NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

SpaceNut · 2005-04-29 05:19:50

Calmguy : Fire the incompetent characterless, uninspired, hopefull O'keefe! I cannot stand his superficial optimism any longer! NASA needs a leader who is not afraid of the truth; or someone atleast acquainted with common-sense.

Well not quite a year but close and the captian of the titanic has left the building. The new captain is Griffin who at this time is shaking things up a bit.

Yes the magical $229 Billion is ridiculous number. So the Apollo era dollars were $24 billion in 1969 is equivalent to $122 billion spent in 2004. Even at not quite half the original magical number it sure is alot more palitable. But Nasa must change just because we say you could have that much money to work with does not mean that we want you to spend it all.

Yes the magical number did include the aeronautical, robotic, basic science etc but it would appear that those in power have decided that we can cut them.

deagleninja : Calmguy, we are staying on the subject. Unfortunately, NASA's biggest problem, launch costs, can't be fixed at the moment. As many have stated, NASA buys its rockets from Boeing and Lockheed at inflated prices and they can't buy the much cheaper Soyuz because of legal matters and contracts with Boeing/Lock.

So the secret is out. Lets then not sign anymore of these inflated contracts.

RobS : Why do you say a moon base with industrial capability is a better goal? You're talking about lifting hundreds or thousands of tonnes of equipment, ....

I think that you are right but it is the cost of going for it that will scare those funding Nasa completely away.

We need to say one thing but internally within Nasa you must plan to go for the gusto or brass ring and try to get to the point of a small colony or base.

Darkstar : Is it possible to build a giant spacecraft assembled on Earth with everything needed for a 10 year mission to Mars?

Wow a 10 year mission, I think a little bit beyound the human bodies capability if we are coming back to Earth at the end of such a mission. Sure a ship could be built but at what cost. ??? No the ship does not need to be a complete unit that exists for the full term. Pieces could be sent as needed to extend the existance of crews mission would do.

Yes we do need nuclear energy but not necessarily for the engines to get us there faster. Going slowly is not all that bad just means better planning for contingencies if they should arise.

Palomar · 2005-04-29 05:46:20

I am calling on all the best minds on this forum to think real hard because I am serious about colonizing Mars I too am tired of NASA wasting valuable time.

*I, too, am serious about going to Mars and am a member of the MS for 3 years.

But is NASA a servant to the Mars Society? As far as I'm aware, no. Mars doesn't, unfortunately, seem to be very high up on NASA's agenda. In fact, as far as NASA is concerned, isn't it in 2nd place as manned destinations go?

NASA apparently doesn't consider itself as wasting valuable time. The next question, then, is: What now?

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-04-29 06:11:46

*There's another issue in this as well, which NASA can't be faulted for IMO: Look at how popular threads devoted to going back to the Moon first are, even here at New Mars.

It genuinely surprised me that some folks, who I thought were primarily interested in going to *Mars*, seemed all too eager to throw that over in favor of going back to Luna first, after Pres. Bush announced his "space initiative" last year.

Any which way the wind blows, I guess. :-\

NASA isn't interested in going to Mars first, lots of space-exploration enthusiasts seem not to care (the Moon is fine with them)...

::sigh::

NASA can't take the blame entirely on the to-Mars situation, especially as plenty of space enthusiasts seem more than happy to put Mars on the back burner, in favor of Luna.

--Cindy

Martian Republic · 2005-04-29 10:42:14

Is it possible to build a giant spacecraft assembled on Earth with everything needed for a 10 year mission to Mars? I know that sounds unbelievable but someone has to know on this forum that we can build it. What type of technology do we currently possess that could accomplish this task? We need something similar to the external fuel pods on the outside of the space shuttle that are discarded once were in orbit. We just enough power to get the craft up into space then its real power system would kick in once it got a safe distance from earth. I propose something to do with nuclear power could a giant fusion reactor be sufficient to get the giant spacecraft to Mars? When it got to Mars it needs to be able to land fully intact is that also possible and how would that mission succeed. I am calling on all the best minds on this forum to think real hard because I am serious about colonizing Mars I too am tired of NASA wasting valuable time. Please if possible don't use the same system NASA uses to estimate the cost. We won't be using expensive contractors to build this spacecraft but the cheapest and safest that we can find.

