Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

Bill White · 2004-03-08 10:33:47

Ares adds a cryogenic upper stage to a shuttle B/C, correct?

B/C is a natural evolutionary step, IMHO, like Saturn 1B leading to Saturn V.

= = =

Would Shuttle C be able to launch anything to the Moon? If we do develop the SDV, before the CEV, then we may make engineering compromises that prevent us from building the 2nd generation HLLV (Ares or whatever) when we start contemplating Mars. We could create the same problem we have been running into over and over again already.

If Pad 39 rusts away and the crawler and VAB are scrapped between 2012 and 2025-2030 - - and Michoud stops making tanks and scraps the tooling because everything flies on Delta IV & Atlas V - - then come 2025 we are really starting from scratch.

Which way does the institutional inertia point then?

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-08 10:41:15

Almost... Aress-style SDV puts the main engines on the External Tank and are disposable, and then a GIANT payload faring is mounted over a currently available Centaur upper stage which is either side mounted ala Energia or top-mounted ala Saturn-V. With the 5-segment boosters, 120 tons to orbit, 20-30 more than a "classic" Shuttle-C with OMS engines.

One of the big cost savings to making SDV will have to be low flight rate; you can do without alot of saleries if you don't have to fly the thing all that often, so it is worthwhile economicly to have another rocket to launch people with that you can fly often.

And this rocket is a Delta-IV. This rocket is already available and would not be "built from scratch," so the question is how easy is it to make the CEV componet... if it will be a giant version of Apollo or a new biconic capsule with a baby TransHab bolted to it, it shouldn't be terrificly hard to make. It could also be the crew section of a Lunar ship launched by SDV.

clark · 2004-03-08 10:50:36

Which way does the institutional inertia point then?

Towards privatization.

Afterall, the Shuttle is run by a private consortuim now, not NASA goven'ment.

The CEV is being designed to fly primarily on the EELV. All modular pieces must be able to fly on the EELV. Bottom line, private business will be suppllying capability.

The ISS, the feelers have already gone out about privatizing the thing after we're done with some show-science to make it look legitimate. "Oh, we did that, now it's time to move on."

The SDV though runs counter to this trend. Ala Seseame Street, "one of these things does not belong."

The SDV, with the ability to launch multiple heavy manifests, would be continuing the trend of government competing against the private launch industry. If we can consider sending 5 ISS flight manifests up on an SDV, then couldn't we possibly consider sending up 10-12 sats in one go? An entire years launch manifest for the Sat industry- an entire years launch business for Boeing, done by Uncle Sam.

Why can't the current EELV be beefed up? Why can't we look to a serious HLLV from an EELV, instead of Shuttle-anything?

Bill White · 2004-03-08 11:08:48

Which way does the institutional inertia point then?
Towards privatization.

Or [http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/Arti … icle=12423]Oliver Morton - - private companies simply cannot build HLLV at a profit until a certain measure of space infrastructure pre-exists.

Throwing away deades of engineering legacy to strat from scratch pretty much assures that Morton's conclusions - - rare space flight for the next 50 years - - are probably correct.

Anyway, if you want privatization (and I do) having NASA send up a 6 or 8 person space hotel and then require that the private sector supply all support services will incentivize commercial launch quite nicely.

From Morton:

