Dr. Griffin's new architecture

SpaceNut · 2005-08-31 09:51:46

Convert either to large quantity passenger carriers to drive the price down, down, down and lets see what happens....

RobertDyck · 2005-08-31 14:10:22

Are you asking me to calculate that? It's hard to do considering how old these designs are. Shuttle MDC still used metal shingles for the heat shield and a titanium structure. Shuttle LS-A was the first proposal to use silica fibre tiles, and that improved heat shield permitted an aluminum structure. Although the article says Lockheed studied a configuration capable of lifting 11,340kg of cargo, the one detailed lifts 22,680kg. A passenger vehicle requires substantial volume but relatively little lift mass. I could calculate economics based on the published figures for the big one, but you really only need lift mass of the smaller one. Also, both Shuttle LS-A and Shuttle MDC included development of SSME in their budget. That's done now. Shuttle LS-A also included development of the heat shield tiles currently used on the Shuttle orbiter; that's not only done but they've been improved since Shuttle first launched.

Oh, for those worried about tiles: these Two-Stage-To-Orbit designs included a reusable booster with cockpit and aircraft skin over tank insulation. That aircraft skin means no loss of foam. Without foam striking the tiles you won't have any tile loss.

Also, without a segmented solid rocket booster with rubber O-ring right beside the hydrogen tank, a Challenger style accident isn't possible either. As we've discussed elsewhere on this board, a segmented solid rocket with nothing beside the segment seals isn't a problem, so "The Stick" is safe. A single piece solid rocket beside a liquid hydrogen tank like Delta IV isn't a problem. The problem is when you put a rubber O-ring segment seal right beside a liquid hydrogen tank. These TSTO proposals wouldn't have used solid rockets at all.

Another perspective: the original NASA requirement for Shuttle was to lift 11,340kg to a space station, and had to be fully reusable. The Shuttle as it first flew could lift 27,850kg to 204km orbit at 28.5° inclination. That was reduced to 24,400kg after safety improvements following Challenger, then increased to 27,500kg or 16,050kg to ISS orbit via various upgrades in preparation for ISS. This means Shuttle is more than twice as big as NASA originally intended. The increase was one of the concessions to military requirements after Richard Nixon's decision.

Ok, economics. If you use the prices for Shuttle LS-A in its large configuration, it would have cost $5.51 billion in 1969 dollars, which the article says is $25 billion in 1999 dollars. That included development of SSME and tiles, as well as construction of 5 booster/orbiter pairs. The article says after development/test flights they would have built 5 additional orbiters and 2 additional boosters, but they weren't included in the development cost. Per flight cost would have been $1.255 million in 1969 ($5.7 million in 1999 dollars). I'm not sure how to reduce cost for reduced weight or the fact that SSME & tiles are developed, so I won't. I also don't know how to reduce per flight cost for the lighter vehicle, again I won't. Assuming the orbiter had the same cargo bay volume as the operational Shuttle orbiter, that would permit 102 passengers with only carry-on luggage. If you assume the orbiter is fully booked before lift-off, add $300,000 per flight for crew salary and passenger terminal operations, then add $4 million per flight for development amortization (40% gross margin) the cost per ticket will be $98,039.22 plus tax. Add to that astronaut training before flight and it's more like $100,000 per ticket plus tax. Do you think you could fill 100 flights of tourists per year at that rate? That's 10,200 space tourists per year. At $400 million per year it would take 62.5 years to pay for development cost. If you want to pay for development in 6 years you would have to substantially reduce development cost. That means use the smaller 11,340kg version that's appropriately sized for the job, deduct SSME & tile development. The smaller version would also have a lower per flight cost. Any idea what that would be?

clark · 2005-08-31 14:14:36

Not to derail the thread, but we went to the moon a few times, for brief stays, and learned very little. The areas we explored are a drop in the bucket.

Saying that we've "been there, done that" is really an unfair assessment.

publiusr · 2005-08-31 15:16:06

The SLI TSTO stuff would cost far more than even HLLV. That is just going to have to wait. Actually the original TSTO concept was the worst thing you could build--twice the wing weight, twice the landing gear--stiff structural elements allowing it to launch on its tail and land on its belly, etc.

