hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

flashgordon · 2006-07-22 22:10:41

i went to nuclearspace for the first time in awhile, and found enough of an answer.

"DOE-NR:While the U.S. is committed to developing this technology for civilian uses, it could be used by others for military purposes. It is in our national security interest to protect those specific details that would enable a terrorist or an unfriendly nation to use this technology. Protection of this technology under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and other applicable laws and regulations is appropriate."

http://www.nuclearspace.com/A_nucspacesci_VISO.htm

flashgordon · 2006-07-22 22:11:37

I'd also quote the last paragraph,

"USE OF SPACE NUCLEAR SCIENCE SAGA WILL CONTINUE

So, the question begs an answer. Is space nuclear science any closer to mission in space? No one can say for sure officially if a premier fission space reactor in either NEP/NTR or bimodal form for civilian use is closer to mission in space. One glaring fact remains if we are in this corner of the universe members of the only sentient master tool makers with reason and intellect continue to delay its full use in the near term in space. It may make the difference between a vacant view of an undiscovered solar system or a vibrant solar system in full bloom to a human diaspora making it possible to bridge other stellar systems that hold the promise of human habitability."

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-22 23:43:51

New technologies will have to be adopted, supressed technologies would have to be taken seriously, and whole new economic foundations will have to be laid...It really comes down to this- unless the current system is stopped or bypassed

Burt & Bob's Big Lie in a nutshell. Martian Republic is pretty much right, though I would like to add that new technology is not forthcoming. Scramjet technology or space elevators are probably the only hope to really change the game barring some revolutionary super rocket fuel, and those are a looong ways off, if they are practical at all.

It probably cost billions to develope the next-gen airliner, but your building a thousand of them

Economies of scale are not the answer either, they can only reduce the price so much until the profit margin becomes unsustainably small. Plus, the capital cost of making a massive mega giant rocket factory, fuel plant, and rapid-fire launch pad would be ruinous.

Well, why are we not being more vocal about nuklear propulsion

Because nuclear propulsion can't get you off the ground into orbit, only chemical rockets can. Nuclear is better from Earth orbit out though, however only very advanced engines would yeild a qualitative performance edge over chemical rockets.

Marsman · 2006-07-23 00:41:05

It not about competition to drive the price down for getting into space. As long as we are using present rocket technology, then the prices aren't going to be coming down very much, because of the limits of the technology we are using to get into space. You may find saving here or there, but it going to have virtually no impact on the overall reduction in cost for getting into space.

Lack of demand in any industry is a killer. I read a report some years ago on the pricing structure of current rockets and how they could become cheaper and basically it was saying that demand is the realistic key to reducing costs. The higher the demand, the lower the costs. I understand that the engineering going into rockets that would take humans into deep space has to be extremely robust, and I'm sure Burt and Bob understand that too. But currently only a very few industry players make such rockets and their main customer is the U.S Government and as private contractors the world over are prone to price gouging government bodies the same applies here. Development of cheaper rockets will cost big money, no one can deny that. They will not be made of cheaper materials in any way, the successful ones will simply learn how to balance high engineering requirements with marketing and the creation of new markets for their product. This naturally involves presentations of "This is the dream" as all marketing does. I understand that these rockets need to be built with certain materials and processes which are costly to produce, but once demand is much higher and constant, like with any product, the price of rockets from competitive companies will come down too.

The key to raising demand lies in human space exploration, tourism, mining and settlements. We all know the dreams of such ideas but until there is a demand for such things across the world the price of rockets will struggle to change. The demand for them will be tied in with the public(and that includes everyone, politicians, business leaders, etc) being convinced that this is something worth doing asap. That is where space advocates come in. Unfortunately we have all failed miserably at reaching this public with our message and so demand is not there yet. The few recent happpenings like with Burt Rutan's Virgin Galactic project have shown us that there is demand if the marketing is done right. Obviously marketing the harsh realities will not ever stimulate demand, as with all products. That's just the way it is in business. People need to know the hard realities and if they dig they can find them, but how is pushing such facts into the face of the public going to raise demand anywhere? If you tell the world that rockets are always going to be ridiculously expensive no matter what then demand will NEVER rise. Even if it is the truth. Rising demand will bring in new competitors and new corporations who will start to reduce costs where they can. That is the first phase. As demand rises across the world so the manufacturing costs will start to fall and in time they will come down to a point where they should be. I don't know what that price level will be, and no one here does either, but I am sure it will be lower than what it is now.

Burt and Bob are trying to raise interest and positive demand for their own businesses but also for space travel as a whole. The government could help out but the fact is they don't see it as in their interest right now. And can someone explain to me what happened with the whole SpaceX taking Lockheed Martin to court thing? I know many people may not agree, but in the business world you try to make a profit, and as much as possible. That is the point of the capitalist system. Those corporations that have a strangle hold on any industry like Lockheed, Microsoft, Coca Cola, etc do sometimes engage in industrial sabotage and other practices to wreck their competitors, and in the case of Lockheed it is obviously not in their financial interest to be getting less for their rockets. I would not even be surprised if they had people littered through space groups and forums to support their bottom line and always be down on alternative solutions.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-07-23 04:09:27

GCNRevenger and All Opposing the Private Enterprenuers in Space.

Firstly, I never said you would recovery 100% of your investment in space development on the short term. I never said that private enterprenuers are going into space to make short term profits. GCNRevenger works on the concept of short term gains are the only reason for private enterprise in space without government assistance ( Handouts ), that is false !!!!

Secondly, Bigalow did purchase the Transhab project assets and Yes he commercialized on them , But that has happen across this world, Example Windows by Microsoft ; Spreadsheets By Lotus, and others; most technologies ideas and processes that haven't received patent protection but even then others have used it to further advances for their companies, businesses, and countries. .

My Thoughts about Commercialization

I will provide some thinking into why long term or even generation investment into space would eventually return on investment for private investors. Planning and development of space infrastructure would require a global private diversified business group to absorb the costs for a slow buildup and technology development of a space program and infrastructure including working with other space agencies globally for technology and other logistic related activities. Meanwhile you slowly using your combined allocated profits by owner to build the infrastucture needed to launch and recover small rockets (up 5000kg payloads ) for geostationery orbit. It might take 1.5 - 2x longer to assembly the necessary infrastructure then government agencies but will become an asset of the company group.