The space agency returned to the von Braun paradigm out of both expedience and conviction. The expedience was that the development of a space shuttle with which to get into low earth orbit was all the Nixon White House was willing to pay for. The conviction was that the purpose of the space programme was to build an ever better space programme. . . .
The interesting thing about the Bush plan is that it ditches all this. The shuttle is to be retired after it has lifted the last pieces of the space station to orbit, and there is no provision for anything to replace it. The immense technical difficulty of building a spacecraft capable of reaching orbit and, trickier, returning again and again only makes sense if there is a reason to make lots of trips to low earth orbit. Under the new dispensation there isn't. People going to the space station will do so first in disposable Russian Soyuz capsules and later, when they are ready, in the new CEVs, which will probably be largely disposable themselves. Not that this will go on for long; the space station, having been given a fig leaf of purpose as a place to study how humans cope with long periods in weightlessness, will be abandoned as soon as is seemly. There is no longer any sense that it could be a base from which to launch future missions.
(hee! hee!)
Missions to the moon will probably be put together in orbit as needed. The Bush plan requires no build-up of space-based infrastructure, and no permanently attended facilities beyond the earth. It just consists of missions, first to the moon, then, eventually, to Mars. Some lunar landers may be reusable, some of the missions to the moon may overlap with each other, and some may stay there for some time, but there's no commitment to a permanent moonbase, and nor should there be. Building a permanent base requires a great deal more effort than landing individual missions, and offers few obvious advantages. The moon is worth some exploration - not least because there is likely to be a treasure trove of rock samples from the earliest history of the earth - but it is of almost no practical utility.
The future Bush has outlined marks the end of the era in which the goal of spaceflight is to become routine. It is a future in which space travel is about events - missions to places, landings in unexplored territory, that sort of thing. It is a future where the possibility of humans actually doing interesting things elsewhere is rather higher than it was. In this, it really is rather like Apollo, and rather refreshing. But it is Apollo without the sense of urgency, without the purpose. It is a future in which space missions become sporadic and, given their cost, rare. Indeed, it could be a future in which missions eventually cease altogether, as people come to ask whether the moon missions are worth it. With no permanent infrastructure that needs servicing, it could turn out to be quite easy simply to mount fewer missions until eventually you find yourself mounting none at all. The Bush vision makes it possible to imagine shutting down the whole shebang simply by offering a future with a lot less long-lasting shebang to shut down.

clark · 2004-03-08 11:12:28

Anyway, if you want privatization (and I do) having NASA send up a 6 or 8 person space hotel and then require that the private sector supply all support services will incentivize commercial launch quite nicely.

ISS, anyone?

Bill White · 2004-03-08 11:17:08

This bears repeating. I believe Oliver Morton has grasped the Bush plan quite nicely (see link above):

The future Bush has outlined marks the end of the era in which the goal of spaceflight is to become routine.

This is why Zubrin is going ballistic about Hubble and stuff like that and why John Glenn says that the Bush lunar plans may well mean we don't get to Mars for a long, long, long time.

By the way, how does the Administration define "exploration" anyways? - - I thought I asked that a while back.

= = =

clark, its a branching point in "Drakes Lottery" - - how many species fail to become spacefaring because they decide it just ain't worth it?

With no permanent infrastructure that needs servicing, it could turn out to be quite easy simply to mount fewer missions until eventually you find yourself mounting none at all. The Bush vision makes it possible to imagine shutting down the whole shebang simply by offering a future with a lot less long-lasting shebang to shut down.

Having children on other worlds (Mars) creates the sort of infrastructure not easily walked away from.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-08 11:30:07

Until somebody comes up with a DC-Y (which Nasa doesn't need to get to Moon/Mars) or a X-30 NASP style ship, "commertial space travel" is a pipe dream. It isn't competition with commertial sat. launchers at all for technical reasons (different orbits required, SDV unable to reach GEO easily) and that everyone who can afford to launch a satelite on an SDV can also afford to launch them on Deltas and Zenits.

Nasa hasn't really ever built its own rockets much since the Mercury days, thats how the US space program works... Nasa designs (or sometimes not even then) and companies build and manage (most of the time).

And as far as not having anything long-lasting, what do you think we have now? When Shuttle and ISS are gone, Nasa might as well be carved up and sold to the USAF. Getting other places at all is start compared to what we're doing now.

Bill White · 2004-03-08 11:36:06

Until somebody comes up with a DC-Y (which Nasa doesn't need to get to Moon/Mars) or a X-30 NASP style ship, "commertial space travel" is a pipe dream. It isn't competition with commertial sat. launchers at all for technical reasons (different orbits required, SDV unable to reach GEO easily) and that everyone who can afford to launch a satelite on an SDV can also afford to launch them on Deltas and Zenits.
Nasa hasn't really ever built its own rockets much since the Mercury days, thats how the US space program works... Nasa designs (or sometimes not even then) and companies build and manage (most of the time).

