Community > Forum > Historical Ansari X Prize > Wrong Focus of the X Prize

Wrong Focus of the X Prize

Posted by: dr_david_c - Mon May 17, 2004 2:52 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 33 posts ] 
Wrong Focus of the X Prize 

Do you support a people focus or a payload focus?
Payload 15%  15%  [ 3 ]
People 85%  85%  [ 17 ]
Total votes : 20

Wrong Focus of the X Prize 
Author Message
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 4:25 pm
Posts: 122
Post    Posted on: Fri May 21, 2004 9:14 pm
dr_david_c what is the business with this "risk other peoples lives"? nobody here or in the teams or in the ansari x-prize is doing that. those involved are all well aware of dangers and risk and still want to do it so don't fall so low as to try to induce a guilt-trip

we should all be free to risk our own lives on something we believe in

i certainly hope my children will have the availabity of space travel (hell, i hope i will have it myself!). and if they do it, then it will not be because of people who said it was too dangerous, too costly, or couldn't be done! you, dr_david_c, seem to represent exactly the kind of mindset the ansari x-prize is out to beat, so of course you don't agree on it. you might be right but i don't think so and i certainly don't hope so...

the ansari x-prize is no more a gimmick than climbing mount everest is a gimmick - it's an experience and plenty of people are interestred in getting this experience <-- that's a perfectly legitimate market, and i'm glad someone goes for it


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post Re: U wanna go HOW fast?????   Posted on: Sat May 22, 2004 12:56 am
dr_david_c wrote:
I would imagine that the security agencies and the militrary would prefer a vehicle that can loiter a teeny bit longer than the SR71.


Are you saying that a sub-orbital ship of some sort has a longer loiter time than an SR-71 :?: :roll:


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 2:26 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Kentucky
Post Tourists vs. Test Pilots   Posted on: Sat May 22, 2004 4:24 am
I have never said that the X Prize is a gimmick or that I'm against it; I said that space tourism is the gimmick and the focus of the X prize should be on payload, not tourists. Tourism should be designed into the vehicle so that if your prinicple payload allows for someone to fly along, then get their money and let 'em fly! That's exactly what the Russians are doing - using the gimmick of the paying tourist to help pay to get their primary payload into orbit!

As for risk, I'm a vet as well (my ship carried 8M gallons of jet fuels and 5M lbs bombs) and of course there should be a test pilot (unless you design for an ROV to max the usable payload, but that's against the rules). However, test pilots understand the inherent risks much better than the average tourist.

TJ: The A-1 Skyraider has a longer loiter time that the SR71 (neither of with would be consider a sub-orbital vegicle). I don't think SR71s did much close-air support during Vietnam, but the A-1 did, and it did it better than the F-4 Phantom or any other jet then in service. It was low and slow, could loiter for hours and could get into places jets could not. Both require the presence of air to manuver, so they aren't sub-orbital. On the other hand, the X-15 could be considered as sub-orbital, since it required reaction jets to manuver at altitude.

George, you couldn't be more wrong when you say manned flight is safer. If the craft fails, someone dies. I think what you meant is that manned flight is more likely to be successful, since we lack the skill to program every contingency into a computer - the man in the loop might recover a vehicle that the computer cannot. But it cannot be safer. You say it has to be safe so that you can use it repeatedly. Well, the shuttle's external tank is safe (it's just a big tank!), but we throw it away with every trip. If my rocket is cheap, safety is LESS of a concern because I can just put up another. Think V-1 and V-2 during WWII. Neither was in any way safe, but they were cheap and thousands were used. And they didn't need pilots to achieve their goal of getting the payload to England!

Finally, n54 notes that, "The ansari x-prize is no more a gimmick than climbing mount everest is a gimmick - it's an experience and plenty of people are interestred in getting this experience <-- that's a perfectly legitimate market, and i'm glad someone goes for it". Well, if I remember correctly, one out of seven who try Everest dies. Would we allow space vehicles with the same safety record? I'm sure a lot more want to "experience" space than climb Everest, but see how many cancel their reservations as the death toll mounts. And we'd run out of pilots pretty quickly!

_________________
Educator and science enthusiast


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Sat May 22, 2004 10:17 am
Lets give this thread a post-mortem.

First, Dr David recapitulates the rules. Which shows he knows how to read and this is not a bad thing in an educator. Then he suggests that the rules should be changed. Which is not necessarily too obtuse a suggestion given that everyone involved in this endevour has accepted all rule changes so far. However his suggestions for rule changes are relatively extreme and require a shift of focus to designing craft for orbital utility. By all accounts that I have come across to date, it is my understanding that this is quite a difficult thing to achieve with resources that are, compared to those of a handful of government, meagre at best. In any case much of what Dr David would like the xprize to focus on has already been done (and is still being done) by a private company … Orbital Sciences Corporation and their Pegasus rocket, and if what I have read about it is to be believed (and there seems to be no reason no to) it has a the capability of taking 220 kg of payload to 400 miles in a polar orbit.

I am surprised that no-one has taken Dr David to task for effectively suggesting that the xprize should be in the business of reinventing the wheel.