In response to your hug Martian Rocket.

First question, Earth launch.

As far as one big rocket from earth, that would be virtually impossible. If we go with a chemical rocket, it would dorf any kind of rocket that we currently have and that includes the space shuttle, Apollo and most of the rest of the heavy launch vehicles that we have or possibly have on the drawing board. So chemical rockets are out of the picture for a one piece rocket. So you would whined up launching two to four launches using chemical rockets at hundred million dollar a launch or more. If you still wanted to go with a ground launch one piece rocket, you would have to go nuclear and then you would have a radiation problem to deal with. So launching a one piece either acceptable or a viable possibility to do with current technology.

Your second question is fusion rockets to Mars.

There currently are no fusion energy plants on Earth or fusion engines. They have not been fully development as either an electric power or fusion engine as of today. There are still working out the details of how to make them work properly and as a replacement for fission energy. But, depending on what they develop and what kinds of new technologies they develop to bring nuclear fusion on line as both an electric power station and as nuclear fusion engines, it may be possible to get to Mars in week or so. But, with current fission engine, it would be about five to six months.

Your third question is the landing process on Mars.

You could probably land most of your ship on Mars, but you would have to drop the nuclear engine of in the Martian orbit, because you don't want to be sitting over that spent fuel when you exit the space ship. Chances of you getting something that big back up again into a Martian orbit are unlikely, because it so big. so if you wanted to go back to earth, you would probably have to have a return shuttle with you and another large ship in space for the return trip.

The bigness of this job, is why you don’t see too many people taking up the project to go to Mars. It going to be in the ten billion dollars range or higher to be able to accomplish something like this and that includes private sector and individuals too.

Larry,

Grypd · 2005-04-29 16:17:43

*There's another issue in this as well, which NASA can't be faulted for IMO: Look at how popular threads devoted to going back to the Moon first are, even here at New Mars.
It genuinely surprised me that some folks, who I thought were primarily interested in going to *Mars*, seemed all too eager to throw that over in favor of going back to Luna first, after Pres. Bush announced his "space initiative" last year.
Any which way the wind blows, I guess. :-\
NASA isn't interested in going to Mars first, lots of space-exploration enthusiasts seem not to care (the Moon is fine with them)...
::sigh::
NASA can't take the blame entirely on the to-Mars situation, especially as plenty of space enthusiasts seem more than happy to put Mars on the back burner, in favor of Luna.
--Cindy

I quess you could call me one of these people who have wanted to go to the Moon again and stay. But I have always wanted to get to Mars as well but with each year this goal has gone further and further away. With both destinations seemingly off everyones agenda except as we will do it sometime, maybe.

I honestly believe that for mankind to have the ability to go to Mars and not just like the apollo programme F&F but to stay we need to have a very large infrastructure in space. We have already seen what happens when we try to send it from Earth and the result the ISS white elephant. So this means we need to use the Moon to build what we need and to put a permanent prescence up there.

And yes I was excited by the Bush space exploration initiative. It seemed to be the first time in the last decade that movement seems to be happening. I know it will be hard and some very valuable programmes will be hurt to pay for it but it is the best chance we have to put the space infrastructure in space to keep a permanent prescence that increases each year.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-04-30 04:22:54

Darkstar,

It depends on the infrastructure in low earth orbit and on ground stations to build a large vessel for mars missions. We could assemble a ship from new components and recycling other ship components from other missions and engine assemblies as well.

We could launch manned and unmanned vessels together in a convoy or fleet ( " The first martian fleet " ) that would bring all necessary supplies including vehicles for an outpost setup for martian surface. The fleet could be used and reused over and over again to make the voyage between earth and mars.

It comes down to planning !!!!!!!!!!

Fledi · 2005-04-30 09:05:52

Going for ten years without any resupply seems to be quite risky to me. There will be unforeseen things happening almost certainly in such a long timeframe.
Building a big ship is a good idea because of better engines/ nuclear power/ better radiation protection.
For moon, you need a completely different approach IMHO, with more reusable ships that fly between LEO and the lunar surface. This is because of the much smaller timeframe for Earth-Moon travel and a very high frequency of launch windows.

