Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-14 22:30:33

So far, I haven't though of a reason why this wouldn't work, so I'll run one of my ideas by you guys. Okay, as everyone knows NASA has cancelled its habitation module and Emergency Return Vehicle for the ISS after spending a few billion dollars on each. Without both, the station will be lmited to only three astro/cosmonauts, which will be enough manpower to do approximately nothing. NASA also seems to be bent on retiring the space shuttle asap after the ISS is done. So, why not retire a shuttle in a way that gives the space station a hab and an ERV?

First, outfit the last shuttle flying with a docking module and fill the rest of the cargo bay with a module with bunks, a kitchen, a rec area, etc. Then simply fly it up and dock it with one of the unity nodes and keep it there. Permanently. The hab will give plenty of space to keep up to ten people up there at once (Assuming they get there by a CEV or Kliper) and, if anything goes awry, can take them back down. Nice idea, eh?

Any thoughts?

DERF · 2004-07-14 23:34:03

I like it a lot. I've always wondered if it is possible to keep that huge external tank on all the way up until orbit (maybe with a little extra thrust and less cargo) to use it as a sort of orbital (assembly!?!??!) base.

One problem is: I doubt the shuttle is engineered to be up for longer than 2 weeks. This may create problems, it may not. For example, is the waste from, say, the toilet meant to be ejected into space or stored? Do certain air filters need to be removed on the ground instead of in space. What needs to be replaced regularily. If the shuttle does need new parts (I assume it would be made this way, with the weight of the parts being a very small factor) then the weight-cost of bringing those parts up to orbit may be very expensive so as to make the shuttle impractical.

This is definitely a kick-ass idea though. It would give the shuttles much more glory than just corroding in a garage somewhere.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-15 00:10:08

Life support is the issue. The Russian module Zvezda provides life support: water and oxygen recycling. The Shuttle uses lithium hydroxide to remove CO2; when in space astronauts have to regularly replace them. When the supply of LiOH canisters is gone, there's no way to remove CO2 from Shuttle air. Shuttle also has oxygen in tanks; no way to make oxygen from water or CO2. Power is generated by fuel cells: hydrogen and oxygen are combined across a membrane to form water and electricity. When the hydrogen and oxygen for the fuel cells run out, not only does Shuttle have no power but it has no water. Shuttle has some water in storage, but storage plus water from fuel cells is enough for 2 weeks. The toilet designed for the US Habitation module has an integrated urine filter and feces compactor; these are the first steps of recycling water. The toilet used in the Advanced Life Support System at Johnson had an incinerator for solid waste, but it appears that wasn't part of the design of the Habitation module toilet. The Shuttle toilet just stores feces and vents urine into space.

An option was designed for extended Shuttle flights. It included more hydrogen & oxygen tanks, as well as a regenerative CO2 removal system like ISS. You would definitely need to hook-up power from ISS solar panels. With all the life support modifications, you might as well just send the Habitation module in the cargo bay on Shuttle's last flight and leave them both up there. Use Soyuz or CEV to get astronauts down.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-15 23:03:59

This is definitely a kick-ass idea though. It would give the shuttles much more glory than just corroding in a garage somewhere.

Thanx for the nice comments. Yeah, one of the shuttles will probably go to the Smithsonian, the rest will probably just sit out in front of some NASA center, hollowed out shells of thier fomerly glorious selves.

Well, my idea was mostly to not use the shuttle's systems at all. However, if you docked it in just the right way (And replenished fuel supplies a lot), you could use it as both an RCS system and a station-keeping motor, with its OMS engines. The shuttle would have to be pretty heavily modifed beforehand, you'd probably want to take out the sleeping bunks and replace the space with a second toilet (Two will probably be enough for a crew of ten). There will be plenty of space in the cargo bay to put sleeping quarters, and taking out the regular life-support system and the fuel cells would free up room and weight for a fully enclosed life-support system, like the one under development using bacteria to recycle waste and CO2.

