Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

SpaceNut · 2005-09-29 06:14:58

Hello RobertDyck, do you know or have the info available for the years that the engineering work, studies period was done over? I too question such high numbers for no physical hardware.

ftlwright · 2005-09-29 07:08:18

A fleet of engineers and paper pusher are expensive, this was the whole point of Reagan's War with the Soviets. Space station Freedom, NASP, Star Wars were all designed to be ridiculously expensive in order to bankrupt U.S.S.R. My advisor in college was an advisor for the NASP project and it was determined fairly earlier on that if they were serious about the goals of the program they would have just gone with a full blow rocket. Heck, the Cold War is the main culprit for making the shuttle what it is.

Palomar · 2005-09-29 07:21:07

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

*So we've both got rocket fuel for blood. Far-out!

Dicktice wrote:

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

It's certainly your prerogative. And the Russians deserve kudos for their accomplishments, yes.

Meanwhile, I'm reaffirming my loyalty to NASA.

There have been low points for sure (though the probes and robotic missions are usually spectacularly successful)...and I've always maintained a love for NASA despite it all, which was deeply instilled during childhood and Apollo.

--Cindy

TwinBeam · 2005-09-29 10:16:56

While some might prefer we abandon ISS and shuttle, it's pretty clear that we ARE going to "fix" shuttle and "finish" ISS - if only for political reasons.

From what I can see, the shuttle has only one problem that must be resolved to consider it "fixed and fly-able" from a political perspective (the only perspective that counts in this case, I'm afraid) - the foam. We need an "good and affordable" fix - akin to the re-engineering done for the O rings.

But NASA has looked at the foam problem and apparently can't figure out any way to keep it from falling off. They've considered in-space tile repair, but that appears to be an unacceptably risky approach for several reasons.

If we can't keep foam from coming off, and can't safely fix tile damage in space, why not just keep falling foam from damaging the shuttle? That does appear to be a solvable problem. A very small area of the shuttle is actually at risk - foam can't get very far from the tank before falling below the shuttle.

Sacrifice a small amount of payload capacity by adding strategically placed "shields" to intercept the foam - either to directly protect at-risk areas of the shuttle, or maybe to re-direct airflow near the shuttle so that falling foam is pushed away from the shuttle.

Even if the solution was estimated to only have a 90% success rate, that'd be adequate to consider the shuttle fixed, so long as it won't be flying much longer.

**Get a shuttle fix "done" so we can get on with getting beyond LEO.**

SpaceNut · 2005-09-29 10:39:03

Many would disagree but the seat of power is not within Nasa it is located in Washington DC. The [url=http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17907]Senate Approves Sen. Hutchison's NASA Authorization Bill
Bill outlines national space exploration policy, requires completion of ISS[/url]

The Senate today passed by unanimous consent the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 2005, legislation introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space. The legislation authorizes NASA for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, establishes a policy objective of uninterrupted U.S. spaceflight capability and requires completion of the International Space Station (ISS).

Sen. Hutchison's NASA legislation designates the U.S. segment of the ISS as a national laboratory facility. The administrator would be required to outline operations and functions of the ISS national laboratory activities. Sen. Hutchison has acted with a focus on the broad research benefits and capabilities of the ISS.
"Designation of the ISS as a national laboratory will expand the variety of areas to which space research can be applied. Our future in space has unlimited potential that can be harnessed through appropriate guidance, oversight and accountability," Sen. Hutchison said.
In addition, it includes language to ensure NASA completes a balanced science plan and requires a report to Congress every two years.

Well if signed or allowed to laspe it will then be law and Nasa will just have to find away to accomplish the task.

Stormrage · 2005-09-29 11:16:31

I go away and this happens. Maybe i should go more often.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-29 11:24:18

I'm not sure you are fully aware of the situation that NASA is in with Shuttle, TwinBeam:

First, you can't really add much of anything to Shuttle, or it will be too heavy to support ISS construction. If you added a single tonne of stuff, that probably would mean the heaviest ISS modules couldn't fly even if you reduced the crew. Discovery needed all seven astronauts to get the work needed done too.

Second, adding an ejectable shield to the bottom of the orbiter isn't happening, even a thin plate of sheet metal would weigh quite a bit and would be very difficult to engineer due to the mechanism required to eject the plate for reentry... which if it failed, bad things would happen.