Fine--if you build it out of unobtainium.

Of all these craft--the dense all hypergolic Martin Astroroket might have had a chance.

publiusr · 2005-08-31 15:47:01

Nice link www.nasaspaceflight.com

BWhite · 2005-08-31 16:12:29

Nice link www.nasaspaceflight.com

Griffin used the Ming Dynasty story Zubrin has written about. Someone will settle space. Might as well be us.

Maybe we quarrel about "how" but there cannot be a better choice for NASA Administrator on the "why" than Mike Griffin.

The human imperative to explore and settle new lands will be satisfied, by others if not by us. Humans will explore the Moon, Mars, and beyond. It's simply a matter of which humans, when, what values they will hold, and what languages they will speak, what cultures they will spread. What the United States gains from a robust program of human space exploration is the opportunity to carry the principles and values of western philosophy and culture along on the absolutely inevitable outward migration of humanity into the solar system and, eventually, beyond. These benefits are tangible and consequential. It matters what the United States chooses to do, or not to do, in space.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-31 16:38:18

Amen Clark,

I take strong issue with the stupid notion that we have done all there is worth doing on the Moon, we obviously have not! There is still much to do on the Moon, learning more about its geology, prospecting and testing mining methods, construct telescopes on the far side that far exceed anything on Earth or in space... and of course build a base as a foothold for future private mining, tourism, and science-for-sale interests.

All of this can be done for a modest marginal cost to a basic minimal flags & footprints program with Martian hardware testing, and is more than worthwhile versus fleeing the Moon once again just to get to Mars a little bit quicker. It is worth the extra money and time to "do" the Moon right this time, rather then to throw away all that effort just to fulfill the letter of the VSE rather then the spirit of the VSE. Why else then was staying on the Moon part of the Vision if not to do useful things there?

Going to the Moon to do useful things requires payload, more payload then any vehicle other then the big inline SDV can provide in a single throw. The side-mount SDV concepts don't have enough payload, can't be equipped with upper stages easily, infrastructure is not readily interchangeable, and the effort spent on side-mount is wasted since we will need an inline launcher eventually. The dinky side-mounted lifter just isn't going to cut it.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-31 18:04:17

As I explained before, side-mount is optimal to lift heavy cargo into LEO for orbital assembly. There are several architectures that use that, but side-mount is not optimal for direct throw, in-line is. As for a waste, I seriously doubt any money will be available for in-line until the Shuttle orbiter is decommissioned and that won't happen until ISS is complete. We've had the ISS discussion before, it's useless to debate it again. The smallest practical side-mount is one that uses the existing ET, existing SRBs, existing main engines, and existing launch and assembly facilities. It would be a stretch to convince NASA to start serious work on that now with Shuttle still draining so much money; I don't think we could get anything bigger. I think it's the only heavy launcher that could be ready in time to complete ISS construction. As I said, if you launch a test flight of "small" version of Shuttle-C in 6 months with the first payload just 1 month after that, then Shuttle could be decommissioned at fiscal year end October 2006. That would free money to work on an in-line larger launcher. Having money in 2006 instead of 2010 means the in-line version will be completed sooner.

By the way, my calculations show the small side-mount version with recoverable engine pod still lifts 87.4 tonnes to 185km orbit or 74.68 tonnes to ISS. If you want to claim the little details make it lift only 73 tonnes to ISS, I won't argue but don't claim it only lifts ~70 tonnes to 185km orbit. Can you really call that lift capacity "dinky"? The Saturn 1B could only lift 18.6 tonnes to 185km orbit. Saturn INT-21 was a Saturn V without the 3rd stage, it flew just once to lift Skylab. That version had a 5 F-1 engines on the 1st stage and all 5 J-2 engines on the 2nd stage, but you could remove engines for less lift. The full size one lifted 115.9 tonnes to 185km orbit but the smallest version with 4 F-1 and 3 J-2 engines would lift 76 tonnes. Saturn V with the 3rd stage could lift 118 tonnes. Again, is Shuttle-C really that "dinky"?