But I can't say it often enough, building a cheap Earth-LEO infrastructure is the key for every long-term colonization effort.

MarsDog · 2005-04-30 12:23:21

But I can't say it often enough, building a cheap Earth-LEO infrastructure is the key for every long-term colonization effort.

Yes, mass production to bring the price down. Several nations are expressing an interest in the Moon. Just think if an Axis of Evil nation sent a man to the Moon. North Korea or Iran, to demonstrate their ability to strike anywhere on Earth. All of a sudden, military budgets would have a large space component.

Commodore · 2005-04-30 18:06:13

But I can't say it often enough, building a cheap Earth-LEO infrastructure is the key for every long-term colonization effort.
Yes, mass production to bring the price down. Several nations are expressing an interest in the Moon. Just think if an Axis of Evil nation sent a man to the Moon. North Korea or Iran, to demonstrate their ability to strike anywhere on Earth. All of a sudden, military budgets would have a large space component.

You don't have to imagine. China is coming.

MarsDog · 2005-04-30 18:31:04

You don't have to imagine. China is coming.

Watching Rifkin Flat Earth book promotion interview
(no special advantage to US in global economy);

Apollo Moon era scientists are retireing and US will have to import large number of scientists, or fall behind.

Parents used to scare kids into eating by telling of starving children.
Now it is, better do your math and science,
because children outside US are starving for your future job.

Inefficient energy use will doom US.
(gallon of gas is $6 in Europe)

Vir Stellae · 2005-04-30 18:52:14

uhhh..... 229/16 = 14.3
and wasnt Nasa's 2005 budget around $16b? add to that if the budget rises with the economy (GDP) that should make a budget of about $35 billion a year in 2021 from a ~$30 Trillion economy...

MarsDog · 2005-05-01 06:17:45

Going for ten years without any resupply seems to be quite risky to me. There will be unforeseen things happening almost certainly in such a long timeframe.
Building a big ship is a good idea because of better engines/ nuclear power/ better radiation protection.
For moon, you need a completely different approach IMHO, with more reusable ships that fly between LEO and the lunar surface. This is because of the much smaller timeframe for Earth-Moon travel and a very high frequency of launch windows.
But I can't say it often enough, building a cheap Earth-LEO infrastructure is the key for every long-term colonization effort.

Good insight, contrasting Moon and Mars human transportation approaches.
For expendible rovers this does not apply.

For the Moon, small quickly designed missions are possible, help is nearby.

For Mars, redundat systems have to be included, without the expectation of help or resupply. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonn1952.htm]What is astonishing is that Von Braun's scenario is still valid today.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-05-01 20:08:21

*There's another issue in this as well, which NASA can't be faulted for IMO: Look at how popular threads devoted to going back to the Moon first are, even here at New Mars.
It genuinely surprised me that some folks, who I thought were primarily interested in going to *Mars*, seemed all too eager to throw that over in favor of going back to Luna first, after Pres. Bush announced his "space initiative" last year.
Any which way the wind blows, I guess. :-\
NASA isn't interested in going to Mars first, lots of space-exploration enthusiasts seem not to care (the Moon is fine with them)...
::sigh::
NASA can't take the blame entirely on the to-Mars situation, especially as plenty of space enthusiasts seem more than happy to put Mars on the back burner, in favor of Luna.
--Cindy

Cindy, I share your frustration. I think the truth is everyone was rooting for Mars, but when Bush made his speech, and surprised everyone with his Moon goal, we all had to adapt. I mean, at the time it looked like it was either a return to the moon or LEO forever. And now here we all are, trying desperately to convince ourselves that a return to the moon will be okay... Scrambling for reasons and justification.

Damnit! It so frustrating: Why didn't Bush just say 'Mars by 2020'. It would have made so much sense; The MER Rovers had just landed, there was a lot of excitement in the media about a humans to Mars program (Bush's father, afterall, had asked for it back in 1989).

Why oh why...

And now it looks as though a renewed lunar program will significantly delay, or may even kill altogether, a humans to Mars program. As opposed to helping us on the way, as was Bush's real intention.

