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

SpaceNut · 2005-07-25 21:00:35

While the title is miss leading A vision for commercialization it does mention the process of Lunar Recon orbiter and the eventual flight of man sometime in 2018.

Inaddition some other interseting items to note.

Shank said that NASA looked at using existing EELV vehicles to support lunar missions, but that nine EELV launches would be needed for a single manned lunar expedition.

In his presentation by the DOD, Shank didn’t say what kind of heavy-lift vehicle NASA preferred to develop. However, his slides featured illustrations of both CEV and heavy-lift launch vehicles that closely resembled some of the shuttle-derived approaches advocated in recent months.

One issue that remains is getting the Defense Department to agree to a shuttle-derived vehicle: the space transportation policy announced at the beginning of the year requires NASA and the DoD to submit a joint recommendation to NASA. Shank, though, suggested that the DoD was amenable to a shuttle-derived approach.

TwinBeam · 2005-07-26 20:47:40

I don't think it's as simple as "moon or mars?" Not only are there other choices, there's the matter of cost, with the resulting impact on realism of achieving a goal.

My personal ranking of possible goals in descending order of desirability, but with an approximate ranking of cost (1=cheapest, 10 most expensive).

All these assume retirement of the shuttle, all should be possible given current levels of technology - given sufficient commitment. "Colony" implies permanent, aiming to eventually hit economic break-even (self-sufficient or balance of trade).

8 Mars colony
7 Lunar colony
7 Mars "Apollo-style" missions
3 Tele-robotic Lunar infrastructure, to cut Earth2Leo costs
5 Misc one-shot manned missions - e.g. to an asteroid
6 Manned "Apollo-style" missions to the Moon
4 LEO hotels/orbital vacations
4 More LEO/ISS science missions
2 More Mars science probes
1 More lunar science probes

Stormrage · 2005-07-27 05:27:49

I really think that we shouldn't try any space ventures yet. NASA should stop wasting their money (or should i say tax payers money.) They should use the money on funding new technology and propulsion that could actually help us in the long term.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-27 07:49:32

I really think that we shouldn't try any space ventures yet. NASA should stop wasting their money (or should i say tax payers money.) They should use the money on funding new technology and propulsion that could actually help us in the long term.

All in good time Stormrage...

Eventually, what we want is a fully reuseable medium launch vehicle for all three major worlds, Earth/Moon/Mars and vehicles capable of moving substantial payload masses plus a decent numbers of people, particularly from Earth. Possibly a major space station somewhere in Cis-Lunar space.

Perminant bases suitable for not only science, but for development and expansion on Moon/Mars would also be desireable. Cheif among their abilities would be the capacity to produce the majority (or preferably all) the rocket fuel needed to launch payloads into their respective orbits, or perhaps even chip in for Earth-return fuel.

Okay, so how do we get there from here? Right now the best practical form for such an RLV for Earth is probobly a spaceplane, which to build a really GOOD one would be very expensive. So too would a Mars RLV, which would probobly be like the DC-X except (partially?) fueled by Methane. The Moon one is pretty easy however, since if it is fueled (mostly) on the Moon, then it wouldn't be too big.

Reuseable means of getting from here to there? To the Moon, since its so close, we really don't need a super engine for regular transits, just cheap rocket fuel. Mars is a bigger deal however, and some sort of revolutionary engine would be needed. Probobly gas-core reactor powerd... Anyway, current materials science and nuclear technology is probobly not quite up to the challenge of a gas-core reactor yet, that is a little ways down the road still.

So here we are now... the trouble with the RLVs is that you have got to get gobs of fuel and maintenance at your destination, which we don't have yet. Having a short-term justification (science for instance) would be good to sweeten the deal for Congress/White House too...

...So VSE is perfect for the job. Since we don't have RLVs, the next cheapest way to get anything done is to use big rockets to set up these foothold bases. Seperate crew from cargo on these monsters with capsules. Use exsisting propulsion technology get to both worlds.

The first thing to do will be to learn how to make Lunar oxygen from the soil (possibly collect snow too, or invent a Al/O2 rocket), and convert the throw-away Lunar lander into a reuseable one.

