A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Two Starships in "bolas" rotation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 27th 19, 12:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,056
Default Two Starships in "bolas" rotation

In article ,
says...
Clearly, especially since the current NASA plan of record doesn't
include Starship in any meaningful way. It still relies heavily on
SLS/Orion, so we will be limited to one crewed mission per year. That's
pretty weak sauce considering how "close" the moon is.


Starship doesn't fit their desired architecture. Once they admit that
Starship is real, all their plans and hardware go into a cocked hat.
If you think the graphic Musk showed of Starship docked to ISS looked
a little silly, imagine the same thing with the much smaller Gateway.


This image is worth a thousand words:

https://i.redd.it/64h5zvj1gex21.jpg

It's part of this discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLoung...ex_vs_blue_ori
gin_2024_aspirations/

I think that the scale of Starship is something I think most people
won't be able to wrap their mind around. It's just so fracking huge
compared to anything planned by anyone to land crew on the moon or Mars
that it's not even funny.



SpaceX needs Starlink for the potential revenue to attract investors to
develop Starship/Super Heavy. But SpaceX also needs Starship/Super
Heavy to launch and maintain the Starlink constellation.


You're starting to make this sound like trying to fly by tugging on
your own bootstraps. SpaceX has gotten over a billion in investment
and it is ALL going to StarLink (and none to Starship/Falcon Super
Heavy).


Agreed. Starlink must come first. That's a huge potential revenue
stream that they'll need in order to fund a moon/Mars capable Starship.


Mars is still Musk's ultimate goal, but Starlink will need to come first
in order to provide the massive cash flow needed to turn Starship from a
cargo launcher into a true crewed spaceship capable of performing an
actual Mars mission. IMHO, of course.


While I think Musk is overly optimistic (as usual), I think you are
overly pessimistic. I'd bet on a manned Mars mission before 2030 with
the potential for lunar missions before that.


2030 for a first crewed Mars mission is certainly optimistic, IMHO. I'd
love to see that. And I think it might just be possible if enough
development money is spent in all the right areas.

But I also think it's safe to say that if this were any other online
forum, we'd both be called a SpaceX fanboys and our opinions would be
widely ridiculed. Until Starship/Super Booster start flying
"routinely", the nay-sayers will keep saying that all of Musk's Mars
aspirations are an Internet billionaire's fantasy.

I'm also sure they'd say the same of Jeff Bezos's aspiration to start
moving industry off earth and into space. That's what motivated him to
start Blue Origin.

05.09.19
Jeff Bezos wants to save Earth by moving industry to space
The billionaire owner of Blue Origin outlines plans for mining,
manufacturing, and colonies in space.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90347364...save-earth-by-
moving-industry-to-space

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.
Ads
  #12  
Old May 27th 19, 04:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Two Starships in "bolas" rotation

William Elliot wrote on Mon, 27 May 2019 00:28:16
-0700:

On Sun, 26 May 2019, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote on Sun, 26 May 2019
And keep in mind the lifetime of these satellites is relatively
short (from memory something like 3-5 years), so this isn't a "one
time" thing. If Starlink is successful, SpaceX will be
continuously launching its own Starlink satellites for some time to
come.


Yep. They're going to have to replace something like 2500 satellites
a year once the full system is up.


A huge investement that has to constantly tread water? Insanity!


Perhaps, but they're hardly the only ones building up such a system so
there's probably money to be made there.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #13  
Old May 27th 19, 05:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Two Starships in "bolas" rotation

Jeff Findley wrote on Mon, 27 May 2019
07:20:24 -0400:

In article ,
says...
Clearly, especially since the current NASA plan of record doesn't
include Starship in any meaningful way. It still relies heavily on
SLS/Orion, so we will be limited to one crewed mission per year. That's
pretty weak sauce considering how "close" the moon is.


Starship doesn't fit their desired architecture. Once they admit that
Starship is real, all their plans and hardware go into a cocked hat.
If you think the graphic Musk showed of Starship docked to ISS looked
a little silly, imagine the same thing with the much smaller Gateway.


This image is worth a thousand words:

https://i.redd.it/64h5zvj1gex21.jpg

It's part of this discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLoung...ex_vs_blue_ori
gin_2024_aspirations/

I think that the scale of Starship is something I think most people
won't be able to wrap their mind around. It's just so fracking huge
compared to anything planned by anyone to land crew on the moon or Mars
that it's not even funny.


Yep, 100 tonnes of cargo from Earth to lunar surface and a return to
Earth without requiring refueling other than in LEO vs something like
6.7 tonnes of cargo (4 in the original version without 'stretch
tanks') to lunar surface, toss the lander part, and refuel the Ascent
Element and Transfer Element in L2 Halo.


SpaceX needs Starlink for the potential revenue to attract investors to
develop Starship/Super Heavy. But SpaceX also needs Starship/Super
Heavy to launch and maintain the Starlink constellation.


You're starting to make this sound like trying to fly by tugging on
your own bootstraps. SpaceX has gotten over a billion in investment
and it is ALL going to StarLink (and none to Starship/Falcon Super
Heavy).


Agreed. Starlink must come first. That's a huge potential revenue
stream that they'll need in order to fund a moon/Mars capable Starship.


I think they could get it funded without StarLink, although that would
require dumping pretty much all their profit for half a dozen years
into Starship/Falcon Super Heavy. StarLink is a money sink for a fair
number of years, regardless.

Mars is still Musk's ultimate goal, but Starlink will need to come first
in order to provide the massive cash flow needed to turn Starship from a
cargo launcher into a true crewed spaceship capable of performing an
actual Mars mission. IMHO, of course.


While I think Musk is overly optimistic (as usual), I think you are
overly pessimistic. I'd bet on a manned Mars mission before 2030 with
the potential for lunar missions before that.


2030 for a first crewed Mars mission is certainly optimistic, IMHO. I'd
love to see that. And I think it might just be possible if enough
development money is spent in all the right areas.


Musk's schedule is a pair of cargo ships in 2022 and first manned
mission in 2024. Remember his statement that he thinks you ought to
be able to accomplish anything in five years because that's almost
forever. I think expecting things to take twice as long as his
schedule isn't unreasonable, so 2028-2030 for a manned mission feels
about right to me.


But I also think it's safe to say that if this were any other online
forum, we'd both be called a SpaceX fanboys and our opinions would be
widely ridiculed.


I tend to be pretty insensitive to what other people think when it
comes to arriving at my views. If I was a "SpaceX fanboy" I'd be
accepting Musk's schedule rather than assuming everything is going to
slide several conjunctions.


Until Starship/Super Booster start flying
"routinely", the nay-sayers will keep saying that all of Musk's Mars
aspirations are an Internet billionaire's fantasy.


So was SpaceX...


I'm also sure they'd say the same of Jeff Bezos's aspiration to start
moving industry off earth and into space. That's what motivated him to
start Blue Origin.

05.09.19
Jeff Bezos wants to save Earth by moving industry to space
The billionaire owner of Blue Origin outlines plans for mining,
manufacturing, and colonies in space.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90347364...save-earth-by-
moving-industry-to-space


I tend to have more faith in Bezo's schedule estimates than in Musk's
because at least up to now he has a history of being pretty
conservative. He says he can have Blue Moon and a lunar Ascent
Element ready to go to support a manned lunar landing in 2024 (with
cargo landings using just Blue Moon in 2023). Bezos is, at least for
now, aimed squarely at the Moon, as you can infer from the name of his
next booster after New Glenn.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #14  
Old July 24th 19, 06:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Two Starships in "bolas" rotation

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 2:15:19 PM UTC-4, Niklas Holsti wrote:
The SpaceX plans for the first Mars trips involve two Starships making
the trip at the same time. The SpaceX videos show a Starship flying
alone, in a fixed attitude (pointing away from the Sun) thus in free
fall. From other sources there is some concern that a multi-month
weightless trip may incapacitate the pilots and passengers, for example
resulting in blurred vision when they are again subjected to
acceleration or gravity. Here I propose a possible solution: cable the
two Starships together in a nose-to-nose attitude and rotate them to
provide simulated gravity during the trip.


Do you have any numbers on this? How much propellant would be necessary to spin up the rotation? Would it be necessary to despin them upon arrival, or are you going to just cut the cable and let the two ships float off into different orbits?
  #15  
Old July 26th 19, 05:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Niklas Holsti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 128
Default Two Starships in "bolas" rotation

On 19-07-24 20:18 , wrote:
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 2:15:19 PM UTC-4, Niklas Holsti wrote:
The SpaceX plans for the first Mars trips involve two Starships
making the trip at the same time. The SpaceX videos show a Starship
flying alone, in a fixed attitude (pointing away from the Sun) thus
in free fall. From other sources there is some concern that a
multi-month weightless trip may incapacitate the pilots and
passengers, for example resulting in blurred vision when they are
again subjected to acceleration or gravity. Here I propose a
possible solution: cable the two Starships together in a
nose-to-nose attitude and rotate them to provide simulated gravity
during the trip.


Do you have any numbers on this? How much propellant would be
necessary to spin up the rotation?


Assuming a 50 m radius of rotation and a desired acceleration
(pseudo-gravity) of 3 m/s/s, a rotational speed of about 12.2 m/s is
enough. So quite small compared to orbital velocities.

I think the propellant demand could be reduced by starting the rotation
with a longer radius and lower speed, and then reeling in the cable to
shorten the radius, letting conservation of angular momentum increase
the rotational speed until the desired acceleration is reached. But the
radius should be long enough to keep Coriolis effects and other
differences between real and simulated gravity comfortably small.

Would it be necessary to despin
them upon arrival, or are you going to just cut the cable and let the
two ships float off into different orbits?


Surely not "cut" the cable -- the system should be reusable :-)

At least for the first trips to Mars, the two Starships will no doubt
try to land near to each other, so they should not be put on very
different paths.

The most comfortable method is perhaps to reel out the cable slowly,
increasing the rotational radius and smoothly reducing the acceleration
to a small value, and then disconnect the Starships and correct the
paths with thrusters.

--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .
  #16  
Old July 26th 19, 06:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,607
Default Two Starships in "bolas" rotation

On 7/26/2019 12:58 PM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 19-07-24 20:18 , wrote:
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 2:15:19 PM UTC-4, Niklas Holsti wrote:
The SpaceX plans for the first Mars trips involve two Starships
making the trip at the same time. The SpaceX videos show a Starship
flying alone, in a fixed attitude (pointing away from the Sun) thus
in free fall. From other sources there is some concern that a
multi-month weightless trip may incapacitate the pilots and
passengers, for example resulting in blurred vision when they are
again subjected to acceleration or gravity. Here I propose a
possible solution: cable the two Starships together in a
nose-to-nose attitude and rotate them to provide simulated gravity
during the trip.


Do you have any numbers on this? How much propellant would be
necessary to spin up the rotation?


Assuming a 50 m radius of rotation and a desired acceleration
(pseudo-gravity) of 3 m/s/s, a rotational speed of about 12.2 m/s is
enough. So quite small compared to orbital velocities.


Have you calculated as to whether it would be necessary to use curved
decks to preserve gravity normal vectors across the entire radius of
deck surface that would be off-axis from the rotation?

I suppose it would depend on the rotational radius. If the radius is
long enough the length of the decks may not matter as they wouldn't
extend far enough to experience any off-axis effects since they are too
small a section of the circumference thus they could remain flat.

Also let's not forget the centrifuge approach ala the movie 2001: A
Space Odyssey. One (or two) sections of the Starship could be put in
(counter)rotation to provide artificial gravity within the section(s).
It does introduce issues of vibration and spacecraft stability. Or even
more simply, just put the spacecraft into a spin along the flight path
vector. Thus no 2nd ship required or fancy rendezvous and un-tether
maneuvers needed. This would also allow incremental build-up of
spacecraft by joining future Starships together in LEO to make a larger
spacecraft.

It's fun to speculate. None of this would be needed for trips to and
from the Moon. The flight is just not that long.

Underlying all of lunar & planetary habitation is the assumption that
the human body does not develop strange new diseases from not being in
1G, or that there is some conditioning (PT) needed near 1G to stave off
these effects. Subsequent generations, if born in that environment might
not need that, but might not be able to comfortably live back on Earth
either. Data points we just don't have right now.

Dave

  #17  
Old July 26th 19, 07:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Niklas Holsti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 128
Default Two Starships in "bolas" rotation

On 19-07-26 20:54 , David Spain wrote:
On 7/26/2019 12:58 PM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 19-07-24 20:18 , wrote:
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 2:15:19 PM UTC-4, Niklas Holsti wrote:
The SpaceX plans for the first Mars trips involve two Starships
making the trip at the same time. The SpaceX videos show a Starship
flying alone, in a fixed attitude (pointing away from the Sun) thus
in free fall. From other sources there is some concern that a
multi-month weightless trip may incapacitate the pilots and
passengers, for example resulting in blurred vision when they are
again subjected to acceleration or gravity. Here I propose a
possible solution: cable the two Starships together in a
nose-to-nose attitude and rotate them to provide simulated gravity
during the trip.

Do you have any numbers on this? How much propellant would be
necessary to spin up the rotation?


Assuming a 50 m radius of rotation and a desired acceleration
(pseudo-gravity) of 3 m/s/s, a rotational speed of about 12.2 m/s is
enough. So quite small compared to orbital velocities.


Have you calculated as to whether it would be necessary to use curved
decks to preserve gravity normal vectors across the entire radius of
deck surface that would be off-axis from the rotation?


If the Starship outer diameter is 9 m, the inside walls are perhaps 4 m
from the ship's center. With a 50 m radius of rotation, the centripetal
acceleration at 4 m from the ship's centerline is tilted by some 4.6
degrees to the ship's long axis (that is, to the "vertical" at ship's
center). This is clearly noticeable but I think it would be tolerable.
However, you shouldn't fill your soup-plate to the very edge and then
set it down on a table close to the ship's wall... leave some free-board
and take "seconds" instead. Or the table could have some adjustable
levelling mechanism.

Better keep the decks flat, I think.

I suppose it would depend on the rotational radius.


Doubling the rotational radius halves the off-axis angles, but increases
the required velocity by sqrt(2).

Also let's not forget the centrifuge approach ala the movie 2001: A
Space Odyssey. One (or two) sections of the Starship could be put in
(counter)rotation to provide artificial gravity within the section(s).
It does introduce issues of vibration and spacecraft stability.


That would require major changes to Starship design, or meet with the
same problems as the next suggestion:

Or even
more simply, just put the spacecraft into a spin along the flight path
vector. Thus no 2nd ship required or fancy rendezvous and un-tether
maneuvers needed.


Spinning (rolling) around the long axis would give a rotational radius
of only 4.5 m, max, giving disorientating Coriolis and other effects.
The pseudogravity would be radial, 90 degrees offset from the real
longitudinal gravity when the ship stands on its rear fins. Not good, IMO.

This would also allow incremental build-up of
spacecraft by joining future Starships together in LEO to make a larger
spacecraft.


I don't understand how the spin/roll is related to incremental joining
of Starships. In a Starship, one end "kicks" (the aft end) and the other
"penetrates" (the front end); they are not easily connected together to
form a larger living space. At most, one could dock two Starships
front-to-front. Can you clarify what you mean?

Underlying all of lunar & planetary habitation is the assumption that
the human body does not develop strange new diseases from not being in
1G, or that there is some conditioning (PT) needed near 1G to stave off
these effects. Subsequent generations, if born in that environment might
not need that, but might not be able to comfortably live back on Earth
either. Data points we just don't have right now.


Yes, it's a shame that there is no pseudogravity experiment on the ISS.
It seems one was planned, but then cancelled
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centri...ations_Module), but it
would have been too small for human use anyway.

--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .
  #18  
Old October 3rd 19, 03:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,607
Default Two Starships in "bolas" rotation

I have an update for you Niklas.

Here's a fellow (smallstars) who has proposed an artificial gravity
system based on the same physical principles you rely on but uses a
third Starship as a cargo and axis vehicle that holds an bi-directional
extruding truss system to attach the remaining two crewed Starships. The
rigid structure allows each Starship to pivot on its own pitch axis to
align them for a short Raptor burn to initiate and terminate rotation.
Then they can pivot so that the pitch axis aligns with the rotational
hub to provide the artificial gravity within the Starship for the months
long journey outbound and inbound. At either destination the crewed
Starships detach from the hub for landing. The hub ship also lands
robotically for refueling and reuse.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CRiJTJikjk

Dave
  #19  
Old October 3rd 19, 03:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,607
Default Two Starships in "bolas" rotation

On 2019-05-21 2:15 PM, Niklas Holsti wrote:

So that's the suggestion. Comments are welcome...


The other popular scheme is attaching two Starships end-to-end rather
than nose-to-nose. Speed of rotation would have to be faster though,
unless a tether or truss is used to increase separation, and I don't
know if the induced Coriolis forces would be a problem. Also for the
duration of the transit, up and down would be reversed, but other's
don't think having inverted decks with furniture mounted or stowed on
the 'ceiling' during transit and vise-versa 'on the ground' would be an
issue. This scheme would require RCS systems used to induce rotation vs
the Raptors, since they are now unusable after docking and during coast
and that might also be an issue.

With nose-to-nose it might be possible to use the sea-level Raptors to
gimbal enough to provide the side thrust needed to induce and remove
rotation, even if less efficient in vacuum. Not that much thrust is needed.

Dave

  #20  
Old October 3rd 19, 05:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,607
Default Two Starships in "bolas" rotation

On 2019-07-26 2:44 PM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 19-07-26 20:54 , David Spain wrote:


Or even
more simply, just put the spacecraft into a spin along the flight path
vector. Thus no 2nd ship required or fancy rendezvous and un-tether
maneuvers needed.


Spinning (rolling) around the long axis would give a rotational radius
of only 4.5 m, max, giving disorientating Coriolis and other effects.
The pseudogravity would be radial, 90 degrees offset from the real
longitudinal gravity when the ship stands on its rear fins. Not good, IMO.

The centrifuge in Discovery was small in radius since it had to be
contained within the pressure sphere of the hull (12.2 meters). I wonder
if AC Clarke had done the math on that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_One


This would also allow incremental build-up of
spacecraft by joining future Starships together in LEO to make a larger
spacecraft.


I don't understand how the spin/roll is related to incremental joining
of Starships. In a Starship, one end "kicks" (the aft end) and the other
"penetrates" (the front end); they are not easily connected together to
form a larger living space. At most, one could dock two Starships
front-to-front. Can you clarify what you mean?


Yes you can dock front-to-front. If fact, what if you dock to a
habitation module like a large inflatable Bigelow module? Once in orbit
the nose of a Starship docks to an already inflated an constructed
habitation module where the diameter expands to 20-30 meters and the
circular 'decks' run parallel to each other along the inner
circumference. Now you have an artificial gravity environment where the
rate of roll is much, much less to achieve a given gravity and you get
this without needing a 2nd Starship and all the complexity of trying to
counterbalance two Starships. Of course two Starships could share this
hab module if docked at each end. The habitation module would remain in
orbit and not land but could be reused from either destination. Also if
the roll rate is small enough it might be possible to work within the
original Starship cabins under micro-gravity where the role of walls vs
floors are inverted during transit, but because the Starship cabins are
much closer to the axis of rotation there is very little gravity here.
None along the center line of the Starship.

A downside would be that this might require a 2nd Starship to attach to
the first Starship in Earth orbit to give it the boost it needs for TMI.
Depends on the mass of the hab module vs Starship's propulsion budget,
which is probably tight already. If the math works, it might be possible
that the 2nd Starship only gets the configuration into an elliptical
orbit high enough that the enhanced 1st Starship and hab can 'kick' into
Hohmann orbit at apogee after separation from 2nd Starship which can
then return to Earth. Of course there is the 'hab as a cycler' scenario
which avoids this, but puts more maneuver burden on Starship. And the
added complexity of launching and maintaining a cycler, which is NOT on
SpaceX's drawing board today (and neither is a hab I might add).

This might also require a change to the possible Mars arrival navigation
scenario in that Starship(s) would need first to slow into orbit around
their destination first in order to detach the hab module and then
descend. Rather than a direct descent trajectory. Which requires more
fuel, etc. OR you de-roll and detach just before arrival and have the
hab module have its own propulsion to place it into orbit. That puts
less on Starship but far more on the hab module, plus now you have to
figure out how to refuel it for the return if it can't contain or
preserve enough fuel for both legs of the journey. A way to help this
issue is if the hab goes up 'unfurnished'. Meaning the bulk of the
supplies for life support and habitation are brought up in Starship.
Moved into the hab during transit and then stowed back into Starship
upon arrival. It's going to be needed on the surface anyway, not wasted
hanging out in orbit. Anything that can reduce the mass of the hab is a
win in general.

The main reason I like this scheme is that it places far less burden on
changes and potential stresses to Starship itself and fancy in-space
maneuvers and configurations, over more straightforward docking and roll.

There are a TON of issues remaining to get crewed Starships to Mars. For
starters I think Elon is totally underestimating the complexity of a
working life support system that can sustain for the months needed if in
a Hohmann transfer orbit let alone once on Mars for a year or so. The
hab scheme gives you artificial gravity but doesn't simplify the life
support issue, just the opposite.

No matter how you slice it, there is complexity to artificial gravity. I
have the sneaking suspicion that EM thinks this can be short circuited
by routine exercise inside a Starship. If I can compensate for the
deleterious effects using exercise, drugs, or alcohol (lol) well...
'tight is right'. :-)

I've reflected on these issues before, which given what SpaceX is doing
vs some of the still to be resolved issues for Mars & Mars transit,
makes me think the Moon is still much less of a harsh mistress and the
hidden agenda here.

Dave



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
might Odissey-Moon be the Google's expected, preferred, designed,"chosen" and (maybe) "funded" GLXP team to WIN the prize? with ALL otherteams that just play the "sparring partners" role? gaetanomarano Policy 3 September 27th 08 06:47 PM
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP gaetanomarano Policy 3 September 15th 08 04:47 PM
and now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the NSF "slow motion experts" have(finally) "invented" MY "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle"... just 20 gaetanomarano Policy 9 August 30th 08 12:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.