I know that NASA doesn't seem to like good ideas, but I'd really like to share this with someone over there. Do you think that anyone would listen?

Rxke · 2004-07-15 23:42:45

Another problem. Shuttle needs to keep its doors open, because the radiators, so you'd have to build/test etc. a set of extra outer radiators. Will probably be deemed too expensive...
BTW the toilets... I've read several times the crews visiting MIR preferred to use MIRs sanitation facilities above Shuttle's, despite the mega-millions invested in it, it never seemed to be very reliable...

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-16 08:13:15

Another issue besides power and heat rejection is the on-orbit lifespan of the heat shield and windows; with all the junk floating around up there, the big Shuttle shield is an awfully big and sensitive bullseye to hit.

The OMS engines also can't be refueled in space, which would require some serious modification... same thing with the power systems and cooling systems, if the anticent refrigerator-sized electronics racks will last on orbit at all.

The ISS is also STILL wedded at the hip to Shuttle, because you simply can't bring anything large to the station with Progress/ATV because the Soyuz hatches are so small and you can bring nothing back down. Getting rid of Shuttle after ISS completion is tantamount to getting rid of the ISS... why bother then with a hab or ERV?

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-16 21:38:29

Hey, I never said it'd be a piece of cake, but converting a shuttle would create a lot fewer headaches than building a new hab and ERV from scratch, cancelling them, and finally building a thrid set that nobody's happy with. That's most likely what NASA will end up doing.

What's wrong with leaving the cargo bay doors open? In fact, they need to be open to dock with the ISS. As for the toilets, I dunno. NASA will use NASA-designed toilets no matter what, and they'd spend at least a few million dollars developing new ones, so let's just stick with the ones that work, even if they're uncomfortable.

Protecting the heat shield: Oookay, how about we cover the whole thing in high-density foam? That would at least slow space junk down to the point where it wouldn't damage the heat shield very much damage. You could wire the whole thing to an explosive bolt system that would blow the foam off when you need to re-enter, and even if that didn't work, the foam would just ablate off within seconds of re-entry. Not too much of a hassle.

Last post I poised the somewhat rhetorical question of wheither anyone at NASA would listen to this proposal. For that matter, does anyone know who I could talk to, to even give them a hint of this plan (Assuming they haven't though of it themselves)?

Rxke · 2004-07-16 22:52:05

Sorry 'bout the doors, Grad. I misinterpreted your initial post on that, i thought you meant: close the door and use the empty cargo as livingspace 'upid 'upid 'upid!

And if you google around, there are gazillion of plans like that, some dating from the early 70's but most are in a free-flying combination, some have even shuttles in "retirement mode", where they clipped the wings, so it has more lifting capacity, and it takes its (refurbished) tank into LEO. Something like a Skylab, where the tanks were the living-quarters etc.
So your idea has merit, but... Will NASA be willing to recycle their hardware or will they use it as an exhibit?

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-17 15:58:16

And if you google around, there are gazillion of plans like that, some dating from the early 70's but most are in a free-flying combination, some have even shuttles in "retirement mode", where they clipped the wings, so it has more lifting capacity, and it takes its (refurbished) tank into LEO. Something like a Skylab, where the tanks were the living-quarters etc.
So your idea has merit, but... Will NASA be willing to recycle their hardware or will they use it as an exhibit?

Yeah, that's certainly true. NASA seems to be more interested in making mueseum hardware than flight hardware these days and it's hard to imagine that someone, WAAAAAAY out there on the far shores of the internet (Or perhaps somewere much closer), hasn't been running around like a headless chicken promoting this plan to whoever will listen.

A perfect example of this mentality is back in the '70s after the three Skylab missions had been launched and when they started to realize that its orbit had begun to decay noticably. Martin (It was just "Martin" back in those days) proposed launching a robotic spacecraft to Skylab and boosting its orbit. NASA insisted over and over again that the shuttle could and would do the job, and pretty much laughed the plan out the window. The rest is history, as the station disentigrated over Austrailia in 1979, two years before the first shuttle mission.

