What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

SpaceNut · 2004-12-02 06:10:58

Ok Triple-barreled AtlasV/DeltaIV is a bad idea for they are aligned in a common plane. At lift off they will as noted act like a big wing with regards to the air gusts. But putting that same trio in a triangular fashion removes that issue now center the payload to the center and you done once a new flaring is attached to it to redirect the air flow around the lower segments.

If you want a cargo version use the SRB's from the shuttle and top that in the same fashion. Remember 80% of the lift for the 100ton shuttle comes from these and that's just using 2. Make it a third unit and see what we can lob into orbit with that.

Now back to what mission I would prefer. All of course, to each destination, to stay with a permanent presence once started. But since we are already in LEO we must start I think with the next closest target but that does not mean we should put our selves in a holding pattern to finish going to the moon before we can start looking at way to do Mars.

The development of anything used for the moon should be designed with the eventual goal in mind that we will use it to make it possible to go to Mars.

Then the next stop should be Venus and so on....

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-02 10:29:12

I always research my facts, and you don't know what I do, and at the end of the day , I know what I am doing and I will let history judge my actions against your actions.

Ah yes, the typical "I am so smart that you can't understand" response... I find your research or the interpretation of it to be lacking, that this sum is clearly absurd.

Try me. Explain to me WHY this sum is so huge. Why? Why would anyone pay a third of a trillion dollars... enough money to buy 150 B-2 bombers or Microsoft several times over... for a phone license deal?

And then, in your gracious brilliance, explain in detail as to why any corporation(s) would spend a sum of similar magnetude for space projects with little or no hope of any profit in their lifetimes, to all us little ignorant people?

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-02 10:33:41

The tripple-barrel idea isn't a terrible one, it just isn't a very good one either since it isn't very efficent. Its a smart way to leverage exsisting smaller rockets to make a more powerful one as cheaply as possible. The aerodynamics aren't such a big problem really I don't think.

I am pretty sure that the Shuttle SRBs on their own don't provide 80% of the STS's push on their own, and individually they aren't all that big. I am all for building a heavy lift vehicle using them as boosters.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-02 11:21:39

Did a little search, actually I over stated the amount but it was still pretty high.

http://www.spaceline.org/rocketsum/soli … sters.html

Each SRB can produce a thrust of about 3,300,000 pounds of thrust at liftoff. The combined thrust of the SRB's accounts for just over 70% of the total thrust needed to carry the Space Shuttle into space. Each SRB exhaust nozzle may be gimbaled up to eight degrees to help steer the Space Shuttle during ascent.

ftlwright · 2004-12-02 11:50:04

Indeed, the triple-barrel DeltaIV isn't the most robust solution to our heavy lift needs, but it leverages what we already have. A5 isn't going to happen though (if anyone is curious it can be discussed further).

Each SRB produces 2.7M lbs of thrust (5.4M lb total) at an Isp of 280s while the SSME produce about 450K lbs each (total of 1.41M lbs) at an Isp of 426s. The Orbital Maneuvering System is used to achieve orbital insertion w/ about 12k lbs of thrust delivered at an Isp of 313s. The SRBs provide a significant amount of the initial kick to get the thing off the ground. This is part of the problem with the SSMEs, they're a bit *too* efficient to be used deep in the gravity well. This is why many are going back to using Jet-A/RP-1 based propellents for their systems. Theoretically, you would want to have a RP-1 based lower stage and LOX/LH2 upper stage(s) (Saturn V), but cost increases w/ complexity.

Comstar,
You still haven't said anything yet. You have not shown how you plan to reduce launch cost using either current methods or something completely new. The energy sector is a half trillion dollar industry... big deal. What does that have to do w/ aerospace? Fact of the matter is that we are looking at a < 50 unit launch year and their is currently no demand for a heavy launcher outside the needs of government agencies. Where are these resources going to come from? What potential markets have been overlooked that can possibly fund such an intensive R&D program?

This is why I continually bring up Microcosm and SpaceX; these are privately held companies trying develop vehicles that will drasically reduce to orbit cost. Guess what, it ain't easy. They are coming up w/ innovative solutions to a couple problems, but they don't have the resources to be a serious threat to the big guns. It's hard. Damn hard.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-02 12:21:41

But in the same token if they were charging what the large aerospace industry leaders are then they themselves would also see how tough the game really is.

