Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

Lars_J · 2004-02-12 08:53:38

The Russians have already considered this. Their solution is to launch the modules on a Proton and to mate a Progress freighter to one end of the module to give it the guidance and propulsion it needs for docking with ISS.

But that only works because the russians (out of necessity) designed all their space stattion components to be capable of independent spaceflight - they are basically small space stations on their own, capable of orbital manuevers and docking. Things are very different for the US modules - they are basically just tin-cans.

RobertDyck · 2004-02-12 09:29:50

But that only works because the russians (out of necessity) designed all their space station components to be capable of independent spaceflight - they are basically small space stations on their own, capable of orbital manuevers and docking. Things are very different for the US modules - they are basically just tin-cans.

But a Progress spacecraft is a small, unmanned, spacecraft the same size as Soyuz. It has the capability of orbital manoeuvres, and could be mated with a US module. Just like a semi-truck that has two parts, tractor and trailer, the Progress could be the tractor to pull a US module to the space station and dock it. The problem is that a Delta IV Large, Atlas V 551/552, or Russian Proton launch vehicle has the capacity to lift a station module alone, but not with a Progress attached. That's why I suggested a reusable tug that would be left attached to the ISS. When a new module is delivered to orbit, the tug would go out to get it.

The other suggestion I came up with is a co-ordinated flight of Shuttle-C and the Shuttle orbiter. Launch an assembly of modules stacked one upon another and filled with equipment and supplies that would have been launched separately, and strap to them truss segments, solar panels and other parts. Surround that with a simple fairing. The total cargo mass would be a little over 5 times the capacity of the Shuttle orbiter's cargo bay. This would be left in the same orbit as the ISS, but thousands of kilometres away. Then launch the Shuttle orbiter from the other launch pad, and have it rendezvous with the large cargo package. It could use its arm to grab the package, then pull it over to ISS and rendezvous. Is the arm strong enough to pull such a package? If not, the docking port of one of the modules could be mated with the docking port on the Shuttle orbiter. The Shuttle normally reboosts the whole ISS into higher orbit, so it could certainly move a package of ISS parts within the same orbit. Since the Shuttle orbiter's cargo bay would carry more cargo, which would permit 1 Shuttle launch co-ordinated with 1 Shuttle-C launch to replace 6 Shuttle launches.

There: two ideas to reduce the number of Shuttle flights to complete ISS. Pick your favourite.

clark · 2004-02-12 09:35:40

Could a separately launched Progress meet up with a separately launched US module, launched by an EELV?

Remember, try not to use anything that dosen't exsist, which means no Shuttle C plans. We need to figure out a way to free up funds for an SDV first.

Bill White · 2004-02-12 09:52:11

That's why I suggested a reusable tug that would be left attached to the ISS. When a new module is delivered to orbit, the tug would go out to get it.

Is it feasible to "space harden" an orbiter to allow extended on-orbit operation and re-fueling? I read at a space.com thread the argument that orbiter fuel cells would freeze after a few weeks without substantial power but can this be corrected? Maybe with a fuel cell re-design?

An orbiter re-design/re-fit might be cheaper than building a space tug from scratch using Progress/Soyuz and end up with a better more versatile craft. Most of CAIB concerns focus on re-entry issues, right? Skip the re-entry and the orbiter is a very useful asset.

Might there be a way to re-fuel the OMS engines from a shuttle C payload package. For the manuevering thrusters, I envision a "plug and play" or "plug and fire" modular concept where replacement modules could be flown up and "plugged" into the appropriate slots on the orbiter.

Bill White · 2004-02-12 10:07:27

Could a separately launched Progress meet up with a separately launched US module, launched by an EELV?
Remember, try not to use anything that dosen't exsist, which means no Shuttle C plans. We need to figure out a way to free up funds for an SDV first.

New hardware will be needed to fit inside the Delta IV payload fairing to stabilize the ISS components before being grabbed by an orbiter. Keeping a truss or node from tumbling before the orbiter arrived seems like a current show stopper to Delta IV completion of ISS.

The Russian modules had internal station keeping ability lacked by Columbus, nodes 1 and 2 and certainly by the trusses. It seems such a system would need to be designed from scratch and there is very little remaining mass budget on the Delta IV to allow for such a system.