Dr David also claims that taking people to low orbit is an unnecessary goal which entails taking unnecessary risks. Cleverly, he uses someone else’s citation of the X-15 rocketplane to remind them of the death of a pilot due to the deficiencies of using that particular craft to exit from suborbital flight. Essentially he is right, taking three people to 100 km and then bringing them immediately back down serves no immediately useful purpose. This view, however, misses the point completely. There were people who failed to see the utility of the Wright brother’s craft. They were also right, it was pretty useless and it didn’t go far enough or high enough to serve any worthwhile and immediate purpose. But for a proof-of-concept vehicle it remains unsurpassed as a contraption of truly revolutional proportion. Look into the sky and you will see the contrail signatures which can trace their direct descent to experiments on Kitty Hawk long ago. Here is the great point that Dr David is willfully ignoring. The risk to human life and limb, which was absolutely real at that time and for quite some time after, was essential to the development of the safer and more reliable craft to which we give scarcely a second thought today.

Dr David, your nay-saying and scare-mongering will here likely fall on deaf-ears. To subvert part of the preceding discussion, climbing Mount Everest has taught us much about human courage and physiology. Further than this it is an activity the psychology of which was explained with great succinctness long ago. In reply to a “why bother?” question about climbing Everest, George Mallory uttered his famous reply which could be equally and sufficiently proffered now.

“Because it is there.”


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 2:26 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Kentucky
Post Daed Already?   Posted on: Sun May 23, 2004 4:59 am
Dr. Keith, I'm suggesting that Orbital Science shouldn't be the only player in the game, and that their concept is not the only workable solution. While I'm not familiar with their vehicle, I'll assume it's a toss-away. So on with the reusable designs! And that's not reinventing the wheel - it's eliminating it completely!

You claim that, "The risk to human life and limb, which was absolutely real at that time and for quite some time after, was essential to the development of the safer and more reliable craft to which we give scarcely a second thought today." Well, partly right. I am in no way ignoring the need for proof-of-concept, and that it will always be inherently dangerous. But you must admit that there are millions who travel daily scared out of their wits that 400 tons of 747 will come crashing down, even though the drive to the airport was much more dangerous than the airplane ride. The nay-sayers and second-guessers will always be there - especially after a crash.

Okay. What say we changes the rules to allow for EITHER a 3-person vehicle, a piloted vehicle that can carry a payload equivalent to the replaced 2 average adults (say 180 kg), or an ROV with a payload equivalent to 3 average adults (270 kg)? That should satisfy all camps and allow each to follow their own agenda, keeping in mind that the goal is for a private enterprise to launch, recover and relaunch within 2 weeks. Those observers interested in cargo are covered, and those interested in space tourism are covered. Perhaps a sub-prize for each category when they all must play by the same rules. Imagine a vehicle that launches with 3 folks, then 2 weeks later launches with a pilot and 180 kg of cargo, THEN lauches 2 weeks after that on remote control? 3 launches and recoveries, each with a different payload, all in a month? That would be the company I'd invest in!

The findamental argument has always been the nature of the cargo. Everyone has been so busy arguing over that aspect that we've missed the larger goal of making space travel a private enterprise, whether you carry cargo or people. I'm no nay-sayer; I'm just saying we're playing under rules that really don't matter since it's the launch-recover-launch cycle that is most important.

If I remember correctly, that was the goal of STS. Have a shuttle launch every 2-3 weeks. We just never got to the space tourism aspect of it due to the cost. There's no way a shuttle could ever carry enough people to justify the cost of the launch. And I suspect that no team will be able to produce a vehicle that will be cost-effective solely as a tourist carrier unless the 2 passengers are willing to foot the entire bill.

I imagine that will reduce the pool of possible passengers to those we have now - millionaires, and they can already fly on a proven vehicle with the Russians.

_________________
Educator and science enthusiast


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Mon May 24, 2004 9:35 am
Millions of people who travel daily are scared out of their wits? What need is there for this hyperbole. Rather state that there are millions of people who experience various levels of discomfort, across a range encompassing mild and momentary disquiet to the opposite extreme of outright screaming hysteria, when confronted by the physical reality of modern day air travel. If you omit the likelyhood that the former represent by far the greater proportion than the latter then you are only guilty of misleading inference rather than complete inaccuracy. Besides, even if a passenger is “scared out of his wits” what is forcing him or her to board a mechanical demon of potential destruction in the first place?

You don’t want to go? Then don’t go.

I think your suggestions for rule changes aren’t intrinsically bad, they are merely unrealistic. Are you aware how much greater the degree of difficulty is involved in coming back down from orbit as opposed to from suborbit? The difference is, mildly put, considerable. If your rules were adopted we would immediately go back to teams spending more time on designing cool websites than on real hardware. I suspect that even Burt Rutan doesn’t have the resources (including commodities such as desire and will) to seriously make an attempt according to rules of your design. Perhaps you should be suggesting rules for another competition, it could be called the “Y Prize”.