Yes, you may get more orders initially for the cheaper rockets but in the end run if the demand is the same year after year than bigger or smaller, cheaper or more expensive makes little difference to the eventual out come. Which is the larger the corporation then the longer they can live off the fat of overcharging there customers. Since it can be proven that it can be done for less.

ftlwright · 2004-12-02 13:17:52

SpaceNut,

You get no agrument from me. The only thing I'm trying to illustrate (guess I'm not doing that good of a job ) is that is improbable that a small private coorporation will be able to generate the resources to support the development of exploration program. The small guys will come of w/ some innovative ideas that the big guys will impliment to reduce launch cost and thus have more money for R&D, profits, etc. By their nature the small guys will not produce the margins necessary to fund the rapid development of a robust launch system.

This, however, is what many of the Altspace folks are arguing; make a rocket on the cheap and and pull necessary revenue from the big guys. SpaceX and Microcosm are hoping to carve out a niche for institutional/military/medium industry launches and drive up launch frequency. If they can't do that they're sunk.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-02 14:22:00

It basically boils down to two issues, the ease of which we make hardware of sufficent complexity/performance and the amount of energy derived per amount of fuel/propellant.

At the moment, it is not easy to make any kind of manned spaceflight vehicle or large heavy lift rocket by nature of their high minimum complexity and performance relative to what is practical to engineer with todays' technology and materials. Here, AltSpace may help a little bit, but because of the low demand and high marginal development costs, this facet will likly not see a major improvement without serious government money.

The second problem is the fuel, that even with rockets that operate at nearly 100% of the theoretical efficency of their fuels, no vehicle of worthwhile size can reach Mars without being very large or comprised of very many flights. It is a simple matter of scale, that the vehicle(s) required will cost alot of money, more then any NGO's can likly come up with, especially with the negligible promise of financial profit.

Without a next generation propulsion technology, like an electric MHD engine powerd by a VCR fission reactor, or figuring out how to manage the extreme conditions inside a GCNR engine, then there isn't much chance of a mission becomming small enough to be accomodated without large sums of government money.

C M Edwards · 2004-12-02 14:26:08

[...] improbable that a small private coorporation will be able to generate the resources to support the development of exploration program.

I agree we're reaching the limits of conventional rocketry, but I don't agree with this assertion.

The small guys will come of w/ some innovative ideas that the big guys will impliment to reduce launch cost and thus have more money for R&D, profits, etc.

I can't concur that the "big guys" will necessarily steal ideas from the "small guys". Such a theft would have to occur in the courts as well as the markets. Are there no trade secrets? Are there no patent laws?

By their nature the small guys will not produce the margins necessary to fund the rapid development of a robust launch system.

Nope, rapid development will not be forthcoming from the small business people. Profit margins do affect the rate at which money and man-hours can be poured into a project, and small businesses barely have any in comparison.

But that does not mean that no development will be forthcoming.

This, however, is what many of the Altspace folks are arguing; make a rocket on the cheap and and pull necessary revenue from the big guys. SpaceX and Microcosm are hoping to carve out a niche for institutional/military/medium industry launches and drive up launch frequency. If they can't do that they're sunk.

Although small companies do tend to be more efficient than larger companies, the difference isn't vast enough to give them the edge all by itself. However, given a uniquely innovative, sufficiently legally protected, and truly superior functional solution, a small business could become a big business over time. The big guys were small guys once, too.

If you had a small AltSpace startup, trying to compete directly with an aerospace collosus fifty times your size would be foolhardy. There has to be a barrier between you, some mouse hole to hide in while you grow bigger... Fortunately, such holes exist, in the form of patent monopolies and other legal protections. You can find your company's niche. All you need to get into it is some really good legal advice and the next big idea.

Climbing out again once you're there, that's the subject of a whole other post. :;):

C M Edwards · 2004-12-02 14:31:50

Question: Is human space exploration a niche market?

BWhite · 2004-12-02 14:50:28

Question: Is human space exploration a niche market?

Why do you want to explore?

Saganaut? For science, leaving only footprints and taking only pictures?

von Braunian? For the greater glory of the nation-state? "Great nations do great things"

O'Neillian? To expand the human biosphere and permanent presence, meaning settlement.

I only know one principle of design. Form follows function. Tell me which of the above you want to do and only then should we discuss how.

= = =

Niche market?

