Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

Palomar · 2005-09-28 06:25:32

*Someone pinch me. :shock: :shock:

FINALLY! FINALLY!

An admission from the top that the Shuttle & ISS are failures and a waste of good taxpayer $$.

He admits NASA "lost its way." Thank you, Mr. Griffin. That's exactly right.

I never thought I'd live to see this day.

Of course he's new at the helm, so the decades-long NASA stupidity isn't his fault. I'm just glad he's honest and forthright.

In this age of passing the buck, sweeping under the rug, massive lying and denial we have a forthright and upfront admission. Michael Griffin for President, 2008!

--Cindy

clark · 2005-09-28 06:46:14

"Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in." -Griffin

Read: International space endeavours of this magnitude do not work.

The orbit was chosen to accomodate the Russians.

Something to think about when you hear talk about an international expedition to Mars or the Moon.

Griffin worked at NASA during the time ISS was developed and he disagreed then about many of the choices made. It is not surprising to hear him point out the white elephant in the room.

This should be a nice politcal manuever... undercut Shuttle and ISS to force Congress to maintain funding for VSE to ensure that some form of NASA pork gets back to their district.

Of course, it was a nice choice of words about the ISS- he didn't say ISS was useless (because it is an integral piece to justifying VSE block 1), just that the orbit was a poor choice.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-28 07:45:06

Oh hush up Clark, and don't belittle this grand moment!

The Shuttle ultimatly has been the biggest problem, Shuttle has been the thorn in our side, Shuttle is the cause of all our suffering. The ISS was built mostly to justify Shuttle. Hubble was intentionally designed to require Shuttle to keep it running. Shuttle was responsable for the death of Skylab. Shuttle has sucked up ~70%+ of NASA's manned spaceflight budget since the end of Apollo. Shuttle was the embodiment of NASA's failure; their failure of overconfidance (an impossible task, which has killed 14), their failure of their soul & credibility (lying about Shuttle's virtues to get money), and worst of all their failure of their duty to inspire...

"Asked whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin told the daily: "My opinion is that it was."

Rejoice! FINALLY! The head manager of NASA, the only organization in the world with the reasources to achieve what we dream about, has finally said this obvious thing in public which NASA has coverd its ears and parroted the PR office glossies for decades.

That Shuttle was a mistake!!!

Now about the ISS...

I think that he didn't come right out and say that the ISS is a mistake too because of his political position: everybody knows that Shuttle has failed, even the people that operate the thing, and there is nothing controvertial or undiplomatic about that.

The ISS however is an ongoing, not a canceld-in-waiting, project with substantial international ramnifications, he just can't come right out and say that the ISS was a mistake if we're going to be spending big money on it for another dozen years. The fact that he says we put it in the wrong orbit however is very telling!

That could mean he is just lamenting how Shuttle's main tank can't be reinforced without making it too heavy to lift ISS modules, but I think he means that getting Russia involved was a mistake, which it obviously is. The INA debacle has been an embarrasment, Russia has stabbed NASA in the back and extorted ~$1Bn, and so on.

Back before there was an ISS, one possible plan was to put a small station in equitorial orbit that would only be manned intermitantly. I think I could personally live with such a station, launched on Delta-IV HLV or similar rocket, and operated robotically when unmanned. That would have been A-O-K by me, and would have matched with how much zero-G research actually should be done, instead of building a massive giant station and then dreaming up useless projects to send to it.

Of course, without Shuttle, we still would have had Skylab... and maybe Skylab-II

Griffins' comments about the ISS have more meat on them then you think, Clark.

Palomar · 2005-09-28 08:39:23

"Asked whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin told the daily: "My opinion is that it was."
Rejoice! FINALLY! The head manager of NASA, the only organization in the world with the reasources to achieve what we dream about, has finally said this obvious thing in public which NASA has coverd its ears and parroted the PR office glossies for decades.
That Shuttle was a mistake!!!

*I am still stunned.

YES!! And after this astonishing candor (I can't think of a similar recent example of anyone in a true position of power) I feel more inclined now to support NASA's "back to the Moon" plans...even though of course I'd rather have a mission to Mars within 10 years. But can't have one's cake and eat it too (unfortunately).

Just the fact that Griffin has admitted the Shuttle was a mistake is such a step in the right direction. It's nearly akin to Armstrong's "one giant step."

After 30 years of waiting, since childhood, to see the Next Big Thing (which the Shuttle definitely was not) -- oh please, can we now get out of LEO again!

I had a good feeling about Michael Griffin from the get-go. Looks like that positive vibe proved true.