I am not quite sure I follow where this is going but I think I agree. :;):

The idea that we can leave "entering space" to the private sector just won't work. Privaet sector HLLV is even more far fetched, IMHO.

The federal government significantly bankrolled the western railroads otherwise they never would have been built. One key question is whether we are building a "railroad to nowhere" - - let me quote Oliver Morton again:

A humans-in-space programme that could be more easily cancelled would be more appealing than the one we have today. It would be one that had to justify itself in terms of its present objectives, rather than in terms of building a railroad to nowhere. And such justification may be possible. There is something exciting about exploring the universe, as well as something rewarding. It may be that there is a low and fitful level of human exploration of the moon, Mars and nearby asteroids that can keep justifying itself, that can adjust its scope to budgetary realities, that can amaze people on an occasional basis.

Is this what President Bush means by "exploration" - - that is another critical question.

Is Morton right that the Bush plan rejects the "von Braun paradigm" about building up space based infrastructure and if so, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

clark · 2004-03-08 11:38:11

Okay, what's the problem here?

No one is talking about building Cape Canverill on the Moon. That's Glenn talking, and it's nice to see his politcal speech lessons have paid off. Nice little sound bite he has there. (Don't tell anyone, but where was he on 'Science' when he went on a joy ride to space for some NASA PR?).

The only people who want Moon Base Gigantica are the Lunar-tics and a few other assorted dreamers. People assume Bush wants that beacause they are allowed to fill in the details that are lacking. Don't do that unless you want to try out a hypothesis, otherwise, keep it safely in check until more information becomes available.

What we can surmise from the information at hand is that a CEV will be able to take at least 4 humans to the Moon. CEV can carry four people, it's being designed to go to the moon, ergo, one CEV= 4 people on the moon. At this point, we have already matched ISS human research output (or exceeded depending on how many people we can leave at any one time on the moon).

We can surmise that the Moon is to be a training ground for future human exploration. Training Base, not Super Base.

We can surmise that most of what will be done on the moon will be telemetry based, or remote controlled from Earth. The delay is negligible, and really, you only need people on the Moon to train, and to fix things that are broken... when they break. That means we can send some rovers to the moon, they go kaput, we service them on whichever human mission is next... or we just send a new one. This is the moon, not Mars. Which means we have a greater range of options when we want to send things there.

We can surmise that we will be building new infrastructure at the L1 point (fuel on the moon helps no-one, it has to be at L-1).

Now, imagine temporary space stations that are little more than cast off pieces from Lunar trips. These are modular, and interconnected- the options being to keep the space station, or use parts of it for any human missions beyond the Moon.

We're not going to become a spacefaring species on the Moon, and I agree, kids tie us down.

Spaceflight dosen't need to be routine for NASA. NASA is abotu destination and exploration beyond wherever we have been before.

Now, a privatized ISS converted into a Space Hotel means space becomes routine for people. NASA just gets out of the way.

Bill White · 2004-03-08 11:45:26

Actually, reporter Frank Sietzen (a frequent co-author with Keith Cowing) is writing pieces saying the Bush plan is exactly that, to build Cape Canaveral Two on the Moon. If I recall correctly, Frank Sietzen is one of those people offered unprecedented inside access to the debut of the Bush plan.

Heh! Let Frank leak incorrect details then attack those who attack the incorrect details. Nicely done, Mr. Rove.

clark · 2004-03-08 11:51:45

Alright, let's look for the silver in the worst case scenerio, shall we?

Moon Base Gigantica.

Well, if it is a big moon base, wouldn't there be a neccessity for quite a few people up there?

More people = more launches. Longer stay times to reduce the number of launches. People = supply launches. Development of self-sustaining logistical supplies = less supply launches.