IMHO no one really cares very much about the first two motivation for going into space and therefore significant funding and political support will be perpetually difficult unless we embrace the 3rd objective.

Edited By BWhite on 1102020674

Euler · 2004-12-02 14:56:22

The small guys will come of w/ some innovative ideas that the big guys will impliment to reduce launch cost and thus have more money for R&D, profits, etc.

Usually it is the other way around. The big guys come up with the ideas and do most of the research, the little guys try and make cheap knock-offs.

If you had a small AltSpace startup, trying to compete directly with an aerospace collosus fifty times your size would be foolhardy. There has to be a barrier between you, some mouse hole to hide in while you grow bigger... Fortunately, such holes exist, in the form of patent monopolies and other legal protections. You can find your company's niche. All you need to get into it is some really good legal advice and the next big idea.

Unfortunately for the little guys, the giant corporations hold most of the patents. The little companies generally try and compete by being more efficient. The can not compete on the big projects that require the most R&D and advanced technology, so instead they aim for the segment of the market that is easiest to enter: small low-cost launch vehicles. If their initial launchers are successful, they build progressively larger and more advanced launchers until they become one of the big companies.

BWhite · 2004-12-02 14:59:46

With a nuclear thermal tug able to travel from LEO to L1 and back, nearly 100% of mass lifted to LEO can be sent to Mars. Given a full on settlememt effort, delivery to Mars would be very slighlty more than the cost of launch to LEO.

$1,000 per pound to LEO, today. $500 per pound or less as the Russian & Ukrainian assembly lines get rolling or we make RL-10 rocket engines in Vietnam or Indonesia paying workers $25 per hour.

Then use the NERVA tug to haul the stuff to L1 and do a lunar fly-by followed by a Terran fly-by and Mars injection. The cargo flies a ballistic trajectory while the tug aerobrakes in Earth's atmosphere and returns for the next load.

Don't need no stinking RLV for cargo launches.

Euler · 2004-12-02 15:11:57

Why do you want to explore?
Saganaut? For science, leaving only footprints and taking only pictures?
von Braunian? For the greater glory of the nation-state? "Great nations do great things"
O'Neillian? To expand the human biosphere and permanent presence, meaning settlement.

During Apollo, the motivation was von Braunian. Since then, the motivation has been mostly Saganaut. I think that the primary motivation of most space enthusiasts is O'Neillian, but this motivation is not acknowledged by NASA and there is a large "giggle factor" involved.

Without official acceptance of the O'Neillian ideas, proponents of human space exploration must phrase all of their arguments in Saganaut terms. This makes it more difficult for space activists to convince the government to fund many important human spaceflight projects and that is one of the reasons why NASA's fraction of the federal budget keeps shrinking. Getting NASA to accept O'Neillian philosophy is probably the most important thing that space activists can achieve right now.

John Creighton · 2004-12-02 15:15:42

During Apollo, the motivation was von Braunian. Since then, the motivation has been mostly Saganaut. I think that the primary motivation of most space enthusiasts is O'Neillian, but this motivation is not acknowledged by NASA and there is a large "giggle factor" involved.
Without official acceptance of the O'Neillian ideas, proponents of human space exploration must phrase all of their arguments in Saganaut terms. This makes it more difficult for space activists to convince the government to fund many important human spaceflight projects and that is one of the reasons why NASA's fraction of the federal budget keeps shrinking. Getting NASA to accept O'Neillian philosophy is probably the most important thing that space activists can achieve right now.

Well said. Anyway I believe in an evolving strategy. Start out with many saganaut goals with foresight and planning to try and achieve some O'Neillian goals in the long run. It is about balancing priorities and working within the available budget.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-02 15:17:14

Iiii don't think so Bill... even the $1000/lb mark is unlikly to be breached efficently by any expendable vehicle effectively

Then there is the issue that you need fuel for your tug. Lots of fuel. Double as much fuel mass as you have payload mass, give or take.

Plus the NERVA engines themselves will only have enough Uranium for a few trips, if the core survives that long.

And you have to launch an aerobrake shield with every payload.

Lander? How do you get the thing down? Developing, building, and operating a Martian RLV or building a fleet of throw-away landers isn't going to be cheap either.

Frankly, building turbopump rocket engines is such a delicate craft that you can't afford to risk for lower quality labor to build them.

Building fleets of small rockets isn't gonig to happen, get over it.

clark · 2004-12-02 15:24:09

Exploring and colonizing are vastly different things.