Thirdly, cost: NASA doesn't have the money for a billion-dollar class fix, like adding expendable amor plating with a high-reliability ejection mechanism and heat-proof mounting mechanism for reentry. The cost for such a change would easily suck up the whole budget to develop TheStick, if past modifications to Shuttle are any indication.

Lastly, time: developing such a modification to Shuttle will take time, time that NASA does not have. If NASA can't get Shuttle flying again by this time next year, even the reduced ~15 flight launch schedule isn't happening.

Foam has seperated from all locations on the main tank, from the weak PAL ramps to the "good" robot-applied foam. The entire heat shield, from nose to engine ramp, maybe even the cockpit windows too, are vunerable to foam damage.

I still think that the best thing to do would be to wrap the orbiters' side of the tank, from LOX fill port to the SSME nozzles, with some kind of mesh and just tell the ISS module people that they are going to have to find a few hundred kilos to shed... But no, the modules are sacred and holy, and must not be touched!

How about somebody tell Huntchins to shut up? At least he won't care what kind of science goes on up there, just so long as the money keeps flowing into his state.

dicktice · 2005-09-29 14:27:08

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

Where is your objectivity? The hardware answers to your longevity rationale have already been given in the previous posts, since yours containing the above quote. If I "worship" anything, it's good old make-do, on-time and on-budget engineering, and that goes for all of the space agencies: NASA, RKA, JAXA and CNSA. (Would that they were all cooperating now for the sake of Earth's future in space, in our time. And with Griffin in the driver's seat, who knows...?) Meanwhile, magic it ain't, but the old fashioned Soyuz system of make-do rocketry continues to go on saving our humans-in-space program, while we dither about O-rings, and now FOAM for God's sake! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to ... oh, oh, I think we have a problem, Houston. I wonder if it might not be time to place a call with Uncle Burt, at Scaled Composites?

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-29 15:43:19

"good old make-do, on-time and on-budget engineering"

Except that it isn't in Russia's case, cosmonauts and astronauts were nearly killed on Mir many many times... ramming incident with a Progress, oxygen generator fire, airlock hatches getting stuck, total power failure, and so on. It really is a wonder that Mir never killed anybody, and obviously had as much to do with luck as Russian engineering skills.

Its not fair to compare Soyuz to Shuttle, since Shuttle's primary purpose was never to be the spacecraft it was advertised to be: in fact, the real goal of Shuttle was the exact opposit... it was designed with the primary goal of employing as many engineers for as long as possible. It was supposed to be hypra-complex... annnd even the advertised form of Shuttle is, ya know, a tinsey bit more ambitious than Soyuz.

So, your comparisons are meaningless.

Palomar · 2005-09-29 15:51:38

"good old make-do, on-time and on-budget engineering"
Except that it isn't in Russia's case, cosmonauts and astronauts were nearly killed on Mir many many times... ramming incident with a Progress, oxygen generator fire, airlock hatches getting stuck, total power failure, and so on. It really is a wonder that Mir never killed anybody...

*Years ago (and prior to mission's end of course) I read of speculation being floated (pardon the pun) around that Mir might actually be haunted. As in "by ghosts" or malevolent spirits. LOL!

--Cindy

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-09-29 22:05:44

Griffin Point Paper - What Dr. Griffin Meant To Say Was ...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18223
Article

RobertDyck · 2005-09-30 00:09:43

Hello RobertDyck, do you know or have the info available for the years that the engineering work, studies period was done over? I too question such high numbers for no physical hardware.

Well, I read a criticism that Space Station Freedom had an initial budget of $8 billion but after the study was done they spent all the money with no hardware. It's so long ago I don't remember where I read that, but there is always Encyclopedia Astronautica. <here>

Here is a cost chart from the Encyclopedia Astronautica page for ISS. The caption says "Here is a quick summary of what the project has cost so far. Credit: NASA via Marcus Lindroos." It shows one line for each station proposal. When I add up the annual cost for Freedom (dark blue line) I get a total of $8 billion. The legend also says $8 billion. The scale states it's adjusted for constant 1984 dollars, and this House document says the project was cancelled after a $1 billion cost overrun.

Each line on the chart shows the total costs for a different station proposal, but it shows a cyan line for ISS starting in 1985. The House document says the ISS project started in 1994 so those graph lines may count a portion of the budget from a previous station included in a later station. I hope. I certainly hope they weren't spending money on 4 stations at once. The 1991 (yellow line) and 1993 (cyan line) are exactly the same from 1984 to 1992 so that would support this hypothesis. Anyway, the budget for the original 1984 proposal for Freedom was $8 billion.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-30 01:10:42

Didn't I mention my ideas to fix the foam problems?

