in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-10 14:38:17

.

in my opinion (both) Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once !!!

could NASA rockets win vs. privates on launch date and prices?

.

despite (in my articles and posts) I've suggested MANY simpler, faster and cheaper ways to build the Ares rockets, I doubt (very much) that (both) the Ares-I and Ares-V could/will (REALLY) fly once, someday...

that NOT due to TECHNICAL problems (despite to-day's bad news about the Ares-I design) but (mainly) due to a (very simple!) ECONOMICAL reason

I admit that I was very skeptic about the ability of privates to build and launch (soon) reliable, low cost rockets, but, in the latest years, we have seen many successful results from privates, all them (most important) accomplished in A FEW year with a small number of engineers and a (relatively) SMALL amount of money (million$ rather than billion$$$)

this is a brief story (so far) of their success:

Burt Rutan has developed and built TWO airplanes (a carrier and a suborbital vehicle) with a (modest) $30M investment and his test-pilots have accomplished several (safe and successful) X-15-like suborbital flights

Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic will soon carry (around 2009) hundreds suborbital space tourists with his SpaceShipTwo

Robert Bigelow has already (and successfully) launched his first (scale-sized) inflatable module in orbit and soon (around 2012) he will launch his (first of many) man-rated, full-size, inflatable modules' orbital-hotel for astronauts and tourists carried to it with Soyuz, Shenzhou, ACTS, Dragon, Orion and other private capsules like a (possible) Bigelow/LockMart tourists capsule launched with a man-rated AtlasV

please note that, if Mr. Bigelow will succeed in his plan, the habitable space of his (first) multi-modules space-hotel should EXCEED (soon) the habitable space of the ($100+Bn) ISS at a FRACTION of its costs since the Bigelow-Space-Hotel will be built in orbit without dozens and dozens Shuttles' flights!

last but not least, the Elon Musk's SpaceX have (nearly successful) launched its first commercial rocket that reached 600 km. of altitude (1.5 times the ISS orbit!) after (just) ONE test flight!!!

what impressed me in the SpaceX launch was NOT the launch itself but the fact that SpaceX is a very small company with a small number of engineers that have developed and built the Falcon-1 in a few years investing a mere $100M ... a REALLY RIDICULOUS amount of money compared with the big-companies/space-agencies' rockets that (ALL) costed MANY BILLION$$$ each (for R&D) before their first launch!!! ... $8+Bn to develop the Ariane5, $7+Bn for the Ares-I, $12+Bn for the Ares-V, etc.

and likewise impressive is the PRICE-PER-LAUNCH of the Falcon-1 (when operational) that's LESS THAN $7M to launch a 670 kg. payload to a 200 km. LEO compared with (e.g.) the (simpler and air-launched) $30M Pegasus-XL that launches a 443 kg. payload to a 185 km. LEO

also the (manned) Dragon capsule (despite its too ambitious specs: seven astronauts in a 3.65 m capsule!) doesn't seem impossible to (really) fly in orbit soon (maybe, within 5-6 years)

but these are just the EARLY DAYS of the private space industry since MANY new (internatoinal) privates and MANY (old and emerging) countries (Russia, China, India, Japan, Europe, Iran, South Korea, North Korea, Brazil, etc.) work hard to develop their LOW COST rockets for (both) commercial and military markets!

within 5-10 years, DOZENS privates and space agencies of the world will be able to launch 10 mT, 20 mT, 30 mT payloads very RELIABLE rockets at a FRACTION (maybe, $50M each) of the Ares-I price, also, these (low cost) rockets could be man-rated, then, become SAFE/RELIABLE enough to launch the Orion (or whichever manned capsule available in the next years)

and, since the private companies are FAST and EFFICIENT in their job/business, doesn't seem impossible to have (soon) also some GIANT rockets (like the the AresV or bigger) available on the market around 2015 or (at least) a few years BEFORE the first AresV (TEST) launch!!!

so, the 1st question is:

"could NASA rockets win vs. privates on launch date and prices?"

