NASA Exploration Roadmaps

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-13 21:11:55

They are implying that there has been a "showstopper" on Aries 1 (the Stick) related to the second stage, or how the second stage relates to the first stage. Apparently this was exposed at a recient design review. Details to come out soon.
Meet the new Aries 1 - "Stumpy". Basically, the 5 segment SRB first stage of the Stick is broken in half and each half is placed on either side of the second stage (3 segs per side). The Stick's second stage is widened to STS ET dimensions and given an extra J-2X

Who are "they" and where are you getting this stuff from? This notion that its "implied" is also supposition on your part personally, and this vaporus notion that "there is something wrong" is a notion without appreciable form nor foundation.

Nasaspaceflight makes its money by writing articles that interest space enthusiasts, and the "Ares-IB" is interesting, but simply because they did a story on it doesn't at all mean that it is the front runner for the CEV. Infact, the main "bennefits" of the Ares-IB design appear to be that NASA can postpone infrastructure changes and development that will have to happen anyway (KSC launch complex modifications, five-segment SRB).

NASA can only afford to retreat so far, and I find it hard to believe that they would build up and advertise so much about Ares-I if they didn't have a pretty good idea that it would work. They even have RCS engines picked out already.

RobertDyck · 2006-08-13 23:39:40

A major rationale for "the Stick" was increased safety. The Challenger accident was caused by rubber O-rings operated when the outside temperature was too cold, but the bottom line is placing a segment seal beside a liquid hydrogen tank is unsafe. Any new design must avoid this. Notice the solid rockets of Delta-IV and Atlas V are single piece solid casements.

Furthermore, two 3-segment rockets are significantly more expensive than one 5-segment booster. The large central stage of "Stumpy" is much larger than the upper stage of "the Stick" so more expensive. This change makes a dedicated crew transport impractical.

In fact, the primary criticism of "the Stick" has been it's too big to transport just crew to an LEO rendezvous point. To keep acceleration tolerable and safe for crew, a heavy CEV and service module, and heavy upper stage are required. Northrop-Grumman's original CEV offering is much lighter and more efficient, permitting a smaller launch vehicle. That could have been lifted with Delta-IV Medium or an Atlas V, and if weight was kept to a minimum it may have even fit on the cheapest of all EELVs: Atlas V 401 or 402. But man-rating an EELV was an issue, so they chose to go with "the Stick". But such a large solid rocket booster requires a heavy payload to keep acceleration down, so we got "Apollo on Steroids". Moving to an even larger launch vehicle for the crew transport would be prohibitively expensive.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-14 06:42:39

The booster burnthrough issue is not confined to Challenger when the Shuttle execs decided to launch in reccord cold weather, a later flight of Atlantis also had a burnthrough (reccorded by video cameras), but they were lucky and it was facing away from the main tank. The booster burnthrough is not a big problem, its a pretty benign failure actually and Atlantis managed to make it to orbit anyway, the problem is when this burnthrough hits a foam-coverd aluminum tank full of one of the most flammable substances in the universe. This just isn't a problem for TheStick, because the booster seals all face away from the top of the SRB.

The size of the booster didn't result in a CEV thats "too big," the CEV is about the right size for what NASA intends to use it for. Four men for 2-3 weeks or six for a day or two. The latter requirement doesn't result in a markedly bigger capsule since four men need at least a little room to move and for bulkier supplies (food, CO2 sorbants, gasses). The Apollo capsule was infact a little small for the purpose I think, and the five-seat arrangement right on the edge of practicality.

The EELVs are good rockets, but they were simply never intended to carry people safely; for instance all the models without solid rocket boosters have low acceleration, so low that they can't clear the tower in a timely fasion. Their engines were never really intended to be shut down in the event of an emergency, since you'd lose the satelite payload either way. Infact I doubt they have failure instrumentation nor do we know what instrument readings signal impending failure, which would take considerable time and money to develop.

RedStreak · 2006-08-14 15:30:11

Glad to hear someone giving the STS technology some credit.