But Griffin, a common-sense engineer, is in the seat now. So maybe things will change for the better. We'll just have to wait and see.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-02 00:58:58

Michael,

The main reason to go back to the moon is that the CEV must be testing with missions close to earth so we can help if required. The public is a mean beast, if they don't see positive results they will urge to scrap things. The only way to win for Mars Missions is to expand slowly into space and make society feel this is permanent movement into space and then increased funding will come from success after success.

We need the testing ground for colonization tools such as virtual robotic control systems and the various of different machines that could be used in the development process including mining machines. All need to be tested in a non-earth environment with low gravity like Mars. We also need the development of a space economy to grow from earth and travel across the solar system.

More and More research is required for space settlement and colonization. A off-world communication system would also provide additional support infrastructure for future explorer and settlement missions for mars and beyond. More systems, infrastructure, training and support systems will be invented and used on the lunar surface before we go to the mars and beyond in a meaningful way except with small / micro missions.

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-02 02:33:23

The main reason to go back to the moon is that the CEV must be testing with missions close to earth so we can help if required.

That's entirely true. However...

Why set up a totally different infrastructure for the Moon? Bases, specialised equipment, etc.

At best we could test the equipment for a Mars mission on the Moon with short 3 month missions to shake out the bugs. Everything else can be done here (and in some case is being done here) - otherwise the Moon is a waste of time for going to Mars.

I'll be posting something that says that and explains it better shortly.

Later... after about 10 good missions to Mars (and perhaps the start of a colony)... we can putz around on the Moon again. But colonial structures there will be expensive and wasteful.

Btw... for those worried about China, Iran, India, Japan, or Europe - I want to see any of them get out of LEO (or to LEO) before I worry about that - which won't be for several decades at least.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-02 05:08:42

A simple 3 month mission for moon are in away to short to simulate what is needed for Mars. I look at what it takes just to keep going with the ISS and it needs constant resupply less than every 6 month not to mention things are constantly breaking down.

So unless you are testing the actual pieces of a mars implimentation for extended mars timeframes while going to the moon it is just then sizing of the items for the moon with marginal working mars designs at best.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-07-16 14:44:56

Calmguy, we are staying on the subject. Unfortunately, NASA's biggest problem, launch costs, can't be fixed at the moment. As many have stated, NASA buys its rockets from Boeing and Lockheed at inflated prices and they can't buy the much cheaper Soyuz because of legal matters and contracts with Boeing/Lock.
What does look promising is that the private sector is about to offer cheaper altenatives to small payload launches. NASA can take advantage of this and hopefully something similar to the Titan can be developed in 10 years at a fraction of the cost. As many have stated though, demand drives down costs and since NASA is still ordering Titans as they need them, the cost hasn't dropped significantly.
A better goal than Plan Bush, would have been creating a base on the Moon with the purpose of developing it's resources to build rockets on site. This would have given NASA a clear goal to strive for while developing needed infastructure in a launch friendly environment.
It took a Saturn V to get people to the Moon, but only the dinky lander to return them.

NASA did fantastic during Apollo and Russia did great by putting the first man in Space and sending robotic rovers to the Moon. Chinese have thier own Space plans and some say China is looking to find a real big business on the Moon, through detection of minerals and plans for a future base. Some start to ask questions about a new guy like Griffin because NASA has maintained a huge administration and bureaucracy that can burden down current projects, get newer designs axed and weigh on current NASA budgets.

NASA's budget is about $15 Billion dollars, some say there will be an increase NASA's budget by 5% per anum others say the cost of going to Mars will be much higher. Some American newspapers have already said that as cost of Iraq rise and Oil prices soar the budget can’t handle another billion for NASA. Bush said let's go to the Moon and Mars but NASA had told the American people most of the requested $866 million budget increase for 2005 would be used to get the shuttles back in the air. This is America's MTV, cell phone fast-food, laptops playstation and rave and Rap-rusic generation, the bulk of the public is as nonplussed over the prospect of going to Mars as it is about returning to the Moon and the apathy for human spaceflight has increased. President Bush had a new order that NASA redirect its energies toward human exploration of the Moon and Mars, after this the space agency has drastically shifted its scientific priorities, delaying missions and cutting the projected budgets of programs that it does not perceive as related to the Mars/Moon exploration.

