Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-08 10:02:17

Nooo, America doesn't need to bring other countries together...
1: This approach to spaceflight doesn't work, and is proven to fail as embodied by the accursed ISS.
2: An essentially trivial gesture like spaceflight cooperation isn't going to make countries opposed to us like us.

And now the senator is trying to scrounge together something for the ISS to do when/if it does get mostly-finished? I guess he is getting desperate to find a reason to continue the gravy-train project.

Commodore · 2005-12-08 10:26:36

Perhaps offering a seat or two to the Chinese will hold them back as much as it has held us back.

Commodore · 2005-12-08 10:46:47

Zubrin's Latest

He proposes, as I have, using the HLV to launch the remaining ISS components. But he seems to want to do it without the Shuttle, which I don't think is possible.

He also points out the weakness in launching a TLI stage using cryogenic fuels. I wonder if methane, the fuel used in the CEV that allows it to be useable for up to 6 months, would be a viable choice for the 2nd/TLI stage. It would probably require a different rocket.

Finally, he still hasn't managed to mentally seperate the important mission of orbital optical astronomy, and the Hubble.

John Creighton · 2005-12-08 11:06:43

Zubrin's Latest
He proposes, as I have, using the HLV to launch the remaining ISS components. But he seems to want to do it without the Shuttle, which I don't think is possible.

With this approach Zubrin wins regardless because he gets a HLV regardless if the ISS is finished or not. This also sounds good to me. However, if we want to be honest about finishing the ISS we must recognize that by the time the HLV the ISS will be at the end of its design life and there will be an extra cost in developing a method to use the HLV to complete the ISS. So I support Zubrin on this issue but I wonder if it is a dishonest or overly optimistic position.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-08 11:32:13

Yeah, Bob is at it again, but not so badly this time...:

-He still adheres to his false and fraudulent view that the O'Keefe Moon plan was not possible, even though it is similar to the VSE plan, except with more docking events.

-A 1-in-50 chance of death for a Hubble mission is clearly NOT worthwhile, not even as a PR stunt to boost NASA's popularity with congress and the public.

-The big HLLV can only cary 125MT with the EDS stage acting as an upper stage, and that only to equitorial orbit. Since this stage should be as "dumb" as possible, this would nessesitate an even more complex tug vehicle to deliver modules. Without the expensive EDS stage with its support hardware and launching to the ISS orbit, the HLLV could probobly only cary ~70MT. With ~20MT of that taken up by the tug and payload cradle, that means only two modules can be launched at a time. The HLLV could only fit two or three modules by volume anyway, so this is not a huge loss.

-The ISS is indeed a time-sensitive project. The station is getting old, and the probability that it will be viable for more than another decade is not very good. It will take NASA several years to build the HLLV or the CEV, during which time the ISS will have no heavy cargo support. With two modules launched per HLLV, then that really won't get the station done much quicker.

-NASA will have plenty of time to learn to launch the CEV, which is a much much simpler contraption then Shuttle, in the 2012-2018 window between its introduction and the Moon flights. Switching to Methane for the EDS isn't practical, maximum Isp is absolutely essential, and the extra weight of Methane would require more signifigant external tank modifications.

-The CEV is not too big, it simply employs the excess payload mass that TheStick makes available. Since the capsule will probobly be used for early Mars flights, this extra volume makes the capsule itself a minimally practical "emergency HAB" during Earth return from Mars too.

-Direct launch/landing is terribly inefficent since you have to lift the Earth-return fuel from the Lunar surface into Lunar orbit, which more than offsets the mass of a dedicated acent vehicle. Methane made from crew waste will be trivially small too, Bob just threw that it in to sound good.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-08 11:38:46

ATK shuttle Booster contract for remaining flights needed to complete the ISS appears to be for 19.
Shuttle booster maker to design new rocket
The contract's value is unknown, company officials said, because the engineering, development and testing of the new launcher is being done in concert with the firm's existing $370-million-a-year contract to deliver solid rocket boosters for up to 19 more space shuttle missions.
Lets see how much each booster costs..
2005 - 2010 is 5 years multiply by 370 million equals 1.85 billion
19 flights multiply by 2 booster each equals 38
costs per booster is 48.68 million approximately

And then again that would be with no profit?