MY opinion/answer is that (especially after the latest +3 years sum of delay) NASA can't win the competition vs. privates (and/or other countries) on (both) the first-flights date and the launch prices since NASA is going to give a GIANT advantage to (both) private companies and foreign countries >>> "TEN YEARS OF TIME" !!!

in the next TEN YEARS (while NASA will develop and launch the Orion/Ares-I) many privates (and some emerging countries) will have ENOUGH TIME to do (now) INCREDIBLE THINGS !!!

then, the 2nd question is:

"should NASA buy (in 2010-2020) these (5-10 times cheaper) "commercial" rockets and DELETE (soon) the (too expensive) Ares program?" (BEFORE they'll fly once!)

of course, my (pragmatic) opinion/answer is "YES" since they (absolutely) CAN'T TAKE a different choice/decision!!!

just an example to explain why:

if a "public agency" needs (e.g.) some powerful computers (not avaiable on the market or very expensive) certainly it CAN develop and build (internally) the computers they need (and doesn't matter if that computers will cost $10M each!!!)

but, if the SAME computers are ALREADY available on the market at (e.g.) $500 each, I doubt very much that (both) politics and taxpayers could allow this "public agency" to spend 100+ times to develop and build "their own" ($10M each) computers!!!

then, if, within 5-6 years, many (cheap, reliable and man-rated) "private" rockets will be (really) available on the market, the Ares-I would/will be DELETED (while at half of its development timeline) and (only) the (5+ times cheaper) private's rockets adopted/used to launch the Orion... so, the Ares-I could NEVER fly once!

and the SAME story should/could/will happen (within 10-12 years) for the AresV ...

the ONLY way for NASA to (try to) avoid this (embarrassing and humiliating) destiny/scenario is to CHANGE (soon) its (current) TOO SLOW plan to adopt "something simpler, faster and cheaper" to launch the first manned Orion MUCH SOONER than planned (maybe, around 2012 ...not later!)

what do you think about?

.

X · 2007-05-10 21:01:01

It would be very nice. The real test will be seeing the private companies working on their own accomplishing something the government's haven't already done.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-11 06:31:06

I think gaetano has taken a biiig gulp of the AltSpace Kool Aid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-11 07:07:48

I think gaetano has taken a biiig gulp of the AltSpace Kool Aid

your post is not clear to me but seems your nth insult (since you're clearly unable to be decent polite while talking on this board)

however, some private space companies still exist (and many other will born) so (for me) the question to ask can't be "IF" they will build bigger rockets but just "WHEN" that will happen

surely, all private companies are FAST but their job will become VERY EASY if NASA will follow its VERY SLOW timeline/plan: 2015+ to launch the Orion, 2020+ to land on the moon ... ANYONE is able to overhaul a TURTLE !!!

.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-11 09:15:54

"Drinking the Kool Aid"

A euphemism of sorts from the Jim Jones/Jonestown debacle back ~25 years ago: the man set himself up as the messiah of what became a crazy cult, with him as its head. Fleeing the US for tax evasion, he brought 1000 of his fellow cultists to the jungles of South America, but when the cult started to fall apart, he instructed his "congregation" to kill themselves by intentionally drinking poisoned Kool Aid, which many of them did. The ones that did not were killed by the "true believers" most likely.

"Drinking the Kool Aid" now is used to mean you are committing intellectual suicide because of a religious-like belief in some crazy cult that is so obviously phony that it is a sign of mental illness to follow said cult. In this case, AltSpace is obviously not the magic cure-call for space travel woes, but believing it is like "drinking the Kool Aid."

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-11 13:30:26

...AltSpace is obviously not the magic cure...

never said they can make miracles...
but to-day's (and future) NewSpace companies are REAL industries with REAL engineers, REAL (sometimes BIG) funds, REAL investments, REAL factories, REAL products and (now) REAL success!
just look at the Empire State Building ... it was built in (about) ONE YEAR (between 1930 and 1931) and the (very long) Orion/Ares-I timeline (first manned flight in 2015 + FURTHER DELAYS) offers to privates a GIANT ADVANTAGE: over TEN YEARS to develop a better and cheaper 30 mT launcher!!!