Austin Stanley · 2005-07-28 01:17:46

I'm with GCN on this one, I think what he says about the long term goal being the development of reusable medium lift systems for all three Major worlds is dead on. With that under our belt the entire solar system will be much easier to grasp. And I think that is one of the major points to the president's space program. It sets us back on that track and away from diddling around in orbit.

And I'm also inagrement with those who stated that a lunar "shakedown" is a VITAL precursor to any Mars Mission. Those guys are going to be out there a long time with no possibility of rescue and little for resupply. Their stuff, especialy their LSS just have to work, no questions asked. The best way to ensure this is to throughly test it in as hostile an enviroment as you can safely find, for which the moon qualifies well. It's absolutly imparative that you test things in the manner you intend to use them, and the Martian Mission madien flight is NOT the time to find out what is going to go wrong.

As to the duration of any such test mission, I am realitivly indifrent. Idealy the LSS should be tested to ensure that the perform to the maximum expected duration before use. A permenant manned base makes sense to me however since if we decide to go their, it would only be a small additional cost.

Lastly, I emphaticly regect the notion that there is no more science to be done on the moon. There is a LOT more science to be done on the moon, just the science to be done is not easily acomplished in a short week or two. We wouldn't still be sending orbiters and probes there if this was not the case. And what it has to teach us in terms of additional mission experience is priceless.

In short we should go to Mars, be we shouldn't be in such a hurry to go their that we shoot ourselves in the foot in the process. Better to build up to so by the time we do it, we do it right, and we do it for good.

BWhite · 2005-07-28 06:40:06

If the choice is between not having any manned ship for years and flying the accursed Space Shuttle to finish the wreched useless ISS for no good reason other then to fulfill a half-empty promise and as insurance to keep the congressional money/NASA-PR fallacy while getting to do nothing... versus not flying at all? If it were up to me, Shuttle would never fly again.
Then you must not understand the politics at NASA, the reason people like O'Keefe and Griffin get the job is because the know the game, congress methods, the internal conflcits, the back stabbing, keeping the public happy and so forth.

If the foam keeps falling off, orbiter will not fly again.

Why bother with an orbiter on stand by for a rescue mission = IF = a foam strike means its not safe to launch the rescue mission?

Stormrage · 2005-07-28 08:22:16

I hate waiting. At the rate NASA is going they will eventually go to Mars but it will probably still be for those lucky astronauts who have a distinguished Air Force carers.

Unless Ansari X-Prize produces alternatives.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-28 08:47:16

I hate waiting. At the rate NASA is going they will eventually go to Mars but it will probably still be for those lucky astronauts who have a distinguished Air Force carers.
Unless Ansari X-Prize produces alternatives.

Haha! The X-Prize'ers are so far away from practical spaceflight that it is a joke. A real bonefied joke. SpaceShipOne is the living embodiment of an oxymoronic name. SSO would need several hundred times the energy to be a practical orbital vehicle, nor could it possibly withstand the rigors of reentry. And thats just for a pilot, two passengers, and luggage.

Palomar · 2005-07-28 08:57:57

I hate waiting. At the rate NASA is going they will eventually go to Mars but it will probably still be for those lucky astronauts who have a distinguished Air Force carers.
Unless Ansari X-Prize produces alternatives.
Haha! The X-Prize'ers are so far away from practical spaceflight that it is a joke. A real bonefied joke. SpaceShipOne is the living embodiment of an oxymoronic name. SSO would need several hundred times the energy to be a practical orbital vehicle, nor could it possibly withstand the rigors of reentry. And thats just for a pilot, two passengers, and luggage.

*Just saw a headline that Richard Branson and Burt Rutan are teaming up. Who knows...they might pull it off (practical spaceflight).

But unless those two can cough up plans to do more than still being stuck in LEO, I really don't care much.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-28 09:35:23

About the only non-big-aerospace/non-governmental company with the potential to do anything signifigant in orbit is Elon Musk, who's rocket remains throughly untested. They haven't even installed the upper stage engine yet for the dinky little rocket last I knew.