From the article:
NASA gives ATK/Thiokol new contract

With only minor modifications, ATK/Thiokol intends to use its existing rocket motor technology on NASA's new project, dubbed the Crew Launch Vehicle, or CLV. The value of the new contract with NASA eventually will depend on how many rocket motors are ordered from ATK/Thiokol. The booster motors used on the space shuttle cost about $10 million each.

So that means they are making 38 million per each SRB that is delivered as profit. Now who says that space is not filled with pork... :evil:

publiusr · 2005-12-08 16:09:54

ATK doesn't creep folks out. I do not question Zubrin in reducing the number of dockings and such--since ISS was hobbled by 20 ton-at-a-time construction.

As long as we get an HLLV built and soon.

Commodore · 2005-12-08 17:23:34

-He still adheres to his false and fraudulent view that the O'Keefe Moon plan was not possible, even though it is similar to the VSE plan, except with more docking events.

Not impossible, but pretty silly. Using 4+ EELVs makes little sense, and gives you little room for expansion. Plus your cost will probably be higher.

-The big HLLV can only carry 125MT with the EDS stage acting as an upper stage, and that only to equatorial orbit. Since this stage should be as "dumb" as possible, this would necessitate an even more complex tug vehicle to deliver modules. Without the expensive EDS stage with its support hardware and launching to the ISS orbit, the HLLV could probably only carry ~70MT. With ~20MT of that taken up by the tug and payload cradle that means only two modules can be launched at a time. The HLLV could only fit two or three modules by volume anyway, so this is not a huge loss.

There is no need for a modified EDS for ISS construction duty to be smart. All it has to do launch the modules to close proximity to the ISS. It’s not like were going to dock the modules with the tug. I'm assuming a shuttle will be there to pluck modules off the tugs and put them on the station. We will loss some mass by sending it to the ISS orbit with a substantial payload cradle, but should regain a good percentage of it by no longer needing the fuel to go to the moon, which is at least half the 125tons in a lunar mission.

-The ISS is indeed a time-sensitive project. The station is getting old, and the probability that it will be viable for more than another decade is not very good. It will take NASA several years to build the HLLV or the CEV, during which time the ISS will have no heavy cargo support. With two modules launched per HLLV, then that really won't get the station done much quicker.

The ISS is at this time intended to be retired in 2017. If MIR is any indication it can safely go beyond that, less safe well beyond that. Between all the resupply going to it I wouldn't be surprised to see it in orbit for another 2 decades.

Between now and completion, if we go the HLV route, we can stand down one shuttle completely and slow preparation on the other 2 to nearly a halt, and pay the Russians to launch a Progress once a month. Between them and the ATVs starting in 2007, that should be more than enough to keep the gears oiled.

After completion if we do it right it can be done very cheaply as far as the US is concerned. Develop one of those HLV cargo modules I mentioned in the other thread. Assume it costs a half billion a piece. Use a 6 man CEV for crew exchange. Split the cost of the logistics module and the CEV launch 6 ways and make anyone who wants to stay for 6 months pay their share.

Switching to Methane for the EDS isn't practical, maximum Isp is absolutely essential, and the extra weight of Methane would require more significant external tank modifications.

If we actually lose a flight to boil off you can be sure something will be done. I would prefer a reusable EDS stage anyway. It makes sense if you consider one of our primary non-science goals is to exploit Lunar LOX. We are already sacrificing by using a methane based rockets which makes whatever water we find on the moon good only for drinking. Sacrificing a little mass for a heavier reusable tug that will save us money in the long run makes just as much sense.

-Direct launch/landing is terribly inefficient since you have to lift the Earth-return fuel from the Lunar surface into Lunar orbit, which more than offsets the mass of a dedicated accent vehicle. Methane made from crew waste will be trivially small too, Bob just threw that it in to sound good.

I am not sold on his direct launch landing, but I don't like having to pay for a separate accent module. It is identical to the CEV in nearly every way. It would make more sense to swap out the accent module for a CEV, and swap out the Service Module for a beefed up accent engine to deal with the minimal weight difference. With time and work in some other areas it could be reusable.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-08 20:32:23

It does't make alot of sense to me that Bob would be so veheminant over the original EELV-based plan, which could very well turn out to be cheaper then the current one, but doesn't pitch a fit over the NASA DRM Mars plan which has just as many dockings and similarly stringent launch schedule requirements.