The SRB is rated the safest for any solid rocket booster - compared to any of the EEVLs so many seem to tote as being viable alternatives it is known to be safe. Also the EEVLs don't provide enough power - they could maybe launch the CEV alone but not the EDS, LSAM by a long shot. Zubrin in his Mars Direct shot them down because they require numerous multiple launches *cough cough like the ISS*

To me it sounds like the plan is becoming more viable, but I will admit alot will hinge on the abilities of the 5-segment SRB. However, whereas the Challenger and Columbia perished because NASA was too hesitant to take charge or risk the VSE will make the risk truly worth something...in other words actual space exploration versus studying guppies having sex in orbit as an old political comic pointed out when the shuttle was orbiting on Apollo 11's 25th anniversery.

publiusr · 2006-08-17 10:50:50

Good points. NASASPACEFLIGHT has alot of professionals compared to many other sites--like the Space.com Discussion forum with its libertarian yahoos (strange seeing that Dobbs is hardly a free trader).

Here is a thought. Perhaps a two RS-68 craft like Magnum and existing SRBs?

it is an entry-level HLLV at 80 tons--but it might get under contract before an admin. change.

So the question is:

Should the space community:

I. Support the stick and hope Ares V can survive to come later, or

II. Support Magnum, make do with 80 tons--and evolve that craft with additional solid hardpoints and growth options for that--but get this Stumpy+ under contract before we get a President /Congress liable to be more hostile to VSE and kill it altogether (With the next NASA Chief a Goldin head whose biggest LV will be Delta II again.)

At least with Stumpy or Magnum--we would be getting experience putting engines under the ET--and a wide ET may allow wide biconic craft to come along--and allow CEV to remain at 5.5--or perhaps even grow...

Thems the choices.

If I had my druthers, I'd take Ares V--but if it is Magnum...or nothing?

I'd go with the latter. Somebody get Bill Eoff back.

cIclops · 2006-10-20 05:44:18

Michael Cabbage gives a detailed account of the 18 October Exploration day at Glenn:

* NASA is looking at the possibility of a second Ares I test flight that also would use a four-segment solid rocket booster from the shuttle and a simulated second-stage. If funding is approved, the second test flight would give engineers a backup mission in case there were problems with the first launch. If all goes well with the first flight, the second test vehicle could be used to help check out new launch systems and infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center.
* NASA plans to select the engine that will power the service module in January. Two options are being looked at: The engine that powers the shuttle's orbital maneuvering system and the Delta 2's upper-stage engine.
* The critical design review for the service module is about three years away, tentatively scheduled for February 2010.
* The J-2X engine that will power the mission's Earth Departure Stage and the Ares I's upper stage will be tested in simulated space conditions in the B-2 facility at Glenn's Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio. The five-year, $190 million project is scheduled to begin work on the first J-2X engine in October 2010 after four years of facility upgrades and checkouts.
* NASA continues to evaluate whether it can close "The Gap" between the shuttle's planned retirement in 2010 and Orion's first manned flight in 2014. The availability of funding continues to be the biggest barrier to making that happen.
* Launch pad and low-altitude abort tests for the crew exploration vehicle are scheduled to begin in late-2008 at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

publiusr · 2006-10-27 13:07:41

Now if Griffins foes would just go the way of Proxmire.

cIclops · 2006-11-03 14:59:50

SEDS 20 year program (xls file) dated June 2006 gives a comprehensive list of NASA missons until 2025.

In the Moon program note the regular pattern of about 4 flights per year. The first Lunar Sortie is planned for 2018 and setup of the Lunar base for 2020. Thereafter there are two lunar missions per year with two logistics flights.

cIclops · 2006-11-11 13:14:24

2nd Space Exploration Conference: Implementing the Vision 4 - 6 Dec 2006, Houston, Texas

Covers the status of the Constellation program and the rollout of the VSE Lunar Architecture.