I like both, in regards to space, because they're dubiously sane. In the same way as treking to the North pole or the top of Everest is barely sane.

The dream is worthwhile simply because it somehow exemplifies the best parts of us.

What we find, or whether or not it is rationale is beside the point. It's simply trying that gets me going.

Enjoy the ride I say, it's the best part.

BWhite · 2004-12-02 16:14:13

Lander? How do you get the thing down? Developing, building, and operating a Martian RLV or building a fleet of throw-away landers isn't going to be cheap either.

For crew? Yes, you need a lander.

For bags of freeze dried plant food and tofu use air bags like MER did. So you pop a few now and again. Big deal.

:;):

$1000 per pound? Zenit-2 is darn close, today.

Off the shelf 5 segment Thiokol SRM with 3 RL-10s as an upper stage is darn close to $50 million and 50,000 pounds. Without tweaking. The earlier ASRM might be even better.

Skip Canaveral and skip the standing army. Build it on a launch pad in Grenanda. No crawler, just a crane attached to the gantry. Stack the segments and set the RL-10 cluster on top.

Fill the concrete flame trench with sea water and let her rip.

Edited By BWhite on 1102025801

BWhite · 2004-12-02 16:15:15

Why do you want to explore?
Saganaut? For science, leaving only footprints and taking only pictures?
von Braunian? For the greater glory of the nation-state? "Great nations do great things"
O'Neillian? To expand the human biosphere and permanent presence, meaning settlement.
During Apollo, the motivation was von Braunian. Since then, the motivation has been mostly Saganaut. I think that the primary motivation of most space enthusiasts is O'Neillian, but this motivation is not acknowledged by NASA and there is a large "giggle factor" involved.
Without official acceptance of the O'Neillian ideas, proponents of human space exploration must phrase all of their arguments in Saganaut terms. This makes it more difficult for space activists to convince the government to fund many important human spaceflight projects and that is one of the reasons why NASA's fraction of the federal budget keeps shrinking. Getting NASA to accept O'Neillian philosophy is probably the most important thing that space activists can achieve right now.

Exactly! Spot on, dude.

Grypd · 2004-12-02 16:52:00

During Apollo, the motivation was von Braunian. Since then, the motivation has been mostly Saganaut. I think that the primary motivation of most space enthusiasts is O'Neillian, but this motivation is not acknowledged by NASA and there is a large "giggle factor" involved.
Without official acceptance of the O'Neillian ideas, proponents of human space exploration must phrase all of their arguments in Saganaut terms. This makes it more difficult for space activists to convince the government to fund many important human spaceflight projects and that is one of the reasons why NASA's fraction of the federal budget keeps shrinking. Getting NASA to accept O'Neillian philosophy is probably the most important thing that space activists can achieve right now.
Well said. Anyway I believe in an evolving strategy. Start out with many saganaut goals with foresight and planning to try and achieve some O'Neillian goals in the long run. It is about balancing priorities and working within the available budget.

And the people who can give us the chance to advance space Flat-Earthian?

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-02 17:26:27

Nah Bill, lots of the stuff you'll be sending won't be stuff you can afford to do that with. I'm talking drilling rigs, reactor componets, electronics... stuff that you can't afford to just drop. The MERs also needed a pretty complex powerd maneuverable bus with heat shield and parachute arrangement... which is of questionable reliability. And that sure ain't free either.

Building a "SRB launcher" isn't gonna be that easy either... the booster and the RL-10's would run you about $40-45M, and thats not counting the Centaur with the control electronics, the payload faring, payload integration, system check, and so on... The SRB is inhertinly kinda man-power intensive too. I don't think you'll be able to beat the Proton price, given the infrastructure investment you have to pay back.

Getting to Mars ain't easy. Period.

C M Edwards · 2004-12-03 11:47:38

The small guys will come of w/ some innovative ideas that the big guys will impliment to reduce launch cost and thus have more money for R&D, profits, etc.
Usually it is the other way around. The big guys come up with the ideas and do most of the research, the little guys try and make cheap knock-offs.

It's not the little companies' fault that patents expire. :;):

Unfortunately for the little guys, the giant corporations hold most of the patents. The little companies generally try and compete by being more efficient. The can not compete on the big projects that require the most R&D and advanced technology, so instead they aim for the segment of the market that is easiest to enter: small low-cost launch vehicles.