The EDS, if it were to burn all its fuel, would place 125MT into a low equitorial orbit. Without the EDS, the HLV could lift about 80MT (circulization by kick stage or restarting central SSME). If the maximal EDS version is used it will still have to be modified, since it is a "dumb" module and is unable to maneuver or station-keep on its own, and a tug will be required. Assuming a tug and payload cradle weigh about 20MT that gives you mass capacity for about three modules. However, the HLLV payload faring only gives you volume for about two, so I think it makes more sense to use the smaller "lite" model and ship two at a time.

In any event, leave the Shuttle out of this. If the tug is "smart" enough to manever within a few miles of the station, then spend the little extra and make it smart enough to go the rest of the way so we can use its funding to build the HLV. Furthermore, if the Shuttle staff is suddenly cut back if one or two of the orbiters are retired, they might be needed to launch the remaining Shuttle and the HLV in fairly rapid sucession. Also don't forget that the launch pad facilities will need to be alterd to handle the HLV, which may make the pad incompatible with Shuttle.

The ISS may be capable of functioning past the 2017 cutoff, but A) we need that money for the Moon & Mars B) it will be unsafe or unusable or both, and C) the ISS (and its $2.5-3.5Bn/yr cost) is not going to be a part of our space program past this date and thats that.

NASA isn't going to pay the Russians a single penny more then they have to, and buying some half a billion dollars worth of Progress vehicles a year isn't in the cards. Furthermore, Progress cannot bring up but 2200kg at a time, and can't bring up large items (batteries, gyros, LSS units, etc) at all since they don't fit through the little 80cm hatch.

NASA isn't going to use Methane for the EDS stage nor the Lunar lander, because it is absolutely vital to maximize the landers' payload. This is not optional nor negotiable, either it can land ~20MT or more, or else we forget about the whole thing right now and scrap all the plans. 20MT is the smallest load capable of moving a complete, prefabricated, rigid-walled (so you can bury) HAB module. The payload penalty for Methane would certainly be tens of percent, and is completly unacceptable: the big HLV is the smallest rocket that makes this method practical to do anything more than repeat Apollo, and we can't make a Shuttle-derived HLV any bigger. Again, trading Hydrogen for Methane doesn't reduce your payload by a trivial margin, it would deeply cut into the payload and make even small modules impractical.

You prefer a reuseable EDS stage? Why? There is no way it could carry enough fuel to return itself back to Earth orbit and perform its mission. The EDS stage, being a "dumb" stage powerd and controlled by its payload, would also wind up being far more expensive. The cost of developing the "smart" EDS will obliterate most of the future cost bennefits. And how would you refuel it? If you are launching fresh fuel from Earth, you might as well put a rocket on the back of the tanker and make it a new EDS stage. If you are refueling from the Moon, you are going to need quite a bit of LOX (dozens of tonnes at least), but to get that OFF the Moon you'll need to burn about an equal quantity... which adds up to an awful lot of Oxygen (several hundred tonnes of ore worth).

And what about all the methane or hydrogen needed to launch that Oxygen from the Moon? You would only get a few trips worth from one HLV load most likly... the economics aren't very favorable for it. The EDS stage could be made pretty dumb, and cost in the region of only $50M. Considering if it costs ~$1Bn to make it reuseable and tens of millions per trip worth of fuel (not LOX), we are better off with just making it expendable, which will be more reliable in the end anyway. Its just not expensive enough to warrent reuseability.

Direct landing saves you from having to buy a lander, but you pay for it by being forced to lift all your Earth-return fuel to Lunar orbit. This means that your payload capacity is down to basically nothing, and will be unable to do anything but repeat the Flags & Footprints Apollo missions. It isn't practical or safe to disconnect the CEV capsule from its service module either, nor is it a good shape to be a HAB for two weeks, and it would be upside down. The acent module/hab will be very light weight, probobly only a few tonnes, since it only has to hold pressure and not contend with the riggors of reentry. Its worth it.