Note: NASA TV 4 Dec - Lunar Architecture News Conference.

cIclops · 2006-11-17 01:24:39

NASA Completes Milestone Review of Next Human Spacecraft System
NASA has completed a milestone first review of all systems for the Orion spacecraft and the Ares I and Ares V rockets. The review brings the agency a step closer to launching the nation's next human space vehicle.
NASA completed the thorough systems requirements review of the Constellation Program this week. Review results provide the foundation for design, development, construction and operation of the rockets and spacecraft necessary to take explorers to Earth orbit, the moon, and eventually to Mars.
"This review is a critical step in making the system a reality," said Constellation Program Manager Jeff Hanley of NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston. "I am proud of this dedicated and diligent NASA-wide team. We have established the foundation for a safe and strong transportation system and infrastructure. It is a historic first step."
This is the first system requirements review NASA has completed for a human spacecraft system since a review of the space shuttle's development held in October 1972. The Constellation Program system requirements are the product of 12 months of work by a NASA-wide team.
The system requirements review is one in a series of reviews that will occur before NASA and its contractors build the Orion capsule, the Ares launch vehicles, and establish ground and mission operations. The review guidelines narrow the scope and add detail to the system design.
"We are confident these first requirements provide an exceptional framework for the vehicle system," said Chris Hardcastle, Constellation Program systems engineering and integration manager at Johnson. "This team has done a significant amount of analysis which will bear out as we continue with our systems engineering approach and refine our requirements for the next human space transportation system."
An example of the activity was a review and analysis that confirmed the planned Ares I launch system has sufficient thrust to put the Orion spacecraft in orbit. In fact, the Ares I thrust provides a 15 percent margin of performance in addition to the energy needed to put the fully crewed and supplied Orion into orbit for a lunar mission. Engineers established Orion's take off weight for lunar missions at over 61,000 pounds.
Each Constellation project also is preparing for a narrower, project-level systems review, according to the following schedule:
* Orion crew exploration vehicle, February 2007
* Ground operations (launch support), February 2007
* Mission operations (mission support), March 2007
* Extravehicular activity (space suits), March 2007
Once the project-level reviews are complete, the Constellation Program will hold another full review to reconcile the baseline from this first review with any updates from the project reviews. A lunar architecture systems review of equipment associated with surface exploration and science activities on the moon is expected in the spring of 2009.

NASA press release Nov 16, 2006

cIclops · 2006-11-17 06:02:01

In the November 2006 issue of Aerospace America there's a fascinating quote:

Caris Hatfield, NASA’s Project Orion manager, says the agency is not being “too optimistic” in setting an actual date for humankind’s next landing on the Moon— April 6, 2018.

Anyone else seen this date officially mentioned? Perhaps more will be said about it at the upcoming Exploration Conference

SpaceNut · 2006-11-17 21:24:28

With so many seats changing from Republican to Democrat you knew that it would not take long before changes would be made.

House Spaceport panel being eliminated

The House Spaceport and Technology Committee is being eliminated in the chamber's new committee structure. Instead, space industry issues will be included within another committee as it had been previously.
The departing speaker, Allan Bense, created the spaceport committee two years ago at Allen's urging, as Florida jockeyed with other states to land contracts for the next phase of the national space program.
Its biggest task was in overseeing last year's repackaging of state space agencies into a new, single agency Space Florida, following a blueprint developed by Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings and an advisory board appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush.

cIclops · 2006-11-18 15:35:20

Impact of funding restrictions (HAC=House Appropriations Committee)