All of this means that we become better perpared for all types of human space exploration. It also means that more people (as in greater than 6 or 7) are living and working in space, for longer and longer periods.

this also has the net effect of developing our space access infrasturcutre, be it SDV or something-generation EELV. It makes it easier, safer, and hopefully, cheaper to get people into and out of space.

That's the fundamental key neccessary to unlocking the trip to Mars. Yes, we seem to have enough science to do the mission now, but it's the darn cost of launching into space that is killing the show. Going to the moon will remove one of the major stumbiling blocks for trips to mars (prometheus removes one of the others!)

Bill White · 2004-03-08 12:08:43

Is it the "von Braun" paradigm (focused on space infrastructure, or not?) - - Since commitment to the lunar "Cape Canaveral" idea seems unclear maybe we need the Bush plan to be explained a little bit more.

The status of shuttle derived under the Bush "plan" remains a mystery as well. Does the O'Keefe NASA intend shuttle derived, or not? I certainly do not know.

According to SpaceRef, Sherwood Boehlert (the GOP House committee chair for space issues) says he is unsure of the details. If that is true, how can we jump aboard the Bush bandwagon and proclaim Dubya the savior of the American space program?

"McCurdy thinks NASA had hoped a key legislator "would stand up and raise the flag and say 'Let's go! Follow me!' And that hasn't happened." In fact, one lawmaker who is well-positioned to lead such a charge, U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, says he needs more details about the initiative before he can decide whether to support it in its current form."

Think about this - - Sherwood Boehlert remains on the fence about the Bush vision. That speaks volumes about White House political commitment, IMHO.

The Mars Society talking points remain persuasive. Complete three missions in the following order:

Finish ISS
Visit the Moon and practice "doing space"
Go to Mars.

But do each in a manner that leverages the next step. Don't do one and throw everything away to start over on the next step from scratch.

= = =

And, do we favor the "von Baun" paradigm, or not.

clark · 2004-03-08 12:26:39

Hmmm... perhaps I think we may be experiencing some communication difficulties...

Define 'space infrastructure'. Better yet, define what space infrastructure is neccessary to go beyond the Moon.

I think you will find that all the 'space infrastructure' we need is here on Earth.

We need an on-orbit facility if we need to build things on-orbit. What the heck do we need to build on-orbit if we have automatic-rendeavous technology and modular desgned pieces geared towards self assembly?

Fuel depo? Need the moon to make the fuel first... which we need to verify is possible, and practical, first.

What else do we need in terms of space infrastructure?

Human cargo transport? That's the CEV.
Supply cargo transport? That's the CEV.

Heavy Cargo on the order of multiple tons? Well, we would need that for a one-giant-piece-whatever-that-can't-self-assemble. What is that precisely?

The Moon base will be built over time, not all at once. It will be built from CEV defined constraints and needs. So instead of going like Apollo, which was a land-and-run mission, we will be sending updated CEV Apollo missions that leave infrastructure on the Moon.

Right now, all we have are some abandoned buggies and a flag or two. I think the Bush space plan is committed to the Von Baun paradigim, at least in this respect.

Bill White · 2004-03-08 12:47:02

Hmmm... perhaps I think we may be experiencing some communication difficulties...

Exactly!

Another down-to-Earth story which hopefully will illustrate a point. My in-laws once agreed to build a screen porch. Both my mother in law and father in law were happy as clams since they rarely agreed on anything yet they agreed to build a screen porch on their house.

Until they each showed the other some drawings. My wife's mother envisioned a well built porch with electrical service good lighting and cedar shingles and so on while my father in law envisioned a flimsy frame structure covered by sheet tin.

Okay - so what is the "Bush vision" - that is the question.

Third time now, HOW DO WE DEFINE EXPLORATION?

No one knows, not even Sherwood Boehlert. Which suggests that (a) GWB and Sean O'Keefe don't know yet, either or (b) they do know but refuse to share the "real" vision.

