Spinning Space Station

Fledi · 2005-07-11 05:09:00

Fledi, you can transfer people and supplies via an orbit transfer vehicle from the rotating station to the ISS.

Of course you can, it's just that when both stations are in LEO and let's say the rotating one is in equatorial orbit you need more delta v to get to the ISS from there than to the Moon.

Grypd · 2005-07-11 16:13:30

There is that but the orbit for the ISS is to aid Russia actually it makes it bad for creating Lunar etc missions. A clean sheet space station is frankly better than any relationship to the white elephant that the ISS consists of.

Still for the best use of new space station a reliable reusable shuttle is needed that actually reduces cost to get people to the station and has a short turn around rate.

Martian Republic · 2005-07-11 20:40:30

I don't think you understood what I was saying Commodore and Martin_Tristar. I was using those Shuttle tanks as an example of what we would need too build a sufficiently big enough space station to get the size we need to build in rotating space station. Having twenty to thirty spent Shuttle tanks are virtually useless to us in space and may even be detrimental to us. That aluminum tank was not designed to be used like that and the insulation is of a temporary nature and it has a tendency to fall off even during launch. So our problem are such when it comes to using those tanks. De-coupling the tank from the shuttle before it make orbit to save the cargo weight, then you have not way to drag that tank into space. But, if you leave it together then you will loss something like 10 to 20 cargo weight of what the shuttle can carry into space by dragging that tank into space. Even if you go C Shuttle, you still going to have that weight loss even going one way. If you re-engineer those tanks for the purpose of using them as the foundation in a space station and redo the insulation and add anti-meteor penetration to those tanks along with radiation shielding they need too and you will have tank that are two or three times heavier than the current tanks are. Then you would still have to add the life support, power grid, etc, etc. So we are not just collecting twenty to thirty tanks from the Space shuttle or Cargo Shuttles or what have you. But, whether we go with the tank idea or go with carbon bag idea, we will still have to dedicate maybe twenty to thirty Cargo Shuttle with maybe two or three regular Shuttle launches to accomplish this mission and to get enough resources into space to build our rotating space station of sufficient size to do us any good. We can't remanufacture those tanks once they get into space, because we have nowhere to do it and even the ISS is not equipped to do it either and we don't have the work force nor the manufacturing facilities to do it either in space. So most of that work would have to be done down here which would greatly increase the price of those tanks and there weight too. There will be no free launch here when it come to getting our rotating space station, which by the way we really need to do what we want to do in space. We are not going to scrap some left over crap together and presto chango, we now have our rotating space station that we all are dreaming of. That is not going to happen. So we are not just talking about one to two billion dollars of left over tanks that we can use to build a space station. We are talking about ten to twenty billion dollars in a dedicated cost on launches just to transport our ratting space into space where we want it and another two to three regular shuttle launches for another two billion dollar cost to put our station together and man it. We still haven’t spent the money to build the stupid thing, which will be billions more or even tens of billions more to build it and have it in an unassembled form here on earth ready for launch.

Larry,

Martin_Tristar · 2005-07-12 00:51:07

Martian Republic,

I think we are talking about two different things, I am talking about the development of a earth - resourced rotating space station with components build on earth and launched into orbit.

I am talking about a rotating space station with a diameter of 120+ meters ( over 375 feet ) with storage facilities for excess spacecraft components, fuel and water for upwards of 100+ personnel.

But to build that station we need to develop the ground infrastructure for training personnel, (including the telerobotic teams for construction) to manage all the necessary resources in space and on earth.

We need new technology for building complete spacecraft automation systems and a complete flight simulation software that you can train and develop flight response management. New metal process and alloys will come through the next few years and increase the strength and light weight superstructure of the vehicles under development. The goal is to place humans in space permanently with a larger number of humans going into space month by month and year by year and working towards permanent settlements in orbit and on other planetary bodies.

Martian Republic · 2005-07-12 22:17:22

Martian Republic,
I think we are talking about two different things, I am talking about the development of a earth - resourced rotating space station with components build on earth and launched into orbit.
I am talking about a rotating space station with a diameter of 120+ meters ( over 375 feet ) with storage facilities for excess spacecraft components, fuel and water for upwards of 100+ personnel.
But to build that station we need to develop the ground infrastructure for training personnel, (including the telerobotic teams for construction) to manage all the necessary resources in space and on earth.
We need new technology for building complete spacecraft automation systems and a complete flight simulation software that you can train and develop flight response management. New metal process and alloys will come through the next few years and increase the strength and light weight superstructure of the vehicles under development. The goal is to place humans in space permanently with a larger number of humans going into space month by month and year by year and working towards permanent settlements in orbit and on other planetary bodies.