Background: Impacts from House and Senate FY 2007 Appropriations Action Constellation Exploration Technology Development (ETD)
NASA Request: $354.0M
HAC Mark: $239.3M (-$114.7M)
The ETD program is focused on maturing technology identified as high priority for the exploration architecture, which are essential to reduce risk, life cycle costs, and have important connections to U.S. science, economic and national security interests. Last year, the Technology Development program was prioritized as part of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) review, to ensure that the R&T portfolio directly supports requirements of the Constellation Systems program. ETD budget and content was substantially reduced through this exercise and the FY 2007 request retains only the high priority research necessary to support exploration needs.
The House-proposed reduction of 1/3 of the request would impact all NASA Centers, particularly Ames Research Center, Glenn Research Center, Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center, resulting in increased uncovered workforce of approximately 165 FTEs. The cuts would have an immediate and long-term impact on the ability to feed technology into Constellation to reduce overall program risk and cost, resulting in deferral of the following procurements:
* In-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology needed to enable the production of oxygen, water, and propellants from lunar resources, reducing the amount and costs of consumables that must be resupplied from Earth. (Lockheed Martin, Pioneer Astronautics, Colorado School of Mines, CO; Caterpillar, IL; U. S. Army Cold Regions Research & Engineering Lab, NH; Northern Centre for Advanced Technology, Canada)
* Power generation and energy storage technologies needed to provide an energy-rich infrastructure on the lunar surface that would increase exploration capabilities and stimulate commerce for Earth-based applications. (Lockheed Martin, CO; Teledyne Energy Systems, MD; TJ Technologies, MI)
* Robotic systems needed for assisting crew with surface operations and setting up equipment at the lunar outpost before the crew arrives. Robotics technology developed for space has applications for manufacturing of consumer products, assisting disabled persons, and homeland security. (MIT, Univ. of Massachusetts)
* Autonomous precision landing and hazard avoidance systems needed to reduce the risk of crews landing on the moon. (Draper Labs, MA; Univ. of Texas; Utah State)
* Non-toxic propulsion systems needed to reduce the costs associated with ground operations involving hazardous propellants. (KT Engineering, AL; Northrop Grumman, CA; Aerojet, CA; Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, FL; ATK GASL, NY)
* Radiation tolerant and low temperature electronics needed to ensure the reliable operation of systems in the extreme environments at the lunar poles. (Georgia Tech; Vanderbilt Univ.)
* Fire prevention, detection, and suppression systems needed to ensure crew safety in exploration vehicles and lunar habitats. (Univ. of California Berkeley, Univ. of California San Diego; Colorado School of Mines; Case Western Reserve Univ.)
* EVA spacesuit needed for lunar surface exploration would be delayed because development of critical component technologies for life support, thermal management, energy storage, and dust mitigation would not be started. (Hamilton Sundstrand, CT; ILC, Dover, DE)
* Reliable software needed to control and operate critical flight systems. (USC, CA; Carnegie Mellon Univ.; Vanderbilt Univ.)
* Spacecraft autonomy needed to enable untended operations of the CEV in lunar orbit while the crew is on the surface. (United Space Alliance, TX)
* Integrated health management systems needed to warn the crew of impending failures in vehicle systems and to help the crew troubleshoot problems. (Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, CA; ATK, Thiokol, UT)

cIclops · 2006-11-26 04:32:24

Doug Stanley (NASA ESAS team leader) confirms that NASA will begin the Mars Architecture Study:

There will be a more comprehensive Mars Architecture Study beginning soon that will trade various approaches. Hopefully this will create more interest for Mars...

Yes it's another study but this time it's backed by the VSE and linked with ESAS and that is real!

See also Doug's recent comment about the NEO mission study.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-26 08:54:20

Former chairman of the defunct committee, Rep. Bob Allen, said he discussed the change in a meeting with Rubio earlier this week. The Merritt Island Republican said he was promised that space issues would be folded into a committee that includes economic development.

What does space exploration have to do with commerce? My guess is they want to sell technology to the Chinese so they can get to the Moon and Mars first. I knew these Democrats were bad news for NASA. All they are good for is losing the War in Iraq! After that, the American people will sense that the Democrats really don't like their country very much, and will probably vote them out in the next election. I think we need a seperate Conservative Party to crowd the democrats out of the two party system. Voters voted for the democrats because they were the only alternative to the Republicans, I think they will find out in the next two years that they stand for other things as well, they certainly don't want the United States to regain its preeminance in space travel, they want to reduce NASA into an agency for launching communications and weather satellites. We desperately need two parties that are Pro-American, not the current Pro-American/Anti-American two party system where one party does all it an to help our adversaries. I don't think the Democrats are really interested in sending Americans to Mars, I'd think they'd much rather have some foreign astronaut plant a red flag in the red soil and speak something unmemorable in Chinese that most Americans can't understand.

cIclops · 2006-11-26 11:19:21

Former chairman of the defunct committee, Rep. Bob Allen, said he discussed the change in a meeting with Rubio earlier this week. The Merritt Island Republican said he was promised that space issues would be folded into a committee that includes economic development.
What does space exploration have to do with commerce? My guess is they want to sell technology to the Chinese so they can get to the Moon and Mars first. I knew these Democrats were bad news for NASA. All they are good for is losing the War in Iraq! After that, the American people will sense that the Democrats really don't like their country very much, and will probably vote them out in the next election. I think we need a seperate Conservative Party to crowd the democrats out of the two party system. Voters voted for the democrats because they were the only alternative to the Republicans, I think they will find out in the next two years that they stand for other things as well, they certainly don't want the United States to regain its preeminance in space travel, they want to reduce NASA into an agency for launching communications and weather satellites. We desperately need two parties that are Pro-American, not the current Pro-American/Anti-American two party system where one party does all it an to help our adversaries. I don't think the Democrats are really interested in sending Americans to Mars, I'd think they'd much rather have some foreign astronaut plant a red flag in the red soil and speak something unmemorable in Chinese that most Americans can't understand.