As Space Business Sector within the company would become a high prority for the diversified organization more support and secondary business assets ( engineering firms, component fabrication, mterial processing and fuel refining , etc. ) will be purchased / acquired / constructed to increase the space business activities. Using sustainable energy platforms again provides another measure of self sustainability, and remember all these additional business assets increase the overall wealth of the business group as a whole.

The next move is developing our own missions and equipment (including manned and unmanned vehicles) for expansion into earth orbit, and develop business activities that we could deliver to provide a income base and infrastructure base to facilitate a permanent move into space for the business group. This development strategy has only one main goal --> To become the domainate private interest player in the expanded human presence within our solar system and provide the necessary infrastructure for space privatization and not just for scientists and those that each government allows to venture forth.

I think you should go an look at many of the crashed technology companies of the Stockmarket Fall 2000 and find out where their technologies, intellectual property and ideas went to --- they got bought over by larger competitors and absorbed and continued to expand their market share , I think you need to look at the possibilities of the private space companies will eventually expand or combine or merge to form larger space corporations or become subsidaries to larger companies but the space privatization will continue. " That's Commercial Business "

Conclusion

When you look at the infant space sector and the potential within the sector for upward growth then you need to expand slowly strategically into the sector to gain footholds and then expand, compete for other customer business and help expand the customer base in the sector as well. If you can't see this happening over the next twenty years ( just like the PC Sector ) then just sit there and critize this reply because I am working on my strategy for space privatization and its nothing like the Larger agancies timelines.

[/b]

flashgordon · 2006-07-23 09:06:20

all these points about current economy not being able to sustain chemical rocketry just highlights and supports the old rocket pioneers thoughts about how to get up into space; basically, they almost all pointed out that untill the infrastructure is set up and the flow of 'space' resources(energy and matter) start expanding the terrestrial economy into the space economy, then the rocket economy is always going to be expensive; it is a matter of tapping space resources to payback the investment - a sacrifice that has to be made.

Grypd · 2006-07-23 10:42:13

The cost of spaceflight really comes down to we have no real need to spend the billions to develop a real TSTO spaceplane and since we will always have to use up a rocket to get anywhere prices remain high.

We may look at China and Russia and wonder how come they are cheaper it really comes down to they pay there workers a lot less to do the job. But as time goes on this advantage is rapidly disapearing.

So we bite the bullet and have to accept that space will not become incredibly cheap as long as rockets are the only way to get there. Spaceship one is just not a spaceship it does not carry enough fuel or launched fast enough to be able to get people into orbit. We could mass produce rockets but the cost savings only apply as long as there is a market for these rockets and people willing to pay for them.

At the moment there just is not enough of these people to make it worthwhile.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-23 19:37:15

cheaper rockets will cost big money, no one can deny that. They will not be made of cheaper materials in any way, the successful ones will simply learn how to balance high engineering requirements with marketing and the creation of new markets for their product... but once demand is much higher and constant, like with any product, the price of rockets from competitive companies will come down too

To a point, the price of rocket can be reduced, but only to a point... the minimum practical cost could be quite a bit lower than today, but so long as we are throwing away rockets they will never be cheap enough to do much of anything of scope commercially.

Also, this business about "new markets" is a false one, since there aren't any new markets of any scope that are achieveable with expendable rockets, at least not without some government help to get them started (eg Lunar fuel depot).

Burt Rutan's Virgin Galactic project have shown us that there is demand if the marketing is done right

No. This is such a small market, that I don't think it even qualifies as real commercial spaceflight. Its no more spaceflight than a joyride in a Russian Mig-25 Foxbat to the edge of the atmosphere.

Even if it is the truth

So we should just lie and take their money to spend it on rockets that will never deliver? There is a word for that: "fraud"

costs will start to fall and in time they will come down to a point where they should be

Repeating the text of the Big Lie followed by a disclaimer about the uncertain meaning of "should"

Burt and Bob are trying to raise interest and positive demand

Burt and Bob are at best knowingly deceptive and at worst flat out liars.

The failure of the SpaceX suit against Lockheed and Boeing is quite simple, SpaceX was left out of competition for government contracts since they didn't have a rocket big enough to compete with the others yet, and infact hadn't even flown any rocket of any size ever. The judge made the right decision.

I would not even be surprised if they had people littered through space groups and forums to support their bottom line and always be down on alternative solutions.

*Bzzzz* conspiracy theory alarm! Please

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-23 20:00:59

I never said you would recovery 100% of your investment in space development on the short term

If you can't recover your money in any reasonable time span, then the interest on the loans used to set up the project will put you out of business, accounting 101. Investors who don't demand interest persay do however demand a return eventually, and they do think short-term.

Secondly, Bigalow did purchase the Transhab project assets and Yes he commercialized on them...

You pick a few choice examples, but it doesn't change my argument: the real key to commercial spaceflight of any scope is inexpensive and reliable launch, right? The problem is that no such technology exists, so there is nothing for a hypothetical private outfit to mooch off of.

There is a such thing as too slow. If you only make a few million a year with competing against Russia and India for cheap satelite launch, you'll never amass enough money to do anything of scope. The longer you drag on a development, the more it costs, until such a point that it costs more anually than you take in. If commercial spaceflight of scope were possible with even 1/100th what NASA brings in, I bet this would still be too expensive for such a scheme.

If you can't get up there in any reasonable time frame, before interest and "protracted penalties," loss of investor confidance, and so on eat you alive then you aren't going anyplace.

Marsman · 2006-07-23 21:11:45

To a point, the price of rocket can be reduced, but only to a point... the minimum practical cost could be quite a bit lower than today

I agree with that statement. Also, there are new markets, it's just that the U.S government won't release the technology to them for national security reasons. The reasons we may not achieve expension into new markets are artificial restriction of the release of technology. And these markets will involve government funding(if they ever get the chance). There would also be a growing number of private companies signing on once the technology is released and they are no longer working with V2 designs.

Quote:
Burt Rutan's Virgin Galactic project have shown us that there is demand if the marketing is done right
No. This is such a small market, that I don't think it even qualifies as real commercial spaceflight. Its no more spaceflight than a joyride in a Russian Mig-25 Foxbat to the edge of the atmosphere.