NASA was the ultimate in my childhood, its astronauts were gods. I want a return to that. And thankfully I'm still young enough to see NASA restored to its former dazzling glory.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-09-28 09:49:23

*Dang, I'm so pumped about this! I cannot believe it. It's wonderful. Griffin's candid admission is light at the end of a long and unremarkable tunnel, IMO.

Oh for those days when the Saturn V was the most phenomenal mechanical beast ever; it could take us anywhere we wanted to go, do whatever we needed it to do (or so I thought, as a child). It was perfection and exploration combined. It was a god in its own right.

Yeah, I know they're not going to "bring back" the Saturn V.

The Apollo days (though I'd just turned 4 years old in July 1969) were so heady, optimistic, can-do. Amazing, exhilarating. I can feel that magnificent impulse stirring in my veins again; always, when I remember. It's like nothing else.

I want others -- our younger generations -- to have the opportunity to experience this, too.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-09-28 10:03:29

Hine sight is great but when history of past events show who are at fault of making bad it is usually the managers of that time who's decision that have been made are to blame.

editor of nasawatch

Mike Griffin led the Option B team at LaRC during Space Station Freedom redesign in 1993. He stood on principle and made his opinions known at the time - and got 'promoted' - eventually out of the agency - as a result

He was also one of those that did put forth The first lunar outpost concept as well about that same time frame.

As others have noted his boss has said you will make shuttle fly, you will finish ISS and then you can go to the moon and beyound.

So now we must fix shuttle and we must finish the ISS before taking the next step. Using what we have as a quick developement route to the moon.

Palomar · 2005-09-28 10:31:09

So now we must fix shuttle and we must finish the ISS before taking the next step. Using what we have as a quick developement route to the moon.

*No.

Those two things are hindering and slowing us down.

Ditch the Shuttle and let the Russians have the ISS; they've offered to take it off our hands. We should jump at the chance to free ourselves of that noose -- which is what the ISS is.

Sorry, SpaceNut, I don't understand your seeming devotion to the ISS and Shuttle. They're duds. We're not getting anywhere with them in the way. We haven't done anything of significance since the mid-1970s. Enough's enough.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-09-28 10:39:56

Its about responsibility to finish what one starts or you loss more than just credibility.

edit
Put it up to a voters at election time much like they do for warrant articles for a town fiscal years budget items for what to do with either.

Palomar · 2005-09-28 10:46:01

Its about responsibility to finish what one starts or you loss more than just credibility.

*The Russians have offered to let us off the hook. I don't see that as a conflict of responsibility issues. Once they have the ISS lock, stock and barrel -- it's theirs -- then we have no further need of the Shuttle.

Two birds/one stone.

If someone offers to take a burden off your hands, it's legitimate/okay to accept the offer. We should do that.

--Cindy

P.S.: If you disagree, then how much more $$$ should we pump into the Shuttle program to keep it afloat? It's ultimately not giving a return on the investment; except for the 1 perilous Discovery mission a few months ago, the fleet has been grounded for going on 3 years now. Astronauts are in limbo and we're paying their salary. The responsibility to the taxpayer now is to get us out of this mess, not plug more $$$ into it.

Give the Russians what they willingly say they want -- the ISS -- and everyone's happy.

P.P.S.:

Put it up to a voters at election time much like they do for warrant articles for a town fiscal years budget items for what to do with either.

But there's a tremendous difference between a town's annual budget and NASA's. :shock: Too many people either aren't interested in NASA or are completely unfamiliar with the space program situation. Leave the decision in the hands of the willfully ignorant? No thanks.

clark · 2005-09-28 11:31:30

So let me get this straight...

You all think it is 'brilliant' to ditch ISS and cancel the Shuttle immediately?

And what, pray tell, would NASA do then?

Why have an astronaut corps at all?

What do you do with all those scientists who ahve waited decades (yes, decades) to get their expeirments flown on a Shuttle or on the ISS?

How do you retain expertise and skill sets of those employed by ISS and Shuttle when you need them again in 2018?

Of course, ditching ISS means we have less reason to send people into space. Retiring Shuttle means we have no means to send people into space.

Griffin's comments mean more to the future ISS than what he actually said about the ISS. Calling into question the value of the Shuttle enables him to reduce flight numbers, which will eventually curtail the already limited scope of the ISS.

So... Griffin takes apart NASA for VSE, and Griffin then gets replaced by the next administration which will curtail VSE for "budgetary" reasons. Presto! No more Shuttle, no more ISS, and the Moon... maybe.

Remember, ISS is the rationale for getting CEV up and running immediately after Shuttle retirement. Lose ISS, and why rush?