Otherwise, barring an investment in the mid nine-digit/low ten-digit range, Burt & Co are going exactly nowhere fast.

Palomar · 2005-07-28 10:03:51

Otherwise, barring an investment in the mid nine-digit/low ten-digit range, Burt & Co are going exactly nowhere fast.

*Not sure how to say this because I'm sure there are many factors involved: I wish NASA and Rutan would seek to put their heads together. I did see Rutan, about 1-1/2 years ago, mention a desire to go to Mars and he's developing ideas. For Luna as well, too...and of course the space hotel thing.

NASA's probes and robots are doing great. But when it comes to the manned stuff, they need a swift kick in the backside. It's getting difficult to believe this is the same agency with bragging rights to Gemini, Mercury and Apollo. :?

But what they really need is a visionary. Get Rutan to work with them or whatever (yeah, I realize he might not be game and I don't mean to sound overly simplistic). Just my frustration speaking, LOL.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-28 14:44:45

It isn't the same agency anymore... after we beat the Commies to the Moon, then Nixon pretty much put into motion that which was inevitible...

...that with the Moon Race done, NASA wasn't important anymore. The day that Apollo-11 splashed down was the day that the old NASA died, and NASA has been trying to keep its head above water - public indifference and congressional budget skimming - ever since.

Burt? Burt needs to prove himself before we can think about trusting him (or those like him) with the space program. And he needs to do it without hundreds of millions of no-strings grant dollars of NASA money spent on his high-risk tryouts.

C M Edwards · 2005-07-28 16:07:58

Burt? Burt needs to prove himself before we can think about trusting him (or those like him) with the space program. And he needs to do it without hundreds of millions of no-strings grant dollars of NASA money spent on his high-risk tryouts.

Yeah! Make him jump through a hoop! And he should have a big millstone... one on each foot! And manacles, and a straight jacket, and a burning hemp rope to suspend him over SpaceShip One's nozzle during a death defying act escape! Brilliant! :twisted:

Or, alternately... NASA can simply accept that Burt Rutan is no more ready to have the entire space program on his shoulders than anybody else, offer him the same chances NASA offers anybody else with a small business, and see what he can do with it (same as anybody else).

How boring!

No, you're right. We have to make it hard on him. Get some dramatic potential going over at Scaled Composites! :twisted:

Palomar · 2005-07-28 18:10:07

It isn't the same agency anymore... after we beat the Commies to the Moon, then Nixon pretty much put into motion that which was inevitible...
...that with the Moon Race done, NASA wasn't important anymore. The day that Apollo-11 splashed down was the day that the old NASA died, and NASA has been trying to keep its head above water - public indifference and congressional budget skimming - ever since.

*I'm in denial. Honestly, I don't want to believe that. :cry:

If only I could express the impact and impression NASA and Apollo had on me. I only remember from Apollo 11 and onward, but I was just a little kid then (turned 4 in 5/69). It was such a heady, optimistic, "can-do" exhilirating time. There were absolutely NO limits to what we could do; we had the fire and the feist.

I want the glory days again! :cry:

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-28 18:27:56

Burt? Burt needs to prove himself before we can think about trusting him (or those like him) with the space program. And he needs to do it without hundreds of millions of no-strings grant dollars of NASA money spent on his high-risk tryouts.
Yeah! Make him jump through a hoop! And he should have a big millstone... one on each foot! And manacles, and a straight jacket, and a burning hemp rope to suspend him over SpaceShip One's nozzle during a death defying act escape! Brilliant! :twisted:
Or, alternately... NASA can simply accept that Burt Rutan is no more ready to have the entire space program on his shoulders than anybody else, offer him the same chances NASA offers anybody else with a small business, and see what he can do with it (same as anybody else).
How boring!
No, you're right. We have to make it hard on him. Get some dramatic potential going over at Scaled Composites! :twisted:

Burt says he can probobly build a space capsule and launch vehicle that will be as safe as NASA's CEV which will be juuuust big enough to put six men in LEO, or four with a little bit of cargo space.