How many people signed up just as an expression of interest? At last count it was around 33,000. Ask Bigelow also how many people have taken an interest in his habs also. These numbers are only the beginning and represent the tip of the iceberg in demand. How many commercial sat launches have there been in the last year? 33,000? I think not. People do want to go into space, even if it is only the very edge, and many more want to go into real space. Surveys have consistently shown that large portions of the population would certainly go if they could afford it. So don't tell me demand isn't there. The problem is the current costs. People can't afford it. I once read that a converted space shuttle type of ship could hold around 25 passengers or so. (that was years ago before NASA came down on the idea). If each of those people paid a million for an orbital flight it would come nowhere near paying for the cost of the flight. I understand this. So it comes back to the issue of reducing costs. Government subsidies would have to come into this in a big way and that is not an unheard of idea.

So we should just lie and take their money to spend it on rockets that will never deliver? There is a word for that: "fraud"

Spoken like a true idealist GCN. Don't misrepresent what I said. I was talking about marketing vs stupidity. Pointing out all the negatives is not going to raise interest or demand for rockets, its that simple. The problem we have is that human space flight has stagnated for 25 years, and so we don't know what might have been the true picture because developments have been stalled for so long in favour of keeping the shuttle going. Obviously you don't understand how the commercial world really works. People are always sold the dream and when it comes to payment time they usually get all the facts. For example, when someone hands over their 200k to Branson for a flight they will be given all the information and training needed for their flight and will have the opportunity to back out at any time before the flight. This is fairly standard practice.

Repeating the text of the Big Lie followed by a disclaimer about the uncertain meaning of "should"

No. Not at all. You even agreed that costs would fall to a certain point once demand reaches its peak. It may be a lot, it may be a little, but it will happen if we continue on the path of raising demand. There is an uncertainty of how much prices will fall. You do not know what it will be and neither do I. That's all I was saying. Ever heard of the straw man GCN?

Burt and Bob are at best knowingly deceptive and at worst flat out liars.

Many people would disagree with you on that, and you are getting very close to the legal definition of "slander" with statements like that. Burt Rutan and Bob Zubrin are visionaries. They are out there doing their best to bring the reality of humans in space closer for us all. From building ships to writing books and sessions with congress they are doing the real work of advancing this cause. What are you doing? Pontificating in a forum is nothing when compared to the achievements of these men. They are brilliant engineers and they know their stuff. You talk like they are completely ignorant of the facts but I'm sure they know them far better than you do. The difference is they have a vision which they are focusing on in spite of the current price realities and they will continue to do whatever they can to lower the costs of space for us all. I commend them for that. Whatever their flaws are they are all we have right now. If you think you can do a better job how about you shut up and step up to the plate? Write us a book on how your theories are superior or more "realistic", go on a lecture tour and tell the world who you are and why they should agree with you. The issue is they have shown us alternatives and so far little of those have been put into practice.

The failure of the SpaceX suit against Lockheed and Boeing is quite simple, SpaceX was left out of competition for government contracts since they didn't have a rocket big enough to compete with the others yet, and infact hadn't even flown any rocket of any size ever. The judge made the right decision.

Wrong again. Take a look at some of these reports- http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_aw … suit_.html
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4380
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index … 10&catid=4
http://www.space.com/spacenews/business … 51024.html
Big business colluding to crush small business before they even get off the launch pad. And getting the courts to support them. It is not a new practice, it's called- business. The reason SpaceX didn't have a rocket big enough (or at all) was because Lockheed and Boeing were doing things to hinder their progress (like shunting them out of Vandenburg) before they even launched one rocket. Just you try and lower launch costs with 2 giants of the industry breathing down your neck.

As to conspiracies, ever heard of Enron? Take a look at how many individuals in the U.S are in prison for "Conspiracy". It's human nature to conspire when it suits us. Why is it that poorer people can be found guilty of conspiracy but rich and powerful companies and individuals "could never do such things". People do fight with each other. Businesses do compete and yes they do conspire to beat each other. I'm not saying it's evil, what I'm saying is it is not unusual for humans to engage in such behaviour. You would have us believe that big corporation like Lockheed are made up of angels. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Richard Nixon is a good example of what I'm talking about. Maybe you are one of those people who will only believe a conspiracy exists when it is revealed on the nightly news and no doubt there are people who see far too many conspiracies and are on the other end of that spectrum. But in this case Lockheed are not innocent. This kind of practice goes on all over the world. For example- Microsoft. The reason they were found out was because their accuser (the U.S Government) had deep enough pockets and wide enough resources to take them on and win, but not so in the case of SpaceX and Lockheed.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-07-23 22:26:32

GCN,

Many cultures across the world work on a long term based or even family generation acquisitions depending on the goals / objectives of the people involved. The Asian cultures have alot of these values in their core cultures and we should learn from all cultures to meet the changes when we go into space. So If you want short term gains in space related industries you won't get it unless you overcharge your clients like the governments or large publicly listed corporations.

I know you have issues with this business structure but, a small microbusiness called microsoft in the 1970's generated on millions of profits but the expansion of that business was the development of products and services and the acquisition of other products and services they rebranded under the Microsoft Logo, now they are a $250 Billion plus company with $5 Billion plus -- in research funding and surplus cash of $50 Billion plus and that is a single industry sector business --- software / information technology. Global PC hardware Market is worth about $ 700 Billion plus with 3-5 year turnover. A current Example is GE Capital a subsidary of GE Corporation that has been buying finacnial services businesses across the world adding their products / services into their company and some acquisitions have been over $1 Billion each in price.

A diversified Private Corporation in multiple industry sectors and multiple geographic regions would reduce the overall risk for the budgetary cost for the space activities based on a micro private version of the Publicly listed GE Corporate Model.

Large Global Private Corporation start $1B profit margin (after Tax) with 25% for company growth - $250 million, 50% Space Projects - $ 500 Million and 25% to Owners - $ 250 Million. You could provide a good financial base for private space infrastructure to grow, over 10 years the company would grow organic by $ 2.5 B in business activities through investment and with $ 5 Billion in Space Infrastructure Assets. All the Space Assets are funded from net profits after tax without debt (No Loans). Also as the Private expands into new markets for commerical business and increases the profits of the corporation the space ventures receive an increase in their funding based on percentage.

