing shaped craft versus a Cannonball shaped craft, I think we might want to reevaluate what exactly it is we need.

Now, the final damning nail in this coffin ( ), the Shuttle will never, nor will any other wing shaped craft to replace her, take us beyond LEO.

Hello Mars-a-nuts and Lunar-arians!

We do have to go back, in order to go forward. :laugh:

While the goven'ment is busy throwing humans as far into sapce as they can stand (or is it fall), private business can, or a slow, and steady (non-private) development of an actual orbital plane can occur. In the meantime, we're busy exploring, instead of waiting for somethign to get us there!

Goven'ment builds a destination, private enterprise builds the means to get people there.... hmmm, I just might patent that. :laugh:

Come on Robert, this is a good thing.

RobertDyck · 2003-09-09 13:27:14

True, separating cargo from crew is a good thing. Skylab was launched separately from the crew, so that isn't new. The shuttle was originally designed as a winged spacecraft to carry crew and a little luggage to a space station. After NASA lost their funding they had to ask the Airforce for help, which is when they said to expand the cargo bay to carry the K7 spy satellite. It went from a small OSP to a giant shuttle that tried to be everything to everyone. I would prefer to see something similar to MAKS but even that is too big. I was at least hoping to see real development of the heat shield, something that doesn't have to be painstakingly retiled back on. After Columbia there is an urgent need for something ASAP, a reusable OSP that uses the same heat shield would at least get us back into space, and replace the giant "everything for everyone" with something small and affordable. After we change the paradigm we could replace the heatshield with one that doesn't require refurbishing for every flight.

As for designs, I have said several times that we only need to scale down the X-38 or HL-20 to fit 4 astronauts. We could launch with either design now, but it would require a Delta IV Large; even an Atlas V 551 is not big enough to lift the current X-38 or HL-20 to the ISS. Shrinking a current design is much cheaper than starting from scratch. The X-38 budget was $1.2 billion including construction of 2 flight units, why would adapting it for OSP cost more?

clark · 2003-09-09 14:28:50

Robert, is there a need for controlled landings for people returning from space?

RobertDyck · 2003-09-09 15:13:12

Robert, is there a need for controlled landings for people returning from space?

Yes, you do have to return people alive. You can do that with an aircraft that lands on wheels like the current Shuttle or HL-20, or with a parafoil and skids like the X-38, or a round parachute and touch-down rockets like the Soyuz, or a parachute and splash-down in water like Apollo. The X-38 used the X-24 body shape while HL-20 used the BOR-4 body shape. The X-24 shape is lighter but has control problems at slow speed so it can't land safely on wheels, that's why X-38 used a parafoil, and the extreme slow speed of the parafoil permitted landing skids. Skids do not have to worry about maintaining pressure in vacuum or durability of synthetic rubber in the cold of space and heat of re-entry. The BOR-4 shape is a lifting body that provides good control to permit landing on wheels. Then you can balance which is better: a heavy body with no parafoil, or a light body plus a parafoil.

With all these options, why would you return to an expendable capsule to return people from space? A Soyuz descent module with no orbital module and the service module reduced to just a de-orbit module would make a great emergency escape pod. Why would you want to use an escape pod for regular flights?

Mark Friedenbach · 2003-09-09 21:16:56

Did they say the capsule design was expendable? I think the article just noted that the Apollo capsule was expendable, but that doesn't mean OSP has to be expendable.

And what makes the capsule idea a "step back"? It's not like they're going to pull the blueprints for Apollo out of the Smithsonian and call that their OSP. It'll have to be a new design that takes into account all the requirements NASA has for the project, most of which the Apollo capsule would not have met.

Besides, if it works, it works. I don't see why every project NASA works on has to be a fundamentally new concept. SLI never left the ground because they kept trying to do something new. They run out of money developing all that new technology, and then canceled the project before the vehicle was even fully designed.

We know what's wrong with the shuttle, so why not use off-the-shelf technology to build a better one?

Mark Friedenbach · 2003-09-09 21:18:13

Why does the word new show up red? ???

RobertDyck · 2003-09-09 22:21:07

SLI never left the ground because they kept trying to do something new.

Actually, X-33 had very little new technology. The lifting body was developed in the 1960's and 1970's (X-24, etc), metallic heat shields were developed and tested by replacing a couple tiles on the space shuttle, the linear aerospike engine was an engine option in the 1970's for the original shuttle, composite tanks have been used for manoeuvring thrusters on satellites for years, conformant tanks have been used in aircraft for years, and the combination of a composite with cryogenic propellants was used on Delta Clipper (DC-X). The whole design was an update of Martin's 1971 proposal for the shuttle, called Starclipper. The only new technologies were a contract that said the contractor had to share cost of any set-back, and a last minute change of the propellant tank from a solid wall composite to a hollow wall. That one new physical technology, the hollow wall honey comb structure tank, was the only thing that failed. When NASA activated the clause that said the contractor had to share the cost of that failure, Lockheed Martin said "No". Lockheed Martin and NASA lawyers argued for a couple years before George W. Bush cancelled the program. It was that refusal to honour their contract that cancelled the X-33 project. If Lockheed Martin stuck to the original design it would have been simply off-the-shelf technology; up to the minute technology, but nothing new.

sethmckiness · 2003-09-10 04:06:10

What would be the chance of a modified pegasus style launch off of a modified B-52. I had a though a la X-15 as well.

Well, anyway. I think the X-38 is the right idea. Separate the crew and cargo. Maybe we can sneak a True Heavy/Heavy lift out of Nasa while they aren't looking too. Plus we have a True Shuttle. Not an El-camino of Space Craft(STS). It can haul some cargo, and can haul some people. Neither well! We need a Honda Civic style vehicle for crew. and find some other preferable re-usable for a heavy lift.

GO OSP! Time for the Shuttles to go were they Belong. The smithsonian, Wright Paterson and Kennedy Space Center for STATIC DISPLAY!!!!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-08-31 22:25:24

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#2 2003-09-04 19:21:44

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#3 2003-09-04 21:46:11

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#4 2003-09-04 23:17:14

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#5 2003-09-05 12:09:37

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#6 2003-09-05 12:17:58

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#7 2003-09-05 19:20:10

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#8 2003-09-06 11:59:18

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#9 2003-09-06 14:11:12

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#10 2003-09-06 19:53:18

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#11 2003-09-08 12:16:20

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#12 2003-09-08 13:21:29

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#13 2003-09-08 19:35:16

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#14 2003-09-09 11:23:28

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#15 2003-09-09 12:07:36

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#16 2003-09-09 12:26:38

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#17 2003-09-09 12:52:17

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#18 2003-09-09 13:09:49

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#19 2003-09-09 13:27:14

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#20 2003-09-09 14:28:50

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#21 2003-09-09 15:13:12

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#22 2003-09-09 21:16:56

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#23 2003-09-09 21:18:13

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#24 2003-09-09 22:21:07

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#25 2003-09-10 04:06:10

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

Board footer