Don't get consumed by the concept of reuseability: for smaller rockets and vehicles, it often costs more money to make and use them reuseable then it is to just make an expendable and throw it away. Plus, reuseability would take time to develop, time that NASA doesn't have.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-09 07:08:13

Using 4+ EELVs makes little sense, and gives you little room for expansion. Plus your cost will probably be higher.

Agreed most likely higher since we are talking of a modified Atlas 5 or a Delta IV of which these are in the 200 million to 400 million already so pricing I am sure will not go down by there respective manufacturers.

All it has to do launch the modules to close proximity to the ISS. It’s not like were going to dock the modules with the tug. I'm assuming a shuttle will be there to pluck modules off the tugs and put them on the station.

But how close is the question for the shuttle has limited fuel supplies.

The ISS is at this time intended to be retired in 2017. If MIR is any indication it can safely go beyond that, less safe well beyond that. Between all the resupply going to it I wouldn't be surprised to see it in orbit for another 2 decades.

This is and will most likely be the case even if the US bows out of it at the 2017 date since the partners have a huge stake in it by that point in time.

If we actually lose a flight to boil off you can be sure something will be done.

Maybe not all that bad since it opens up oportunities for the Space gas station to be constructed from it.
If the unit happens to lay in the ISS orbit it does give the chance to recycle waist Hydrogen dumped into space and excess CO2 to be collected and processed to make methane fuel.

NASA isn't going to pay the Russians a single penny more then they have to, and buying some half a billion dollars worth of Progress vehicles a year isn't in the cards. Furthermore, Progress cannot bring up but 2200kg at a time, and can't bring up large items (batteries, gyros, LSS units, etc) at all since they don't fit through the little 80cm hatch.

I am sure the partners are very aware of this fact and will look for ways to resolve this problem since they have so much at stake in the ISS construction cost by that point.

NASA isn't going to use Methane for the EDS stage nor the Lunar lander, because it is absolutely vital to maximize the landers' payload.

Current EDS and lunar lander design call for the lunar lander descent stage to be powered by Liquid hydrogen and LOX, while the ascent stage will be Lox and methane. While the EDS and return are Liquid hydrogen and LOX.

Grypd · 2005-12-09 09:57:04

Mysterious Oxygen leak being probed

It has now been discovered that during the Shuttle mission that in the aft engine compartment there was a truly serious leak of oxygen. This could easily have lead to a major fire on board and there would have been no warning as it has only been discovered. Nasa are now trying to locate the source with either the engines or the plumbing of the main propulsion system, the shutlles fuel cells or the life support system. In short they have a lot of subsystems to check to find out.

My own view now

This has gone beyond the pale it is now time to put the shuttle to rest. I truly admire the shuttle, it is a great ambassador for the USA it has a majesty that only the greatest engineering challenges mankind has ever done can have but still it remains a beautiful icon of the power of the USA. But that it is also the most complicated and technical space craft mankind has ever flown and it is aging, now for safety's sake it is time it was phased out immediately.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-09 10:08:47

The shuttle's rocket engine propellants include liquid oxygen and hydrogen.
The same liquids are stored in tanks near the engine compartment to feed the fuel cells that generate electricity.
During a countdown, the enclosure is filled with nitrogen. Sensors monitor the compartment for oxygen and hydrogen.
As the spacecraft lifts off, the compartment is vented to prevent an accumulation of highly flammable propellant gases.
During the first two minutes of flight, air in the compartment is captured by six "catch bottles" that hold the samples until they can be examined after landing.
As the shuttle gains altitude, the air in the enclosure is replaced by the vacuum of space.
So far, engineers have not found evidence of a propulsion or power system leak.
Other potential sources of a leak include the crew compartment and a large cargo container in the payload bay.

About two minutes into Discovery's 9 1/2 -minute climb to orbit with seven astronauts on July 26, the oxygen level reached 18.5 percent of the engine compartment's air, according to one reading.
A level of 13.6 percent was measured simultaneously on the opposite side of the compartment by a second device.
At that point, engineers consider oxygen levels of about 18 percent acceptable.

Just goes to show you that no data should ever not be reported live for review at that moment. Recording of data for later review is to late IMO.

Based on a preliminary analysis, a leak rate around 0.08 pounds per second was detected when two of six catch bottles - one on the right side of the compartment, the other on the left - captured 2-second samples a little more than a minute after liftoff.