Price tag: $400-500M to develop

Thats half a billion dollars that Burt would like NASA to just give him, no strings attached, not a loan, no guarantee of results, no promise of any sort that NASA gets anything back from it except an agreement that Burt would sell flights to NASA. NASA wouldn't own the rocket nor the rights to it therein.

To paraphrase M. Griffin, thats not how things work in the real world; the government doesn't just give half a billion dollars to a little tiny startup to deliver a huge rocket that has to do extremely difficult things (as far as engineering goes) with no real assurance of sucess, and no chance of getting the money back if Burt fails.

If Burt can build his rocket, I am sure that NASA would be happy to buy flights on it, but this notion that NASA should give him half a billion dollars because he built that dinky rocket-cessna and has some retired NASA engineers onboard is rediculous.

Or for that matter, any other AltSpacer who comes and jumps up and down, waving 3D-renders on glossies over their heads, yelling (to paraphrase again): "just give me half a billion, and you'll get results!" If NASA made a habit of this, and these private ventures fail like they probobly will, as they are not up to the task of orbital spaceflight, then that adds up. $10Bn over twenty years, or enough money to buy two or three CEV launches - enough to minimally sustain the ISS.
------------------------------------------------------------

Cindy: Absolutely... I haven't been alive near that long, but I have been a NASA fanboy since I can remember. Complete with watching NASA documentary videos over and over again, and dragging the parents to Huntsville for vacation...

...It is not hopeless, NASA has a plan to at least try to get back on track, and I think that they could suceed, albeit slowly, if they brought themselves and were permitted to do what has to be done... kill ISS, Shuttle, Michoud, Marhsall, etc.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-01-11 00:59:12

NASA chief warns money will be tight for astronomy
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19231

Space Science Is No Longer A Safe Bet
Remarks by NASA Administrator Griffin to the American Astronomical Society

"In short, we who run NASA today are doing our very best to preserve a robust science program in the face of, frankly, some daunting fiscal realities that affect all domestic discretionary spending. These realities dictate that we set priorities; NASA simply cannot accomplish everything that was on our plate when I took office last April. In space-based astronomy, and in other areas, we will have to make tough trade-offs between maintaining current missions, of which there are 14 ongoing, and developing new capabilities. The astronomy community has faced this same issue with respect to ground based telescopes as well."

NASA's robotic mission control begins cutbacks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9686910/
budget shift ?

Voyager 1&2 face their end ?

SpaceNut · 2006-01-11 07:15:32

A few items from Mike Griffin's speech at the AAS yesterday:
The biggest applause generator was a comment made by Griffin early in his address that his love of astronomy and his appreciation of the work done by Hubble and other space telescopes "prompted my decision that NASA will, if at all possible, use one of the remaining flights of the space shuttle for Hubble servicing." After the ten-second round of applause died down, he added, "Thanks, but we still need to figure out if that's possible."
Later, Griffin was asked if he thought that a robotic servicing mission was still possible should a shuttle mission fall through. He noted that he had chaired a committee that was looking into that last year when he was nominated to become NASA administrator. Both he and the rest of the committee, though, felt that in the time and cost constraints facing Hubble, there was no robotic option that would be feasible other than a strict deorbiting-only mission. "So I am sorry to tell you that it is either a shuttle mission to repair Hubble or it will not be repaired."
He said that NASA is facing "daunting fiscal realities" shared by other discretionary programs, adding that "NASA simply cannot everything that was on our plate when I took office last April." Later, he said that science programs in the agency have enjoyed budget growth of "in the five to seven percent range annualized over the last decade or so"; current circumstances mean that "that level of growth cannot be maintained" although science programs would still see smaller increases.
Griffin said that NASA would learn from the past, specifically the ISS, in how it sells the Vision for Space Exploration to the scientific community. "I want to be very clear: I will not with the scientific community do another space station, meaning I will not say, 'Hey, we're doing this for you, and here's all the great things that can occur.' I well recognize that no one would go to the Moon to site astronomical platforms. No one would do that. But, if we're going to the Moon anyway for other and larger purposes, then science, I believe, can benefit by rethinking some of the engineering trades which are involved."