RobertDyck · 2005-08-31 18:47:59

I was concerned because the chart listed Shuttle-C with 5 metre fairing, OMS & RCS as lifting 73 tonnes, but the ledgend says to 220 nautical mile altitude at 28.5° inclination. That's 407.44km altitude, same as ISS. It's also interesting that the 2 RS-68 version with 6.5 metre fairing and RCS but no OMS only lifts 43 tonnes. The 3 SSME version with 6.5 metre fairing and RCS but no OMS can lift 77 tonnes. All those use 4 segment SRBs. The largest side-mount with 5 segment SRBs can lift 91 tonnes. That's reasonable, but a surprise that removing OMS would increase lift capacity.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-31 20:22:29

I bet those ignored posts are from that "USA=USSR" Robert about Shuttle-C and how great an idea it is... Just to recap my retorts:

~Shuttle-C will take some time to build, any nonsense about under a year is insane, and by the time its ready it won't get the ISS done much faster, in which case it really wouldn't be good for anything at all. There is no possible way that the design process could be simplified enough to shorten the development time that much, even with a throw-away engine module closely based off STS hardware. Continuing ISS construction in any event should stop right now, since the station is a horrible waste of money even if it were finished.

~Shuttle-C's payload is too small, all varients without radical modification are limited to about 80-90MT, which is 30-40MT less then an inline launcher can haul, a full thirty to fifty percent more payload then the full 120MT inline launcher. Combine this with the 30MT CEV launched seperatly, and the 150MT of total mass is nearly double that of Shuttle-C. It can also accomodate large (read: Mars ships or Lunar HAB) diameter payloads, while Shuttle-C cannot. This really does make all the difference between just visiting the Moon or actually doing things there, plus Shuttle-C will be a millstone around NASA's neck, since it will dilute the justification for the Mars-enabling inline launcher with the pencil pushers. If you need a smaller, less powerful launcher for some reason then you use the inline with only a small circulization upper stage instead of a big cryogenic one.

I want to reiterate my "problem" with a particular mindset, which is often characterized by the following:
-Acceptability of cutting corners to expedite things (Shuttle-C, Zubrin's Moon plan, or MarsDirect too), and wishing away the consequences with foolish optimism.
-Resistance to the idea of over-building capability for future proofing of things that are expensive to develop, like large rockets.
-General beliefe that "you can always make do with less" by being creative or clever, which is simply not so, particularly when dealing with spaceflight.

As far as the TSTO spaceplane ideas, I don't really like the vertical takeoff concepts because they lack flexibility of launch sites and doesn't enforce airplane-like operations needed to hold down operational cost. Such a vehicle will be expensive, perhaps $25Bn, but in the long run, sometime down the road, we will need something like it. Barring a space elevator of course.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-31 23:00:20

Oh, knock off the politics. The point I kept making is look at what your elected officials are doing. You can't simply say "USA is good so therefore everything an elected official is doing must be good." If you do you will get screwed.

Let's use the Shuttle-C configurations from the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference report linked from the initial post to this thread. Configuration B.2 is the one with existing ET, existing 4 segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs, RCS, and 6.5 metre fairing. It can lift 77 tonnes to 407km orbit. With that one we could complete ISS with 3 launches plus a few orbiter launches. Even without the recoverable engine pod it's useful because it gets ISS out of the way. Once that's out of the way we can end the Shuttle orbiter. Even if Shuttle-C is never used again it's useful because it frees NASA's budget of the Shuttle orbiter and ISS construction. Of course I would prefer a recoverable engine pod to keep it economical for assembly of space hotels or orbit assembled Moon or Mars vehicles; but with an expendable engine pod it could get Shuttle/ISS out of the way.

I'm not talking about cutting corners. In fact I said we need to launch Node 3 to ISS and US Hab. The Moon will have a permanent base with lots of work done there. You need a consistent location to do serious work. Trying to skip the lunar base in favour of Apollo style single missions to different sites is cutting corners. My mission plan for Mars includes a reusable spacecraft for Mars orbit to Earth orbit, but expendable TMI and TEI stages. Establish a permanent Mars base starting with the first mission, explore from there with a rover. Eventually add a DC-XA style vehicle on Mars for mobility to anywhere on the planet. This isn't cutting corners.