Ok, let do some arithmetic shall we?

You tell me you want it 120 meter in diameter or just over 375 feet in diameter. Since I'm more familiar with feet, let work our problem out in feet. Now this is our diameter but the circumference is going to be 375 * 3.14 or 995 feet on the outside circumference. Now we still don't have the square feet of the outside of our rotating space station. Let say we want our space station outside wheel with a 20 foot diameter and we find that by multiplying 20 * 3.14 or it come out to 62.8 feet. Now we find our outside surface size by multiplying the 995 feet by our 62.8 feet and we get 10,329 square feet of outside surface for our space station wheel as you describe it.

And this is just one of the many problems that your going to have to build that wheel too.

Larry,

srmeaney · 2005-07-12 22:54:50

I've Inquired a few years back with Spacehab...

Rounded half inch thick Kevlar plates would make up the exterior. They could be bolted to thick fiberglass T beams, some could be launched already assembled. Layers of polyethylene could be placed on the inside of the kevlar panels to help protect against radiation and solar particles. Maybe invent some kind of spray foam polyethylene?

Plates are not the option for Balistic particle armor The new quest is a gel (fine 0.1 micron particles) encased in what is essentially a self repairing foil memory metal. This would take that kinetic energy and disperse it through the gel. The hole would repair behind it.

dicktice · 2005-07-13 10:36:06

Please: The ridgid-spoked wheel went out with the horse and buggy, to be taken over by the wire-spoked pneumatically-tired wheel. Nothing has been invented to improve upon the spoked-wheel principle for (1) optimumal mass utilization (2) structural rigidity (3) centripetal strength and (4) fail-safe redundancy. Using that as an analogue for your spinning space station structure: Start by stringing together a number of elongated self-sealing inflatable habitats like sausages, form an integral ring of the string by connecting the ends together, tie the joins between each bicycle-spokewise to a rigid hub, run access cars between the hub and habitats along the spokes, and then spin the resulting wheel up to speed for one-gee centrifugal habitat force. Finally, build your rigid station shell piece by opposing piece around the inflatibles like an inner-tubed tire. A gradually expanding crews' living volume as the station construction progresses would be inherent in this scheme.

dicktice · 2005-07-13 18:09:36

Oh, I forgot: Vectored, differential thrusters acting on the hub (the equivalent of a joystick, instead of handlebars, on a bike) to cause precession-induced spin axis shifts could be the means of maintaining the plane of rotation of the spinning space station constant, with respect to the Sun, all year round.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-07-14 04:46:08

Martian Republic ,

Yes many issues are involved to create a large scale rotating space station and a stablizing central section that will act as the zero gravity manufacturing facility. and can also provide additional solar panel support structures increasing the power output. We need to provide docking facilities for incoming spacecrafts and also a space hub for transfer vehciles to take personnel to their individual platforms in orbit ( such as Space Island Group).

Information systems that control the environment, rotating , orbital position, and still have all other information, entertainment and communication facilities on an individual basis to every part of the living space and work space.

But the long term approach for space and the expansion of space requires a facility for humans to live and work in space, the first possible micro-colony in orbit. Working towards a Large colony at the L points ( between earth - moon ), To help expand the Earth and Lunar development facilities and the Lunar Bases. Again these expansion are required for the human race to expand out from this planet and continue the advancement of our knowledge and could the expand our horizons.

Martian Republic · 2005-07-14 19:29:20

Martin_Tristar

I'm not disagreeing with you that we need that rotating space station at the L1 and/or L4 and/or equator at about the height of the current ISS or possibly a little higher. We could probably use another one around Mars too to facilitate a colonization program too and act as a depot for space travelers going between the Earth, Moon and Mars. So I'm not disputing the need or the desire to put one or more rotating space station in space. What I'm am saying is, having to deal with the gravity well or the Earth, it not practical to do that. Even with new technologies, we are still going to have to send up too much stuff to make it a viable option. Since the Shuttle and it throw is currently the biggest thing we got and using that as our base line and even discarding the shuttle and making a C Shuttle out of the stack, we still are going to have to launch thirty or more C Shuttle to come anywhere near being able to have enough stuff in space to make a viable rotating space we need. As far as being able to maintain 100+ people on a rotating space Station even the current generation of shuttle could not do that even.