SpaceNut · 2005-09-28 11:51:58

I guess you would have to lump the boss (President Bush) into that lot of willfully ignorant for he is the one that has come up with the plan for Nasa to follow.

As for $$$ on Shuttle. Anything costing a billion dollars to fly and somewhere between 1 and 2 billion to make would not have gotten funding as far as my own view.

The stagering $$$ on the ISS just to start let alone all the changes that cause creep on the overall project should have caused someone to have been linched along time ago.

As for Russia wanting and boasting about taking over the ISS is it just political swagger?

Yes they have the means to keep it crewed and to keep it from falling but it should come at a price for what we have spent into the project from them in exchange to give it up to them. Space is not for free.

Now what would be the amount of dollars to complete using the ISS and shuttle.

First do not finish the upgrades to the last orbiter, instead use it for parts for the other 2 (Discovery and Atlantis). Contracts for the boosters and ET that would have been used by that shuttle should go to DaSTick and SDV magnum. Anything that can fit in a progress should be off loaded to the Russian space agency to bring to the station, pay the fee to get it there . Also once the ESA ATV is able to fly do the same for pieces that will not fit into a progress that remain.

Now find work for the shuttle army within the nasa moon plans or get rid of them.

Finally stop making modifications to what the station will look like when finished since there is already a backlog of modules still waiting to be delivered being stored in Nasa facilities.

Finally put a cap on each items spending to force the accounts to stay within budget.

Yard sale sell off what you do not need and put the money back into pushing us to mars.

As for lock stock and barrel once the Russians have it. There will come a time when they will need replacement parts that will not get there by any other means other than by a shuttle and that is when you put them over the barrel making them pay to fix or get it there.

Palomar · 2005-09-28 12:22:26

As for Russia wanting and boasting about taking over the ISS is it just political swagger?

*Who cares?

If you had a vehicle which was a proven lemon, knew more $$ would have to be sunk into this lemon to keep it operating, had a neighbor who knew the vehicle's history (troubles, repairs, maintenance, etc.) and yet willingly offered to buy that vehicle from you and therefore take future care of it...wouldn't you sell it? It's the same issue with the ISS, in my opinion. The Russians know the ISS inside out and upside down. They know its history, troubles, upkeep, etc. They've offered to take it off our hands. I say let's go for it.

You think they're bluffing? Let's call it.

I guess you would have to lump the boss (President Bush) into that lot of willfully ignorant for he is the one that has come up with the plan for Nasa to follow.

I'm reluctant to "go there," but Bush can't be as willfully ignorant as the average could-care-less voter. I'm sure Bush possesses working knowledge of NASA which the average Joe/Jane does not have, and he does have certain duties to fulfill. Besides, Bush has only been President for 5 years. NASA has been going nowhere fast for decades now.

And just as NASA is turning the corner onto bigger and brighter things (Griffin's comments), let's not seek to keep it stuck in the rut it's been in. That's the last thing we need.

Ever forward!

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-09-28 13:27:00

*Who cares?
If you had a vehicle which was a proven lemon, knew more $$ would have to be sunk into this lemon to keep it operating, had a neighbor who knew the vehicle's history (troubles, repairs, maintenance, etc.) and yet willingly offered to buy that vehicle from you and therefore take future care of it...wouldn't you sell it? It's the same issue with the ISS, in my opinion. The Russians know the ISS inside out and upside down. They know its history, troubles, upkeep, etc. They've offered to take it off our hands. I say let's go for it.
You think they're bluffing? Let's call it.

This is the only reference to them taking it over and it is really a boast or jab at Nasa. For when the shuttle is retired and we no longer have manned flight capability to the ISS. Notice it is from the opinion page.

Russia can independently operate ISS

Opinion & analysis
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov.)

Plagued by serious problems since its creation the International Space Station's situation seems almost tragic.
True, puny mortals also have their say. The United States has now decided to abandon the ISS program. From now on, Russia is the only country that can keep the ISS in orbit.
Those legendary U.S. Space Shuttles will be phased out completely by 2010. NASA plans to resupply the ISS with their help until then.

But you are right if they want it lets make a deal....
Can I have whats behind door number 2 instead Bob...

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-28 14:23:32

SpaceNut said:

"Its about responsibility to finish what one starts or you loss more than just credibility."

So, which one is a bigger burden to NASA's credibility, going ahead and spending about $50Bn more on the ISS over the next dozen years, which is about half of NASA's VSE budget and might just strangle the whole program, on a space station with essentially no bennefit to America at all... Or quitting right now, doing the thing thats not politically expedient, and have plenty of money to start on Mars ships while the Moon program is going on.