Zubrin is "spot on" again - - the Bush vision offers challenge and opportunity (and spirit?)

clark · 2004-03-08 13:10:12

Nice story, infinetly relatable.

How does 'who' define exploration? Bush and Company? I would say having NASA do new things that ensure our dominance culturaly, scientificaly, militarily, and technologicaly. National Security stuff.

New things can include going to the Moon to learn how to go beyond. It can include new types of robotic probes to try out new science. It can include a greater variety, and a greater reliance upon a reward based system for achieveing specific goals (millenium challenges).

Doing what we are doing now does not fit into Exploration, by any one's defintion.

We get details from the Commission, which are endorsed by O'Keefe and subsquent NASA adminstrators as the "Plan".

wgc · 2004-03-10 17:50:02

Is it the "von Braun" paradigm (focused on space infrastructure, or not?) - - Since commitment to the lunar "Cape Canaveral" idea seems unclear maybe we need the Bush plan to be explained a little bit more.
The status of shuttle derived under the Bush "plan" remains a mystery as well. Does the O'Keefe NASA intend shuttle derived, or not? I certainly do not know.
According to SpaceRef, Sherwood Boehlert (the GOP House committee chair for space issues) says he is unsure of the details. If that is true, how can we jump aboard the Bush bandwagon and proclaim Dubya the savior of the American space program?
"McCurdy thinks NASA had hoped a key legislator "would stand up and raise the flag and say 'Let's go! Follow me!' And that hasn't happened." In fact, one lawmaker who is well-positioned to lead such a charge, U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, says he needs more details about the initiative before he can decide whether to support it in its current form."
Think about this - - Sherwood Boehlert remains on the fence about the Bush vision. That speaks volumes about White House political commitment, IMHO.
The Mars Society talking points remain persuasive. Complete three missions in the following order:
Finish ISS
Visit the Moon and practice "doing space"
Go to Mars.
But do each in a manner that leverages the next step. Don't do one and throw everything away to start over on the next step from scratch.
= = =
And, do we favor the "von Baun" paradigm, or not.

Your talking about the house science committee? We have a better chance of finding intellegence on Mars than in that group.

When I need a good laugh I watch them on cspan. Best thing that could happen is if we could put all those bozo's on the unemployment line.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-03-11 15:52:07

O'Keefe has a plan for a new shuttle design, no?

I read the Shuttle will be replaced very soon in the US

ruski_canuk · 2004-03-11 18:18:08

Unfortunatley I believe Glenn is a little out of touch with the necessity of flagging the moon before skipping on towards our far off cousin Mars. Let the moon teach us about life in space. It is phsycolgically and physically safer than mars due to its comfortable distance to Earth. Isn't it not the perfect cosmic training ground?

wgc · 2004-03-12 11:19:23

wgc: Excuse me for flaunting my great age, but I believe you will find that "bozo" was a name that hobos gave to themselves, back in the 1930's, and therefore already on the unemployment line. Better not to call them meaningles names, but submit counter proposals instead. If they're so incompetent, surely you could top 'em after a little thought. Isn't that what we're here for?

And your point... I was just pointing out that they do not make the best decisions. .. Are you by any chance related to one of them?

Have you been following any of the hearings, after all this talk of Nasa being an organization without goals , without a destination.. Now their saying.. Hey wait a minute how about aerospace, how about this project... or this project... Maybe the underlying message is two many different areas are covered under this one agency....
Maybe we need an agency that handles strictly the exploration aspect not the aeronautical research... And we need a cabinent level position. Bush senior put that into place, Clinton eliminated it.

clark · 2004-03-12 13:24:07

Looks like another astronaut is weighing in on the Bush Space Policy...

Not as flashy as Glenn, but when you've been to the moon, as the first person, I think you don't need to worry about being flashy.

[http://www.space.com/news/armstrong_nasa_040311.html]Neil Armstrong Endorses Bush's Space Plan

HOUSTON (AP) -- Former astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first person to walk on the moon, says Americans should support an ambitious plan for renewed moon missions and journeys to worlds beyond that was proposed by President Bush to help the nation's space program rebound from the shuttle disaster over Texas.