The great worry is that we'll just continue to operate Shuttles and drag out ISS construction with no progress what so ever toward the Moon or Mars, and no progress on any heavy lift launch vehicle. The talk about Moon/Mars will continue with no actual progress until politicians get tired of it and cancel the whole thing. Every major NASA project in the last decade has been cancelled; I don't want VSE to be another one.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-01 08:45:43

I see where the issue lies in that the impression of ready to use parts and the need to review all for design use in a new configuration leads to a developement bill. But does it really need to?

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-01 12:01:15

I believe that the Shuttle design is so incredibly complex, that there is no such thing as a "minor" change, and building a copy of the engine compartment without wings/tail/crew cabin wouldn't even be a minor change. It would definatly take a few years and some billions of dollars to develop and test, by which time it wouldn't have saved much time or money versus just flying Shuttle. So, since the inline launcher is preferable for the Moon and later for Mars, why do we need Shuttle-C then? Furthermore, particularly due to the fact that its development would have been a waste since we need the bigger inline launcher, the very exsistance of Shuttle-C will endanger the inline launcher from ever being built. This is not acceptable, since the inline version is absolutely nessesarry for practical Mars missions or for efficent and meaningful Lunar operations.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-01 12:25:42

Thats why it makes all the First step or choices that we start with all that more important and even more than we know.

Design choices may hurry humans to Mars

2020 vision
By re-using similar designs for crew habitat modules, propulsion stages, and engines in various missions "we can get to Mars in the 2020 timeframe," Wooster told New Scientist.

Yahoo....

publiusr · 2005-09-01 13:01:18

I'm just worried that this hurricane will put the kibosh on the whole deal.

We can't fund NASA any more--we need to get a few more kids killed in Iraq so we can make gazillions off three dollar a gallon gas from their drowned relatives.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just bring the troops home--keep NASA--and use that military money for relief?

That's unpatriotic--how dare you! Now back to work rebuilding those casinos!

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-01 14:22:08

In the long run, if this were the straw that broke the camel's back and Shuttle never flies again (except for maybe the three external tanks at KSC), then that will be the end of the ISS as a NASA project.

However, in the longer term, it is difficult to believe that NASA would simply abandon the Michoud plant for VSE, unless the recovery effort is very slow or NASA decides to move external tank production to the Boeing Decatur plant where Delta-IV is built.

publiusr · 2005-09-01 14:28:03

According to spacedaily.com, some ET work will go to Florida. I think Michold will be rebuilt--but it will take time. Some of the smaller engine-equipped ETs minus the SRBs (as CEV only lifters) reminded me of of the old ALS/NLS systems. Michold proposed the ALS type system--but ALS itself was to be produced all in Florida.

We might see a return to that, however. Hard to say. I will be glad if we even have a NASA following Katrina.

Space is always on someones chopping block.

Commodore · 2005-09-01 15:10:02

We can't avoid wars or huricannes. If it wasn't Iraq it'd be North Korea, or a combination of a Bosnia/Kosovo/Somolia. If it wasn't the Gulf, it'd be South Florida, the Carolinas, or Cape Cod.

Space must go on regardless, because within it is solution to most of these problems.

That said, Katrina will no doubt complicate or downright disrupt operations at Micoud (sp?). Thats probably going to set STS-121 back furthur than March. That means we are going to be despirately short on time to finish the station the conventional way. And at this point I don't think we should be trying to finish it the conventional way.

I think the most critical question is if we can get the remaining pieces to the ISS, can the station finish itself with the arm thats up there now?

If so, we retire the shuttle and pour all our money into CEV and Shuttle-C.

If not, we figure out how to modify the shuttle for an extended or indefinate duration mission, and develope the Shuttle-C.

Either way, I think we are now past the point were we can hope to finish the station by the end of 2010. If we were able to get STS-121 off this year, we might have been able to pull it off. But with the continuing issues with the foam, and with the tank factory offline indeffinately, that chance is past.