GCN, I don't think you have looked at the various business structures and the various industries, services, and products that could support a private space venture and the changes you would need to increase the efficiencies in space launching , orbital development and planetary developments.

Grypd · 2006-07-24 05:32:03

The Space Review

An article about the future plans of Bigalow and the problems they face.

still,

Another change on Genesis 2 will be the addition of more “living systems” inside the spacecraft. Genesis 1 carries some cockroaches and Mexican jumping beans, he said, “but we have no idea if the little buggers are dead or live right now”

He has in effect created the first Hotel in space and it already has cockroaches. Not exactly conducive to getting guests is it.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-24 14:56:22

it's just that the U.S government won't release the technology to them for national security reasons

Wild supposition and hair-brained conspiracy theory. Rockets, conceptually speaking, are not at all complicated, if there were a way to change everything, it would be quite obvious. What part about "propellant atoms are too heavy" is hard to understand?

These numbers are only the beginning and represent the tip of the iceberg in demand. How many commercial sat launches have there been in the last year? 33,000? I think not. People do want to go into space, even if it is only the very edge, and many more want to go into real space.

Nonsense, of that many only a small fraction would put up the cash I'm sure, and why would there be a never-ending stream of millionaires? There are a limited number of them in the world, and their ranks do not swell all that fast. No, the burden is on the idealists to show why they will not be limited, since most likely they will be.

And about demand for orbital flight, you use the word improperly: if the price is too high and people will not pay it, then you therefore do not have demand. The same is probably true with the "33,000" figure, lots of people would want to go - myself included - but we don't "create demand" because we can't afford it. Government subsidies for space tourists? Other than tax discounts, I doubt it. If you understand this, why did you state it?

Don't misrepresent what I said

Then what did you mean? Do you intend to simply skip over the negatives and problems with space plans? Thats still being dishonest. Drug manufacturers get in trouble when they don't tell customers about the down side to their products, why shouldn't spaceflight advocates? Not telling also breeds the often well-founded notion that space advocates live in a magical dream world where the rules don't apply to them.

Obviously you don't understand how the commercial world really works

"Obviously"

No. Not at all

Oh yes you did, you said the same thing that Burt & Bob push, which includes the idea that rockets should be super-cheap, followed by a weak and half-hearted disclaimer about "nobody knows (except Burt & Bob)." The difference between "alot and a little" is a big deal, but this disclaimer flies in the face of the words that surround it, which is dishonest and evasive. We know very well that so long as rockets use today's technology they will never be super-cheap.

you are getting very close to the legal definition of "slander"

Oh boo-hoo, somebody doesn't like having their heros discredited for the irrational and dishonest "visionaries" they are.

Bob's plan won't work and his price tag is crazy, and he is too smart not to know it, and its inexcuseable. Plus he's spread factually untrue lies about O'Keefe's Lunar plan to try and manipulate Congress into dictating Plan Bob to NASA.

Burt sells the lie that his outfit is only a stones throw from space, which is patently just not true. Because he is so far from real space ships, but he does not disclaim the widely and incorrectly believed notion that we're "almost there," its just plain dishonest.

They are both brilliant, and thats the problem: neither one of them can be that stupid and blind, therefore the only explanation is that they are being deceptive. Their efforts might help in the short term, but sooner or later their dishonesty will catch up to them and us, and we will all pay for it when their lies come to light.

If you think you can do a better job how about you shut up and step up to the plate?...they have shown us alternatives and so far little of those have been put into practice

"Chicken-hawk" argument? Oh please, pathetic.

And no they haven't, they have not shown alternatives, their alternatives just won't work. Thats why they are a liability, they are selling plans that are going to fail, and trying to rally us behind them.

Wrong again.

How do any of these links counter my statement? The judge ruled against SpaceX because they could not prove they could compete as they didn't have a comperable rocket yet with a reasonable chance of reliable sucess. To quote the judge:

"The mere possibility of future injury does not confer standing, and allegations that amount to nothing more than speculation regarding future injury are insufficient."

Even with delays of Falcon-I, that rocket is ten times too small to compete with the EELVs, they aren't even in the same catagory. The USAF needs a rocket line they can count and plan on now so they can start making satelites for the rest of the decade.

As to conspiracies, ever heard of Enron? Take a look at how many individuals in the U.S are in prison for "Conspiracy"

Oh yes, all the evil capitalists are out to get "The Visionaries." Please, conspiracy theories? Give me a break.

BWhite · 2006-07-24 16:29:08

It probably cost billions to develope the next-gen airliner, but your building a thousand of them
Economies of scale are not the answer either, they can only reduce the price so much until the profit margin becomes unsustainably small. Plus, the capital cost of making a massive mega giant rocket factory, fuel plant, and rapid-fire launch pad would be ruinous.

I recall reading somewhere that an RL-10 is no more complex than a gas turbine helicopter engine which cost about $100,000. Maybe the RL-10 is less complex than the gas turbine engine.

An RS-68 is a bigger engine, but how much more?

The difference between gas turbine engines and rocket engines? Assembly lines and demand.

Create demand and prices will fall.

BWhite · 2006-07-24 16:30:45

Burt Rutan told ISDC2006 that he did NOT see a solution for cheap soon orbital flight.

As for Bigelow, I betcha he ends up selling habs back to NASA.

Commodore · 2006-07-24 18:53:36

As for Bigelow, I betcha he ends up selling habs back to NASA.

I certainly hope so. It would cut a decade off moon base development. And we'd get enough volume to do something useful.

Marsman · 2006-07-24 20:24:27

it's just that the U.S government won't release the technology to them for national security reasons
Wild supposition and hair-brained conspiracy theory.

So according to you everyone is an angel until proven otherwise and it's against the laws of your universe to have any kind of conspiracies anywhere, period? For the record I am not a believer in conspiracy theories but there are times when business and government do conspire to beat their competition, for example, ever heard of the something called "the cold war"? Or any other war for that matter(price wars included). Obviously the U.S do not want their enemies gaining access to ICBM or higher technology if they can help it. Unless of course what you are saying is that because there are no conspiracies the U.S don't plan on national security measures like this? If it is in the national interest to weaken or even harm a competitor nation or private company do you think that this never happens? Businesses and governments do try to harm each other when it suits them, and they do try to weaken their competitors when it suits them (for example Cuba). There is nothing wild or hair brained about any of this, they are just the cold hard facts from the real world, a world you obviously don't believe exists. I suppose you think the CIA are a bunch of nice benevolent people who would never conspire about anything either.