.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-05-11 23:07:08

I've been reading a few of his threads and at times I think gaetanomarano has made some good very points about the whole program. Consider the 5 month delays, the CLV-I is now becoming un-affordable, if we want Mars then the Ares V needs to be built right now. Ares I only really gives us a bit more than Atlas/Ariane a bit of LEO stuff and manned capsule flights to the ISS, but without Ares-V we are going nowwhere again, around in cricles in LEO for the next 30-40 years. So why does Boeing think the EELVs will be needed again soon ? and is why Lockheed is currently manrating the Atlas V for Bigelow ? Because NASA won't buy Soyuz/Shenzhou then very soon an ultra-expensive CLV is going to have us stuck in LEO again, and the only people to rescue us from this costly madness are the likes of Bigelow and the Alt-Space community.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-12 06:21:26

I've been reading a few of his threads and at times I think gaetanomarano has made some good very points about the whole program. Consider the 5 month delays, the CLV-I is now becoming un-affordable, if we want Mars then the Ares V needs to be built right now. Ares I only really gives us a bit more than Atlas/Ariane a bit of LEO stuff and manned capsule flights to the ISS, but without Ares-V we are going nowwhere again, around in cricles in LEO for the next 30-40 years. So why does Boeing think the EELVs will be needed again soon ? and is why Lockheed is currently manrating the Atlas V for Bigelow ? Because NASA won't buy Soyuz/Shenzhou then very soon an ultra-expensive CLV is going to have us stuck in LEO again, and the only people to rescue us from this costly madness are the likes of Bigelow and the Alt-Space community.

If you think a single syllable of this crayons-on-the-screen drivel is worth anything at all, then you are crazy. A few months of delay out of a multi-year program is "unaffordable?" He also just makes up mass numbers out of thin air, double-counts costs, and has a seizure-like reaction to developing anything new. That should be obvious from his posts, and painfully so.

Ares-I/Orion are expensive by comparison to the dinky little Soyuz, but once Shuttle is gone we should be able to afford plenty of them. They ought to cost between half and a third of each Shuttle flight, and frankly even if thats too much I think Griffin has the fortitude to cut the ISS loose to keep VSE going.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-12 07:31:05

...few months of delay out of a multi-year program...

it's not a problem of "months" or "years" since my thread is about a "what if" scenario ...what happen IF low cost rockets will be SOON available on the market? ...etc.

.

Brian H · 2008-03-05 15:48:58

Money has been paid by the first 100+ of many VirginGalactic tourists.

You should also look at the space mining possibilities. A 2km dia. nickel-iron asteroid in orbit would have easily recovered metals (base and precious) greater than the total mined in Earth's history. Current value, >$1,000,000 per capita -- for the whole planet.

By the way, an English hint: "privates" means sex organs. :oops: Use private companies or "independents".

Austin Stanley · 2008-03-05 22:11:51

Oh I think eventually some private companies may finally get there acts together enough to compete with the likes of Boeing, Lockmart, or Rockedyne in the rocket industry. But realistically they stand little chance of beating out NASA in the near future (like say by 2012 or so when Ares I becomes operational). And even less chance of beating Ares V to the punch.

You have to compare what are talking about here. Virgin Galactic has launched a very small sub-orbital space craft and has plans for a marginally large sub-orbital craft. Mr. Bigelow has some great orbital structures but no private launch vehicle. And SpaceX (the closest to achieving anything) have launched a very small payload to LEO. With plans for some larger craft some time in the future. No one else has done anything of note as far as I'm aware.

None of these are at all comparable in capabilities to the Ares I (25MT), much less the Ares V (100+MT), or heck even the Delta II (6MT). The harshness of the rocket equation dictates that as your scale up in payload the rocket scales up in size much faster. The cost and complexity scale up likewise. In short its going to be a lot more difficult to for the Altspace guys to put a payload the size of the Ares I into space. Indeed the Chinese are the only ones who stand even a moderate chance of putting something the size of the Ares I into space ahead of the Ares I.

If that wasn't bad enough putting people on top of rockets increases the complexity immensely. Now you have to design a vehicle that they can survive in and a way for it to safely re-enter. Much more difficult than a simple satellite launch.

The second cold reality is that space-flight is not going to be profitable any time soon. SpaceX may be able to fight its way into the launch market, but the market for vehicles as big as the Ares I is pretty much limited to government contracts (which are the majority of contracts anyways).

---

But you love to throw around all kinds of wild predictions. Frankly it appears to be a scatter shot approach at being correct (throw enough stuff out there SOME of it is bound to be right), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. How about we make a wager about one of them? You state that the 'Ares-I could NEVER fly once!' How about if it does you buy me a six-pack of my favorite beer, and if it doesn't I'll get you one? Game?