Simply put, the people that we are "responsable" to (our international partners) simply cannot hold it against us, the cost to us is so huge compared to the bennefit, that they have no right to expect that we would do something so stupid. Russia and the ESA (maybe minus Italy) imparticularly.

Clark said:

"You all think it is 'brilliant' to ditch ISS and cancel the Shuttle immediately?

And what, pray tell, would NASA do then?"

Yep. It actually is brilliant, at least by comparison... since plodding ahead with Shuttle/ISS is stupid, so not doing the stupid thing by comparison is genius.

As far as what NASA would do in the mean time? Answer: "something better than this." I mean come on, how demoralizing, trivializing, and confidance-sapping can you get to be beaten by a stupid piece of foam... twice?

NASA would immediatly switch gears to the Moon missions, not circa 2011, but right now. The KSC personell would busy themselves with modifying the launch pad, VAB, OPFs, and crawlers to accomodate The Stick and SuperMagnum. Michoud would ditch Shuttle tanks and start working on Stick and Magnum stages. Stennis would work on a simplified low-cost SSME. Everybody else would begin a rapid development program for CEV, Stick, SuperMagnum, lunar lander, and TLI rocket. Starting FY2006.

"What do you do with all those scientists who ahve waited decades (yes, decades) to get their expeirments flown on a Shuttle or on the ISS?"

Well... not to be cold to fellow scientists, but a great deal of ISS science just isn't worth the expense. Sorry. If possible, reactivate the X-37 project, swapping extra fuel tankage for payload, and host an ISS science rack worth of experiments on it instead for the important ones.

"Of course, ditching ISS means we have less reason to send people into space."

HAVING the ISS is not a good reason to send people into space.

"So... Griffin takes apart NASA for VSE, and Griffin then gets replaced by the next administration which will curtail VSE for "budgetary" reasons. Presto! No more Shuttle, no more ISS, and the Moon... maybe."

Lemme let you in a little secret Clark... that if NASA can't pull off VSE, after the ISS is gone, there won't be any more NASA. NASA as we know it would cease to exsist, because there would be no reason to exsist... Unless it were given a new large goal, like Moon/Mars missions. The Moon and Mars would therefore be the only real reason, right? Then why is it better we have this situation later instead of now?

"Remember, ISS is the rationale for getting CEV up and running immediately after Shuttle retirement. Lose ISS, and why rush?"

But not the ONLY rationale, but Shuttle's only rationale is.

Palomar · 2005-09-28 14:48:26

Yep. It actually is brilliant, at least by comparison... since plodding ahead with Shuttle/ISS is stupid, so not doing the stupid thing by comparison is genius.

You'd think that'd be obvious.

NASA would immediately switch gears to the Moon missions, not circa 2011, but right now.

And again...you'd think that'd be obvious.

Simple logic escapes some folks apparently. Or perhaps it's an addiction to "disagreeing."

--Cindy

P.S.:

As far as what NASA would do in the mean time? Answer: "something better than this." I mean come on, how demoralizing, trivializing, and confidance-sapping can you get to be beaten by a stupid piece of foam... twice?

Amen to that, GCN. Unfortunately it doesn't matter to people who don't truly care.

John Creighton · 2005-09-28 14:55:34

I'm just glad we are moving beyond the ISS whether or not it is the most direct route possible. I here people say you won't save much by cancelling the ISS. I am very sceptical of that claim. However, I don't have all the information Griffen does and he seems to be making good choices. So all I can do is put my faith in him and hope that he is making the best choices he can for us.

MacAndrew · 2005-09-28 17:54:02

That anyone may wish to spend some bazillion dollars more, and probably some more lives, on Shuttle and ISS is Beyond the Pale... makes me suspect that a lot of people don't really like the idea of humans putting foot on other worlds.

Human space exploration has actually ceased after the last Apollo. It would be time to return to the Moon, put permanent bases on it, go to Mars, put permanent bases on it, go to... er... Titan?, put permanent bases on it... you get the picture. OK, time frame 50/100 years, but 30 years have been wasted in the meantime. Doing nothing. But spending a lot.

It's strange. We aren't really too far from "2001" the movie, but it's robots that get doing all the interesting things. Humans get functioning as the communication gateways between cell phones.

MacAndrew · 2005-09-28 18:06:36

The Apollo days (though I'd just turned 4 years old in July 1969) were so heady, optimistic, can-do. Amazing, exhilarating. I can feel that magnificent impulse stirring in my veins again; always, when I remember. It's like nothing else.
I want others -- our younger generations -- to have the opportunity to experience this, too.
--Cindy

I was 14 in 1969. You have perfectly described my own feelings at the time, too. So many hopes... still unfulfilled... :?