Then again, the wonderful politicians of the good 'ol US of A probably had something to do with it, too. The choice: spend $500 million to save a $5 billion station, or let it be destroyed. It was a no-brainer for them.

One of the points I was trying to make with the shuttle retirement/ERV/hab solution was that we could make the space station useful by inovating and thinking a little outside the box. The ISS is going to be virtually useless until at least six people can stay up there at once, and we'll need a hab and an ERV for that. It will be interesting to see what conclusion NASA comes to, inevitably they'll probably make nearly everyone unhappy (As they have a tendancy to do).

C M Edwards · 2004-07-17 20:05:19

How long can a space shuttle soak in space?

One reason (of several) why the ISS can't maintain a full crew compliment is a lack of sufficient escape capability. When a space shuttle is on hand, ISS can have ten people floating around inside, but when the space shuttle leaves, seven of them have to go home. If we could just leave one up there, running off of ISS power supply and on standby, that would be useful.

How long can a space shuttle be left docked with the station and still be relied on for re-entry?

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-17 21:14:08

Actually it would probobly cost less or about as much to do TransHab and revive the X-38 as it would to modify Shuttle like this... It is difficult to state just how complicated Shuttle is, it is still without exception the most complicated machine in the world. There is no such thing as a simple, cheap Shuttle modification. The Shuttles were never intended to operate in such a fasion, certain parts not designed to work after being soaked in space for extended periods, nor was Shuttle designed to work after being "turned off" to any large degree.

Just the engineering task of making sure it would work, and nothing unable to handle long-term space exposure is overlooked would be a huge, expensive, long term task. Building a TransHab or even a stretch Soyuz launched on Zenit/Delta/Atlas/Onega would surely be better... Let us not forget that without Shuttle, there is no way to move large heavy objects to and from the ISS either (NO science racks) and no way to get anything bigger than a suitcase back down... The very BEST thing to do is just to forget the whole thing and ditch the station.

Yes, it is that bad

Rxke · 2004-07-18 06:15:21

'bout Skylab: I read it wasn't fitted with orbital correction/boosting hardware from day one, beause they actually *wanted* it to go down pretty quickly.

Why? they were just getting ready to start building the STS's and were confident they'd have a modular replacement station in orbit quite quickly after that, what with STS making launches so much more economical etc.
That is, if Skylab was out of orbit by then, otherwise it might interfere with their plans, imagine congress going: "but you guys already have a perfectly working station in orbit, why another one?" Couldn't have that, of course, so Skylab had to be a short-lived thing...
But then, STS got delayed again and again, and the station...

Remember the seventies were a totally diferent era, when you could quite confidently predict a moonbase in the 80-90's, mars around 2000, and be taken seriously... Sigh.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-18 13:10:36

Okay, prehaps I haven't been explaining this the right way. What I'm proposing is to make only minor modifications to the shuttle (If any), and rather build a regular hab module and just leave it in the cargo bay. The changes that need to be made to the shuttle would be modifying the fuel tanks so they can last longer in space and upgrading the computer systems (Perhaps to, say, Windows '95 and Pentium IIs, a 20-year leap over what they currently use) so that they can be put into a "deep sleep" mode. The life support system, sleeping bunks, kitchen, toilets, will all be in the module, the only real reason for not taking it out of the shuttle is that in an emergency it could be powered up and de-orbit quickly. These modifications would be, what, one or two years at most? The crew will just have to wait a bit.

As for keeping the station stocked, well, that's a bit more of a challenge. Perhaps the ESA could modify one or a few of the Multi Purpose Logistics Modules they have to include an engine, heat shield, and equipment for remote docking. It could fly up unmanned on and Ariane 5, resupply the station, then parachute back to French Guiana. Another option: there will be three shuttles left by the time they are retired, one will be permanently docked to the station, one will go to the Smithsonian, and the third could be sold along with all of the SRB and fuel tank tech to whoever wants to buy it. ESA, Russia, Japan, even Paul Allen could become the new operator of the remaining shuttle, flying solely for logistic missions. 4 Progress missions+ 4 ATVs+ 4 MPLM missions a year could definately keep the ISS in one piece and full of research material. Assuming 12 Kliper/CEV flights a year, and we could finally put the thing to good use.