1) Replace the PAL ramp with open cell foam sealed in polymer film, and filled with helium. Put a weak spot in the film to permit gas pressure to escape at altitude in a controlled manner. Use a light ring around the weakened spot to ensure the tear doesn't extend beyond that. A thickened ring of the same polymer should do. To avoid custom film it may be easier to punch a hole in standard film and melt-seal a patch of thinner film. Then melt-seal on a metal ring like 22 gauge stainless steel wire.

Most importantly, adhere the PAL ramp directly to the metal tank, not to spray-on foam. Helium won't liquefy at liquid hydrogen temperature. The best polymer films for cryogenic temperatures are Teflon FEP and PCTFE, both can withstand -240°C without embrittlement. Liquid hydrogen is -253°C so you can't count on film strength to hold on the foam. Use and adhesive to hold the foam to the film as well as adhesive between film and metal. If a crack forms in the foam the adhesive should hold it anyway. The liquid oxygen tank is on top and that's -182°C so the film will hold without trouble.

2) Wrap the spray-on foam in polymer film. This creates an aerodynamic skin for the tank. It should prevent aerodynamic pressure that pulls foam off, and if foam does fragment it will hold the foam chunks in. Based on the density of 1 mil thick Saran 3, film over the surface of the tank should mass 100 pounds. That's a lot less than the paint they used for STS-1 and 2.

Ps. What polymer is the spray-on foam composed of? Why doesn't it embrittle at liquid hydrogen temperature? According to the foam manufacturer, they use components that form polyurethane. The best form of polyurethane I found has a service temperature of -70 to +70°C. Fluoropolymer film should perform better.
Also, HCFC-141b has a boiling temperature of +89.6°F/+32°C and a vapour pressure of 10 psia @ 68°F/20°C. Since the blowing agent fills the foam cells, won't that liquefy at liquid hydrogen temperature? Will the cells closest to the metal collapse due to liquefaction? What happens when pressure drop causes the blowing agent to boil? This foam sound very dynamic to me.

dicktice · 2005-09-30 17:20:03

GCNR: Boy are you a hard nut to crack: Results are what count, and your litany of accidents and mistakes and luck aboard Mir are, to my way of thinking, part of the early human spacefaring adventure, and example of The ad hoc solutions, automated rescue mission successes boggle the mind. The collision was a mistaken effort at remote controlled manual docking. Stupid, but very instructional as regards realigning the platform by eyeball--something bound to happen sometime perhaps on the way to the Moon... Great stuff, but you simply denegrate it. I don't know where you are coming from, but it would seem that objectivity regarding the human abilities to handle the unexpected in space ain't it. Apollo 13 type stuff, following something dumb, is what I mean. Regarding Soyuz, no comparison intended. The original stacked configuration worked, continues to work and apparently will be readopted by Griffin's NASA. So, how about getting off your hobby horse(s) and come up with something new to grouse about. Nothing personal, but your negative submissions see, tp lack sufficient compensatory ideas to my way of thinking. Age may have something to do with it. It makes one impatient with pessimistic blatherings.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-30 18:47:52

Didn't I mention my ideas to fix the foam problems?
1) Replace the PAL ramp with open cell foam sealed in polymer film, and filled with helium.

This Nasa's current thoughts for the ramp:

[url=http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050930/NEWS02/509300335/1007]NASA devises foam fix
Facilities' storm damage likely to bump shuttle launch to May[/url]

NASA has a plan to fix its problem-plagued external fuel tanks, and the agency is studying the possibility of launching its next two shuttle missions in May and July.
NASA aims to replace an external tank foam ramp that shed a one-pound piece of insulation on the agency's first post-Columbia mission, prompting managers to put future flights on hold.

This what they plan to do:

NASA plans to remove the 37-foot ramp, replacing it with a new type of foam that will be applied with more exacting techniques designed to prevent shedding.
The area will be outfitted with instrumentation to better understand aerodynamic forces that could cause damage in flight.
Engineers think the change will work because the first 10 feet of the ramp was removed and replaced in that same fashion prior to Discovery's flight.
The work was done so that a safety modification could be made beneath the ramp, and no foam was shed from the reworked area.