Nonsense, of that many only a small fraction would put up the cash I'm sure, and why would there be a never-ending stream of millionaires? There are a limited number of them in the world, and their ranks do not swell all that fast. No, the burden is on the idealists to show why they will not be limited, since most likely they will be.

The sub orbital demand exists. The price of a ticket is around 200k, and while that is expensive, you don't have to be a millionaire to afford it. Being a novelty it will attract demand(unless they have a Hindenburg style accident). I am not putting my faith in the private sector as the saviours of the space race, not at all, and I resent you trying to paint me into that corner. I am a pragmatist. If rockets are never going to come down in price, fine.

Then what did you mean? Do you intend to simply skip over the negatives and problems with space plans? Thats still being dishonest. Drug manufacturers get in trouble when they don't tell customers about the down side to their products, why shouldn't spaceflight advocates?

I'll spell it out for you. When a company advertises its goods or services it usually tells potential customers of the possible benefits they could get by purchasing their goods or services. It's a little thing called marketing. Even drug companies do this. This does not mean they are dishonest. For example, if you see an ad for something like Advil it will show people with headaches being relieved of them. When you purchase the packet it has warnings all over it about side effects, etc. So it comes down to "how" we tell people. We should never leave out the truth, but for the purpose of creating interest and demand obviously the benefits take priority. If people want to follow through and take the trip, then clearly they will be warned and told all the facts many times. The FAA will make sure of that.

I can't see why saying something like "Rockets should be cheap" is such a crime. The fact is they should be. There are mega engineering projects here on Earth that work out to be cheaper, and that is why many people do wonder why rockets are so expensive. It is not the materials or even the manufacturing that is the price killer with rockets, from everything I have read it is the management level where the price goes up. It is a noted fact that most private contractors price gouge the government and will have people working at non existent jobs just so they can justify their price structure. I think that maybe the reason alot of people like yourself GCN don't like people like Burt and Bob is because while they may have their flaws they are also exposing the problems within the industry which make prices so high. And not all of those problems are to do with the physics or the engineering side of things. Office politics and pure greed is a big part of the problem here.

The truth is none of us know what the price level will be once this industry is reformed. I stand by that statement. Even if I grant you that the rockets using today's technology will not be super cheap(I never said they would be), the fact is if other areas of their manufacture not related to the engineering can be made more efficient, their prices will come down. Unfortunately when it comes down to useless managers and accountant types losing their jobs and taking pay cuts things can get a little nasty.

Bob's plan won't work and his price tag is crazy, and he is too smart not to know it, and its inexcuseable. Plus he's spread factually untrue lies about O'Keefe's Lunar plan to try and manipulate Congress into dictating Plan Bob to NASA.

I take it you are referring to Mars Direct? Explain to me why the price tag is crazy please. Even NASA rated their own version of his plan at 55 Billion, I suppose that is crazy too in your view? 30 Billion is not small change. My own guess is that somewhere in between these two amounts is the answer. Regardless, it is still a lot smaller than 450 Billion and from what I have read there are obviously vested interests within NASA to have all their own pet projects be a part of a mission to Mars and any plan that leaves them out(even if it makes sense) is not in their interests. I understand that, but they are letting self interest get in the way of a mission to Mars and THAT is inexcuseable and the same applies for anyone who directly or indirectly supports such interests(that includes you).

The fact is you have been to the Moon, and Mars should have happened years ago. NASA became a program oriented agency instead of a destination driven agency simply to keep themselves in existence and I don't have a problem with that. But now that the issues of Mars missions and private space ventures is up in lights NASA need to respond appropriately and I think they are doing that.

Can you answer me this. Bob Zubrin set up the Mars Society. It came as a result of his book "The Case For Mars" and the efforts of the small band of people around him known as the Mars Underground. Before that there was basically no advocacy for Mars. Even this forum exists as a result of Bob's efforts. So what you are saying is that he is a liar and deceptive and should not be the president of The Mars Society? What about the Mars Society? It was founded upon the basis of Mars Direct. So what you are saying is it should abandon that foundation and just give up trying to send humans to Mars? I know you don't like lies and falsehoods, no one else does either, but whatever the real solutions turn out to be it will not please everyone. As I see it, what is happening now is that the alt.space industry is exposing the price gouging methods of the bigger players and some of it has nothing to do with engineering. Rockets are expensive, I can concede that, but if there are other areas which can be trimmed back, they should be, and that has been part of the message of the private alt.space groups. Obviously what we have now is a power struggle for the future of space flight.

So how about you justify why price gouging should continue? Tell me why we need managers and accountants with no real duties to perform and why the government should pay for that? Talk about dishonesty and deception. I wonder what the public would say if they knew what we all know?

Boeing corporate spokesman Dan Beck said Friday the lawsuit was meritless. This argument has its weaknesses. For one, Boeing is implying that the government gave the classified contract to SpaceX inappropriately because SpaceX's systems haven't been validated through successful launches. Also, SpaceX will have validated its system through a launch in several weeks (or not, as the fates dictate), giving SpaceX perhaps more credibility to compete than it deserves once that happens. Lastly, this argument can be proven absurd, in that Lockheed-Martin and Boeing EELV hardware and services were purchased and paid for by the government before many systems were validated.

That was my point. SpaceX are just too small and are being beaten by bigger competitors and I stand by that. I hope they can overcome those issues though. In the end you most probably will try to poke more holes in my arguments but my challenge to you stands. If you have such insight and you have a better handle on things than the current leaders we have like Burt and Bob then it is your responsibility to do more than expose these things in a small online forum. If the Mars Society and private space should be focusing on different priorities and you can articulate what they are(and you can), then if you care at all about the future of space flight and where all this is going you should do something concrete about your convictions. We all respect people who stand up for their convictions, but it is the critics who refuse to act on their own advice, and that is why many people don't respect them. So if you want to continue to be a useless critic, then by all means do so. But if you are so passionate about all this then how about you do something about it beyond mere talk? I mean that seriously and I am not trying to offend you.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-07-24 22:33:03

When you look ar Bigelow Aerospace and the Genesis 1 prototype module in space and its meeting the requirements setforth , then I hope they move to the next module (Genesis II) to continue their movement into space with their products and services.