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-06 18:28:40

by 2012 or so when Ares I becomes operational

it can't happen since the J-2X will be not ready for that date

Mr. Bigelow has some great orbital structures but no private launch vehicle. And SpaceX (the closest to achieving anything) have launched a very small payload to LEO. With plans for some larger craft some time in the future. No one else has done anything of note as far as I'm aware.

true, but, the (every day more) long Ares rockets' timeline is giving good chances to new.space companies to win the competition

Indeed the Chinese are the only ones who stand even a moderate chance of putting something the size of the Ares I into space ahead of the Ares I.

that's sure for me, and I agree that an Ares-5 like target is too much for to-day's new.space companies, however, the Ares-1 payload is a goal they could reach

If that wasn't bad enough putting people on top of rockets increases the complexity immensely. Now you have to design a vehicle that they can survive in and a way for it to safely re-enter. Much more difficult than a simple satellite launch.

true, but they can do that with some help/join ventures with aerospace companies and agencies (the way Bigelow seems do with LockMart)

The second cold reality is that space-flight is not going to be profitable any time soon. SpaceX may be able to fight its way into the launch market, but the market for vehicles as big as the Ares I is pretty much limited to government contracts (which are the majority of contracts anyways).

it's only an "egg or chicken" like problem, a "commercial space" never borns if no one starts build and launch cheaper "commercial rockets"

You state that the 'Ares-I could NEVER fly once!' How about if it does you buy me a six-pack of my favorite beer, and if it doesn't I'll get you one? Game?

ok, but you have not read the full article since, my claim is that, the current designed Ares-1 can't fly, while, a modified Ares-1 "may fly", so, which "Ares-1" you refer to?

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 10:53:40

By the way, an English hint: "privates" means sex organs. :oops: Use private companies or "independents".

thanks for your remark... ...sometimes my articles and posts are a little HARD, but not SO "hard"...

.

RedStreak · 2008-03-07 12:46:44

I hope the best for Burtan and the commercial rocket industry....

...but considering what happened to those poor workers with that exploding rocket engine a few months ago...sadly I'm not holding my breath for him anymore.

Personally I put more hopes on SpaceX and Orbital since they're not funding "fad-suborbital trourist rides" but launching cargo into orbit.

All the same though they have to start somewhere, and a non-goverment funded commercial vehicle has many hurtles to jump.

Terraformer · 2008-03-07 13:13:55

Like I said, I'm pinning my hopes on SpaceX, SpaceDev and Bigelow.

JoshNH4H · 2008-03-07 14:40:48

Honetly, I think that a COTS should have ramjets/N2H4/LOX lower stage, with a LH2/LOX upper stage.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 16:13:15

...put more hopes on SpaceX and Orbital...

I agree that SpaceX and Orbital are the most professional new.space companies (despite it's a little hard to call Orbital a "new.space" company since it builds and sells rockets to US government agencies from decades)

however, if the new.space companies will succeed to launch manned capsules with their own rockets (and bring back the astronauts safely) before the first manned Orion/Ares-1 launch, it will be 30% their own merit and 70% due to the very long (and delayed) Ares-1 R&D timeline

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 16:20:17

COTS should have ramjets/N2H4/LOX lower stage, with a LH2/LOX upper stage.

a flyback 1st stage or booster could be a good solution (that was under study at NASA for the Shuttle, at ESA for the Ariane5 and at a small space company founded by Buzz Aldrin) ONLY if cheaper than a traditional, unwunged and expendable rocket

unfortunately, this is only a concept now (with just a few experiments made at NASA, Australia and India) and the COTS companies have not enough funds and experience to do that... just look at the problem SpaceX has to be 100% successful in the first rocket launch

.

Austin Stanley · 2008-03-07 17:12:16

by 2012 or so when Ares I becomes operational
it can't happen since the J-2X will be not ready for that date

This is news to me. As far as I have read NASA still appears confident they can hit the 2012 operational date. Its nearly 5 years out so I think its a bit early to say that the J-2X absolutely will not be ready by then.

true, but, the (every day more) long Ares rockets' timeline is giving good chances to new.space companies to win the competition
that's sure for me, and I agree that an Ares-5 like target is too much for to-day's new.space companies, however, the Ares-1 payload is a goal they could reach

Well its taken SpaceX about 5 years to get where they are today. That is still haven't successfully launched their very small rocket. Assuming that they are going to be able to scale this up to a 25MT maned capsule in another 5 years or so when the Ares I becomes operational is rather wishful thinking.

