|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites
JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 24 Nov 2018
18:23:43 -0500: On 2018-11-24 09:31, Jeff Findley wrote: I'll put one of my prior points more bluntly. SpaceX hired experts in the field to design Starlink. Doing dumb things that random people on the Internet can think of would run counter to that. McCall argued that SpaceX's fancy lasers between satellites had more capacity than a bundle of fibres could ever have. I was responding to that, not whether SpaceX know what they are doing. I argued no such thing. Once again your deficient reading skills and defective intellect appear to have betrayed you. McCall seems to think satellites can rival ground fibre in terms of capacity. I don't feel particularly responsible for how things seem to a nutter of your magnitude. SpaceX may be designing their constellation very smartly and make major improvements over existing satellite tech. But that doesn't make it instantly better than what the groiund can offer in terms of capacity. Please point to where anyone made such a claim, you pestilential prevaricating possum. Seriously though. Lots of very brilliant and successful people have very odd personalities. Musk's Tweets are a prime example. Which is why one should wait for actual accomplishements rather that believe in an almost religious fashion everything Musk promises in his tweets. So what are YOUR "actual accomplishments", Mayfly, other than being known for stupid posts and the taking the rather preposterous anti-vaccine position? -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites
JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 25 Nov 2018
03:03:36 -0500: On 2018-11-24 19:49, Jeff Findley wrote: Dude, you're the one shifting arguments like room temperature mercury. Again, McCall and you claim this satellite system will be better than ground based. Again, your deficient reading skills and defective intellect have betrayed you, since neither one of us has said any such thing. I responded it will be very limited capacity compared to ground, No, you tried to claim it will be as limited as your Canadian service, which is simply false. at which POint McCall threw insults at me and I had to defend. I'm sorry you find THE TRUTH insulting, but even if you do there is no one forcing you to 'defend'. Sicne he doesn't seem to understand concepts such as WDM, he may be an expert at staellites, but definitely not on ground comms. Go look up the bandwidth of the internet backbone, you havering loon. Starlink is going to kill terrestrial based fiber over long distances because latency will be lower. You're allowed to have that view if you want. But launching 12,000 satellites will force SpaceX to charge an arm and a leg for that reduced latency, assuming it materialises and is reliable enough. You're actually arguing two different things here. One of them is semi-valid. The other claims the laws of physics are incorrect. Starlink WILL have lower latency. The laws of physics say so. However, I disagree with Jeff that this will be sufficient to pull in customers. I seriously doubt anyone cares that much about relatively small differences in latency. Once again, BFR/BFS allows launching these satellites for less than $40,000 each. The fact that we're talking about 12,000 of them and producing several thousand of them a year will make them much cheaper to build than current satellites. planning a nearly 12,000 satellite network. You gain more capacity by adding more satellites. No. You gain more capacity by adding ground stations. Hogwash. Again, you obviously don't understand Starlink well enough to even be in this discussion. Who he's really ****ing off on the SpaceX side of things are people like Sen. Shelby. The Congressmen who support SLS are livid at SpaceX's plans for the future because it's going to eventually kill off their overpriced, expendable, pork-lifter. I think SLS won't need SpaceX to quietly become unfunded and go away once senators have found a new shiny project to create jobs in their state. I know what you think is wrong. At this point, BFR/BFS is still much more vapourware than SLS/Orion. Not so much. When has SLS ever flown the real operational article? SpaceX doesn't even have manned Dragon in operation yet. That's a NASA problem, not a SpaceX problem. Yes, Musk has bragged about prototype tanks. Well, let's see. They've demonstrated they can build the tanks. They've built and tested engines. They've built the manufacturing tooling to produce the main hull structures and started setting up the manufacturing facility. And yes, it is still way too early to say whether the project will work as originally advertised, be scaled back, or devolve into a Falcon Super Heavy project. It will pretty much 'work as advertised' or they'll cancel it. It's not going to be 'scaled back'. They're on the third (I think) design iteration and it's gotten around 10% BIGGER, which is not 'scaling back'. As for your 'devolve' path, that's rather like claiming that if the Boeing 747 project had run into difficulties it would have 'devolved' into a project to produce 737s. It's a preposterous notion. But just as you can criticise me for having doubts, I can criticise you for having full confidence Musk will deliver BFR/BFS as advertised in the original presentation. The difference between the two positions is that we assume they're going to try to do what they've said they're going to do and look at progress while you assume they won't try to do what they've said they're going to do and ignore all facts, preferring to assume that these projects are run by and designed by idiots. And no, Starlink will not give Musk oodles of money to develop BFR/BFS. Certaiuntly not in the time frame of the BFR/BFS development. I'm inclined to agree here. It's rather a chicken and egg problem if they're relying on Starlink to fund BFR/BFS. Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon 2 are more than enough for now. Dragon 2 not yet flying. Only because NASA is dragging their feet on the manned version and they haven't used up all the Cargo Dragon V1 in stock yet so don't need to fly the cargo version. Yes, SpaceX has made huge accomplishements. and "huge" is an understatement. But that does not garantee that BFR/BFS will be delivered as promised. I view it more as a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'. snip airplane example Things that are different are not the same. So you can blindly believe SpaceX will succeed in scaling its experience to the biggest rocket ever built and won't be late, will remain on budger. You're free to believe that. Oh, I think it will probably be 'late' when compared to Musk's usual optimistic scheduling and I tend to use the high estimate of what it will cost to develop. You are NOT free to make **** up and claim other people have said it, as you do above. I am free to be mor realistic and not bet my life on that because the odds of SpaceX hitting major snags are high and the end result may be scaled back project, or major financial problems. To be 'more realistic', you would have to actually know something about the topic and take facts into account. You do neither. Instead you squawk about how the sky will fall based on assuming that SpaceX will deliberately do the most stupid things possible. We'll see how Starlink goes because obviously it's not deployed yet and therefore cannot be judged as a success or failure. Yet McCall and you criticise me for not being sure it will be a success with infinite capacity and latency so low traders will be willing to pay billions for a simple data link. You're a lying little ****. Neither one of us has said anything remotely resembling the preceding. But, bashing people who want to see Starlink succeed by saying they "believe in an almost religious fashion everything Musk promises in his tweets" is a bit off the mark. What Musk Tweets clearly changes as the systems he's Tweeting about evolve over time. Yet, you still believe he will deliver BFR/BFS with the same capacity/functiosn ., budget and timeframe as originally announced when he announded that project. You need to stop telling other people what they 'believe'. If you want to know what they believe, you need to ask them AND THEN PAY ****ING ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY SAY TO YOU. Your preceding comment about what people 'believe' is just another one of your scrofulous lies. -- "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear." -- Mark Twain |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites
In article ,
says... Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon 2 are more than enough for now. Dragon 2 not yet flying. The uncrewed orbital Dragon 2 test flight is just a little more than a month away and is scheduled for Jan. 7, 2019. The crewed test flight is targeted for June 2019. Space.com Spaceflight SpaceX's 1st Crew Dragon Test Flight to Launch Jan. 7, NASA Says By Mike Wall, Space.com Senior Writer - November 21, 2018 04:16pm ET https://www.space.com/42514-spacex-f...aunch-january- 2019.html Starliner's uncrewed test flight is scheduled for March 2019 and its first crewed test flight is scheduled for August 2019. It won't belong now. NASA has a hard deadline due to them stopping the purchasing of Soyuz capsules. Russia is so cash strapped there really aren't any extras. And the lead times are so long on Soyuz that even if NASA went to them today with cash in hand, it wouldn't help much. COUNTDOWN RUNNING... SpaceX and Boeing are running out of time to fly astronauts into space By Tim Fernholz, July 17, 2018 https://qz.com/1328927/spacex-and-bo...f-time-to-fly- nasa-astronauts-to-iss-warns-the-government-accountability-office/ From above: Pressure is rising on Boeing and SpaceX, the two companies trying to prove the US can still fly humans to space. Both are expected to miss a November 2019 deadline for producing spacecraft certified as safe enough to transport astronauts-which means NASA, humiliatingly, could end up locked out of the International Space Station next year. Tick-tock. Yes, SpaceX has made huge accomplishements. and "huge" is an understatement. But that does not garantee that BFR/BFS will be delivered as promised. I never said BFR/BFS was a sure thing. I even admitted that Starlink isn't a sure thing either. The only thing that's 100% sure in life