Modifying a Shuttle with Station style LSS, power systems, and OSMs that don't leak dangerous fuels into space will be expensive, but I doubt it will cost more than even one years operations costs, that will leave the remaining 3-4 years to get the Shuttle-C going for a multi-month mission in 2010 to finish off the station in one blow. And at that point we will have a launcher capable of the first series of lunar missions, moving up the time table by as much as 4-5 years.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-01 16:18:37

Modifying Shuttle for extended operations for use as a tug is out of the question, because such a modification would be so signifigant that the cost would be far too high to pay along with Shuttle-C. Either adding tug functionality to the Shuttle-C design or building a seperate tug vehicle would not only be cheaper, but it would be the only sane route.

I think, however, it is really a much much better question to ask... is the ISS really worth all that trouble? From the standpoint of a scientific investment, the answer is obviously and beyond any doubt "no."

I also contest this notion that Shuttle-C is powerful enough to perform Moon missions. It is just barely powerful enough to do Apollo over again, and thats it. Completly, totally unacceptable.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-01 17:04:19

I'm going to through out a controversial option. What about shutting down Michoud right now? I met a Mars Society member who works there, he won't want to hear that, but do we really need Michoud? It's where Saturn V first stages (S-1C stages) were built, 43 acres under one roof. Why do you need a building that big to manufacture a tank 153.8 feet long by 27.6 feet wide? Couldn't we use one of the 3 Orbiter Processing Buildings at KSC? The alloy is manufactured by an aluminum company and shipped in rolls that already have the right thickness.

From this Factsheet

The facility has three almost identical high bays, each of which is 197 feet (60 meters) long, 150 feet (46 meters) wide, 95 feet (29 meters) high, and encompasses a 29,000-square-foot (2,694-meter) area. A low bay connects high bays 1 and 2. It is 233 feet (71 meters) long, 97 feet (30 meters) wide and nearly 25 feet (eight meters) high. High bay 3, built last, also has an adjacent low bay. Annexes and portable buildings provide additional shop and office space.
Each high bay comes equipped with a 30-ton (27-metric-ton) bridge crane with a hook height of approximately 66 feet (20 meters).

Couldn't we convert OPF3 to manufacture ETs instead of Michoud? Since the ET is 27.6 feet diameter the sheet metal will be 86.7 feet wide when laid flat; fits within a 150 feet wide building. It weighs 66,000 pounds (33 tons) when dry and the bridge crane can only lift 30 tons, but do you really want to lift the whole thing on one hook? Lift one end with the crane and use a jack with rollers to turn the tank when needed.

After the Mars Society convention I drove past the Strategic Air and Space Museum. It had a layout of the factory that made B-29 bombers for World War 2. That building was cramped! It looked like they could turn out a lot of aircraft from that assembly line. So why do we need a 43 acre building to turn out 6 ETs per year?

Xaliqen · 2005-09-01 17:45:34

Well, here's another controversial thing to consider:

If this extreme end of the hurricane cycle proves to be abnormally long and stretches for a good number of years, then wouldn't it be wise to start looking at the amount of NASA's space-related infrastructure in hurricane-prone areas?

Are there steps that can be taken to further reduce the possibility of damage in the event of large hurricanes?

Are the capacities of certain facilities better off in the long-run being moved to someplace like New Mexico?

Naturally, I doubt this is something anybody really wants or is able to consider given the short-term cost, logistics and politics involved, but it seems that, at some point, it should be taken into consideration.

An expansion of the number of areas capable of launching whatever CEV or SDV options end up replacing the shuttle would be a massive improvement over the present situation in my opinion.

It all eventually boils down to cost, but it seems certain solutions may be incorporated into the CEV design to facilitate some adaptability. In any case, I hope so.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-01 17:56:29

Moving the NASA operations somewhere out west isn't happening, to rebuild just KSC and relocate so many engineers would easily cost many many billions of dollars. This is insurance that NASA can't afford.

Commodore · 2005-09-01 22:10:21

Modifying Shuttle for extended operations for use as a tug is out of the question, because such a modification would be so signifigant that the cost would be far too high to pay along with Shuttle-C. Either adding tug functionality to the Shuttle-C design or building a seperate tug vehicle would not only be cheaper, but it would be the only sane route.

Theres no reason for it to tug anything. Its just a platform docked to the ISS to stick the remaining pieces where they go when they are lofted by the Shuttle-C. If it needs to disconnect to reach a far end, the little bit of required fuel can be sent up on the Shuttle-C.