Before this Bush Senior asked NASA for an estimate to go straight to Mars and received the ridiculous estimate. House-Senate conference committee has hammered out a budget resolution that endorses President Bush's visionary space plan. Right now we have the problem that NASA is involved in both manned exploration and in robotic science, the tow just don't go together cost/benefit analysis of human vs. unmanned missions for science is always debated. Perhaps 4 big questions remain for me, I have seen all the ideas by people talking here and future plans from other websites about solar-sails, Energia style launches, a re-birth of Saturn V, Ion-Drives, Nuke rockets,....both a lot of this is not a reality it is more science fiction than fact.

Two of my questions would be how does NASA launch to Mars, get such a massive craft there and how do they land, very few have Landed on Mars, the USA had many failures, Russia landed a craft but it only last a few mins on the surface while ESA did Mars Express but Beagle went smash ! The Russian Federal Space Agency is keeping the USA's manned flights alive by sending American astronauts up on Soyuz and Russia plans on perhaps giving a Klipper Shuttle to Europe's French Guiana for ESA astronaut flights. Russian Federal Space Agency or RKA did good moon missions and sent craft to Venus, the budget for Russia in 2006 will be as high as 900 million dollars the ESA has about 2,500 - 3100 million dollar/Euros while the Chinese CASC was split into a number of small state owned companies for 200 million dollars China might be sending craft to the Moon. By 2013 NASA's CEV will be absorbing maximum funding with an operational vehicle or not NASA might be expecting too much from the CEV program and some have asked is the younger-Bush vision dimming like the plans for landing on Mars during Apollo years and like his father's proposal to go to Mars, President Junior George W. Bush's grand space exploration vision appears to be on the verge of being scuttled well before launch.

With comparison to other space agencies like Russia, the ESA, China the USA's space costs are very high, there are questions and political games being played with the CEV and SpaceShuttle some of this is costing NASA billions of dollars, this is long before we ever get plans for a Moon base or manned missions to Mars moving. I've heard NASA cost going from 13.5 billion to 19 B dollars which would be 13,500 million to 19,000 million budget. There looks like there might be a gap between 2010 and 2015 and with the CEV it look like Americans will be getting a Shuttle-part2 NASA will make another jack-of-all-trades spacecraft for , lab experimets, keep Congress happy, a CEV for flying around the Moon, keep Gov't accountants and launch station missions. Grumman/Boeing have submitted a proposals for Moon/Mars plans and a the scientists at Lockheed's facility are also working on some stuff, people wonder when the improved Delta and Atlas launchers are coming ?

( Edit to attempt paragraph )

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-16 16:49:07

Yang Liwei Rocket, good post, just about sums up how I feel. More paragraphs next time, though, was kinda hard to read.

dicktice · 2005-07-16 16:50:01

Please paragraph that last post, because it's almost impossible to read, and I want to read it.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-16 19:44:32

I take issue with your pessimistic assesment Yang... and a little background...

See, after Apollo was done, Nixon pretty much said that NASA had to live on a fraction of their budget, and that only because the USAF wanted to use Shuttle and Congress didn't want all the money coming in to NASA to evaporate from their states.

NASA really wanted to not be closed down, so they needed something they could "sell," which turned out to be the Space Shuttle. NASA, being like any government agency or company, didn't want to closed down quite a bit, so they lied about Shuttle being the end-all/be-all of spaceflight to sweeten the deal.

NASA really liked the Space Shuttle, it was expensive and uncancelable... so much so that when Bush-I wanted to do a grandiose plan to go Mars and such, NASA didn't want to, they didn't want to shake the status quo... it was too lucerative. So they lied some more, and cooked up this figure that was unpalatable for Congress (even though it wasn't that outlandish given all it tried to accomplish, space stations, Moon trip, etc) such that they obviously balked.

But now things are different... the history of the Shuttle is closing, Congress probobly willing to just let Russia ferry up crews to maintain a token presence or limited science, and letting NASA just fade away when the ISS is gone. Without a new goal big enough, NASA has no future.

And Bush-II gave them one. Two almost... And so NASA has something that it hasn't had in a very, very long time: a motivation other then going in circles. NASA will either suceed, or NASA will be no more in any tradtional sense.