Shay Guy · 2006-01-13 01:16:35

I want the glory days again! :cry:

Don't we all, Cindy.

Someone mentioned that Mars Direct is crucially flawed in that (for one) it equates "hab network" with "Mars base." IIRC, it was more like equating "hab network" with "will work as Mars base until we can make the large brick structures." Aside from that, does Mars Direct really have a lot of holes in it? What's the deal with them?

Palomar · 2006-01-13 05:52:39

I want the glory days again! :cry:
Don't we all, Cindy.

*Hello Shay Guy, and welcome to New Mars.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-14 09:56:24

I want the glory days again! :cry:
Don't we all, Cindy.
Someone mentioned that Mars Direct is crucially flawed in that (for one) it equates "hab network" with "Mars base." IIRC, it was more like equating "hab network" with "will work as Mars base until we can make the large brick structures." Aside from that, does Mars Direct really have a lot of holes in it? What's the deal with them?

Yeah, MarsDirect has some holes in it. The first and foremost is not one that most people would readily recognize, that the whole thing is too optimistic. The ERV and to lesser extent the HAB module will never be light enough or big enough to sustain four men for the whole trip and still fit on a single Ares/CaLV launch.

The ERV is way too small for four or even three people, and the lack of contiguous volume is going to be very hard on the crew psychologically. Its also probably going to be heavier than Bob Zubrin says, particularly with the heat shield.

The HAB is also pretty much a joke, a single floor of the 8m HAB isn't near enough for six months. The lower deck of the HAB will be filled with equipment and supplies during the transit out, and won't be useable... Basically, Bob has taken a "suck it up soldier" attitude about the crew's psychology, which will lead to disaster.

Between the HAB and the ERV, the whole MarsDirect scheme doesn't permit enough payload to do much of anything on Mars either. There is no way Bob is going to get a pressurized rover with such a small mass budget, or a multi-meter drill to look for water/bacteria.

The radiation shielding on the HAB and ERV is also questionable... "just hope theres' no big solar flare" does not make a good plan.

Oh, and the nuclear reactor mass budget is pretty optimistic too. Lets just hope they don't miss their landing site and there is a big crater or a boulder to put it behind...

Then there is the question of how the aerocapture shield is going to work and how much it will weigh... the list goes on.

I suspect that Bob has proposed this plan with the intent to hoodwink NASA and/or Congress into starting the project (with its attractive and deceptively low price tag) such that nobody figures out he wasn't serious and it can't be done, unless...

...Unless you adopt a heavy high-thrust nuclear engine for the Ares/CaLV upper stage. Since the upper stage is required to provide the last burn into orbit, it must have much more thrust then a smaller engine needed just to get from Earth orbit to Mars.

This has a number of consequences, first and foremost being that its going to be an expensive engine: we have the facilities to test a small engine today, and they are by nature much easier to develop. Not so with a big engine.

A big engine will also weigh an awful lot, and probably be very expensive compared to small engines... but most importantly, since the engine will have to fire before it is in a stable orbit around the Earth. The risk this will fail and the engine will reenter while still highly radioactive is unacceptable even to me, the nuclear fanboy.

This is one of those things that the screeching environmentalist hoard would be right about. No nuclear engine or reactor should be activated for any reason until we are sure its not going to fall on our heads for a few decades.

Furthermore, the MarsDirect plan has no options for growth or modification, it starts out being all its ever going to be, and can't lead to anything else.

Enter NASA DRM:
DRM-I
DRM-III

The basic NASA DRM-III plan is much better, it has far more payload than MarsDirect does, a larger crew, and much larger HABs/ERVs.

Using the Lunar CaLV heavy launcher currently envisioned without the big Lunar transfer stage would give you a rocket with about the same payload as Magnum called for in DRM-III, and be perfect for the application.

If nuclear engines are politically/fiscally impractical, thats okay, because the big maximal Lunar launch vehicle could launch a chemical engine powerful enough to replace the smaller nuclear Mars transfer stage.