In the Turn of the 20th Century we didn't have a car industry and when we did start it the cars were made by hand on the assembly lines eventually more and more robotic systems where added to increase the efficency of the product to meet demand. We need to standardize on a launch mehtodolgy / model that increases the production into a assembly line model similar to cars for rockets and reduce the overall cost for launching. We have also needing to develop a recyclable component model for space vehicles and determine what on earth side and what's on orbital side increasing the useability and recovery of components.

We need to move forward and create different vehicles , structures in space including using Bigelow Habitats alone, or in combination with other habitat systems. We need full scale simulated environments on earth as well for training and system evaluation to build long duration transportation systems and orbital environments in a low cost method.

Looking at the Ares I and Ares V Launch platform the Ares V could be used to launch large payload to the Mars surface in a slow burn consumption journeys to the planet thus deposit equipment and inflatable habitats, communication and greenhouses, robotic droids and more before humans get there. To assembly a moonbase could be built just like the mars base, using the Ares V vehicle and supply one way cargo runs to the moon with hardshell and softshell habitats, vehicles and other equipment including robotic systems to assembly the habitat environment before humans arrive for a permanent presence, again reducing the overall cost in human space activities. these are private enterprises methods not government political photo stunts.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-25 00:11:28

Oh wow Marsman, I don't even have to say anything, you contradict yourself

For the record I am not a believer in conspiracy theories but...Obviously the U.S do not want their enemies gaining access to ICBM or higher technology

So, you don't believe in conspiracies, except when you do. Look, I have already explained this, physics wise rockets are simple contraptions, only the engineering details are complicated. Only an improvement in the physics will lead to far easier spaceflight, and since the physics is simple if there were such a way it would be obvious. There is no magic secret government rocket technology, because the principles are so well understood, too many people would have thought of it already to be "supressed by the CIA." The near-total lack of improvement in performance despite our overall advancing technology is testimant to this. Dispelling the notion that "there is an answer out there" is why I got on this thread in the first place! Secret technology indeed, you simply don't understand.

The price of a ticket is around 200k, and while that is expensive, you don't have to be a millionaire to afford it

Uh, if a ticket is $200000, yes you do, unless you are one of an incredibly tiny minority who would save for years and years for a three-minute flight.

Then:
- These numbers are only the beginning and represent the tip of the iceberg in demand. How many commercial sat launches have there been in the last year? 33,000? I think not
Now:
- I am not putting my faith in the private sector as the saviours of the space race, not at all, and I resent you trying to paint me into that corner.

You are the one painting yourself into that corner, I am going to call you out on this one, you are trying to weasel out of your previous statement again. You presented the huge number of supposed ticket-buyers as evidence that space tourism could make enough money to make a difference and trancend little suborbital hops, and then you said it wouldn't.

Ah and another gem, not addressing my analogy at all

It's a little thing called marketing. Even drug companies do this. This does not mean they are dishonest... When you purchase the packet it has warnings all over it about side effects, etc. So it comes down to "how" we tell people. We should never leave out the truth, but for the purpose of creating interest and demand obviously the benefits take priority

You might have noticed that in the marketing, what I was talking about, for drugs companies are required by law to state the possible problems whenever they claim bennefits. I was saying, and you totally ignored, was that this principle should apply to space advocates and companies in general when they push a particular technology or product. Not fine print on the launch contract, but when they are pushing it at press conferances.

I can't see why saying something like "Rockets should be cheap" is such a crime. The fact is they should be. There are mega engineering projects here on Earth that work out to be cheaper

Then you must not know much about how "mega" an engineering project rockets are. It is no exaggeration that Apollo and the ISS have been the most complex projects in human history, ever. In any event, there are no comperable "engineering projects" to rockets anyway, so your equating of costs is balloney. The claim that rockets "should" be super-cheap is not hard to disprove nor understand, I have done so already in this thread, so people that continue to claim it are being deceptive, either knowingly with others like Bob or unknowingly with themselves.

The truth is none of us know what the price level will be once this industry is reformed... their prices will come down

There you go again with the "oh but we don't know" bit, you sound a little like that boob gaetano. Listen, yes we do know, so long as we are throwing rockets away or otherwise piddling with primative rockets, the cost will always be too high. Manufacturing or management refinement will never overcome the inherit difficulty of these methods to reach space, obviously.

I take it you are referring to Mars Direct? Explain to me why the price tag is crazy please. Even NASA rated their own version of his plan at 55 Billion, I suppose that is crazy too in your view? 30 Billion is not small change. My own guess is that somewhere in between these two amounts is the answer. Regardless, it is still a lot smaller than 450 Billion (for the old SEI Mars plan)

Not just MarsDirect's cost (which yes, $30Bn is pretty small in this case), but other aspects too, primarily its feasability (it isn't), its usefullness (its not), and its future (it doesn't have one) even though Bob says otherwise. I've given my treatise against MarsDirect on several occasions on this board, I won't clutter it by doing so again.

I think, in light of the RTM drive right now, NASA's price tag for the DRM-III was probably somewhat too low and its mass estimates likewise a little optimistic. I think this was done to give Congress a more polished "competitor" to MarsDirect, so that they wouldn't tell NASA to follow Bob's plan to the letter, or worse yet set Bob up as a NASA offical of some kind. The old $450Bn price tag of the SEI Mars plan was intentionally outrageous to ensure it would never be aproved, so that Mars would not threaten Shuttle.

So what you are saying is that he is a liar and deceptive and should not be the president of The Mars Society?...It was founded upon the basis of Mars Direct.

Pretty much, and he makes a lousy diplomat. He does put the "planetary protection" people in their place though. And I thought it was founded on getting people to Mars, not on any particular plan cooked up by its founder.

what is happening now is that the alt.space industry is exposing the price gouging methods of the bigger players... Rockets are expensive, I can concede that, but if there are other areas which can be trimmed back, they should be... Obviously what we have now is a power struggle for the future of space flight...I wonder what the public would say if they knew what we all know?

Ah yes, The Man keeping trying to keep the little AltSpace outfits down, etc etc. Sure there is a some price padding going on, but my point is that so long as everybody is using today't technology that no private outfit can DO anything more than launch satelites, nothing of scope, nothing with an open-ended potential for increasing profits. "The AltSpace Dream." As far as "if the public knew," well gosh, there are loads of government programs that are probably overbudgeted, and the public knows about them too.