This seems to be in the wrong place Tom, how does it connect with the topic?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-26 13:10:43

Former chairman of the defunct committee, Rep. Bob Allen, said he discussed the change in a meeting with Rubio earlier this week. The Merritt Island Republican said he was promised that space issues would be folded into a committee that includes economic development.
What does space exploration have to do with commerce? My guess is they want to sell technology to the Chinese so they can get to the Moon and Mars first. I knew these Democrats were bad news for NASA. All they are good for is losing the War in Iraq! After that, the American people will sense that the Democrats really don't like their country very much, and will probably vote them out in the next election. I think we need a seperate Conservative Party to crowd the democrats out of the two party system. Voters voted for the democrats because they were the only alternative to the Republicans, I think they will find out in the next two years that they stand for other things as well, they certainly don't want the United States to regain its preeminance in space travel, they want to reduce NASA into an agency for launching communications and weather satellites. We desperately need two parties that are Pro-American, not the current Pro-American/Anti-American two party system where one party does all it an to help our adversaries. I don't think the Democrats are really interested in sending Americans to Mars, I'd think they'd much rather have some foreign astronaut plant a red flag in the red soil and speak something unmemorable in Chinese that most Americans can't understand.
This seems to be in the wrong place Tom, how does it connect with the topic?

There, I've bolded the parts that make it connect. The Democrats really don't want America going to Mars anytime soon, they were happy to redirect the space community's enthusiasm towards launching the shuttle, conducting "Earth Science" from space, and really achieving not very much. They certainly don't want any accomplishments where the USA shows the world its technological prowess, this is because they really don't believe in the American System, to them it is only a vehicle to gain power and to spend tax dollars on their own projects. Most Democrats are citizens of the World, not really so patriotic.

cIclops · 2006-12-04 14:55:05

NASA revealed their thinking on the Global exploration architecture at a briefing today on NASA TV. The key decision was that a lunar Outpost would be built before sortie missions were made. This decision seems to optimize many of the objectives for return to the moon, especially the need to prepare for future exploration of Mars and other destinations.

The Outpost would probably be located on the rim of Shackleton crater at the south pole. The main reasons for this were the availability of solar power, a more moderate thermal environment, low delta V and the likely availability of hydrogen and other volatiles in the nearby permanently dark craters.

Cooperation from other space agencies was stressed several times in connection with creating the base infrastructure elements such as habitats, mobility, power, communications, navigation, ISRU and robotics. Commercial participation was also mentioned with NASA looking for the supply of services and goods to the Outpost.

[url=http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/dec/HQ_06361_ESMD_Lunar_Architecture.html]NASA Unveils Global Exploration Strategy and Lunar Architecture
[/url]

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-05 12:05:52

NASA revealed their thinking on the Global exploration architecture at a briefing today on NASA TV. The key decision was that a lunar Outpost would be built before sortie missions were made. This decision seems to optimize many of the objectives for return to the moon, especially the need to prepare for future exploration of Mars and other destinations.
The Outpost would probably be located on the rim of Shackleton crater at the south pole. The main reasons for this were the availability of solar power, a more moderate thermal environment, low delta V and the likely availability of hydrogen and other volatiles in the nearby permanently dark craters.
Cooperation from other space agencies was stressed several times in connection with creating the base infrastructure elements such as habitats, mobility, power, communications, navigation, ISRU and robotics. Commercial participation was also mentioned with NASA looking for the supply of services and goods to the Outpost.
[url=http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/dec/HQ_06361_ESMD_Lunar_Architecture.html]NASA Unveils Global Exploration Strategy and Lunar Architecture
[/url]

As currently envisioned, an incremental buildup would begin with four-person crews making several seven-day visits to the moon until their power supplies, rovers and living quarters are operational. The first mission would begin by 2020. These would be followed by 180-day missions to prepare for journeys to Mars.