Now I'm not trying to get you to come off your dream of having a rotating station in orbit. But, if we start from the earth to build a huge rotating station like that, the logistic of trying to put one together and maintaining it would pretty much doom it to happening. Whether or not we need a space station to get to Mars for an Apollo type mission of about three is open to debate. Now any serious effort to Colonize Mars that doesn't have one or more large rotating space station would doom any serious effort to colonize Mars, because of the logistic factor. So any serious effort to build a big rotating space station that can support hundreds or even thousand or even tens of thousands of people, it will have to be manufactured in either space or possibly the moon and then assemble where we need a rotating space station. What I'm saying is, we need to figure out how to setup a manufacturing facilities in space and/or the moon to build and maintain our rotating space station.

Let me give you an example: When Europe colonized the Americas, they didn't bring everything from Europe to build there settlements. They did not ship tree's for lumber from Europe nor did they ship the food from Europe year after year, but grew there own food here in America. Unless we can figure out how to solve these problem and many more, then our rotating space is probably a dead issue on logistic of trying to get the resource to build it and maintaining it too. The ISS consume a lot of resources just to keep it in orbit and a crew of only 2 or 3 people on it all the time. When you start talking a 100 people or more, then you can up the ante up by 30 to 50 time as much as just having 2 or 3 people in space and maintaining there presence in space.

Now if we are serious about becoming a real space faring Nation or even a space faring planet, we need to address these issues or it will never happen.

Larry,

Martin_Tristar · 2005-07-14 21:30:58

Martian Republic,

I understand what you are saying, yes it is a large undertaking, but we need to look at large scale developments in a different light to the existing small scall developments we have built before. We need to work on the new principles around the development of these projects :

1. Everything must be recyclable launched from earth into space.

2. Cost Reduction Management MUST be used in every process.

3. High Quality and Reliablility Standards MUST ensure crew safety and security in the space environment.

4. All projects must be multiple mission approached ( including multiple single route missions like earth to moon and back or earth to outer planets and back dropping droids / satellites / probes in different locations.)

We don't use these principles right now, and that is why we use prototypes in 80% of the work in space and that is why the budgets for these projects are high and costly. We are going into space for the future and we need to start creating equipment, robotic systems, and spacecrafts that are developed on assembly type facilities and are the same designs for large series of missions ( 20+ years ) or can be upgraded with limited costs ( modular spacecraft designs )

These are some of the issues that face the issues in building a rotating space station because we don't follow a methodology for large scale space developments and creation of a human society in space across planetary bodies and orbiting space settlements, because we are many different peoples in one world not one human race on one world we haven't got the drive to go into space as one race only a few people across the world want to go into space and fewer want to stay there permanently.

SpaceNut · 2005-07-15 04:48:17

Martin_Tristar, each of the steps that you have described, if put into practice could have already allowed for the ISS to have become more than it is.
We have over the last decade had many a progress ship that could have been re-used to create that ship to which would have gotten us to the moon or to Mars already.

Martian Republic · 2005-07-15 17:46:56

Martin_Tristar,

I understand the principle of recycling things in space. But, your going to have to get a sufficient amount of resource into space to begin with, because you have to have something to recycle or otherwise claiming that your going recycle something is a worthless claim.

I understand the principle of developing new technologies to do something. But, the new technologies don’t create resource in the L1 spot if there nothing to use your new technology on.

I understand that will have to use robotics or at least it will be helpful to build our rotating space station. But, we still need the resources there where there are non and robots don’t create resources where are non.

I also understand the need to have a rotating space station of sufficient size too.

I also know that we can't keep breaking our ring and like adding another wagon in a wagon train to our to our circle, because at some point we are going to have to solidify our ring so we can spin it to get our one G load for our artificial gravity. So at some point we are going to have to limit the size of our space station or forever not be able to spin our space station because we don't have a solid ring that can take one G load.

So how many acres does it take to feed one person and we have had this discussion before too. About 2 to 3 acres of land. So if we have 100 people in space, then we need 200 to 300 hundred acres of land to feed them. That means your going to have to enclose an area of 200 to 300 acres of eight to ten feet in height to be able to grow enough food for everybody in your space station or you have to be supplied from Earth for most of your food. That just so you can eat and do nothing else.