During ascent, the engine compartment is not purged and vent doors are open to equalize pressure. The aft is pressurized with helium for re-entry.

Interesting to see that the twodifferent sources that I have quoted do not agree with what is in the compartment for a purge gas.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-09 11:26:13

Oh boy, and now they'll have to take apart the back third of the orbiter to find the leak... remember not long ago, cracked in one of the cryogenic fuel lines were found, probobly due to age.

Its just as amazing that there is so much complexity involved with the compartment. Pressurizing and repressurizing, catch bottles, and all that. So complex... TOO complex.

Pull the plug NOW

SpaceNut · 2005-12-09 11:38:17

All appears well on the station:

Station managers are reviewing a proposed plan to keep the Progress docked a few more months. The extra time would allow the crew to use its oxygen and fuel and for additional trash disposal. The Progress is scheduled to undock Dec. 20.
The next Progress is set to launch Dec. 21 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. It will be the 20th Progress to dock with the station. If the Progress docked to the station remains in place, the new Progress will dock to the Pirs Docking Compartment on Dec. 23. It will deliver almost three tons of food, water, fuel, oxygen, air, spare parts and holiday gifts.

Gee we are just going to throw it all away just because another progress will be there soon when we argue about how much it costs to bring this stuff to orbit....

This is just what we should not be doing...

SpaceNut · 2005-12-14 08:18:51

Previously mentioned budget shortfall though 2010 was some where in the 3 to 5 billion neighborhood according to Nasa but others feel that it may be closer to 6 billion before all is said an done.

[url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3523361.html]NASA budget worries lawmakers
Shuttle projects may lack sufficient funds, Hutchison and DeLay say[/url]

Congressional overseers believe it may be as high as $6 billion.
Without more federal money, the shuttle may fly only eight more times rather than the 19 missions that NASA says will be needed to finish construction on the orbiting space station and give the 15-year-old space telescope a makeover

So how does one go for the remaining years until 2010 worth of 19 flights down to doing just 8 and it costing more than if you had flown it the additional 11 times.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-14 08:44:00

That would be because the Shuttle program is in disarray, and disarray can only be cured in short time spans by throwing money at it. Lots of money.

How long has it been since NASA has had a "normal" Shuttle flight? Coming up on five years now, isn't it? Even minor modifications to the Golden Goose are fantastically expensive, and while the Michoud folks have been trying to see how incompetant they can be without be fired, expensive "upgrades" have continued and even accelerated to eke out the last few thousands a percent of reliability they can.

And frankly, the Shuttles are getting old. As they age, they are obviously going to require at least a signifigant short-term investment to keep them flying in "acceptable" shape. It should be noted that the same thing will happen with the ISS as it ages.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-14 14:43:33

I truely dislike the way Nasa is setup in that it does not operate more like a business trying to make a profit. It ends up being just one big sink hole...

Common sense seems to have prevailed for the ISS progress that is docked currently in that since it has pleenty of O2 on board and still room for trash that it will have its burial at sea delayed.
Progress M-54 spacecraft to be docked with ISS until March 2006

BWhite · 2005-12-14 21:05:17

I truely dislike the way Nasa is setup in that it does not operate more like a business trying to make a profit. It ends up being just one big sink hole...

Common sense seems to have prevailed for the ISS progress that is docked currently in that since it has pleenty of O2 on board and still room for trash that it will have its burial at sea delayed.
Progress M-54 spacecraft to be docked with ISS until March 2006

NASA has a mission. If we can shatter the paradigm that NASA equals spaceflight, then NASA can do what it does and others can build EML-1 Gateways and mine lunar PGM, etc. . .

SpaceNut · 2005-12-16 11:08:24

Looks like the no foam vertic is in but while they have wrestled in the past to the tune of 250 million for the last fix how can we trust them with this one.

EML-1?? oh Earth moon Lagrange point 1, Doooh

New Mexico is looking up for the next space port but it would seem that the first steps are only to sub orbital.

Lets go for it an make it to orbit will some one.... please....