As far as payload fairing dimensions, the existing dual manifest Delta IV fairing is plenty big enough for ANY of the ISS components with minor interior modifications. Now, it seems the issue is whether the payload can be stabilized on orbit long enough for the orbiter to arrive and whether Delta IV is powerful enough to lift the ISS component and the new design payload stabilization system.

As RobertDyck said, a shuttle C payload fairing could easily include gyroscopes and attitude control systems sufficient to allow docking with the orbiter followed by delivery to ISS.

Otherwise, attempting to grab a tumbling ESA module or a loose freely spinning truss seems rather too dangerous.

RobertDyck · 2004-02-12 12:35:04

As RobertDyck said, a shuttle C payload fairing could easily include gyroscopes and attitude control systems sufficient to allow docking with the orbiter followed by delivery to ISS.

Well, I don't think I said that exactly. I suppose you could add gyroscopes and an attitude control system sufficient to sabilize it until the orbiter or a tug came to pick it up. You should take credit for that idea, Bill. If you're launch vehicle is Shuttle-C, however, I would suggest keeping the gyros and attitude control trusters in the engine pod so it can be recovered. Making that equipment reusable would be attractive to NASA.

Bill White · 2004-02-12 13:05:04

As RobertDyck said, a shuttle C payload fairing could easily include gyroscopes and attitude control systems sufficient to allow docking with the orbiter followed by delivery to ISS.
Well, I don't think I said that exactly. I suppose you could add gyroscopes and an attitude control system sufficient to sabilize it until the orbiter or a tug came to pick it up. You should take credit for that idea, Bill. If you're launch vehicle is Shuttle-C, however, I would suggest keeping the gyros and attitude control trusters in the engine pod so it can be recovered. Making that equipment reusable would be attractive to NASA.

Robert, the following idea necessarily implies attitude control and station keeping capability, at least IMHO: :;):

But thanks anyway.

The other suggestion I came up with is a co-ordinated flight of Shuttle-C and the Shuttle orbiter. Launch an assembly of modules stacked one upon another and filled with equipment and supplies that would have been launched separately, and strap to them truss segments, solar panels and other parts. Surround that with a simple fairing. The total cargo mass would be a little over 5 times the capacity of the Shuttle orbiter's cargo bay. This would be left in the same orbit as the ISS, but thousands of kilometres away. Then launch the Shuttle orbiter from the other launch pad, and have it rendezvous with the large cargo package. It could use its arm to grab the package, then pull it over to ISS and rendezvous. Is the arm strong enough to pull such a package? If not, the docking port of one of the modules could be mated with the docking port on the Shuttle orbiter. The Shuttle normally reboosts the whole ISS into higher orbit, so it could certainly move a package of ISS parts within the same orbit. Since the Shuttle orbiter's cargo bay would carry more cargo, which would permit 1 Shuttle launch co-ordinated with 1 Shuttle-C launch to replace 6 Shuttle launches.

Aren't some European contractors working on an orbital "dump box" to allow ready down transportation of material? If I recall, it uses an inflatable disposable heat shield and parachutes. After the shuttle C is unpacked, any valuable equipment could be "dumped" back to Earth for future use.

RobertDyck · 2004-02-12 13:34:51

Is it feasible to "space harden" an orbiter to allow extended on-orbit operation and re-fueling? I read at a space.com thread the argument that orbiter fuel cells would freeze after a few weeks without substantial power but can this be corrected? Maybe with a fuel cell re-design?

Fuel cells convert hydrogen and oxygen into water. The energy released is a charge imbalance across collection plates, which provides electricity like the terminals of a battery. Since it produces water, you have to keep it warmer than 0?C to prevent water freezing into ice, and that ice clogging the proton transport membrane.

You can package the fuel cell in a thermos bottle to prevent it cooling too fast. A thermos bottle just surrounds the thing you want to stay cool or warm with vacuum (lots of vacuum in space), then surrounds that with a mirrored container to reflect radiant heat. To avoid conductive heat loss, it has minimum physical contact between between the inner thing you want to stay cool or warm and the outer container. A fuel cell does generate some heat, so it has to be designed to not get too hot or too cold.

An orbiter re-design/re-fit might be cheaper than building a space tug from scratch using Progress/Soyuz and end up with a better more versatile craft. Most of CAIB concerns focus on re-entry issues, right? Skip the re-entry and the orbiter is a very useful asset.
Might there be a way to re-fuel the OMS engines from a shuttle C payload package. For the manuevering thrusters, I envision a "plug and play" or "plug and fire" modular concept where replacement modules could be flown up and "plugged" into the appropriate slots on the orbiter.

OMS engines use storable propellants, so they could be refueled on orbit. Soyuz/Progress uses N2O4/UDMH while Shuttle OMS engines use N2O4/MMH. UDMH and MMH are stabilized forms of hydrazine. The fuel module of Progress transfers N2O4/UDMH to ISS, so the exact same technology should permit refuelling the OMS pods on-orbit.

clark · 2004-02-19 10:09:13

Interesting article on Spacedaily by Jeffery Bell regarding Plan Bush and retiring the Shuttle immediagtely.

[http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-04d.html]Is The Shuttle Grounded Forever

But the timing of the Hubble bombshell right after the big Presidential announcement is politically stupid, stupid at a level that is impossible to believe. Anybody with half a brain could see that it would stir up a big discussion on Shuttle safety and the relative merits of Hubble and ISS.
Even NASA doesn't make political mistakes this stupid. They are very much attuned to public opinion and skilled in manipulating it. They would never have made this announcement right after the presentation of Plan Bush unless they intended to stir up a controversy about Shuttle safety.
And as for the Bush Administration, this is exactly the kind of indirect approach they have adopted for most of their major initiatives. They are very clever at taking advantage of the blind Bushophobia of the Administration's opponents. They always start out by doing something very different from (sometimes exactly the opposite of) what they really want to do. Then when the first plan is denounced by the news media and the Democrats, they reverse course and do what should have been done in the first place.
Then the President's opponents congratulate themselves on having "forced" Bush to abandon another misguided plan. This ploy works best if the original plan is really stupid and obviously failing (e.g. letting looters run wild in Baghdad), but this isn't really necessary anymore, since Bush-bashing has become so reflexive that any program he suggests is automatically attacked.
So if I were a betting man, I would give you 5:1 right now that Shuttle will never fly again, and that the decaying ruin of the ISS will be deorbited within 5 years.

Bill White · 2004-02-19 11:02:44

Interesting article on Spacedaily by Jeffery Bell regarding Plan Bush and retiring the Shuttle immediagtely.
[http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-04d.html]Is The Shuttle Grounded Forever
But the timing of the Hubble bombshell right after the big Presidential announcement is politically stupid, stupid at a level that is impossible to believe. Anybody with half a brain could see that it would stir up a big discussion on Shuttle safety and the relative merits of Hubble and ISS.
Even NASA doesn't make political mistakes this stupid. They are very much attuned to public opinion and skilled in manipulating it. They would never have made this announcement right after the presentation of Plan Bush unless they intended to stir up a controversy about Shuttle safety.
And as for the Bush Administration, this is exactly the kind of indirect approach they have adopted for most of their major initiatives. They are very clever at taking advantage of the blind Bushophobia of the Administration's opponents. They always start out by doing something very different from (sometimes exactly the opposite of) what they really want to do. Then when the first plan is denounced by the news media and the Democrats, they reverse course and do what should have been done in the first place.
Then the President's opponents congratulate themselves on having "forced" Bush to abandon another misguided plan. This ploy works best if the original plan is really stupid and obviously failing (e.g. letting looters run wild in Baghdad), but this isn't really necessary anymore, since Bush-bashing has become so reflexive that any program he suggests is automatically attacked.
So if I were a betting man, I would give you 5:1 right now that Shuttle will never fly again, and that the decaying ruin of the ISS will be deorbited within 5 years.

Heh!

Remember that pressure leak at ISS? And now all those reports about debris floating away from ISS?

Dr. Bell may have a point. I also saw how is is trying to make nice with Dr. Zubrin.