is death (morbid as that may be). The A 380 is a good example No, not really. A-380 came into the market at a time when super-jumbos just aren't in as much demand as they used to be. It also came into the market which had been dominated for decades by the Boeing 747. Airbus missed the market for super-jumbos, so all of the issues with it just seem much worse than they would have if demand for super-jumbos was still very high. If anything, BFR/BFS is more like the Boeing 747. It will be a "bet the company" sort of project when precisely because there is no current commercial market for a launch vehicle that big. And Airbus had governments to goto to find funding when a project is delayed and needs more money. SpaceX doesn't. Which is why I said *if* Starlink is successful, SpaceX will have the revenue it needs to fund BFR/BFS. Hell, if Starlink is successful, SpaceX will *need* BFR/BFS in order to completely launch and maintain their nearly 12,000 satellite constellation and remain ahead of competing constellations (none of which will have the benefit of SpaceX launches without a mark-up for profitability). It's good to be the lowest cost launch provider. SpaceX has only cracked half of the reuse nut (the easiest half). I have no doubt that the BFS/Starship portion of BFR/BFS will be difficult to develop. But nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? So you can blindly believe SpaceX will succeed in scaling its experience to the biggest rocket ever built and won't be late, will remain on budger. You're free to believe that. I *never* said that I believed that (because I don't). SpaceX schedules slip and budgets increase just like every other aerospace provider who's pushing the edge of the envelope (be it in engineering or the flight envelope and BFS will push both). I *did* say that the BFR/Super Booster (whatever it's called) will be little more than a scaled up Falcon 9 booster only with composite LOX/methane tanks and Raptor engines. So even there you've got technical risk. But the risk is still not a lot, IMHO, given the flight regime of the first stage. And the reason I pointed out that the development risk in the booster is relatively low is because you kept proposing lashing together Falcon 9 first stages Kerbal Space Program style to do the job because you thought that would be easier than designing a new stage. That proposal makes zero sense because the booster is the relatively easy part and lashing together lots of liquid stages Kerbal Space Program style (moar struts!) is daft in the real world. Instead, simply design your liquid fueled stage to be the size you need, which is the same diameter as the BFS/Starship upper stage which will initially use sea-level Raptors (so both the engines and tooling will already be there!). Again, as I said above, the *big* challenge will be the BFS/Starship portion. No one has built and flown anything quite like it, so SpaceX has a huge challenge in front of it. That reusable upper stage is *the key* to a fully reusable TSTO. Yet McCall and you criticise me for not being sure it will be a success with infinite capacity and latency so low traders will be willing to pay billions for a simple data link. No, you're being bashed for your straw-man arguments trying to make Starlink sound like it won't be possible to deploy and be profitable. Yet, you still believe he will deliver BFR/BFS with the same capacity/functiosn ., budget and timeframe as originally announced when he announded that project. I never said that either. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I want to see BFR/BFS succeed as a fully reusable TSTO. That would be a first and would lower launch costs significantly. I never said I believed SpaceX would deliver on time, on (development) budget, and with the same capabilities as originally announced. In fact I've said if BFR/BFS is 1/10th as reusable as SpaceX wants it to be (i.e. they have to refurbish it 10x as often as they would like), it would *still* be better than any expendable launch vehicle in its class. Such a vehicle would be economically sustainable and could still have a flight rate of dozens each year with just a few copies of the hardware being built every year. That's just a fact based on the economics of reuse. But supporters of SLS don't get that. They think we're going to expand out into the solar system via once or twice per year launches of a system that costs $2+ billion a year. That's just not economically sustainable. That's precisely why Saturn V was canceled and precisely why SLS will eventually be canceled. What I want to see is a large, reusable, TSTO replace SLS so that NASA's manned spaceflight program can *finally* get out of LEO and back to actually exploring the solar system. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites
JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 25 Nov 2018
22:35:27 -0500: On 2018-11-25 06:20, Fred J. McCall wrote: Again, your deficient reading skills and defective intellect have betrayed you, since neither one of us has said any such thing. I'll just note that you 'cleverly' removed the 'thing' you claimed we both said, which was NOT the following: So, you're now denying stating that ground based fibre strand can't support more than 100gbps ? Are you still denying a fibre strand with WDM can support multiple concurrent 100gbps links ? Nope. You see, unlike you I am capable of actually paying attention to what other people write. Now, did you look up the bandwidth of the internet backbone links? This discussion is happening because you denied current commercial capaciies on ground based fibre links in order to support your claim that the Starlink will compete against ground lasers No we are not and you are a liar, since I never said any such thing as the preceding (which you will now remove from your quote and claim the 'thing' is something else, as you did above). You made those asserions without knowing at what capacity the magical Musk lasers will have between satellites. (generally speaking, the longer the distance between laser and receiver, the lower the capacity. Since I never made any such assertion, you are a liar. Then again, you don't even seem to iunderstand the difference between capacity and speed of light. I don't feel particularly responsible for how things 'seem' to your defective intellect, which has obviously crossed two different discussions. No, you tried to claim it will be as limited as your Canadian service, which is simply false. Never claimed it would as AS limited. What I claimed is that Musk's dream won't magically unleash unlimited capacity that will replace ground based links. Since no one said it would, what you 'claimed' was just a little opaque to the rest of us who speak regular English. The limited spectrum between ground and satellites will limit capacity ... No, that's not the limiting factor. ... and economics will limit how many ground stations you can afford to have. (and eventually, the broadcast footprint of a satellite betwene itself and ground station will limit how close ground sations can be to each other, as well, if they re-use the same spectrum as used for retail service, then each ground station will represent a dead zone where you can't obtain retail service. What utter poppycock! Or are you claiming to be rebutting something no one has said again? So they need to strategically position their ground stations to not only be near ground based Internet majors "hubs", but also to not prevent retail serviec to those traders who will allegedly queue up for that reduced latency service no matter the price. You seem to be obsessed with 'ground stations' while ignoring everything you've been told that network experts (of which I am not one) have said about the Starlink network. Let me repeat some numbers I've given before that I'm sure your goldfish mentality either never comprehended or forgot as soon as you read it, Mayfly. Starlink (by itself) has the capacity to handle 50% of the total internet backhaul on the planet. Starlink (by itself) can handle 10% of the total traffic for even the 'densest' geographic area. In other words, if you want to sell London to New York links, you may not be able to put ground stations near either city. If they use different spectrum fr the uplink vs retail connections, then this is not an issue, assuming the satellite that is above has 2 radios with antennas pointed to ground, one for retail connections and one for the uplink. Yes, if an idiot like you designs the system, there will be all sorts of problems. Fortunately, I suspect they're not hiring idiots like you for that job. Go look up the bandwidth of the internet backbone, you havering loon. There is no single internet backbone. Go lookup what _the_ "Internet" means. I'll be professional and omit gratuitous insults. In other words, you don't even know enough to understand the question, much less answer it. You're actually arguing two different things here. One of them is semi-valid. The other claims the laws of physics are incorrect. Starlink WILL have lower latency. The laws of physics say so. But you only take a very narrow view of latency. Much of the latency isn't actual transit time but time through each router, especially when they are congested. You are considering only transit time on a Geman autobahn where the speed limit is speed of light. You fail to consider the time spend waiting in queues at toll booths, and slowing down when going through interchanges to switch to another road. You don't seem to understand, well, much of anything. Nor do you seem to be able to differentiate between me and Jeff. Nor do you seem to understand how networks actually work (they're not highways and data packets aren't automobiles, no matter what Al Gore may have said). If Musk sells satellite to satellite retail service (which doesn't use a ground station), then the 2 end points may have reduced latency, but it also means all satellites must start acting as routers instead of swicths since not all traffic is going to the satellite that has link to a ground station. What utter poppycock! Introducing routing in each satellite adds latency. You don't appear to understand the difference between a router and a switch. Yes, on the ground, New York to Los Angeles takes longer than New York to Chicago. But there will be cases when latency to Los Angeles will be less than latency to Chicago. (congested links for instance). So what? The network experts are predicting that Starlink will typically be around 25 ms latency. Now go check your connection (mine is currently running around 22 ms). Once again, BFR/BFS allows launching these satellites for less than $40,000 each. Vague empty fictional promise on twitter. Until BFR/BFS flies, we can't know the cost to launch each kg of payload. Remember that those costs include amortization of the development and testing costs. And those are unknowns. Horse****. Analysis by people who do rockets for a living. If BFR/BFS comes anywhere close to its designed capability, you can get reasonably close numbers for this. The fact that we're talking about 12,000 of them and producing several thousand of them a year will make them much cheaper to build than current satellites. That is like the argument that because the fur coat is on sale, you need to buy it. Horse****. 12,000 cheaper satellites could still be very much more expensive than 1 very expensive satellite. Yes, and monkeys might fly out your butt. The A380 example I provided ... Is irrelevant. Things that are different are not the same. So, while SpaceX has excelled with their small Falcon9, it does not automatically mean that they will excell at a rocket of a scale they have never done before (and a BFS of a scale nobody has ever done before). 'Small' Falcon 9? Really? There is never a guarantee of success, but that's certainly the way to bet in this case. They've proven out the difficult technologies (tanks, engines). Not so much. When has SLS ever flown the real operational article? They'd have 1 test flight of SLS, haven't they ? No, they haven't. The first test flight will (currently) be in 2020. They've had drop test of Orion. That is more than BFR/BFS. OK, so we know gravity will affect Orion. This should not be a surprise to anyone and I'm pretty sure we can bet that BFS will be affected by gravity without dropping it to check. Well, let's see. They've demonstrated they can build the tanks. Do you REALLY know the actual results of the tank tests they have made? Musk stated the exceeded the max pressure test in destructive testing. This is good. But if BFR/BFS is to achieve the economics that are promised, re-usability becomes essential for many many many flights. So has SpaceX published results of how those tanks are doing in multiple fill/empty cycles? If not, then nobody in the public can claim SpaceX has the tanks succesfully tested and ready for production. And we're back to the Mayfly ignorance of how science and engineering works. For Mayfly, everything MUST fail until its operational, at which point I guess he must always be astonished. It will pretty much 'work as advertised' or they'll cancel it. It's not going to be 'scaled back'. They're on the third (I think) design iteration and it's gotten around 10% BIGGER, which is not 'scaling back'. 10% bigger isn't necessarily good news. Could mean the thing will be heavier than originally predicted. I should have said "10% longer", but whatever. If it' "heavier than originally predicted" (and it probably will be; most aerospace vehicles are) one way to deal with that is get more fuel on board, which you do by (tada) making the vehicle physically bigger to hold more fuel. I suspect this is what is going on with the most recently announced changes. BFR changed very little other than to get very slightly longer. BFS on the other hand got significantly longer and the engine configuration changed. As for your 'devolve' path, that's rather like claiming that if the Boeing 747 project had run into difficulties it would have 'devolved' into a project to produce 737s. It's a preposterous notion. Core 747 development was funded by the US military. When Military decided to not buy it, Boeing decided to continue development and create commercial passenger and cargo planes with it. That's about half true. While the initial concept of the 747 came out of a DoD competition (which Lockheed won and which became the C-5), that doesn't mean that the military paid. Frequently initial design studies are funded out of B&P money, which is internal to the company. Since Boeing made it through the first downselect, that would likely be where government money got significantly involved. Boeing didn't "decide to continue development and create a commercial passenger and cargo plane". That was pretty much always the plan, since they'd been asked by airlines for a larger capacity aircraft. The reason for the hump was to put the cockpit out of the way so cargo can be loaded through the nose. Again about half true. There are other ways to "put the cockpit out of the way" and both Lockheed and Douglas did it differently than Boeing. You know there's a passenger lounge up there, right? And despite all that, it didn't become a Boeing 707 with an extra fuselage (a design that was apparently actually proposed at one point for the A-380; two A-340 fuselages pasted together side by side). The 747 was state of the art for those days, so they knew how to design/make it. Nope. For example, it required new and much more powerful engines. The A380 was beyond state of the art, hence Airbus having to delay the official project launch for many years in the 1990s until they develop enough new tech to make the 380 possible. According to Airbus, the major cause of delay was "the complexity of the wiring in the aircraft". Now, how long had we been putting wiring in aircraft at that point? To that I would add the mad merry go round of structures that had to go on among the countries involved so that everyone would get their piece of the industrial pie. Note that Boeing had been involved in a design study for a Very Large Commercial Transport aircraft with several of the companies that teamed for the A-380 effort. Boeing withdrew after a couple of years because they projected development would cost around $15 billion and didn't think that could be recovered by the commercial market for such and aircraft. The problem is that by pushing the state of the art only till the plane can be airworthy, it didn't push enough and the 380 ended up being too heavy to deliver on all the prmised performance advantages over smaller planes. They couldn't figure out how much the wiring would weigh? How long have we had gravity? Airbus mismanaged the whole thing, too. Remember that $15 billion that Boeing thought it would take to develop such an aircraft? Airbus' initial estimate was €8.8 billion, around 20% less than Boeing thought it would take (and without all the round robin bull**** with structures that Airbus did). Actual cost? Somewhere north of £16 billion, or around 66% MORE than Boeing estimated. Because of WIRING. SpaceX is in the same sitiuation. Not even close. Again, they've already tested the hardest parts. It is pushing the state of the art to design/built the BFR/BFS, and in the case of BFS, pushing it by a huge amount. How far they can afford to push the state of the art remains to be seen amd that will determine not wheter it is built or not, but how much cargo it can carry or how many times it can be re-used. Wrong. If they can't get close to the current design performance, they just won't build them. What do you think would be the point? And the longer it takes to develop and test the new technologies that are required for BFR/BFS, the more cash it takes. Usually true, but not a given. However, this is why I expect around a 2 year slide in BFR/BFS and use the $10 billion upper limit of the range for development costs instead of the optimistic lower end of SpaceX figures (orbital flights in 2020, Mars cargo flights in 2022, manned Mars mission in 2024 with a development cost of $3 billion). The difference between the two positions is that we assume they're going to try to do what they've said they're going to do and look at progress while you assume they won't try to do what they've said I haven't said that. Not in so many words, but your constant caviling makes your position obvious. Your unwaivering blind faith in Musk pushes you to insult anyone who doesn't have the same faith that he will deliver BFR/BFS exactly as promoted. You're lying again. If Musk announced he was about to develiop a Galaxy clas sstarship with transparent aluminium windows and a warp engine, you'd believe him because in the past, SpaceX has always delivered. Well, nothing succeeds like success, so if he announced such a thing I wouldn't bet against him. Of course, I could engage in the same sort of 'logic' you use above and say that if Musk announced he was going to take a **** you'd have dozens of medical reasons for why he might not be able to. Musk is moving to unchartered territory and I accept the BFR/BFS project may or may not turn out exactly as promised. And I asccept that not everything Musk tweets is factual, a lot of its is just PR stunts to anmuse his twitter audience. Your inability to tell the difference is YOUR problem. Only because NASA is dragging their feet on the manned version and they haven't used up all the Cargo Dragon V1 in stock yet so don't need to fly the cargo version. The fact, beyond your faith is that Dragon 2 has not flown. It may be all ready and held only by paperwork, or it may have failed some NASA tests and needs further fine tuning. Not the type of thing that is made public so you or I can't know either way. So blind faith in Dragon 2 being ready is wrong. It's the former and it's public. Testing was completed successfully a while back and the tested hardware has been delivered to the Cape. Both the unmanned test and the first manned flight are firmly scheduled and NASA doesn't do that on blind faith. But perhaps monkeys will fly out your butt... -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
...Iranian Citizens Deploy the Most Dangerous Weapon of all! | Jonathan | Policy | 5 | June 21st 09 08:18 PM |
Psychos on the Internet, telesadists, how the Internet falsified our rights | gb6726 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 6th 07 10:29 PM |
Solar Panel Array Deploy | kwebster | Space Station | 0 | June 12th 07 06:39 PM |
New presidential directive calls for U.S. to deploy weapons in space | Henry Spencer | Policy | 16 | June 2nd 05 05:21 PM |
Telesat and EMS Satellite Networks to deploy DVB-RCS hub using DVB-S2 on Anik F2 | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | March 25th 05 06:05 PM |