Realistically if we have all the shuttle-c's ready to go when we launch the orbiter, theres no good reason the mission needs to last longer than 6 months.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-02 06:50:36

Unless you have either a Shuttle orbiter, a tug, or tug hardware built into Shuttle-C then you can't get ISS payloads from Shuttle-C to the ISS, you absolutely have to have that last-mile guidence.

The time it takes to actually launch each Shuttle-C, the time it takes for it to synchronize orbits with the station, the time it takes for a Shuttle orbiter to rendezvous, with it, then rendezvous with the ISS again, re-dock so the componet can be attached or handed off to the ISS arm... Shuttle has an on-orbit loiter time of about a month with extended fuel supplies, which is can't use ISS power if it will be spending most of its time fetching ISS parts.

Why in the heck would you want to do something so rediculous? It would cost more money to fly such an orbiter then it would to simply build a tug! Shuttle is an abomination, each time it flies is a fiscal disaster.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-02 13:42:14

If you used Shuttle-C with RCS to stabilize cargo and rendezvous with ISS, could a Shuttle orbiter grab it and connect the whole thing to ISS? I suggested the first launch of Shuttle-C include all cargo of Shuttle flights STS-115, -116, -117, -118, -119, and -120, with the cupola from flight UF-4 and the "Canada Hand" from flight 14A. The exception is a SPACEHAB double module (instead of single modules from 2 of those flights) would be carried by the orbiter, but Shuttle-C would carry Node 2. The reason is SPACEHAB is supposed to come back to Earth after it's empty. With Node 2 on the Shuttle-C cargo pallet, it could be connected to ISS while the rest of the cargo pallet is still connected to Node 2. Then the orbiter doesn't have to go far to pull pieces off. In fact some pieces could be lifted off using CanadArm2 on the station and carried to their destination.

The Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) pallet permitted Columbia to stay up to 16 days in space, but Endevour to stay 28 days. I haven't found Atlantis or Discovery's stay time. From this link

The upgrades that make a longer stay in space possible include the EDO pallet which holds a set of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen tanks to provide additional fuel for the orbiter's electrical power generation system, a regenerating system for removing carbon dioxide from the crew cabin atmosphere, two additional nitrogen tanks for cabin air, an improved waste collection system and additional middeck lockers for storage.

::Edit:: The "why" is to complete ISS quickly so the Shuttle orbiter can be decommissioned. Arguing against this means ISS will drag out and the Shuttle orbiter will continue. As for any arguments to abandon ISS, I can guarantee that won't happen as long as President George W. Bush is in office.

::Edit:: Why not connect ISS power? If the orbiter only disconnects from ISS briefly to catch a Shuttle-C load, and occasionally to transport truss segments or modules to their destination, won't it be connected to ISS most of the time? "Canada Hand" is known formally as Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator or to the Canadian media as "Dexter"; if that's included in the first mission as I suggest it could be used to install components rather than just ISS maintenance. That means fewer EVAs, more work by the station's CanadArm2 and less work by the Shuttle's CanadArm. By the way, every one of the Shuttle-C missions I came up with include at least one module. That means they can be connected to ISS as a pallet.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-08-31 09:51:46

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#27 2005-08-31 14:10:22

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#28 2005-08-31 14:14:36

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#29 2005-08-31 15:16:06

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#30 2005-08-31 15:47:01

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#31 2005-08-31 16:12:29

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#32 2005-08-31 16:38:18

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#33 2005-08-31 18:04:17

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#34 2005-08-31 18:47:59

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#35 2005-08-31 20:22:29

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#36 2005-08-31 23:00:20

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#37 2005-09-01 08:45:43

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#38 2005-09-01 12:01:15

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#39 2005-09-01 12:25:42

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#40 2005-09-01 13:01:18

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#41 2005-09-01 14:22:08

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#42 2005-09-01 14:28:03

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#43 2005-09-01 15:10:02

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#44 2005-09-01 16:18:37

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#45 2005-09-01 17:04:19

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#46 2005-09-01 17:45:34

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#47 2005-09-01 17:56:29

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#48 2005-09-01 22:10:21

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#49 2005-09-02 06:50:36

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#50 2005-09-02 13:42:14

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

Board footer