Still shuttle C plus a space hardened "one way up only" orbiter does allow ISS completion and gives America a nice new HLLV probably within the $24 billion earmarked for STS operations and with an "up only" orbiter who cares about falling foam?

Still, how can we possibly debate the "Bush plan" when perhaps the "real" plan remains under wraps?

GCNRevenger · 2004-02-19 12:29:20

Wooow that sounds almost perfect... the CAIB + Bush setting a nearly impossible goal for Shuttle/ISS, the decision to (likly) make the CEV a capsule (good for the Moon, bad for ISS), and perhaps it took a while for Bush to release his plan in order to quietly negotiate canceling the ISS "contracts" with the ESA and Rossaviacosmos?

Although a new heavy launcher based on Shuttle would be nice, it would not come cheap... development would probably be pretty easy, glueing a Delta-IV engine cluster and a big Centaur upper stage to the External Tank, but don't forget that alot of the cost of Shuttle is man power, a great deal of which is involved soley with the logistics of Shuttle and the launch pad... It all doesn't go to glueing tiles and inspecting engines on the Orbiter you know.

John Creighton · 2004-02-19 13:06:38

I suppose if there was an international consensus I wouldn?t mind seeing the international space station go down. It seems like such a waste. Maybe as a topic for another thread someone should discuss what went wrong, what was gained from the experience and what can be salvaged? Oh buy the way, I don?t think a moon bases is the best investment. However, at least a moon base doesn?t have to be deorbited. Moreover, once an initial moon base is built it may be possible to expand it with mostly local resources.

Bill White · 2004-02-19 13:19:23

Wooow that sounds almost perfect... the CAIB + Bush setting a nearly impossible goal for Shuttle/ISS, the decision to (likly) make the CEV a capsule (good for the Moon, bad for ISS), and perhaps it took a while for Bush to release his plan in order to quietly negotiate canceling the ISS "contracts" with the ESA and Rossaviacosmos?

Okay, so what exactly is the Aldridge commission supposed to be really doing?

= IF = administration calls for ISS completion are a deliberate smoke screen while STS/ISS cancellation is being negotiated behind the scenes why should we believe Project Constellation will actually send people to the moon next decade?

Maybe this whole business is just a way to "park" all of the space issues on a sidetrack until after the election.

Although a new heavy launcher based on Shuttle would be nice, it would not come cheap... development would probably be pretty easy, glueing a Delta-IV engine cluster and a big Centaur upper stage to the External Tank, but don't forget that alot of the cost of Shuttle is man power, a great deal of which is involved soley with the logistics of Shuttle and the launch pad... It all doesn't go to glueing tiles and inspecting engines on the Orbiter you know.

For cargo, large packaging would seem cheaper (per pound) than small packaging but until Project Constellation produces a proposed EELV system we simply cannot do a meaningful cost trade analysis to ascertain the cheapest route to move mass to LEO. For example, if water becomes the radiation shield of choice, the ability to lift a 75,000 kg water tank to LEO in a single throw will surely be cheaper than using a greta many Delta IV flights.

GNCRevenger, aren't you the fellow who opposes ounce by ounce weight shaving?

Since we cannot do the cost trade analysis on the per pound price to LEO until Project Constellation chooses a system I suggest that to chainsaw shuttle derived capability now just seems foolish. And remember, Shuttle C need not ever become man-rated. That decision can be postponed. Yet Shuttle C plus Project Constellation allows cargo to travel on solid rockets and crew to travel on Delta IV or Atlas V or whatever.

What should be done NOW is a cost trade analysis on using a blend of orbiter and Shuttle C to complete ISS. The orbiter won't fly until 2005 anyway and since every one Shuttle C flight eliminates the need for three orbiter flights there is a very real chance that shuttle C deployment can be funded entirely from the money already earmarked by President Bush for STS operations.

IIRC Shuttle C was cancelled in 1992 because it would have undermined the orbiter program and the orbiter was needed to do other things (like Hubble). Since we now know the orbiter will do nothing except finish ISS perhaps we should re-visit that 1992 decision.

= = =

If Jeff Bell is right and the outright cancellation of STS/ISS is pre-ordained, well then, its a whole new ballgame, no?

Bill White · 2004-02-19 13:30:08

GNCRevenger, aren't you the fellow who opposes ounce by ounce weight shaving?