I know which one I agree with. How about you?

dicktice · 2004-03-12 14:36:21

wgc: No point, except that they aren't "bozos" until unemployed. If I were one of them, I'd probably be fired on the spot for my suggestions, all of which would have to come into fruition within my lifetime, which ain't all that long! How about your motivation(s): want to witness, or pave the way?

wgc · 2004-03-12 17:03:58

wgc: No point, except that they aren't "bozos" until unemployed. If I were one of them, I'd probably be fired on the spot for my suggestions, all of which would have to come into fruition within my lifetime, which ain't all that long! How about your motivation(s): want to witness, or pave the way?

My fingers hurt from writing emails to congressman that just fall on deaf ears... I watched all the grilling of the nasa administrator after columbia.. All the debate about nasa is an organization without focus, without a direction. A plan finally surfaces that makes a first attempt at that.. maybe not the best but a starting point... and what occurs.
Literal outrage that it would take from other nasa programs...
All the debate over flying the shuttle safely and now O'keefe is chastized for not flying a hubble servicing mission... What conclusion would you make about this committee. Don't get me wrong some of them are very knowlegeable and good but certain members just have their own special interest agendas.

Ad Astra · 2004-03-12 17:49:24

I think the confusion here is about what the "Bush Plan" entails. As far as I can see, there is no firm "plan" for exploring the moon and Mars. There's a timetable for ISS completion, shuttle retirement, and a lunar landing. There is a verbal commitment to Mars, and there is a fiscal plan for funding the efort in the near term. Aside from that, nothing has been set in stone. I had to cringe when the president implied that the voyage to Mars would launch from the moon or a Lagrange point, but NASA has yet to endorse any approach towards human Mars exploration. For John Glenn to imply that the "Bush plan" includes a stop at the moon on the way to Mars is downright dishonest of him.

The Mars Society needs to be aware of the fluid nature of the exploration strategy. The Aldridge commission is currently debating the best means for implementing the Bush vision; we have a duty to influence this commission.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-12 21:45:16

Amen As Astra,

The only thing that I know of that it really does promise is to get people back to the Moon. Not even nessesarrily to stay or work or make a fuel factory or a base or whatnot, just to get Nasa's feet wet again.

Lars_J · 2004-03-12 22:02:24

Ad Astra,

I had to cringe when the president implied that the voyage to Mars would launch from the moon or a Lagrange point, but NASA has yet to endorse any approach towards human Mars exploration. For John Glenn to imply that the "Bush plan" includes a stop at the moon on the way to Mars is downright dishonest of him.

So apparently you and Glenn both understood Bush the same way, so exactly what is "downright dishonest" about what Glenn said? In the absence of an official NASA Mars plan, is it not fair to judge the "Bush plan" based on what Bush said?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-03-08 10:33:47

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#52 2004-03-08 10:41:15

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#53 2004-03-08 10:50:36

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#54 2004-03-08 11:08:48

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#55 2004-03-08 11:12:28

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#56 2004-03-08 11:17:08

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#57 2004-03-08 11:30:07

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#58 2004-03-08 11:36:06

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#59 2004-03-08 11:38:11

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#60 2004-03-08 11:45:26

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#61 2004-03-08 11:51:45

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#62 2004-03-08 12:08:43

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#63 2004-03-08 12:26:39

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#64 2004-03-08 12:47:02

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#65 2004-03-08 13:10:12

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#66 2004-03-10 17:50:02

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#67 2004-03-11 15:52:07

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#68 2004-03-11 18:18:08

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#69 2004-03-12 11:19:23

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#70 2004-03-12 13:24:07

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#71 2004-03-12 14:36:21

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#72 2004-03-12 17:03:58

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#73 2004-03-12 17:49:24

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#74 2004-03-12 21:45:16

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#75 2004-03-12 22:02:24

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

Board footer