You still have not told me how your going to deal with this problem and it has to be answered if we are going to do what you want to do. Remember there is nothing up there in the way of resources that you can use that is within the boundaries from which this discussion is revolving around.

I’m not even against building large infrastructures in space either. You remember I proposed that build a city on Mars of 100 thousand people and do it in a forty to fifty years. It Great to have an Idea like that, but you have to have a way to make it happen too. For the time being, we are going to have to bypass this idea of building a large rotating space station in Earth Orbit and go with small space station like the ISS or two habitats on a long pole to generate artificial gravity. Once we get to the Moon or the Asteroids and can gleam some resources out there and can bring it back to Earth Orbit, then we might revisit this large rotating space station when we have the resources to commit to building it. Or otherwise we are just wasting our time discussing it, because we have no way to bring it about.

Larry,

dicktice · 2005-07-15 19:25:52

Referring again back to the 2001/Odyssey film: It showed a partially completed additional ring being constructed axially along with the completed ring, signifying growth along the spin axis.

TwinBeam · 2005-07-15 20:30:34

Hate to be a downer, but what would such a station really be good for? How is it any more useful than the current space station? So what if people can stay up there longer - what will they accomplish that will be worth the cost?

We don't need it as a way station - we aren't currently going anywhere, and when we do, it looks like the plan is to send people into orbit, rendezvous with another ship launched from Earth, and go on. It'll be a long time before there's enough traffic to need a lay-over spot for people to catch the next lunar shuttle (as in the movie 2001, BTW).

I don't think it's any easier to get to a station than it is to get to orbit in the first place, as someone seemed to be arguing.

If we were going to build stuff in space, it might make sense as housing for construction workers - but given the cost of getting and keeping workers up there, and the fact that we'll have to ship up all the raw materials anyhow for some time to come, the economics seem to favor building stuff on earth.

Repair work might make sense, if there were sufficient volume of demand. I figure a rotating station is going to cost around $150B at least (current station is now aiming for $95B,I think?). You can build and launch a lot of replacement satellites for that much money, or even fly repair missions from Earth. Note that it looks like building and launching a replacement for Hubble will be cheaper than going up to fix it.

The sooner we get some real productive infrastructure in space - mining raw materials so we don't have to ship as much mass up from Earth - the sooner we'll have a use for something like this. So why not focus on the former first?

Martin_Tristar · 2005-07-16 00:18:07

TwinBeam,

People can't stay in space for long periods of time because it effects the body chemistry with long term problems for the crews. We need a stable and gravity assisted space station for people to live, and rest from the extended missions onboard the zero gravity platforms. Currently the private sector are looking into placing their own space platforms in orbit to do research and develop in products / services to their marketplace / industry and client base.

To improve the general industrial use of space the crews need to be posted in space for years not days / weeks/ or months, that is why the rotating space station would provide the benefit and also could lease the accommodation space to these platform users.

This station would provide the permanent gateway for private and governmental interests to the lunar surface open to all, It could also be used to help establish other platforms and spacecraft facilities and also lunar transfer systems to move into development of lunar bases and mining facilities for the surface.

Inclusion - We need this type of space station for the long term development of space for human society and eventually understand gravity thus reduce the need for spinning stations but until then we need these stations for near future in our space expansion.

TwinBeam · 2005-07-16 03:46:37

Sorry, but all the things you list sound like you're getting the cart before the horse.

Even if there were some reason to have people staying in space for a long period of time - and given the limited value of work done on the space station, I'm not sure what would be valuable enough to warrant that at this point - it still doesn't make economic sense to build the rotating station until you actually have some of those people actually doing those things - and even then, it's questionable whether the added cost is worthwhile.

This sounds like yet another white elephant space project - we'd get it built half-way, and realize it has no significant value yet because the things we imagined it doing rely on a context that is still out in the future.

Why not put all that effort and money into a lunar base? Unlike a space station, there's matter already there to process and make things out of, and unlike Earth, it's quite affordable to get it from the moon into orbit. It's even got some gravity, so no need to spin it! :-)

Dook · 2005-07-16 05:24:49

I agree with Twinbeam.

Most of my frustration is that we didn't build this spinning station to begin with. The ISS is just a waste.

srmeaney · 2005-07-16 05:43:21

Build a real Space Station: Oneil Cylinder; 1,000,000 tonnes of Steel/ HLLV max capacity 100 tonnes= 10,000 launches to orbit material.

10,000/ (weekly launch without fail*50 weeks per year)= 200 years to orbit material.