Look, the station has spent the last 20 years in some form of design, planning, or construction. It's ridiculous to just suddenly say "I don't want it anymore" now.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-18 13:40:32

Again, there is no such thing as a minor modification to the Space Shuttle. Gutting all the computer hardware, the multiple refrigerator sized racks, and redoing the whole thing with off-the-shelf microprocressors would be a huge task, essentially requiring the redesign and requalification of the whole avionics section... I don't want to even think about the software.

And redesigning the OMS engines with their horribly corrosive and toxic fuels, which is why the Soyuz must be rotated every 6mo or so (same stuff)...

And designing a TPS "cover" that goes over the whole thing, including nose and leading edge, that will survive launch and separate on reentry, since space debries would be a lethal concern...

And designing a brand new habitation module that would be roomy AND leave space for the Russian docking adapter, which would be modified with the second hatch and umbilicals... spacious and light inflatable Transhabs need not apply.

...But most of all, the process of essentially testing and requalifying every single nook, cranny, bolt, screw, pump, switch, and wire on the whole vehicle to make sure it can withstand launch and be left in space for a decade solid and still come back down in under 24hrs. Then you have to make sure that it all still works together.

It really would just be easier to build a SIMPLER hab module designed from the ground up for the purpose and to simply double the Soyuz flight rate or throw a billion at the X-38. As for the science hardware and supplies, there is no provision for docking anything to the big MPLM sized hatches, and the ESA ATV was never intended for it. Somthing could perhaps be arranged, but the MPLM wouldn't be able to carry a full load and a heat shield, increasing required flight rate. Adding a reentry mechanism would also be an expensive project which would require giving the MPLM attitude control, power, flight computers, and parachutes all its own.

The ESA by the way, is looking to contract 7 of the little ATVs, perhaps as many as 10... total... Not four or five or six a year.

Yes yes it is madness to throw away a $100Bn investment like the ISS, but tell me, is it any more madness than to go through all this expense and manpower and time - which cannot go to other projects - to keep the thing up there? Virtualy nobody in the science community has anything to do up there even if Shuttle were to fly until the thing fell apart.

And it is falling apart, the thing simply is not built that well and is degrading rapidly. Some of the componets are over 20 years old, and many of the designs older then that. Since Shuttle hasn't been flying, nor will it be after "completion," spare parts haven't been going up or broken ones down in a vain effort to keep it together. I think the current "risk factor" is quoted to be between 1-3% per-year chance of catastrophic failure... and it will only get higher.

No more Shuttle, no more ISS, no more NASA manned spaceflight... adds up to around eleven billion dollars, a YEAR! Thats $11,000,000,000 every year to do somthing else than to keep the ISS up there and finding make-work for it... and thats without the added investment for a Super ATV or Klipper or whatnot.

As far as selling the last Shuttle and its hardware privately, I can tell you with absolute certainty that nobody would be stupid enough to buy it except to put it in their own private museum or somthing... Shuttle is inherintly flawed with its extreme complexity, its design compromises to accomodate the USAF and Nixon's budget, and its dangerously fragile design and margins. The sooner we are rid of it the better... not that you could launch it without Nasa's help anyway.

Rxke · 2004-07-18 14:36:08

GCNRevenger is right, it's just not feasible to use the shuttle as an extended-life return vehicule. And upgrades don't come cheap, either.
A Shuttle connected to the ISS would be a hazard, not a benefit...

The system simply wasn't built to stay 'up' for extended periods of time, and you should have to rebuild it from the ground up to make it so...

Space-station stuff is built with the requirement of staying operational w/o regular maintenance by groundcrews, Shuttle was not. Never will.

future is not looking too rosy for STS and ISS... Hope we learn from expensive errors...