Boeing is implying that the government gave the classified contract to SpaceX inappropriately because SpaceX's systems haven't been validated through successful launches. Also, SpaceX will have validated its system

Note that "the government" is not a homogeneous entity, the USAF is not the NRO/NSA/CIA, and USAF seems to have higher standards. SpaceX simply didn't live up to them to compete for the contract, the contract that the USAF wanted to be long-term so they could plan future satelites now.

And note again that "the SpaceX system" to compete with the EELVs would require a tripple-barrel Falcon-V or the Falcon-IX rocket, which are an order of magnetude beyond the dinky Falcon-I. Boeing and the judge were right to disclaim their competitiveness.

this argument can be proven absurd, in that Lockheed-Martin and Boeing EELV hardware and services were purchased and paid for by the government before many systems were validated

Nonsense, the above blythly equates a long-term multibillion dollar contract for many launches of expensive/sensitive/vital military hardware for purchase of a few initial production EELVs with less critical payloads. Nothing absurd about it at all. Sure SpaceX is being "beaten" by bigger competitors, because SpaceX can't compete, not yet anyway.

then it is your responsibility to do more than expose these things in a small online forum... then if you care at all about the future of space flight and where all this is going you should do something concrete about your convictions... how about you do something about it beyond mere talk? I mean that seriously and I am not trying to offend you

Theres that chicken-hawk thing again. Frankly its insulting, you do offend me.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-25 00:26:44

Burt Rutan told ISDC2006 that he did NOT see a solution for cheap soon orbital flight.

Well, thats nice, so why did he call his rubber-rocket-Cessna "Space Ship One" instead of Ionosphere One or Suborbital One or something.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-25 00:32:42

I recall reading somewhere that an RL-10 is no more complex than a gas turbine helicopter engine which cost about $100,000. Maybe the RL-10 is less complex than the gas turbine engine.
An RS-68 is a bigger engine, but how much more?
The difference between gas turbine engines and rocket engines? Assembly lines and demand.
Create demand and prices will fall.

As per Astronautix

RS-68:
- Mass - 6,597 kg
  Thrust - 744,567 lb
  Thrust/Weight - 51.20
RL-10:
- Mass - 131 kg
  Thrust - 14,995 lb
  Thrust/Weight - 44.63

The RS-68 is a little bit larger. The RL-10 is already available for only a few million a copy too, which isn't that much more than a helecopter given the high-pressure combustion chamber, superhigh temperature Hydrogen combustion, ultracold turbopump temperatures, gimbaling, collapseable nozzle, and multiple vacuum restartability.

Whoever was selling helecopter turbines was trying to rip you off

Marsman · 2006-07-25 02:35:03

I could be offensive GCN if that's the way you like it. I simply asked that you be man enough to live up to your very strong convictions. Whether you do or not is your choice. But you can rant all you like about whatever you want, in the end people will respect the doers, not the talkers. You are constantly attacking people and their ideas here and for a Mars enthusiast I can't understand why. I guess you are just a hard core purist or something. Even if I agreed with your logic and points none of that matters anyway. What matters is what is happening out there in the real world. If you have some influence over that then congratulations and I apologize. We can argue back and forth forever and from what I have read no one here will ever convince you to change your views. What you don't understand is the power of dreams. You want to apply hard nosed "realism" to everything and destroy every opposing argument then what is left? I see time and time again you attacking people here left and right, with your condescending bulls*** and superior attitude. Why are you here? This is a forum for Mars enthusiasts, and part of that is in hopes and dreams and you need to just lighten up a bit.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-25 07:11:46

I simply asked that you be man enough to live up to your very strong convictions. Whether you do or not is your choice

You contradict yourself even in your insults, so while I "have a choice" there is only one option for me to retain my masculinity? Heh

Oh and you are invoking the lame, logically flawed chicken hawk slur again.

You are constantly attacking people and their ideas here and for a Mars enthusiast I can't understand why.

Its really quite easy to understand, I have stated it on several occasions. I enjoy being a critic, and all ideas should be criticized, otherwise good ideas are not as good as they could be, and bad ideas seen as they really are. Otherwise, bad and good ideas would compete on even ground, the only differentiation based on a "inoffensive" cursory tallying of characterisitcs.

What you don't understand is the power of dreams. You want to apply hard nosed "realism" to everything and destroy every opposing argument then what is left?

What you don't understand is the danger of that power, how it can lead people to chase what cannot be done. Dreams are powerful as a motivating force, one of the few things stronger than money in some people, but dreams do not change facts. Dreamers tend to let their goals and visions run away with them, such that pithy things like reality don't seem to trouble them. Dreams sometimes take such a strong hold, it motivates people to lie to make that dream happen (like Bob), and they should be called out for their immoral dishonesty.

The "space community" as a whole has long been characterized, and to large extent correctly, filled and led by such people. This makes them far less effective than they should be, and criticism of advocated ideas and plans is a positive thing for steering back to reality and relevance.

This is a forum for Mars enthusiasts, and part of that is in hopes and dreams and you need to just lighten up a bit.

If by "lighten up" you mean "give everybody a free pass so nobody's feelings get hurt despite how silly or crazy," then I don't think so.

Palomar · 2006-07-25 08:28:13

*I used to be a lot like that: How dare those pesky cynics try and steal my Mars dream?? But after 4 years of reading this 'n that, I'm grateful for those "pesky cynics." Yeah, dreams are important...but they'll fail if reality is lost/ignored. Reality checks are good for us.

As for the old "let's go to Mars because a meteor impact might wipe out human civilization on Earth (save our species)" argument, I've always considered it absurd. Mars' atmosphere is a lot thinner than ours and it's a heck of a lot CLOSER to the Asteroid Belt than we are.

I'd like to see a human colony on Mars for its own sake, and science/research.