SpaceNut · 2005-09-28 19:15:59

A few factoids that I am sure will astound.

Since shuttles inception in 1971 up to the current day we have already put $150 billion.

The Iss is also expected to cost well over $100 billion, though other nations will bear some of that when completed.

I was also a young age of 11 at the time seeing in black and white these specticles of fantasy as each landing happened.

So do you want to be informed watch the
NASA Announces Space Station Mission Briefings

NASA announced media briefings at 2 and 3 p.m. EDT, Thursday to preview the next mission to the international space station and to review the accomplishments of the onboard crew.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-28 19:26:10

"Accomplishments"

Haha! What a laugh! Somewhere between an amused laugh, and a laugh to keep from crying...

"The Iss is also expected to cost well over $100 billion, though other nations will bear some of that when completed."

What? No they won't. Not much of it anyway, the US will still be shouldering 90%+ of the $150,000,000,000 the station will absorb until its projected 2017 "mission end" date.

dicktice · 2005-09-28 20:42:17

Would the Mir space station have been deep-sixed, had the ISS not been promoted as a viable alternative? Think back: What has been done to keep the ISS up there and maintained, certainly could have been done for a lot less, and to greater effect, thanks to the Soyuz hardware program, and a lot of dedicated rocket scientists and engineers working for a pittance, over there. Go ahead and laugh, but I'm all for supporting the Ruskies, if they are the only show in town. Meanwhile, what an opportunity for privatly funded spacers, over here!

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-28 21:04:13

The thing is Dicktice, the Russians did pull all the jerry-rigging tricks to keep Mir aloft, and they kept it up there longer then they should have. I don't think it would have been practical to keep Mir going much longer, it was simply worn out.

The Russians can't work magic, Dicktice, I sense that you are slipping into Russia-worship.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-28 22:15:32

MirCorp was a company based in the US and western Europe to rent Mir and use it for profit. Although the core module was 14 years old, the other modules were 3 years old. Russia had already built the core module for Mir-2, a duplicate of the Mir core module but new, so MirCorp wanted to pay to fly it to Mir for replacement. Once the damaged module was replaced or scrapped, and the core module was replaced, the station would have been viable for another decade. That plan was in 2001 so Mir would have been viable until at least 2011.

Instead the Mir-2 core module was used for ISS. It's now called the Russian Service Module. I heard Russia has another one in a warehouse somewhere, but the one proposed for Mir is specifically the one current on ISS. I wonder if that discussion is one reason the Service Module wasn't launched in 1999.

If Mir did get the module replacements, would ISS ever have been built? NASA was bent on building a space station at that point. Ronald Regan started it with US space station Freedom. Supposedly it would have cost $8 billion, but after spending that entire budget they only had studies completed; no hardware. What would have occupied NASA's time if they only had Shuttle? What would have happened to the manned space program? Remember that Clinton mandated no human travel beyond LEO, it wasn't until George W. Bush's VSE that NASA was permitted to spend any money even developing technology for travel beyond LEO. George Bush Sr. did order a mission to Mars in 1989, but after the budget of the 90-day report that got canned quick. So what would NASA have done?

Josh Cryer · 2005-09-28 22:24:44

What on earth did they spend $8 billion on if they didn't build any hardware? My god. That's insane.

John Creighton · 2005-09-28 22:40:39

What on earth did they spend $8 billion on if they didn't build any hardware? My god. That's insane.

I know the ISS was redesigned a lot. But the design cost isn't so bad compared to the cost of the entire program.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-09-28 06:25:32

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#2 2005-09-28 06:46:14

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#3 2005-09-28 07:45:06

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#4 2005-09-28 08:39:23

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#5 2005-09-28 09:49:23

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#6 2005-09-28 10:03:29

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#7 2005-09-28 10:31:09

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#8 2005-09-28 10:39:56

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#9 2005-09-28 10:46:01

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#10 2005-09-28 11:31:30

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#11 2005-09-28 11:51:58

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#12 2005-09-28 12:22:26

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#13 2005-09-28 13:27:00

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#14 2005-09-28 14:23:32

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#15 2005-09-28 14:48:26

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#16 2005-09-28 14:55:34

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#17 2005-09-28 17:54:02

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#18 2005-09-28 18:06:36

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#19 2005-09-28 19:15:59

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#20 2005-09-28 19:26:10

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#21 2005-09-28 20:42:17

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#22 2005-09-28 21:04:13

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#23 2005-09-28 22:15:32

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#24 2005-09-28 22:24:44

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#25 2005-09-28 22:40:39

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

Board footer

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-