Big corporations hold many of the relevant patents, it's true. Small companies have to pay to use them commercially, which drives up prices. Further, many small companies are forced to seek funding from sources by conceding portions of proceeds from their own patent development. However, it's gradually becoming clear that the technology represented by many of those patents is not adequate to the task, so it doesn't ultimately matter who owns them.

The current "small low-cost launchers" are nothing of the kind. They were quite innovative a few decades ago, but I would not recommend the average modern rocket to a start-up company wanting to specialize in launch vehicles.

If you want to start a new company, get a new product.

ftlwright · 2004-12-03 19:28:33

WRT to the triple barreled DeltaIV, there is no need to put them in a radially symmetric configuration - the linearly aligned booster provide more versatility. The weight of the payload will run axially along the fuel tank, where it should stay.

As for the altspace/big business argument; this is why I brought up the Pintle injection issue between TRW and SpaceX. SpaceX was able to get one of the lead engine designer from TRW to come over to SpaceX. This guys mainly works with Pintle injectors; which TRW claims to have the patent to. However, Pintle injectors were used on the SaturnV soooo... who is allowed to use them?

The best *business* case for the altSpace is to develop an IP portfolio and be bought out by one of the big guys. This is much more likely to happen than to every become a serious threat to the big guys.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-05 00:00:04

We started discussing mission plans in the thread "Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections?". I'll address mission plans here.

NASA's DRM versions 1, 2, and 3 called for 6 astronauts instead of 4. The link you provide calls for 8! DRM also calls for hauling propellant for the return trip all the way from Earth. I'm calling for the MAV to be the TEI stage so we can use ISPP for return all the way to Earth, only 4 crew, and a reusable ITV. I know we debated vehicle design before, but a self-launching ITV can be launched into LEO as a custom built launch vehicle the size of Mercury-Atlas. Add a single Delta IV Large to lift a http://www.astronautix.com/stages/timin … Timberwind TMI stage, and another Delta IV Large to lift the Mars descent capsule with surface habitat. A mini-MAKS/HL-20 crew taxi to deliver crew to the Mars vehicle. Upon return aerocapture into Earth orbit, and aerobrake down to ISS. Use the crew taxi to return astronauts. As an emergency backup, carry an http://www.astronautix.com/craft/alpeboat.htm]Alpha Lifeboat as an escape capsule. It's an enlarged Soyuz descent module capable of carrying 8 astronauts, or 4 astronauts and a lot of Mars samples. Use another Delta IV Large to launch the escape capsule. Assemble the whole thing at ISS. The MAV and cargo lander could each be launched on a Russian Energia with its EUS upper stage. That it: 2 Energia, 3 Delta IV Large, 1 self-launching, and 2 crew taxi.

A second mission wouldn't need to launch the ITV or escape capsule. Second mission: 2 Energia, 2 Delta IV Large, and 2 crew taxi.

The first mission cargo lander would include an inflatable laboratory, and pressurized rover. The descent module would be a Gemini-style capsule with inflatable surface habitat, ATV-style non-pressurized rover, pup-tent size pressure tent and suit supplies. The ATV could be used to carry astronauts to the MAV/laboratory, but a single astronaut could go on the ATV to bring back the larger pressurized rover. The larger rover could transport the entire inflatable habitat; envelope in one load, life support equipment in another load, etc. So if they didn't land too far from the MAV but close enough to transport it, they could still set-up a single base. In case they land really far, they could leave the hab behind. The inflatable lab would normally be supplied by the hab, but life support from the pressurized rover could supply it. That means the lab/rover provides a complete backup hab, and they will land beside the MAV before astronauts leave Earth orbit.

The second mission could send more science equipment instead of a pressurized rover and lab envelope. The second mission could also connect its hab with the left-over one from the first mission to provide a lot of indoor space.

I know there will be nationalists who don't want to use an Energia, but it is a way to get Russia to pay for part of the mission. If Russia pays for repair of building #112 at Baikonur, and the company KBKhA pays for tooling to restore RD-0120 to production, then the only concern is tanks for the core module. Those could be built at Michoud. Since Michoud currently produces the aluminum-lithium alloy external tank for Shuttle, we could consider upgrading Energia with Al-Li. We could use the Russian-developed alloy 1460 which doesn't include silver. That would be lower cost and not transfer any American technology to a Russian vehicle. Building it at Michoud would make Russia dependant on America for the Energia. Russia could pay for the Zenit boosters and RD-0120 engines; you guys can argue over whether America or Russia should pay for core module tanks. I think it would be ironic to get Russia to pay for tanks built at Michoud.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-05 13:03:12

Six should be the minimum crew size, if it takes 1-2 man days per day to maintain the vehicles, that only leaves two people to do anything else. An additional two crew, one centerd on lab/telerobotics and another for general near-base science would vastly increase the mission return for nominal additional cost.