Marsman · 2006-07-25 12:21:20

I am a pragmatist, that means if something does not work I look to other solutions no matter how painful. I never said that living up to your convictions was the only measure of your masculinity either. That was your statement.I never said that it was the only option for you to take. It is a choice but because I don't know you I can't say definitively that living up to your words in here means anything. Maybe you don't like people who like to have a foot in either side of an argument but in me you have met such a person. I hope that explains the apparent "contradictions". In other words, I like to keep my options open and if I'm wrong I will admit it and move on. In this arguement I have been wrong with some things. I am not an engineer, so I can't hope to know how hard rocket making is, and the physics of it don't tell the whole story. I respect that others can know more than me and can teach me a thing or two and I also respect criticism. I guess we all get in bad moods(especially waiting for a Mars mission that may never happen) and for me that's what I have done here. Sorry for that.

It would be nice though to see a documentary along the lines of those "Extreme Engineering" ones on the processes involved in making rockets so average people could truly appreciate how hard it is and stop making stupid assumptions as we tend to do when being kept in the dark. I personally think that rockets, the shuttle, the ISS, etc are some of our finest engineering achievements and are largely under rated. The shroud of mystery should be lifted instead of throwing physics at people like that explains everything.

For example, I would like to know what exactly goes into making rockets like the Saturn V and more modern rockets, I want to know what materials are used and what processes they go through and the challenges they face. Specifics please. I would also like to understand what goes on internally in Lockheed and Boeing and other government contractors and what problems and issues they face, but the fact is I don't know and probably never will. There may not be demand for certain rockets but for example this does not mean that they have to build a new factory and new tools and new processes every time they manufacture a particular kind of rocket. The fact is that somewhere there is a factory making a particular brand of rocket over and over and no doubt the processes and machines and technology needed are all in place. So why the cost? When a car manufacturer builds a new model of car it may cost a billion doallars to develop and retool the factory, etc but the actual car does not cost a billion dollars. Obviously my understanding on this needs to expand, and it would be very enlightening to know just exactly why making rockets seems to defy the laws of normal manufactured goods and the prices never really comes down. Sorry for making invalid assumptions, that's what happens when standing up for what we believe in and not being fully informed of the full facts.

I am in awe of mega engineering projects like skyscrapers, bridges, pipelines, things like the Palm Islands in Dubai, the Three Gorges Dam and so on. I would like to be in awe of rocket making but compared to these things it really is shrouded in mystery. I don't need to know everything about building a bridge, but a simple demonstration of the physics and engineering involved and the challenges faced would suffice. Maybe we could reach and gain the respect more of the average public if we showed them how truly technical and challenging large rockets are to build instead of speaking above them and in "engineer speak"? People do take rocket making for granted, but is that our fault? More disclosure would help overcome this dreamy ignorance which plagues the space community. I agree with that. The problem I have here is that many,if not most of us are in the dark on much of these things.(unless you are really deeply involved in those industries). So we come to forums like this and we create whole movements and ideas based on what can be erroneous assumptions simply because we do not have a grasp on all the facts. I hope this changes though.

Criticism is not a bad thing, and I'll admit that I am guilty of listening to your tone "how" you speak, instead of what you are saying, and that is unproffesional of me and maybe a sign of my mood. We all need reality checks. I have had a few, and I will need more no doubt. The problem I have GCN is that as leader of Marsdrive people tend to say yes to me a little too much and I don't want that. I don't want to be unrealistic but it's hard when I'm surrounded by similar people, so I come to places like New Mars hoping for a different perspective and you have given me that. By all means don't give up your role. It is needed. Now I know those who do support alt.space may not not like this but facts are facts. Ignoring them will not make them go away. As a pragmatist I don't want to fail, it's that simple. I care more about results than being right or wrong. This means I can flip over my views very quickly if the other party can articulate their position and back it up properly like GCN has done. I'm not going to hold onto theories or beliefs that don't work, not at all. Reality is a hard thing GCN. I have seen many people abandon their "dream" of Mars or whatever when it finally dawned on them how complex and extreme the realities really were. Too hard, too difficult so they ran away back to their false asumptions and fantastical dreams never to be heard of again.

As you are a critic GCN, I am an activist and when I believe something is right and needed to achieve a goal I act upon it if no one else will. Obviously here your views are correct and many of mine are not. I wish it were not so and I'd really like to beat you in an argument but not this time. The funny thing is much of what you say I already know and I can prove that. Long ago I wrote an article called "A City For Mars" http://www.fordianvillage.com/article_read.asp?id=105 and while it was wrong in many details it revealed a problem to me. I suggested that a mega project like building a full scale city on mars would be a good catalyst for many other space projects. I may have been wrong on that assumption but my underlying point was that we needed a robust view of things. We needed a demand for our current transport system(chemical rockets) that matched their complexity and cost, and to me little floating hotels and sub orbital flights just didn't cut it. What you have reminded me of here GCN was that I was right in that view and I want to thank you for that.

Being from Australia you will have to forgive me but I have not heard the phrase "chicken-hawk" before so please explain that one if you can. Anyway, all this aside it is encouraging to see Bigelow have a success and I'm hoping for many more, so long as they face the facts. Balance is vital in all things.

Dreamers tend to let their goals and visions run away with them, such that pithy things like reality don't seem to trouble them

You are right. I just wish I knew more and could come at these issues from a more informed perspective. This is just such a massive forum. Looking through 80,000+ posts to find things is next to impossible so if anyone can help me and other new posters find things that would be much appreciated.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-07-22 22:10:41

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#52 2006-07-22 22:11:37

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#53 2006-07-22 23:43:51

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#54 2006-07-23 00:41:05

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#55 2006-07-23 04:09:27

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#56 2006-07-23 09:06:20

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#57 2006-07-23 10:42:13

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#58 2006-07-23 19:37:15

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#59 2006-07-23 20:00:59

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#60 2006-07-23 21:11:45

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#61 2006-07-23 22:26:32

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#62 2006-07-24 05:32:03

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#63 2006-07-24 14:56:22

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#64 2006-07-24 16:29:08

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#65 2006-07-24 16:30:45

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#66 2006-07-24 18:53:36

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#67 2006-07-24 20:24:27

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#68 2006-07-24 22:33:03

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#69 2006-07-25 00:11:28

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#70 2006-07-25 00:26:44

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#71 2006-07-25 00:32:42

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#72 2006-07-25 02:35:03

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#73 2006-07-25 07:11:46

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#74 2006-07-25 08:28:13

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

#75 2006-07-25 12:21:20

Re: hot damn! Bigalow is up there!

Board footer