2020?, that's about 13 years from now. Shuttle flights end in 2010 so we have ten years to focus on the Moon. The objective is to have 180 day missions to explore the Moon's surface. Do you think they will deposit catches of supplies along the Moon's surface so that a long range pressurized rover can travel long distances from one supply depot to another?

Is circumnavigating the Moon feasible or desirable?

cIclops · 2006-12-05 14:11:26

2020?, that's about 13 years from now. Shuttle flights end in 2010 so we have ten years to focus on the Moon. The objective is to have 180 day missions to explore the Moon's surface. Do you think they will deposit catches of supplies along the Moon's surface so that a long range pressurized rover can travel long distances from one supply depot to another?
Is circumnavigating the Moon feasible or desirable?

2020 is the date set in the VSE. NASA and many others want that date brought forward, 2018 is doable, even earlier is possible given the funding. The pressurized rover was only mentioned officially this week - see the Lunar Outpost forum - note the date is 2027! Maybe that's a mistake, but if it's true there will be plenty of time for new developments. For example, delivery of supplies robotically, ISRU fueled hoppers to transport people and cargo further from the base, and yes maybe prepositioned supply dumps as used by the early Antarctic explorers.

cIclops · 2006-12-05 14:18:10

During 2nd exploration conference today, Scott Horowitz said that the Mars Design Reference missions would be revisted in 2007!

SpaceNut · 2006-12-08 08:53:06

Now that mass drivers are out of here we can get back to the exploration and what can alter the roadmap.

One thing that seems to have the most infulence is congress and its control over the cash flow. If the cash flow ebs the vision slows down and if it should increase it does not necessarily mean that the vision would speed up since there are so many scientists that have had to have there experiments or programs curtailed or cancelled.

Gordon named chairman of House Science Committee

The article goes though all the usual twists and turns that indicate that we should spend our money here on issues that affect all of us first.

cIclops · 2006-12-11 07:51:07

Presentation charts now available from 2nd Exploration Conference (Dec 4, 2006)

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-11 09:01:00

Presentation charts now available from 2nd Exploration Conference (Dec 4, 2006)

Lunar and Mars exploration aren't specifically addressed. I hope they don't insist on substituting a Gore Sat and calling it "Space Exploration". NASA has set the course, either we go to Mars fast or slow, depending on available funding. If there are truly any "John F. Kennedy's" left in the Democratic Party, then we can certainly go faster, otherwise its "Pass the Pork!"

cIclops · 2006-12-11 10:09:45

Lunar and Mars exploration aren't specifically addressed.

There was a whole plenary panel on the Lunar Exploration Strategy and Architecture Status, the charts are in that section. Yes Mars wasn't addressed explicity but it appears on various roadmaps and plans in the Science and Exploration presentations. A key objective of the Lunar strategy is to prepare for the exploration of Mars, the "Mars forward" concept. Doug Cooke (one of the original authors) said that the Mars (Design) Reference Mission would be developed in the first half of next year, this will be a critical step in creating the Mars Architecture.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-08-13 21:11:55

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#52 2006-08-13 23:39:40

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#53 2006-08-14 06:42:39

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#54 2006-08-14 15:30:11

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#55 2006-08-17 10:50:50

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#56 2006-10-20 05:44:18

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#57 2006-10-27 13:07:41

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#58 2006-11-03 14:59:50

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#59 2006-11-11 13:14:24

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#60 2006-11-17 01:24:39

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#61 2006-11-17 06:02:01

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#62 2006-11-17 21:24:28

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#63 2006-11-18 15:35:20

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#64 2006-11-26 04:32:24

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#65 2006-11-26 08:54:20

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#66 2006-11-26 11:19:21

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#67 2006-11-26 13:10:43

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#68 2006-12-04 14:55:05

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#69 2006-12-05 12:05:52

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#70 2006-12-05 14:11:26

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#71 2006-12-05 14:18:10

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#72 2006-12-08 08:53:06

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#73 2006-12-11 07:51:07

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#74 2006-12-11 09:01:00

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#75 2006-12-11 10:09:45

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

Board footer