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-18 15:24:43

Another strike against Shuttle-as-hab is the question of weight limits... that Shuttle already can't carry more than ~16 tons to the station because of its highly inclined orbit. So, you have to have a hab, armor over sensitive places, the new heat shield cover, life extension equipment, everything... for that much or less. It would be awfully tight.

Oh yes, and how many Shuttle docking ports are there on ISS?

C M Edwards · 2004-07-19 13:44:38

So, the space shuttle's propellant systems can't handle exposure to its own fuel for longer than a few months, making it unusable for any sort of long term application.

Charming.

Just out of curiosity, how long can the ISS soak for? How long can the space station go without a maintenance crew before it becomes unusable?

BWhite · 2004-07-19 14:08:47

Mad Grad I have proposed leaving a shuttle up there as a space tug.

Strip off the tiles and clip her wings, figure out how to refuel the OMS tanks on-orbit, replace the fuel cells and install cold gas manuevering jets and then use the shuttle to collect ISS components tossed up by shuttle B or Proton and drag them the last mile to ISS.

Once an orbiter exceeds its safe working lifespan and cannot be repaired? Dump her in the Pacific and send up another.

NASA has three, after all.

Windows? Good point. Install plastic quilted mats over the windows during extended period of docking.

= = =

Edit: Vent surplus OMS fuel between uses - - move the OMS fuel tanks to a location that can be reached via the cargo bay and send up replacement OMS fuel tanks via Progress or shuttle B/C before undertaking extended operations.

Electric power? Why won't anyone try Robert Forward's power generation tether?

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-19 14:58:49

The Space Shuttle... The Space Shuttle as a TUG?!!?!??!?

*Squeals and pulls his hair and grits his teeth*

You could afford to design and build a whole FLEET of real purpose built tugs for the cost of such a modification! Cut off the wings, rearrange the OMS fuel system ... maneuvering while using a tether... center of gravity change...

If you are going to send up Progress vehicles to refuel it, then send the bloody Progress AS THE TUG!

Arrrrgh

BWhite · 2004-07-19 15:36:11

Gotcha!

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-19 15:58:53

Blah sorry Bill, caught me off-guard... too many exclamation points

BWhite · 2004-07-19 16:05:11

My last post was a little unfair. Funny, IMHO, but unfair.

I do propose wacky impractical ideas more often than not and I have thought about leaving a shuttle "up there" but you were so unbalanced I couldn't resist having a little fun.

I am grateful the technically minded folks don't ask Josh or Adrian to IP ban me with all the crazy ideas I propose from time to time.

Rxke · 2004-07-19 19:02:15

Bill, that was just evil!

Love the quilted windows part, though... Truly inspired

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-19 23:29:10

Whoa, fellas! Now I know what it feels like to be Robert Zubrin lecturing on Mars Direct for the first time. Or Peter Diamondis first announcing the X Prize.

I understand it would be difficult to make even as small a change as a new computer system and adding big piece of foam, but it would still be easier than making a new hab and an ERV. Don't change anything with the shuttle except what I said above, and maybe replace the engines with ones provided by XCOR or Spacex burning Kerosene/LOX. It's time consuming and causes headaches, but the whole process would take a year, year and a half tops. That's a shorter development time for NASA than if it were to design something new from scratch. So there are worries about its quality being questionable in orbit. INSPECT it while it's there. Really, these things can be done.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-20 08:10:51

No, no it wouldn't be easier. I don't think "these things can be done" either. Shuttle is still far, far, far and away too complicated and fragile. Trying to make the whole thing space worthy for a solid decade is an excercise in folley...