Robots assemble it...
Population support: 10,000

So we launch daily 7 days/week.
10,000/350 days=28.58 years

Round that up to thirty years for a full fit out.

This is the same amount of time we could build an underground city on the Moon for ten thousand people
With all the support systems (hydroponics, reactor, ect). Except that the cost is totally different.

a billion dollars to launch the shuttle, so we double it and put this thing at L4 between the Earth and the Moon.

Oneil Cylinder
Mass: 1,000,000 tonnes
Construction Timeframe: 30 Years
Life Support Capacity: 10,000 people
Cost: 20 thousand billion dollars

Grypd · 2005-07-16 06:11:55

But we are not building an O'Neil cylinder, nor is there a need to either. What is being considered here is a VonBraun type cylinder at the worst or a collection of module habitats forming a circle then spun.

A lot less complicated than the O'Neill space habitation system and also frankly a lot smaller.

O'Neills plan can only work if there is an incredible industrial capacity on the Moon from the mining up to mass drivers and a large permanent power supply system. Then it would need a means to manufacture items in space and to then build them

srmeaney · 2005-07-16 08:04:59

Fine, One Vonbraun Cylinder

To retain the same population capacity, it will be identical in cost, timeframe, launch rate, except the mass is now used to shield against radiation, space debris, ect.

Mass: 1,000,000 tonnes
Construction Timeframe: 30 Years
Life Support Capacity: 10,000 people
Cost: 20 thousand billion dollars

Population density changes from Ocean liner to nuclear Submarine (living quarters goes from one person in a cabin eight cubic meters to six people birthed on two, three-tier bunks occupying sleeping quarters of eight cubic meters).

This is critical to maintain the space needed for food production and light industry. Personal space will be sacrificed to ensure population sustainment.

Food production will be entirely industrial. Dairy, Meat, Grains, and Fruit will be imported daily at the same launch rate and mass it took to build. Aquaculture Apiculture and Hydroponics, protien rich snail-algae-fish-bean curd-honey paste are produceable onboard with a few hydroponic plants fish and Bees.
We will require flowering plants to produce the nectar that the bees require and the little guys require radiation shielding that is better than humans need.

Grypd · 2005-07-16 10:17:10

But why are we needing a population of 10,000 people in LEO at the moment there is no such need.

You are getting two mission architectures completely confused. The O'Neill or stanford torus to give its proper name was to create a thriving mass human civilisation in L5 or L4. It is a colonisation plan and is still advocated by the L5 society today. Another point is that it was not to be the first design that was to be created but actually was one of the end designs.

A VonBraun Cylinder is a lot smaller and is more equivalent to a working camp and it was to allow the US to access space and avoid the problems of long term exposure to zero g. It was designed to be easy to build and was never made for holding anything like a population above 250.

Needless to say a population of 250 is a lot more than we need but the design of the station (note not a colony) allows for a long term prescence in space and was designed to be built as needed and damaged/out of date modules replaced as needed and in this it is better than that white elephant that is the ISS.

RobS · 2005-07-16 12:14:58

srmeaney and others, if you want to discuss building a really large station at a lagrange point, you need to read *Space Settlements: A Design Study* (NASA SP-413) first. It was published in 1976. I have a copy in my library and it is probably available used over the web. It proposes a settlement of 10,000 people at the L4 point. It details the mass needed, the interior volume, the layout, the source of raw materials (a mass driver on the moon; much cheaper than launching from Earth), etc. It's 180 pages long, very detailed, and very readable. Nice pictures, too. The mass of the torus and internal structures (buildings) was 500,000 tonnes. The slag from metal extraction, some 10 million tonnes launched from the moon, served as radiation shielding. The economic product of the colony was large solar power satellites in geosynchronous orbit.

By the way, the colony needed 50 square meters per person for agriculture, not 2-3 acres.