The CEV is not an excessively difficult project. It isn't. It will be no more difficult then building the Apollo capsule, half the Saturn-IB, and a new Lunar lander. Another thing it isn't is a "jack of all trades Shuttle-II..." no wings, no cargo bay, no robot arm, no nothing. Not Shuttle-II And why would Lockheed or Boeing build improved versions of the EELV rocket if they didn't have to? There is nothing to launch that requries it other then NASA's VSE... And speaking of VSE, the objective of VSE is to perminantly set up shop on the Moon and go to Mars. That would be just swell by me.

SpaceNut · 2005-07-16 20:08:26

Nasa's current predicament is due to not having any other USA vehicle, that is man rated or capable of such at its disposal.

Slowing down the flight rate or even reducing the number of active shuttles will not change that nor will it free up the cash for the CEV developement.

For who wants to loose there jobs. These people will kick and scream to keep working and unless some one can change that shuttle army head count we will remaining flying until the deadline all 3 vehicles.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-17 09:17:14

If the choice is between not having any manned ship for years and flying the accursed Space Shuttle to finish the wreched useless ISS for no good reason other then to fulfill a half-empty promise and as insurance to keep the congressional money/NASA-PR fallacy while getting to do nothing... versus not flying at all? If it were up to me, Shuttle would never fly again.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-07-25 02:12:11

If the choice is between not having any manned ship for years and flying the accursed Space Shuttle to finish the wreched useless ISS for no good reason other then to fulfill a half-empty promise and as insurance to keep the congressional money/NASA-PR fallacy while getting to do nothing... versus not flying at all? If it were up to me, Shuttle would never fly again.

Then you must not understand the politics at NASA, the reason people like O'Keefe and Griffin get the job is because the know the game, congress methods, the internal conflcits, the back stabbing, keeping the public happy and so forth.

Zubrin had some nice ideas, but he has no clue of the political game and some find parts his ideas to be very offensive by the way he explains them. Sadly in recent American polls Fifty-eight percent say they oppose setting aside the money for an attempted manned Mars landing, while 40 percent are in favor. American newspapers and TV stations have found most Americans say they have at least a "fair amount" of confidence in NASA to prevent another disaster akin to the Columbia disaster in February 2003 and that three in four Americans favor a continuation of the space shuttle program while the majority believes that NASA is moving at an appropriate pace.

Dook · 2005-07-25 02:52:40

If the VSE is about a permanent human presence on the moon and a visit to mars then how does the CEV fit in? It's intended purpose is to transport passengers to the ISS.

Rxke · 2005-07-25 04:25:25

No it is not. It's a means to get people to LEO, and ISS happens to be there but is not the necc. goal. CEV could dock with Luna lander, etc as well. And that is its ultimate main goal.

"Though the CEV’s main purpose would be to leave Earth orbit, the vehicle is also assigned the duty to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station after the space shuttle is phased out. The CEV or versions of the CEV could operate for extended-duration in Earth orbit, as well as in close proximity to or on the surface of the Moon and Mars."

(From Space.com, but also from various other sources, if you Google "nasa cev purpose"...)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-04-29 05:19:50

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#27 2005-04-29 05:46:20

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#28 2005-04-29 06:11:46

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#29 2005-04-29 10:42:14

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#30 2005-04-29 16:17:43

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#31 2005-04-30 04:22:54

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#32 2005-04-30 09:05:52

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#33 2005-04-30 12:23:21

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#34 2005-04-30 18:06:13

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#35 2005-04-30 18:31:04

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#36 2005-04-30 18:52:14

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#37 2005-05-01 06:17:45

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#38 2005-05-01 20:08:21

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#39 2005-05-02 00:58:58

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#40 2005-05-02 02:33:23

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#41 2005-05-02 05:08:42

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#42 2005-07-16 14:44:56

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

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

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#44 2005-07-16 16:50:01

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#45 2005-07-16 19:44:32

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#46 2005-07-16 20:08:26

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#47 2005-07-17 09:17:14

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#48 2005-07-25 02:12:11

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#49 2005-07-25 02:52:40

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#50 2005-07-25 04:25:25

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

Board footer