Using the MAV as TEI stage is impractical, because the MAV would then be too big and too heavy to carry. The quantity of fuel required to get to Earth from LMO is one thing, the quantity of fuel (and engines & tankage) required to get THAT fuel into LMO is another.

As discussed before, the marginal bennefit of making a self-launching manned anything is zip compared to building a TransHab based vehicle and launching it on a standard booster.

Nor can the Delta-IV HLV carry enough LH2 and NTR engines for a reasonably sized Mars vehicle of any kind in a single flight in its current form. This stage and all required fuel must be launched within one month of Mars departure. Can Boeing launch multiple Deltas within a month of eachother?

The Alpha Lifeboat is too heavy to include too.

Construction at ISS will cause a signifigant payload penalty and the need to rendevous with it carefully, which will require a guidence system or at least a space tug to be developed.

Overall, too many launches by Delta-IV HLV, just use an additional HLLV shot instead and skip orbital assembly.

OSP crew taxi development will also add a great deal of cost to the whole operation and is not justifiable. If any crew access to the ISS at all is desired, CEV will be a better choice and would serve as the crew return vehicle for a Mars mission.

And inflatable lab is of dubious usefullness, since alot of the equipment volume may simply not fit in the uninflated volume.

Again, the pressurized rover must ride with the crew decent vehicle in the event of a missed landing unless accurate landing with high degree of confidance is demonstrated. A superlight "ATV" style rover with a pressure tent to fetch the pressurized rover to get the crew to the MAV? I don't think so... pup tent indeed... the poor astronaut would freeze to death even if he could get the thing closed. One of the whole points of having the rover with the lander is that there would be a second working LSS/power system as backup.

As far as using the big rover to move the HAB in multiple pieces, dismantling the HAB is impractical. The LSS system will not be easy to disconnect, nor will the food/water supplies easy to transfer, and the rest of the stuff (furnature, clothes/hygene, cooking equipment, etc) won't be practical either if the rover's airlock can't mate to the HAB. Tow it all in one piece, or not at all.

Until there is a massive change in the political climate, it is not reasonable to even think about Russia having control over key componets of the mission arcitecture, and even then Russia is very likly just going to stab NASA in the back again and wring as much money out of us as possible, like they did with the ISS componets. We will wind up paying for most of it anyway... forget Zenit and RD-0120, use STS SRB and RS-68R.

Edit: I think you have a mistaken concept of what "inflatable module" means Robert. TransHab is inflatable, but it can only roughly double its diameter, where the inside of the uninflated diamater is mostly structure and some equipment. More importantly, the walls are about a foot thick when deployed, and not some thin silly tent like material. They are called semi-rigid modules after all. The idea that you can pack an entire four-man Hab into the "trunk of a Mars Gemini" or an unpowerd "pup tent" on a "Mars ATV" is nonsense.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-12-02 06:10:58

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#52 2004-12-02 10:29:12

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#53 2004-12-02 10:33:41

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#54 2004-12-02 11:21:39

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#55 2004-12-02 11:50:04

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#56 2004-12-02 12:21:41

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#57 2004-12-02 13:17:52

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#58 2004-12-02 14:22:00

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#59 2004-12-02 14:26:08

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#60 2004-12-02 14:31:50

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#61 2004-12-02 14:50:28

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#62 2004-12-02 14:56:22

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#63 2004-12-02 14:59:46

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#64 2004-12-02 15:11:57

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#65 2004-12-02 15:15:42

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#66 2004-12-02 15:17:14

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#67 2004-12-02 15:24:09

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#68 2004-12-02 16:14:13

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#69 2004-12-02 16:15:15

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#70 2004-12-02 16:52:00

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#71 2004-12-02 17:26:27

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#72 2004-12-03 11:47:38

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#73 2004-12-03 19:28:33

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#74 2004-12-05 00:00:04

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#75 2004-12-05 13:03:12

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

Board footer