If that wasn't bad enough putting people on top of rockets increases the complexity immensely. Now you have to design a vehicle that they can survive in and a way for it to safely re-enter. Much more difficult than a simple satellite launch.
true, but they can do that with some help/join ventures with aerospace companies and agencies (the way Bigelow seems do with LockMart)

In such a case is it fair to say it is still an alt-space endevor? After all NASA contracted out large parts of the design/construction of its orbital vehicles to these same firms.

The second cold reality is that space-flight is not going to be profitable any time soon. SpaceX may be able to fight its way into the launch market, but the market for vehicles as big as the Ares I is pretty much limited to government contracts (which are the majority of contracts anyways).
it's only an "egg or chicken" like problem, a "commercial space" never borns if no one starts build and launch cheaper "commercial rockets"

Even with vastly cheaper rockets, space is unlikely to be a profitable endeavor. It will still be to expensive to take people up there for things like Space Hotels and the like to generate income. Heck it seems unlikely that the (relatively easy) Suborbital trips will be able to generate a profit.

You state that the 'Ares-I could NEVER fly once!' How about if it does you buy me a six-pack of my favorite beer, and if it doesn't I'll get you one? Game?
ok, but you have not read the full article since, my claim is that, the current designed Ares-1 can't fly, while, a modified Ares-1 "may fly", so, which "Ares-1" you refer to?

I'm referring to the Ares-I as currently designed by NASA. But since it is still relativily early in its design life it seems likely that its design will change in some respects in the future. Of course you seem to have quite a moving target on your side as well, with an unending list of modifications that NASA 'should' use. With such a scatter shot approach it seems inevitable that you will be able to claim they stole your idea some point (much as I see you claim Google stole your moon rover idea).

But I'm willing to state that NASA's eventual launch design will look much more like its current plans than any amalgamation of your modifications. But that may be hard to judge impartially. How about this instead then.

I wager that NASA's Ares-I will be operational before any private alt-space type entity is able to put a 20MT payload in orbit. Indeed I'd be willing to wager that the Ares-I will beat pretty much all other rockets in its class (20-25MT) to orbit with the possible exception of the Chinese Long March 5.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-08 16:56:16

...a bit early to say that the J-2X absolutely will not be ready...

it seems that Orion and the new SRB should be ready around 2012-2013 and (probably) also the end of the J-2X R&D so, I suppose the delay that shifts the first manned launch to 2016 could be due to man-rate and mass produce the J-2X, test the full rocket, etc.

Well its taken SpaceX about 5 years to get where they are today.

yes, but they started from ZERO experience, ZERO engineers, ZERO infrastructures, etc... just look at how private industries grow... they start slow, then, having enough funds and the right peoples, do better things in half or less time than government agencies, also, the first manned Orion launch will be in 2016 (+ further delays) so, they (not only SpaceX but all present and future new.space companies) have up to NINE years to reach their goal... last, the main new.space companies' goal isn't launch a manned capsule before NASA (despite, in nine years, they can) but launch it at a LOWER price, so, assuming the Orion will fly first in 2016, what NASA could/must/will do if one or more private companies will offer the SAME "service" in 2018 at (e.g.) 20% the price (including the, very high in NASA stndards, fixed yearly earth-support/assembly costs) of the Orion/Ares-1 duo? ...do you think they must still use their own capsule and launcher (paying FIVE times the price!) or that (both) the Congress and the US taxpayer will force NASA to pension (both) Orion and Ares-1 and use ONLY the 80% cheaper commercial hardware? I suppose that NASA don't build the computers they use since the commercial computers (nearly all of them "Made in China"...) are better and cheaper... well, I believe that, soon or later, that will happen also with rockets and capsules...

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-08 17:12:47

In such a case is it fair to say it is still an alt-space endevor? After all NASA contracted out large parts of the design/construction of its orbital vehicles to these same firms.

yes, it's not a "pure new.space" effort, however, the difference is not the contractor but the CUSTOMER and the the PURPOSE of the product... if the customer (Bigelow or others) is a private company that use the rocket to launch tourists, then, we can consider it a new.space enterprise

Even with vastly cheaper rockets, space is unlikely to be a profitable endeavor.

the peoples who can pay a so expensive tickets are several thousand (that, maybe, are not all brave enough to do a fly in space...) however, I agree that many cheap rockets can't change so much this scenario unless a small, simple, cheap, safe and 1000+ times reusable new Shuttle will be built, then, fly in space, will be (nearly) like today's airline flights

I'm referring to the Ares-I as currently designed by NASA.

well, I think that the current designed Ares-1 can't fly as is but needs DEEP changes, not just a few "adjustment" to the basic design

.