-LOX propellant isn't very storable, it will boil off on orbit too. It is unclear if Peroixde will handle the radiation either.
-Will the TPS system even survive the cold/hot soak for that long?
-The power system will have to be changed entirely. You have to be able to restart the thing after a decade of disuse even if powerd by the ISS solar arrays... replace all three fuel cells with batteries, $$$.
-New computers will requiring rearranging the whole avionics section, and will change the center of gravity of the vehicle, and there are several computers spread throughout the vehicle (like for engines).
-You have to design a foam shield which will survive launch completly intact and seperate flawlessly, waiting for it to burn up on the way down is begging for tile damage (they are glued on) or Columbia-2.0 and a piece from the nose hits the RCC leading edge.
-Entirely new waste water management system, bigger water tanks, bigger food supply storage... where are you going to put it?
-Inflatable tires will have to replaced, since they obviously won't survive the soak for that long in their current form.
-Hydraulics will have to perform flawlessly after a solid decade of disuse, same deal with the control surfaces.
-Cooling system will have to also work a decade, not three weeks
-The RCS system is also powerd by hypergolics, and would have to be replaced as well with somthing entirely new that can ignite rapidly.
-Melted foam gets stuck in the landing gear door seals?
-No armor for the crew cabin or fuel tanks or other vital sections, there isn't much extra mass for it.
-New guideance system, since the gyros for attitude control may not be able to restart in space.

And again, the entire vehicle would have to be requalified, that is, a small army of engineers would have to go over every single detail of the whole vehicle, everything, every last piece since the vehicle would be so fundimentally alterd. New engines, new computers, new power systems, new heat shield, new wiring, modified hydraulics (or even eliminated), new cooling systems, new LSS storage, new dynamics testing, some new thermal testing, new landing gear, modified docking collar... and after all that, the whole vehicle would have to undergo technical review, it would criminally neglegent for a team of engineers not to with how much it has been changed, which the CAIB believes will be a multimillion dollar operation even with NO changes to the Shuttle.

Plus, unlike capsules or small lift bodies, you would need additional emergency landing strips big enough to accomodate Shuttle worldwide because of the highly inclined orbit, which adds up to boku $$$, to meet NASA's 24hr ACRV requirement.

And you would have to keep a substantial cadre of Shuttle engineers employed to keep an eye on the thing as it ages. Alot of the $4.5Bn/yr cost of Shuttle is the manpower, which could go to other things (Shuttle-C, Atlas-VI, Lunar systems).

Or, you can build the cheap TransHab, fly it on Shuttle one last time, and buy two more Soyuz flights a year. The comparison isn't even close... If you want to bother with the worthless ISS anyway, since you can't get even get science racks through the little Soyuz hatches, and even then there aren't that many useful experiments to begin with.

PlanBush calls for NASA to be back on the Moon by 2020, yes? Now, if the entire Shuttle/ISS budget were available following Shuttle retirement, thats roughly $100Bn dollars. One Hundred Billion Dollars. Doesn't that figure just make you lust for that money to get off this dang rock? Or would you rather ask Congress for even MORE money to piddle around with the ISS, which is worthless if it works, worthless if Shuttle works, worthless if Shuttle doesn't work, and is deteriorating rapidly.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-14 22:30:33

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#2 2004-07-14 23:34:03

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#3 2004-07-15 00:10:08

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#4 2004-07-15 23:03:59

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#5 2004-07-15 23:42:45

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#6 2004-07-16 08:13:15

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#7 2004-07-16 21:38:29

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#8 2004-07-16 22:52:05

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#9 2004-07-17 15:58:16

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#10 2004-07-17 20:05:19

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#11 2004-07-17 21:14:08

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#12 2004-07-18 06:15:21

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#13 2004-07-18 13:10:36

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#14 2004-07-18 13:40:32

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#15 2004-07-18 14:36:08

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#16 2004-07-18 15:24:43

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#17 2004-07-19 13:44:38

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#18 2004-07-19 14:08:47

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#19 2004-07-19 14:58:49

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#20 2004-07-19 15:36:11

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#21 2004-07-19 15:58:53

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#22 2004-07-19 16:05:11

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#23 2004-07-19 19:02:15

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#24 2004-07-19 23:29:10

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

#25 2004-07-20 08:10:51

Re: Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone

Board footer