The DRM plan has actual considerations for the heat shield, more realistic estimates about vehicle and reactor mass, and so on. Also superior to MarsDirect, is that it has upgrade options. As seen in some of the varients in the DRM-III plan, its possible to convert the ERV into a cycler.

Or another variation proposed here on this board would be to reuse the ERV to bring crews to Mars as well as back, and have a reuseable Mars Acent Vehicle to shuttle crews to Mars orbit and back.

publiusr · 2006-01-27 17:01:26

That is a very good analysis.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-11 23:41:01

About the only non-big-aerospace/non-governmental company with the potential to do anything signifigant in orbit is Elon Musk, who's rocket remains throughly untested. They haven't even installed the upper stage engine yet for the dinky little rocket last I knew.
Otherwise, barring an investment in the mid nine-digit/low ten-digit range, Burt & Co are going exactly nowhere fast.

what's the latest news on Musk ?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-04-06 15:20:15

I hate waiting. At the rate NASA is going they will eventually go to Mars but it will probably still be for those lucky astronauts who have a distinguished Air Force carers.
Unless Ansari X-Prize produces alternatives.
Haha! The X-Prize'ers are so far away from practical spaceflight that it is a joke. A real bonefied joke. SpaceShipOne is the living embodiment of an oxymoronic name. SSO would need several hundred times the energy to be a practical orbital vehicle, nor could it possibly withstand the rigors of reentry. And thats just for a pilot, two passengers, and luggage.

New Mexico goes a little pie in the sky with spaceport idea ?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ … port_x.htm

Does investing in transportation to Earth orbit make sense?
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/587/1

Space Tourism or Bust
A test-rocket explosion notwithstanding, SpaceX is still forging ahead with a new, low-cost orbital rocket.
http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech … 96,p1.html
...SpaceX of El Segundo, CA, is one of at least a half-dozen companies seriously competing to revolutionize space travel in much the way a few savvy entrepreneurs transformed computing in the 1970s and '80s. The new companies are trying a variety of approaches aimed at reducing launch costs by a factor of ten. Many of the companies started out competing for the $10 million Ansari X Prize, awarded in 2004 for the first privately financed rocket to fly into space twice in two weeks. (That rocket, the suborbital SpaceShipOne, was built by Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites, of Mojave, CA.)

TwinBeam · 2006-04-10 22:34:57

While it's not a perfect solution to the psychological issues of 6 months in a can, by the time we manage to get a manned mission off to Mars, Virtual Reality should be a lot more convincing - especially if you can afford to put a million dollars into the equipment.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-11 10:25:27

SpaceX? Tourism? The Falcon rockets despite being several times cheaper still aren't cheap enough. Launching space hotels maybe, but not ferrying tourists.

Comparisons with early computer makers are dumb, since computers were a new technology with the potential to become many thousands of times better performing... Rockets on the other hand, liquid Hydrogen is as good as it gets, because there aren't any molecules that are both flammable or lighter. There is no where for the technology to go, and so AltSpace will fail to bring about orbital tourism for a long, long time.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-07-25 21:00:35

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

#52 2005-07-26 20:47:40

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

#53 2005-07-27 05:27:49

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

#54 2005-07-27 07:49:32

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

#55 2005-07-28 01:17:46

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

#56 2005-07-28 06:40:06

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

#57 2005-07-28 08:22:16

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

#58 2005-07-28 08:47:16

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

#59 2005-07-28 08:57:57

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

#60 2005-07-28 09:35:23

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

#61 2005-07-28 10:03:51

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

#62 2005-07-28 14:44:45

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

#63 2005-07-28 16:07:58

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

#64 2005-07-28 18:10:07

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

#65 2005-07-28 18:27:56

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

#66 2006-01-11 00:59:12

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

#67 2006-01-11 07:15:32

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

#68 2006-01-13 01:16:35

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

#69 2006-01-13 05:52:39

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

#70 2006-01-14 09:56:24

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

#71 2006-01-27 17:01:26

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

#72 2006-03-11 23:41:01

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

#73 2006-04-06 15:20:15

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

#74 2006-04-10 22:34:57

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

#75 2006-04-11 10:25:27

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

Board footer