So why was the whole ramp not reworked in the first place?

dicktice · 2005-09-30 18:56:41

You want to post your source for that non-shedding modification to the Discoverer launch?

SpaceNut · 2005-09-30 19:22:36

The link is between the 1st and 2 nd quote box.

NASA devises foam fix Facilities' storm damage likely to bump shuttle launch to May

I think this was the area of the heater rework for the bipod?
I am searching to see if that is true or not.

Edit
Found a return to flight document with loads of photos on the foam areas that were reworked.
It appears that the heater wires run towards the end of the pal ramp best that I can tell.

dicktice · 2005-10-01 10:53:23

Just the ticket: Thanks.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-01 20:22:04

GCNR: Boy are you a hard nut to crack: Results are what count, and your litany of accidents and mistakes and luck aboard Mir are, to my way of thinking, part of the early human spacefaring adventure, and example of The ad hoc solutions, automated rescue mission successes boggle the mind. The collision was a mistaken effort at remote controlled manual docking. Stupid, but very instructional as regards realigning the platform by eyeball--something bound to happen sometime perhaps on the way to the Moon... Great stuff, but you simply denegrate it. I don't know where you are coming from, but it would seem that objectivity regarding the human abilities to handle the unexpected in space ain't it. Apollo 13 type stuff, following something dumb, is what I mean. Regarding Soyuz, no comparison intended. The original stacked configuration worked, continues to work and apparently will be readopted by Griffin's NASA. So, how about getting off your hobby horse(s) and come up with something new to grouse about. Nothing personal, but your negative submissions see, tp lack sufficient compensatory ideas to my way of thinking. Age may have something to do with it. It makes one impatient with pessimistic blatherings.

"part of the early human spacefaring adventure"

Russia worship nonsense. There are systems on space vehicles/stations that should not fail if crews live & work in space with a reasonable expectation that they won't be killed. Systems which on Mir failed.

The collision on Mir was not soley due to human error, the automated docking system failed and the cameras helping guide the Progress also failed, which precipitated the navigation error and the collision.

Yes, I do indeed denigrate when systems with a high probability of getting people killed fail, particularly when people seem so ready to overlook said failures because they really really like who causes them.

You need to get a reality check about how not so good Russian technology is.

dicktice · 2005-10-02 10:42:20

Your persistant use of "worship" is childish invective--surely not necessary if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.
Systems that "should not fail" is a given. But things happen, and the ability to improvise when no help except communicated advice from Mission Control (generically speaking) is at hand, as in the Apollo 13 tank blowout and the Progress/Miir collision, resulted in their respective crews' survival ... are human attributes we should acclaim--and count on next time whatever new stupidity or accidental oversight demands the on-board human touch. The Russian organization, in the case of Mir, failed to recognize the risks, and "our own" British-born, guest astronaut on board, was instrumental in saving their lives. The automated docking system was not at fault, and the cameras monocular and not positioned properly for a remotely controlled manual docking experiment. I don't fault the hardware, but the Ground Control authority over the Mir commander's. So, if I'm anything, it's a Mir-Hugger, not a Russian-worshiper. Their well proven hardware works reliabily enough to get us out and back, as much as I believe we should have been better off by now with the reuseable spaceplane/launcher plane confuguration contemplated post-Apollo, and shot down by the politicians.
Re."You need to get a reality check about how not so good Russian technology." That's open to further discussion. My atittude is and always will be: Don't cancel what works before you have something better already working. How can you criticize that, except on nationalistic grounds? You must be awfully young, willing to start all over again from square one ... especially when today's world situation makes the ability to start all over again (for us) problematic.
I'm looking foreward to a ten-year (say) spacetravel world-view lesson in reality, which I hope you will undertake, before this topic is allowed to fizzle out.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-02 11:40:52

I never said "Russian technology good, American technology bad", but when I read someone trying to say the reverse I have to take exception. There have been problems with space technology by both countries. If GCNRevenger wants to emphasize the problem with Progress docking, I have to emphasize the problems with Shuttle. Mission STS-63 in 1995 was the first scheduled docking of Shuttle with Mir. But Shuttle RCS thruster system leaked MMH. That's Mono-Methyl Hydrazine, a hypergolic. Hypergolic means it explodes without the need for any oxidizer. [tex:d3de158554]N_2O_4[/tex:d3de158554] will make it react more strongly providing a higher performance thruster, but leaked MMH can explode all on its own. Russia's reaction was "get that leaky thing away from our space station".