GCNRevenger · 2008-03-08 17:22:49

...except many people working for SpaceX are former NASA engineers, and they borrowed engine designs from Apollo, and they use US government facilities to launch their rockets from... *coughs*

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-08 17:37:54

...much as I see you claim Google ... your moon rover idea...

not exactly... the "moonrover PRIZE" idea... also, in my ghostNASA article I give enough EVIDENCES of my claims!
however, do you not feel strange that all them "invent" the same things I suggest MONTHS or YEARS after me, rather than, months or years BEFORE me? ...if they are so expert and smart, that should NEVER happen...

But I'm willing to state that NASA's eventual launch design will look much more like its current plans than any amalgamation of your modifications.

they've already put some big "patches" on several big "holes" of the early ESAS plan... like the change of the order of launch between Ares-1 and Ares-5 to avoid the risk of missions' fail due to a "sum of delays" (another problem I've evidenced in 2006 in my articles and posts, then they have "fixed" now)
of course, they can use the current architecture and hardware with no change, but going towards POOR missions and too much risk of failure

I wager that NASA's Ares-I will be operational before any private alt-space type entity is able to put a 20MT payload in orbit. Indeed I'd be willing to wager that the Ares-I will beat pretty much all other rockets in its class (20-25MT) to orbit with the possible exception of the Chinese Long March 5.

I agree that Ares-1 could fly (IF it can fly...) before a similar new.space rocket, but not at the same price, that, since, it's very high shared R&D costs ALREADY put it out of market, so, assuming it will fly first (around 2016 or so) it will be retired within two-three years in favor of a commercial rocket... the future will see many actors and more competition, then, NASA must adapt itself to the new scenario... these are the market's laws (that are STRONGER than physic's laws!) and not even NASA can change them

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-08 17:40:43

...except many people working for SpaceX are former NASA engineers, and they borrowed engine designs from Apollo, and they use US government facilities to launch their rockets from... *coughs*

that's true, but in a (now) open and global market, the engineers may come from many companies and many countries

.

idiom · 2008-03-31 05:23:41

The SpaceX engineers are now free of conflicting oversight.

Their main advantage is that they don't have to answer to a public that creates blogs explaining how the Falcon 9 upper stage is too heavy, or that the Russians used Kerosene first etc.

Zubrin really does get it right with his analogy about connecting post and rope sellers (how much rope does it take to connect two posts 10 feet apart? Are you connecting the posts or selling rope?)

People who like Aeroplanes think up systems that are airlaunched. People who want to go to Mars demand that the Moon/ISS use HLLVs. People who like alt space in general quietly suggest that COTS might just be a way forward so that NASA doesn't have to worry about 'all that launch donkey work'.

Not really sure what you are peddling Gaetanomarano, except that you seem to think that the 4 Segment SRBoosters exhaust is made of sunshine and rainbows.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-05-10 14:38:17

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#2 2007-05-10 21:01:01

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#3 2007-05-11 06:31:06

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#4 2007-05-11 07:07:48

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#5 2007-05-11 09:15:54

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#6 2007-05-11 13:30:26

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#7 2007-05-11 23:07:08

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#8 2007-05-12 06:21:26

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#9 2007-05-12 07:31:05

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#10 2008-03-05 15:48:58

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#11 2008-03-05 22:11:51

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#12 2008-03-06 18:28:40

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#13 2008-03-07 10:53:40

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#14 2008-03-07 12:46:44

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#15 2008-03-07 13:13:55

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#16 2008-03-07 14:40:48

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#17 2008-03-07 16:13:15

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#18 2008-03-07 16:20:17

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#19 2008-03-07 17:12:16

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#20 2008-03-08 16:56:16

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#21 2008-03-08 17:12:47

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#22 2008-03-08 17:22:49

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#23 2008-03-08 17:37:54

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#24 2008-03-08 17:40:43

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#25 2008-03-31 05:23:41

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

Board footer