SpaceNut · 2005-12-19 14:25:19

Oh.. No.. Congress Gives NASA It's Marching Orders on Space Station Science

NASA Administrator Griffin has been dramatically cutting basic life and microgravity science research across the agency. International Space Station (ISS) science has been devastated. These cuts have become quite a cause of concern in Congress.

Grypd · 2005-12-19 14:44:04

I agree SpaceNut with all the constraints that the USA's budget constraints will put on NASA and with the shuttle millstone it really is going to get tight to be able to afford the CEV.

I wonder if power politics are involved as it should be clear to anyone that the ISS is a bad prospect for science. And for the USA the ability to do more advanced science and actually appear to be advancing especially with the buds of serious competition appearing. This is called in my country cutting off your nose to spite yourself

SpaceNut · 2005-12-20 06:10:34

[url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/3536295.html]Space station visible this week
Wednesday will provide one of the best opportunities[/url]

realtime tracking page

SpaceNut · 2005-12-21 12:06:37

Almost ready to bring a delivery of fresh food, clothes, equipment and special holiday gifts just in time for Christmas. The unpiloted Progress M-55 spacecraftCargo ship ready to begin flight to space station

The new station-bound Progress is loaded with 5,683 pounds of supplies. The "dry" cargo amounts to 3,097 pounds in the form of spare parts, repair gear, life support and equipment hardware.
The refueling module carries 1,940 pounds of propellant for transfer into the Russian segment of the station to feed the outpost's maneuvering thrusters.
To replenish the station's oxygen supply, the Progress is bringing 183 pounds of oxygen and air. And the vessel has 463 pounds of water.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-21 12:56:14

One of the problems of using the shuttle for Hubble repair is the lack of safe haven and while repair Hubble may be a noble thing to do it is however not cost effective to do so. There has been the solution of the rescue shuttle and of course even the why can it not make it to the ISS. Of which once one understands how little fuel the shuttle has on orbit and how much is require to change orbit to get the shuttle to the ISS safe haven it then becomes very understood.

But what about creating a web of connecting cables with tethers running out to geo sat orbiting satelites. Then one only needs to get to the orbit that it is in and attach a climber unit to the net to be able to traverse to any location. Detach once proper location over target are is achieve and just slow the orbit to decrease the altitude until you are there.

Sort of like this as in this article Robotic Space Spiders To Crawl Sub-Orbital Web

John Creighton · 2005-12-21 13:49:09

One of the problems of using the shuttle for Hubble repair is the lack of safe haven and while repair Hubble may be a noble thing to do it is however not cost effective to do so. There has been the solution of the rescue shuttle and of course even the why can it not make it to the ISS. Of which once one understands how little fuel the shuttle has on orbit and how much is require to change orbit to get the shuttle to the ISS safe haven it then becomes very understood.
But what about creating a web of connecting cables with tethers running out to geo sat orbiting satelites. Then one only needs to get to the orbit that it is in and attach a climber unit to the net to be able to traverse to any location. Detach once proper location over target are is achieve and just slow the orbit to decrease the altitude until you are there.
Sort of like this as in this article Robotic Space Spiders To Crawl Sub-Orbital Web

I don’t see how it could connect two orbits with different inclination. I would also be concerned about the reliability of the spider. Mechanical parts can ware out and the spider could get tangled.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-12-08 10:02:17

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#102 2005-12-08 10:26:36

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#103 2005-12-08 10:46:47

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#104 2005-12-08 11:06:43

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#105 2005-12-08 11:32:13

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#106 2005-12-08 11:38:46

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#107 2005-12-08 16:09:54

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#108 2005-12-08 17:23:34

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#109 2005-12-08 20:32:23

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#110 2005-12-09 07:08:13

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#111 2005-12-09 09:57:04

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#112 2005-12-09 10:08:47

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#113 2005-12-09 11:26:13

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#114 2005-12-09 11:38:17

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#115 2005-12-14 08:18:51

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#116 2005-12-14 08:44:00

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#117 2005-12-14 14:43:33

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#118 2005-12-14 21:05:17

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#119 2005-12-16 11:08:24

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#120 2005-12-19 14:25:19

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#121 2005-12-19 14:44:04

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#122 2005-12-20 06:10:34

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#123 2005-12-21 12:06:37

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#124 2005-12-21 12:56:14

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#125 2005-12-21 13:49:09

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer