Community > Forum > National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) > CEV and launcher indpendence

CEV and launcher indpendence

Posted by: FerrisValyn - Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:57 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 20 posts ] 
CEV and launcher indpendence 
Author Message
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post    Posted on: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:00 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
This holds for other assumptions also. The better perspective on the topic would be the question "How And which way?" instead of the question IF it can be done or if it is possible. ...
Dipl.-VBolkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


The problem Ekkehard is that if you are answering the "How and which way?" questions, it assume that you've already gotten them to say that it is indeed desirable. If people agree its desirable, and desirable within the timeframes, then you can figure out the "Hows"

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
The document (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf), link to which is found on the NASA exploration homepage, actually contains the Executive Instructions to the Administrator from the White House. It says,
Quote:
The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will be responsible for the plans, programs, and activities required to implement this vision, (...) Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the International Space Station and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.
If Executive Order is insufficient and you still feel the need for legislation, feel free to write your congressperson, but it would be a duplication of instruction and totally superfluous.


2 problems. First, an executive order has no power over Congress, and Congress holds the purse strings when it comes to funding for anything. Thus you have to have Congress on board to insure ANYTHING will happen (the SEI of the 1990s, and how that went over like a lead ballon), and, even better, you have to have them aware of it, and actually backing the program. Second problem - I go back to needed some sort of definative process of selection. Can I simply bribe the Nasa administrator to use my rocket? After all, its his responsiblity - there is no formalized mechanism for applying designs and the like, and no method for recourse if something bad happens. Until the creation of a selection process (something which congress can help facility) by which a rocket manufacture can try for launching the CEV, or other US manned craft, launcher dependent crafts will be the norm for government crafts.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
...and how long does that take? One of the MERs sat for a MONTH while they sorted out an issue of that variety. And the MERs, while they are remarkable technology, move the equivalent of four or five human steps on a good day. The work that those two 'bots have done in the last year will be surpassed in the first few days of a human mission.


And lets assume we took all the money we are planning to spend on a manned mission, and instead used it on a super large scale series of robotic missions to Mars - would we still get better data from a manned mission? I will admit that you probably do get a little bit better return for science with a manned mission, but not much.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Ferris wrote:
And as for sending robots when colonizing - I won't dispute that it is more economical to send robots, but you don't NEED to send robots.
...I thought you had some concern about jeapordizing human life unnecessarily? Do you ever hold a position for longer than it takes to click the "submit" button?


I didn't say I was against using robots within the realm of initial explortary missions, even in advance of colonization, or frankly, in any place where there are legit safety concerns or economic issues - what I was driving at was that colonization isn't dependent on robots, but is dependent on human beings. If you want to do human colonization, you've got to use humans.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Why in the name of Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, and Von Braun would I want to? Talk about a complete waste of anything and everything. I presume from your previous remarks and from that statement that it is something you aspire to; certainly that would account for the mercurial nature of your positions, and your propensity for debate in the abscence of forensic data. I assure you, I have no desire to get anywhere near that line of distraction.


Then, seriously, what the hell are you doing here, debating policy? You may not like the fact that politics comes into play, but then don't complain when you don't have any say in what you do for the rest of your life.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Well, first of all, I am in Pete's camp when it comes to the resource angle, but let's assume that there is, oh a duplicate Earth at the solar opposite point; only there's no life there and only an unimaginable wealth of resources... by what theory of sociology and/or economics do you postulate that suddenly everyone will say, "whew, now I don't have to worry about whatever persons or ideals or culture I can't stand?"

BTW, even if the ridiculous notion of unlimited resources just beyond LEO was a reality, it would still be cheaper to apply technologies to develop extant resources already present on the surface of Earth.


To answer the question, its easy - simple bribery. When things are good, people won't push towards the extremism we are seeing develop. Look at the Great Depression in America during the 30's, or look at the rise of religious extremism in various unstable places in the world.

In response to the second point - the issue is that you don't actually have to take anybody on, at first, when getting resources off-world. Would we be much better off if the US simply mandate that everyone use hybrids, or even go so far as to restrict car ownership to 1 car per family? Yes. Will it happen? No, and in no small part thanks to various members of US industry.

This is the reason that Rutan has said that he is and will be in competition with the big names like Boeing and Lockmart for sub-orbital and orbital tourist dollars - Those will be money making industries, and once they start making money, you'll see the big guys rush to get involved.


SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
I agree that the chances of China mounting a manned lunar landing mission prior to 2020 are vanishing small, but you yourself have said that giving them another 10 years could substantially alter those odds... and my original point was that delaying our own project had a measurable chance of allowing the Chinese to arrive at the moon first. So while your buddies in the beltway are debating the language of the "alternative launcher specification amendment initiative" sometime in 2008, our engineers will be twiddling thier thumbs while the Chinese engineers are working on real problems.


I ment another 10 years after 2020. Secondly, if Apollo was the best way to go, why didn't we just keep doing that? (Okay, yes, I know, Griffin thinks the Shuttle and ISS were mistakes, but the truth was that Nixon, and Ford, and Carter, weren't prepared to fund a large scale Apollo style program)

The point here is, that long term, your better off with flexability.

If you want a great example of this, look at the French repeating rifles from the First World War.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Well, again, I am confident that genuine economic self-sufficiency is a spectacular long way off for extraterrestrial human population centers; but the argument was made (successfully, in my view) in the colonization poll thread that European powers needed to sustain the colonial operations in the Americas, which voided Pete's argument that a colony must sustain itself from a raw materials standpoint. But the colonies in the Americas which failed did so because they ran out of people, so that's why I offered the opinion that colonization starts with extraterrestrial childbirth.


You kinda just totally lost me, because you've kinda contradicted yourself (or at least seem to be contradicting yourself)


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:01 am
Ferris wrote:
...Congress holds the purse strings when it comes to funding for anything. Thus you have to have Congress on board to insure ANYTHING will happen (the SEI of the 1990s, and how that went over like a lead ballon), and, even better, you have to have them aware of it, and actually backing the program.
And that is where the Legislature's role ends! NASA has marching orders and its employees, to include the director, are governed by regulations about how to legally conduct thier duties. The freaks in DC need to stand back and let the rocket scientists do the rocket science. Dr. Griffin has six college degrees. SIX! Do you think that he needs a bunch of ethically compromised congressmen telling him how to do spacecraft design? The very notion is sickening.

Ferris wrote:
I will admit that you probably do get a little bit better return for science with a manned mission, but not much.
...and what would "much" mean to you? Your position was obviated and your fallback is, as always, "well to me it doesn't matter?" You're gonna do great on the Hill someday.

Ferris wrote:
...colonization isn't dependent on robots, but is dependent on human beings. If you want to do human colonization, you've got to use humans.
Human spaceflight already owes it's existence to automatons. It would require time travel to make colonization not dependent upon automated space exploration. I can offer an unconditional guarantee that no future human spaceflight endeavor will be devoid of dependence on future robotics, either.

Ferris wrote:
what... are you doing here, debating policy? You may not like the fact that politics comes into play, but then don't complain when you don't have any say in what you do for the rest of your life.
Well, you might recall that this discussion began in the TECHNOLOGY thread... and if you are unable to ascertain the fact that I am proposing a reduction in the intrusion of politics into the national spaceflight effort, then you have not been paying attention. Again, you must fit in like a natural in DC.

And don't worry about me, the Feds have almost no influence over my life; and if and when I feel that they have more than they ought, I assure you I can play the game with the best of them.

Ferris wrote:
When things are good, people won't push towards the extremism we are seeing develop. ...look at the rise of religious extremism in various unstable places in the world.
You made mention in a previous post that people could consider resources to be unlimited "again" when the space frontier is opened... so I would like to ask you to provide a date/time period/cultural reference which fits your description; i.e. when and where were things "good" before? I will then happily provide a list of religious and social extremist movements which thrived in that environment. Please try to respond with actual facts.

Ferris wrote:
I ment another 10 years after 2020.
So did I, dude. If VSE is delayed because too many congressmen are meddling or because some upstart vendor sues NASA for being unfair to their vaporcraft, and 2020 begins to slip... then the door is opened in a very real way; and China isn't the only nation which might be capable of exploiting such a delay.

Ferris wrote:
The point here is, that long term, your better off with flexability. If you want a great example of this, look at the French repeating rifles from the First World War.
Now that is funny! I am a former Infantryman, I know lots of gun geeks, too; Green Berets, and Marines, Rangers, all kinds. I have never heard anyone rave about a French rifle! Let's see... you're probably not talking about the Lebel, which was outmoded by WW1, even though it was the most widely issued firearm in French forces. You're probably talking about the Berthier, with all of those preposterous periscopes and stuff. Hm. At least it had a good grenade launcher, but all the other contraptions were foolishness. And a lot of them required factory mods, too.

You talk about in the long term, and I'd like to point out that a lot of people still use (as opposed to collect) the Springfield, Mauser, and Enfield rifles, while the French counterparts to these arms are quite scarce. Which would you describe as a success in the long term?

I'd also like to point out that the description of both French rifles here http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/rifles.htm characterizes them as possessing design flaws.

Ferris wrote:
You kinda just totally lost me, because you've kinda contradicted yourself (or at least seem to be contradicting yourself)
Well, let me try it this way:
1). Populations in space will not be capable of economic self-reliance for a long long time.
2). Colonies in the Americas were not economically self-reliant either, but they were still colonies; i.e. Pete was incorrect in saying that a colony must be self-reliant as the American colonies provide an historic point of reference which refutes his position.
3). The colonies in the Americas which failed did so because the population was not sustained; thus the measure of colonial status is whether the population can grow faster than the mortality rate.
4). From this I extrapolate that the beginning of human colonization in space is going to be when the condition of living off-planet (and in extraterrestrial space, not LEO) is sufficiently conducive to human reproduction that it (reproduction) actually takes place.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:52 am
Hello, SawSS1Jun21,

as far as I know the conditions are not known yet that a population must fulfill to be capable of economic self-reliance. There are no concrete criterions, benchmarks etc. It's a question that can't be analysed, investigated, considered etc. as if it were something static - it's dynamic and that complex that years of scientific research are required to get just raw insights into it.

So this point shouldn't be used here and lacks validity. The required dynamic analysis is too sophisticated.

But the question istelf - if populations in space can be self-reliant - seems to be invalid also. If we are talking about human populations coming from Earth then they aren't populations in space, they aren't isolated populations of different planets, orbits etc. - they are just one huge population of our solar system inlcuding Earth and all colonized planets. Earth and all colonized planets will be linked and connected together. Necessaryly - and this was valid for all earthian colonies also.

Economic sefl-reliance - the planets, orbital colonies etc. would/will trade to each other like earthian colonies and their mother-countries did also.

This assist FerrisValyn.



Hello, FerrisValyn,

my previous post was meant as assistance merely. To look how something can be done or achieved is a method to find out if it can be done. If looking at the "how" results in finding obstacles never to be overcome than it seems that it is impossible - that's a better, more positive way than to say "it's impossible" from the beginning. I still think, you are right.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post    Posted on: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:03 pm
SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
And that is where the Legislature's role ends! NASA has marching orders and its employees, to include the director, are governed by regulations about how to legally conduct thier duties. The freaks in DC need to stand back and let the rocket scientists do the rocket science. Dr. Griffin has six college degrees. SIX! Do you think that he needs a bunch of ethically compromised congressmen telling him how to do spacecraft design? The very notion is sickening.


And maybe if we all just wish hard enough, we'll have world peace. Congress uses that funding power to determine what actually gets done, to control the marching orders. And it always will. If you honestly believe that Congress should just rubber stamp whatever the president wants, you'll find me in the streets. And you assume that all of the Congress are simpletons, which is definatly not the case.

Finally, don't for a moment think Nasa administrator is an engineering Job - thats a political job - don't kid yourself thinking anything else. Which is not to say that the administrator shouldn't have a firm engineering background, but its a policy/political job.

The simple fact is, no matter how small the engineering project, policy and politics always comes into play - its like air.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
and what would "much" mean to you? Your position was obviated and your fallback is, as always, "well to me it doesn't matter?" You're gonna do great on the Hill someday.


I won't deny you maybe right, and I maybe wrong, but your gonna have to give a better example than the MERs slow speed. That could be different if they had had more money. Otherwise, I tend to be of the opinion that sciencewise, you get a much better return on the dollar using robots than humans.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Human spaceflight already owes it's existence to automatons. It would require time travel to make colonization not dependent upon automated space exploration. I can offer an unconditional guarantee that no future human spaceflight endeavor will be devoid of dependence on future robotics, either.


And I am not even disputing that. What I am saying though is that human beings cannot be removed from the equation for colonization, by default. And that is an important thing. It seems small, but once you convince people that human being must be in the loop, I guarantee you, you will never ever see another oped saying we should just send robots.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Well, you might recall that this discussion began in the TECHNOLOGY thread... and if you are unable to ascertain the fact that I am proposing a reduction in the intrusion of politics into the national spaceflight effort, then you have not been paying attention. Again, you must fit in like a natural in DC.

And don't worry about me, the Feds have almost no influence over my life; and if and when I feel that they have more than they ought, I assure you I can play the game with the best of them.


2 points to this
1 - It started out there, but the question I asked has clear policy implications, (you yourself acknowledge this) and you jumped in, and not just on a limited technical answer.

2 - Again, maybe if we all just wish for world peace, it will happen. The chances of getting Congress to simply rubber stamp without thinking won't ever happen, and frankly, shouldn't. Congress needs to be convinced, and should be convinced. Thats its job.

Also, I shoudl hope I fit in - I want Griffin's job at some point, and Bush's Job at somepoint

No matter how hard you try, you can't eliminate politics from engineering projects (or frankly, anything)

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
You made mention in a previous post that people could consider resources to be unlimited "again" when the space frontier is opened... so I would like to ask you to provide a date/time period/cultural reference which fits your description; i.e. when and where were things "good" before? I will then happily provide a list of religious and social extremist movements which thrived in that environment. Please try to respond with actual facts.


This issue is partly scale, because while there were always local resources issues, there has never (until recently) had to deal with the issue on a global level. With that understanding, up until the beginning of the 20th century, although we did see it somewhat even past that, a few things even into the 50s, in America. The 50s were kind of unique, but they do demonstrate it well. There was a belief that there would always be cheap oil for certain, that there wasn't really any sort of concern for mineral deposits long term.

Another example, somewhat, is china. They are acting without reguard to real long term planning when it comes to its economic situation.

Part of it stems from Globalization, which is in of itself a recent event.

THis probably doesn't totally answer you, because the truth is it is somewhat involved, and it will take more time to write than I have right now.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
So did I, dude. If VSE is delayed because too many congressmen are meddling or because some upstart vendor sues NASA for being unfair to their vaporcraft, and 2020 begins to slip... then the door is opened in a very real way; and China isn't the only nation which might be capable of exploiting such a delay.


2 points to this - One, what does it actually matter if they get there ahead of us? Are they gonna hold us hostage and tell us we can't fly into space?

The second thing is something I've mentioned before, what exactly do you want a Space Agency for? It needs a purpose - a long range, overal purpose. Is it to get us science? International prestige? Space Colonization? Something else? Because in only a limited few of those does it matter whether anyone else get to the moon before us.

I am curious - do you see space exploration as largely a national security issue?

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Now that is funny! I am a former Infantryman, I know lots of gun geeks, too; Green Berets, and Marines, Rangers, all kinds. I have never heard anyone rave about a French rifle! Let's see... you're probably not talking about the Lebel, which was outmoded by WW1, even though it was the most widely issued firearm in French forces. You're probably talking about the Berthier, with all of those preposterous periscopes and stuff. Hm. At least it had a good grenade launcher, but all the other contraptions were foolishness. And a lot of them required factory mods, too.

You talk about in the long term, and I'd like to point out that a lot of people still use (as opposed to collect) the Springfield, Mauser, and Enfield rifles, while the French counterparts to these arms are quite scarce. Which would you describe as a success in the long term?

I'd also like to point out that the description of both French rifles here http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/rifles.htm characterizes them as possessing design flaws.


I said that wrong to a certain degree, I admit that - What I was thinking about was the Sho-Sho (I believe thats what it was called - I know it was a light machine gun, with exposed ammunition) - What I was driving at was that it didn't give you flexablity, because (if I recall correctly) you couldn't simply replace worn out parts with new parts from the factory, it was so poorly manufactured. You had to replace the whole gun. Thats what we've got right now. I think it was the American BAR that replaced it, and, among many improviments, it was designed such that you could swap parts from the factory and it would work fine. Thats what we need.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Well, let me try it this way:
1). Populations in space will not be capable of economic self-reliance for a long long time.
2). Colonies in the Americas were not economically self-reliant either, but they were still colonies; i.e. Pete was incorrect in saying that a colony must be self-reliant as the American colonies provide an historic point of reference which refutes his position.
3). The colonies in the Americas which failed did so because the population was not sustained; thus the measure of colonial status is whether the population can grow faster than the mortality rate.
4). From this I extrapolate that the beginning of human colonization in space is going to be when the condition of living off-planet (and in extraterrestrial space, not LEO) is sufficiently conducive to human reproduction that it (reproduction) actually takes place.


Well, depending on how you figure "a long long time" I might disput that - I think we could see economic self-sufficency within 20-40 years. Secondly, population increases can come about either through reproduction or immigration. And that will probably be how you see population grow. 3rd, I am curious as to why you think you have to be outside of LEO?

Also, part of the issue then was lack of medical knowledge, something which has significantly changed since then.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:31 am
Ferris wrote:
Congress uses that funding power to determine what actually gets done, to control the marching orders.
Correct. That does not extend to legislating some tomfoolery about how the science and engineering work is to be done. If they are not happy about something, they are supposed to un-fund it, investigate the people who screwed it up, and force the Exec Branch to fix it. Not write a bunch of overcomplicated legislation intended to draw a box around the people whom have to do the work. Even the bright congresspeople (I agree that there are some) are much too busy with the importance of thier own work to even begin to qualify as partial experts in a topic as esoteric as human spaceflight. That includes those members whom are former astronauts; their immersion in the material is now dated and no longer applicable in many cases.

Ferris wrote:
Finally, don't for a moment think Nasa administrator is an engineering Job - thats a political job - don't kid yourself thinking anything else. Which is not to say that the administrator shouldn't have a firm engineering background, but its a policy/political job.
What do you intend to do about that last qualification? Thus far there is scarce evidence of your acumen in that particular pursuit.

Ferris wrote:
I won't deny you maybe right, and I maybe wrong, but your gonna have to give a better example than the MERs slow speed.
OK, how about Apollo 13? (That would have been a Loss-of-mission event had it been automated, as it was they still got lunar survey data at least) Or all the other LOM events in martian space? There is little doubt that a significant portion of those failures would have been immediately recoverable had a human been in place for real-time interaction.

BTW, money doesn't fix everything, particularly in the aerospace field. More money would not have given us more responsive MERs; more tools on bigger machines, perhaps, but the boxes would have been just as dumb and needed just as much help from home.