-- RobS

dicktice · 2005-07-16 17:09:24

A spinning space station is without a doubt a Way Station, needed as a place to recover from long term construction jobs elsewhere in LEO, without having to return to Earth for rest and recouperation.

srmeaney · 2005-07-16 18:55:07

srmeaney and others, if you want to discuss building a really large station at a lagrange point, you need to read *Space Settlements: A Design Study* (NASA SP-413) first. It was published in 1976. I have a copy in my library and it is probably available used over the web. It proposes a settlement of 10,000 people at the L4 point. It details the mass needed, the interior volume, the layout, the source of raw materials (a mass driver on the moon; much cheaper than launching from Earth), etc. It's 180 pages long, very detailed, and very readable. Nice pictures, too. The mass of the torus and internal structures (buildings) was 500,000 tonnes. The slag from metal extraction, some 10 million tonnes launched from the moon, served as radiation shielding. The economic product of the colony was large solar power satellites in geosynchronous orbit.
By the way, the colony needed 50 square meters per person for agriculture, not 2-3 acres.
-- RobS

I think its great you have the 1977 NASA report (NASA SP-413). However, the proposed design, i assume its the one that shows a cut away with appartment blocks for living quarters.

To produce an abundance of food in a limited supply of cubic meters, the population density needs to be a lot tighter.

Gryph is asking, why have that many people in a space settlement?

But why are we needing a population of 10,000 people in LEO at the moment there is no such need.
You are getting two mission architectures completely confused. The O'Neill or stanford torus to give its proper name was to create a thriving mass human civilisation in L5 or L4. It is a colonisation plan and is still advocated by the L5 society today. Another point is that it was not to be the first design that was to be created but actually was one of the end designs.
A VonBraun Cylinder is a lot smaller and is more equivalent to a working camp and it was to allow the US to access space and avoid the problems of long term exposure to zero g. It was designed to be easy to build and was never made for holding anything like a population above 250.
Needless to say a population of 250 is a lot more than we need but the design of the station (note not a colony) allows for a long term prescence in space and was designed to be built as needed and damaged/out of date modules replaced as needed and in this it is better than that white elephant that is the ISS.

Because while a spacefaring civilization that takes in NASA only, might require a station for 250 people, The ability to colonize space will require Space settlements capable of both large population support and movement. These things will be the passengerships that move huge amounts of people and produce between the planets.
Colonizing Mars to it's full capacity requires that we have a transitional population capacity of ten thousand people. An 'orbital ship yard' as Gryphd is proposing with the 250 crew station can assemble a torus settlement or even a real cylinder (no curve) while providing itself as a waystation to the Moon.
However, it is better if the population is purely tourist in this matter. Once the sleeve is constructed and is entirely robotic in its ability to assemble larger things, you only need a small "Spider-like" habitat that can move about the framework and allow Humans to fix things that the robots cannot-that is essentialy a population of ten and a stationary habitat for an earth-moon stop over population of a hundred-two hundred and fifty attatched to a torus of a framework where robots assemble big spaceships and colonies. This robotic assembly/maintenance sleeve is critical for the well being of a space settlement.

This is the necessary next step in the Colonization of Space and other worlds It is also where they should have gone with the progress and purpose of the ISS.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-07-11 05:09:00

Re: Spinning Space Station

#27 2005-07-11 16:13:30

Re: Spinning Space Station

#28 2005-07-11 20:40:30

Re: Spinning Space Station

#29 2005-07-12 00:51:07

Re: Spinning Space Station

#30 2005-07-12 22:17:22

Re: Spinning Space Station

#31 2005-07-12 22:54:50

Re: Spinning Space Station

#32 2005-07-13 10:36:06

Re: Spinning Space Station

#33 2005-07-13 18:09:36

Re: Spinning Space Station

#34 2005-07-14 04:46:08

Re: Spinning Space Station

#35 2005-07-14 19:29:20

Re: Spinning Space Station

#36 2005-07-14 21:30:58

Re: Spinning Space Station

#37 2005-07-15 04:48:17

Re: Spinning Space Station

#38 2005-07-15 17:46:56

Re: Spinning Space Station

#39 2005-07-15 19:25:52

Re: Spinning Space Station

#40 2005-07-15 20:30:34

Re: Spinning Space Station

#41 2005-07-16 00:18:07

Re: Spinning Space Station

#42 2005-07-16 03:46:37

Re: Spinning Space Station

#43 2005-07-16 05:24:49

Re: Spinning Space Station

#44 2005-07-16 05:43:21

Re: Spinning Space Station

#45 2005-07-16 06:11:55

Re: Spinning Space Station

#46 2005-07-16 08:04:59

Re: Spinning Space Station

#47 2005-07-16 10:17:10

Re: Spinning Space Station

#48 2005-07-16 12:14:58

Re: Spinning Space Station

#49 2005-07-16 17:09:24

Re: Spinning Space Station

#50 2005-07-16 18:55:07

Re: Spinning Space Station

Board footer