Look; Russia had problems, America had problems. Space is a very demanding environment. We could add up all the cosmonauts who died vs. astronauts, but that isn't useful. Skylab had serious problems; it lost its micrometeoroid shield and sun shade as well as one main solar array during launch. The other main solar array didn't deploy. Until the parasol was deployed temperature inside Skylab was 126°F (52°C). That's after they conducted a series of roll manoeuvres to control heat, before the manoeuvres it was 160°F (71°C). Astronauts used a tree pruning stick to cut the cable holding the remaining main solar array closed.

Vir Stellae · 2005-10-03 09:46:37

http://204.174.21.156/Music/Daniel/Hallelujah.mp3

Hurrah! there may be hope afterall!

[/quote]

Vir Stellae · 2005-10-03 09:49:43

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

well, If shuttle were cancelled right now that could probably push the moon landing date to around 2013 or earlier, and a CEV first-flight in maybe 2009....

Palomar · 2005-10-04 06:01:13

Awwww!

*C'mon, Mr. Griffin. "Message from the NASA Administrator Regarding Space Station and Space Shuttle Comments"

The attention-getting parts of the story were, of course, associated with the use of words such as "mistake" and "blunder" in connection with the shuttle and station programs.

Which is exactly what they are. At least the reporter got it right.

The press coverage has been such as to make it appear that I used those words to characterize the programs. In fact -- and I would hope that this goes without saying -- I did no such thing.

Sorry to know it.

At the strategic level, I think all of you know that I believe we have been restricted to low Earth orbit for far too long

Yeah. 35+ years of it. We've been stuck in LEO for a lot longer than we were going away from Earth.

and that the proper focus of our nation's space program should be the exploration of our solar system.

Yep.

I do understand that others will disagree.

To hell with them; they can go into oceanography or something.

As I have often said publicly, the shuttle is the most amazing machine humans have ever built, and it has been the recipient of the most brilliant engineering that America can provide. The station is a more difficult engineering project, by far, than was Apollo

Aaaarrgghhh. Well, engineering aside, neither the Shuttle nor the ISS have the glory and accomplishment factor which Apollo did have. The Shuttle in particular has proven to be an embarrassment. We never lost 14 astronauts to Apollo (thankfully, and with respect intended to the deceased Shuttle astronauts).

It is not my intention that they should be used to criticize or diminish the efforts of those who have devoted their lives -- and in some cases given their lives -- to the space program. Space technology is still in its infancy. To criticize the shuttle and station because our best efforts have fallen short of the goals we have set would be like criticizing the early aviation pioneers because they did not understand, then, how to build transcontinental aircraft.

I dunno...if the greatest ships in the fleet brought us glory in the 1960s and early 1970s and the canoes thereafter are sinking lemons I think criticism IS fair and needed.

Ah well.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-10-04 06:28:00

Yup seen other articles kind of back peddling on the previous shuttle statements, very wishy washy and spineless for a leader.

This is probably being done to keep congress paying the bills as it were until a shuttle succesor can fly. Of which the drawback is the need for the army that makes shuttle possible.

But how do we get over the need for these people, contractors gallor and more...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-09-29 06:14:58

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

#27 2005-09-29 07:08:18

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

#28 2005-09-29 07:21:07

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

#29 2005-09-29 10:16:56

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

#30 2005-09-29 10:39:03

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

#31 2005-09-29 11:16:31

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

#32 2005-09-29 11:24:18

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

#33 2005-09-29 14:27:08

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

#34 2005-09-29 15:43:19

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

#35 2005-09-29 15:51:38

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

#36 2005-09-29 22:05:44

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

#37 2005-09-30 00:09:43

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

#38 2005-09-30 01:10:42

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

#39 2005-09-30 17:20:03

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

#40 2005-09-30 18:47:52

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

#41 2005-09-30 18:56:41

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

#42 2005-09-30 19:22:36

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

#43 2005-10-01 10:53:23

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

#44 2005-10-01 20:22:04

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

#45 2005-10-02 10:42:20

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

#46 2005-10-02 11:40:52

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

#47 2005-10-03 09:46:37

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

#48 2005-10-03 09:49:43

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

#49 2005-10-04 06:01:13

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

#50 2005-10-04 06:28:00

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-