Robots will always be cheaper, and even more economical... but humans are going to be more expeditious for at least 60 more years.

Ferris wrote:
It seems small, but once you convince people that human being must be in the loop, I guarantee you, you will never ever see another oped saying we should just send robots.
Oh, you know somebody will always have that axe to grind. That's human nature.

Ferris wrote:
...the question I asked has clear policy implications, (you yourself acknowledge this) and you jumped in, and not just on a limited technical answer.
Well, I pointed out that the answers you originally sought were printed in black and white in the ESAS Final, and you proceeded to dispute the findings of a study which you still have not read. You blithely made assumptions about the material contained in a document which you did not even run a search against, in order to launch into a tirade in support of the notion that the Legislature should act overtly to tamper with the operational choices made at NASA. OK, that's nothing new, the web is full of self-styled space pundits whom have read only the preliminary ESAS or the Executive Summary and feel that they are now qualified to pass judgement on the engineering work contained in the full document. And I realize this is a forum, meaning that everyone is entitled to air thier opinion... but in a forum, you are also burdened with the responsibility for supporting your claims. If you want to express yourself in the abscence of cross-examination, you should start your own e-zine so that you can op-ed to your heart's content.

Ferris wrote:
Congress needs to be convinced, and should be convinced. Thats its job.
Agreed. But that does not extend to micro-managment by committee. That kind of burden will be crippling to the national human spaceflight effort. Of course, that may all be moot as the market becomes commercialized, but I would still like to see NASA leading the way... call me nostalgic.

Ferris wrote:
No matter how hard you try, you can't eliminate politics from engineering projects (or frankly, anything)
You're gonna have to come a little center from that far-left position if you ever want to live at 1600 Pennsylania Ave.

Ferris wrote:
The 50s were kind of unique, but they do demonstrate it well. There was a belief that there would always be cheap oil for certain, that there wasn't really any sort of concern for mineral deposits long term.
OK, the 50's brought us The Hells Angels, Scientology, The Aryan Brotherhood, oh and let's please not forget Senator McCarthy!

...Are these the people we're taking into space for our colonization effort?

Ferris wrote:
...does it actually matter if they get there ahead of us? ...what exactly do you want a Space Agency for? It needs a purpose - a long range, overal purpose. Is it to get us science? International prestige? Space Colonization? Something else? Because in only a limited few of those does it matter whether anyone else get to the moon before us... ...do you see space exploration as largely a national security issue?
No, I just happen to be of the opinion that it would be a serious blow to the legitimacy of NASA internally with respect to its funding. I understand you don't concur, and we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Ferris wrote:
Thats what we've got right now. I think it was the American BAR that replaced it, and, among many improviments, it was designed such that you could swap parts from the factory and it would work fine. Thats what we need.
I agree that makes a good analogy. I would also like to point out that the ESAS Final, on page 637, in section 9.3.12, says:
Quote:
The ESAS architecture sets the foundation for exploration systems for the next 30 years. In order to be sustainable and robust, the architecture and its associated elements need to incorporate supportability as a design philosophy from the start. This will be especially important as distances and durations increase.
Technology investments to facilitate forward-commonality and interchangeability of CEV systems hardware with other architecture elements are needed.


Ferris wrote:
...population increases can come about either through reproduction or immigration. And that will probably be how you see population grow. 3rd, I am curious as to why you think you have to be outside of LEO?
Well, I was really using the biological definition of "life" as the calibrating factor, I suppose in that model you could say that colonization begins when the first person is born in space, and it is a success when the increasing space-habitating population is more consequent of birth than immigration. It's just one way to look at it, obviously, but I think it is a way which is simple to define and analyze.

I choose outside of LEO because I figure a person born in LEO is still a citizen of earth, while a person born on the surface of the Moon or in orbit around Mars can realistically be considered to be of extraterrestrial origin (the Moon is actually arguable in this scenario, I suppose). Again, it is just a discreet point for differentiation.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use