How sure are we JIMO can fit on Delta IV or Atlas V? Wouldn't it be a shame to scrap shuttle derived and then face the need to assemble JIMO with two launches? Or shave mass to fit within the launch capability?

Maybe follow the Spirit/Opportunity model and build two or three identical JIMOs at the same time. How much of the total cost will be R&D and how much will be the fabrication of duplicate (or deliberate slight variations to test alternatives) components?

Launch together on an HLLV and race to Jupiter!

DanielCook · 2004-02-19 13:54:40

In the article posted on space.com today (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … 40219.html) the project head noted that they may need to investigate alternative launch methods - including Shuttle-C - to launch JIMO (due to weight concerns)

And this from a NASA source ...

GCNRevenger · 2004-02-19 15:20:14

Did I say making a Shuttle-based vehicle was nessesarrily a bad idea? NO! What I am stating is that it will still cost quite a bit of money to operate it, because of the large amount of man power needed to launch it: the cost per-kilo or being able to launch a large mass all at once may be worthwhile.

Also, about Project Constellation aka CEV, I was under the impression that it was a crew/light cargo vehicle, likly a giant size version of the Apollo capsule... not a launch vehicle. It is very likly that the CEV will be tailored to ride on the Delta-IV Medium or Heavy with the capability to ride on the Atlas-V. Putting it on the SDV would seem overkill to me, unless it will be the crew return section of a larger craft.

JIMO will probably be able to fit on a Delta-IV HLV... the weight of the reactor itself will likly be around 1000-2000kg like the SAFE-300 (300kWt/100kWe), so I don't imagine mass getting out of control... it depends on how fast you want to get it to Jupiter.

DanielCook · 2004-02-19 17:14:49

As noted in the article from my prior post, changed mission parameters for the JIMO have upped the launch weight to about 50,000 kgs - too much for the Delta VI Heavy.

Shuttle-C is just a consideration - the article also noted that they would consider on-orbit assembly.

My point from the article was that NASA was not ignoring the possibility of a Shuttle-C variant. I'm not sure: but is this not a change in policy for them? Have they in the recent past publicaly considered the use of SDV's?

GCNRevenger · 2004-02-19 19:42:20

I wouldn't call it a change of mission parameters just yet, all that extra mass would be for the trans-jupiter stage, that JIMO doesn't need to get there with its NEP system. Its an option that would send the probe directly to Jupiter immediatly after launch, skipping the ion-powerd spiral out of orbit... a safety option really, which I doubt is nessesarry. The JIMO probe proper should be within the 25MT range for the Delta-IV HLV, the other ~25MT would be for the trans-Jupiter stage.

I'm glad that Nasa isn't discounting a SDV heavy launcher, i'm just afraid of it becoming a political issue to keep Shuttle workers employed or of becoming very costly with all those VAB/Pad 39 saleries to pay... that sort of thinking got us stuck with Shuttle in the first place, a rocket built by politicians and un-terminatable because of the money it brings in to the Cape/Michoud/etc.

Ad Astra · 2004-02-19 20:55:13

Another sardonic but insightful article from Prof. Jeffrey Bell. His thoughts about a "conpiracy" of sorts and the immediate shuttle retirement aren't far from the truth--in the thread "The Original Bush space plan," I mentioned that the original plan called for an immediate end to the shuttle, but NASA bargained with the administration to let the shuttle survive until 2010. I also think that the two shuttle research missions Prof. Bell mentioned are officially dead.

NASA does seem to have trouble with adopting the new CAIB philosophy--it was recently revealed that the plan and documents for the tentative STS-300 rescue mission were rushed. Many folks at NASA still have to learn the hard lessons of Challenger and Columbia. At least somebody put the brakes on the skid and pushed STS-114 back to March 2005. My guess is that the shuttle will make it to 2010 and finish the ISS, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Bill White · 2004-02-25 07:17:37

We may have the orbiter around a while longer than we thought:

Let's begin by looking at the Shuttle program - the program that obviously is of most concern to you. At first blush, the President's proposal terminates the Shuttle program in 2010. That is a wise decision. There is simply no way to affordably fund new initiatives without tapping the money now consumed by the Shuttle program.
Moreover, it is time to develop a safer, more efficient, more up-to-date, more versatile vehicle. Finally, the White House was simply and understandably unwilling to spend the billions necessary to recertify the Shuttle to fly after 2010 - a requirement laid down by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and accepted by NASA.
But it turns out that the Shuttle decision is a little more fluid than it first appears. NASA says the Shuttle will continue to fly until the construction of the International Space Station is completed, and 2010 is simply the target date for that milestone.
Can the Station be completed by 2010? That seems like a stretch. As we all know, the Shuttle now is not scheduled to resume flight until at least next March. (That's a decision I applaud, by the way. Administrator O'Keefe has kept his word that safety and safety alone will determine when the Shuttle launches again.) That's already a delay in the schedule on which the 2010 date was developed.

This from [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13709]House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) - - a Republican, I point out.

DanielCook · 2004-02-25 07:53:53

Just wondering ... maybe another obfuscation for converting the Orbiter into Shuttle-C???

Fluid enough, right?

infocat13 · 2004-02-25 17:55:46

years ago I was thinking of a honorable end to the shuttles and posted it on google groups.
[http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&l … 6rnum%3D14]shuttle as space station

and
[http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&l … 6rnum%3D16]shuttle and space station
mass produced russian and us space station parts could be ion tugged to leo eqatorial/moon/L-1/mars orbits.
steve(infocat13)

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-07-20 10:26:11

Could a separately launched Progress meet up with a separately launched US module, launched by an EELV?
Remember, try not to use anything that dosen't exsist, which means no Shuttle C plans. We need to figure out a way to free up funds for an SDV first.

I'm not sure what is the correct answer, we have many problems now but I hope NASA can go forward agian and do good

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-11-16 04:56:48

That's why I suggested a reusable tug that would be left attached to the ISS. When a new module is delivered to orbit, the tug would go out to get it.
Is it feasible to "space harden" an orbiter to allow extended on-orbit operation and re-fueling? I read at a space.com thread the argument that orbiter fuel cells would freeze after a few weeks without substantial power but can this be corrected? Maybe with a fuel cell re-design?
An orbiter re-design/re-fit might be cheaper than building a space tug from scratch using Progress/Soyuz and end up with a better more versatile craft. Most of CAIB concerns focus on re-entry issues, right? Skip the re-entry and the orbiter is a very useful asset.
Might there be a way to re-fuel the OMS engines from a shuttle C payload package. For the manuevering thrusters, I envision a "plug and play" or "plug and fire" modular concept where replacement modules could be flown up and "plugged" into the appropriate slots on the orbiter.

There is a lot of debate still going on with the shuttle
so what's the latest news on this ?

SpaceNut · 2004-11-16 08:45:16

I figured that I would post this here since goes with out saying that Nasa has screwed up not only in the past but it is still on going in some of its space operations.

Five Big NASA Failures a discusion of project time, use of funding and the eventual wasting of talents under cancellation in later life of said same projects. It goes into past projects, current and of future ones still in design phases as to what is wrong with each.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-02-12 08:53:38

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#27 2004-02-12 09:29:50

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#28 2004-02-12 09:35:40

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#29 2004-02-12 09:52:11

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#30 2004-02-12 10:07:27

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#31 2004-02-12 12:35:04

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#32 2004-02-12 13:05:04

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#33 2004-02-12 13:34:51

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#34 2004-02-19 10:09:13

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#35 2004-02-19 11:02:44

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#36 2004-02-19 12:29:20

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#37 2004-02-19 13:06:38

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#38 2004-02-19 13:19:23

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#39 2004-02-19 13:30:08

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#40 2004-02-19 13:54:40

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#41 2004-02-19 15:20:14

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#42 2004-02-19 17:14:49

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#43 2004-02-19 19:42:20

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#44 2004-02-19 20:55:13

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#45 2004-02-25 07:17:37

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#46 2004-02-25 07:53:53

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#47 2004-02-25 17:55:46

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#48 2004-07-20 10:26:11

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#49 2004-11-16 04:56:48

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#50 2004-11-16 08:45:16

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

Board footer