At least with a suborbital goal we have people out there who are in a very real sense, to mangle a tolerably well known phrase in the aerospace industry, “kicking the tires and lighting the fires”.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post Re: Daed Already?   Posted on: Mon May 24, 2004 10:12 am
dr_david_c wrote:
If I remember correctly, that was the goal of STS. Have a shuttle launch every 2-3 weeks. We just never got to the space tourism aspect of it due to the cost. There's no way a shuttle could ever carry enough people to justify the cost of the launch.


From what I've read that was never considered to be something that was ever actually going to happen by the engineers who designed and built the shuttle. That 2-3 week turnaround myth was nothing more than an Enron style accounting trick used by the NASA bureacracy to sell the thing to congress. The shuttle should have never been considered anything more than an X vehicle and should have never flown with anything other than a very limited crew. Challenger and Columbia are perfect examples of the real reason why it should never be considered for tourism, not costs.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 49
Location: Santiago, Chile
Post Re: Tourists vs. Test Pilots   Posted on: Mon May 24, 2004 6:08 pm
dr_david_c wrote:
George, you couldn't be more wrong when you say manned flight is safer. If the craft fails, someone dies. I think what you meant is that manned flight is more likely to be successful, since we lack the skill to program every contingency into a computer - the man in the loop might recover a vehicle that the computer cannot. But it cannot be safer. You say it has to be safe so that you can use it repeatedly. Well, the shuttle's external tank is safe (it's just a big tank!), but we throw it away with every trip. If my rocket is cheap, safety is LESS of a concern because I can just put up another. Think V-1 and V-2 during WWII. Neither was in any way safe, but they were cheap and thousands were used. And they didn't need pilots to achieve their goal of getting the payload to England!


You are right, I meant "safe" as in reliability. I'm interested in reliability for manned rehusable spaceships because I belive in the concept of a space ship similar in use to an airliner. Tle airliner is expensive so we don't toss it away, but it has a long service life and operating it is simple enought to be routine so the big investment pays off. That's what's needed to get a massive use of space.

I don't think space tourism will get us there (as holiday cruises did not create the shipping industry) but it will help. I think space tourism can be an equivalent to the early mail airlines. For example, Chile's LAN (formerly LAN Chile) is a world class company but it started in the early XX century as a higly inefficient mail delivery system with lots of money and pilots lost, so people had to invent reasons to keep it flying like training airforce pilots (that turned out to be a bad idea) but eventually it became profitable. Also, Chile opened mail routes that were in the national interest.

XPrize space travel will probably start as a low profit venture, like the early Internet, but it has potential. So each and every possible money earner should be used (like merchandise). That's were space tourism fits in.

I think Rutan's SS1 will be important because it will lead the way to a new generation of roket planes, first military (think in Mitchell Burnside Clapp's background in the Black Horse and Space Cast 2020) and then mass passenger transit with antipodal suborbital planes. The tourists are icing on the cake.

The good thing is that a space tourism vehicle also has several other uses. I think SS1 can be used for astronaut training (instead of the SR71 and it might be cheaper), manned recon and to design future executive transports and fighters. White Knight is also a good platform for reccon, surveys, atmosferic research, astronaut training and small satelite launcher with a launcher like Pegasus (or a satellite killer with a ALMV or ASAT).


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 2:26 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Kentucky
Post You're kidding, right?   Posted on: Tue May 25, 2004 1:33 am
I don't believe I ever mentioned changing the rules from sub-orbital to orbital. I said, "Change the focus of the cargo!"

Dr_Keith said, "I think your suggestions for rule changes aren’t intrinsically bad, they are merely unrealistic." You must mean orb vs. sub-orb. And as for keeping it sub-orb, the rules changes are in no way unrealistic. If your vehicle is so specialized as to allow only one type of cargo, then your private enterprise will miss out on a lot of cargo transport opportunities that will help sustain your tourism side at an affordable level.

He also said, "..even if a passenger is “scared out of his wits” what is forcing him or her to board a mechanical demon of potential destruction in the first place?" Hmmm. How about your child attending college across the country was hit by a car, is dying and might only have 10-12 hours to live? You need a kidney transplant, but you have to go from Topeka to Johns Hopkins for the surgery? Your boss says, "Go to Dallas. NOW!" You want to attend your brother's funeral in Italy. And so on. MILLIONS of reasons!

While the "millions" was an exaggeration in both instances, there are situations that will require the phobic to fly. My sister-in-law is a flight attendant, so she and my brother used to make free weekend trips at least once a month. They've since adopted a wonderful Ukranian lad, so that's put a crimp in their former lifestyle.. I can assure you that my brother was certainly nervous, and may have even experienced a moderate to sever panic attack to two (elevated anxiety runs in our family). He has trouble giving up control over his own life.

So, sub-orbital, multi-mission-capable vs. the sub-orbital tour ship. I'll admit the ROV aspect is the most daunting, so we can pull back a bit to opening the prize to either a pilot and 2 tourists, or a pilot and an equivalent weight in cargo. Maybe even require teams to perform each function in order to show proof-of-concept for both tourists and business. The order that you do it in wouldn't matter, but you would have to do both to win.

_________________
Educator and science enthusiast


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post Re: Tourists vs. Test Pilots   Posted on: Tue May 25, 2004 3:58 am
dr_david_c wrote:
TJ: The A-1 Skyraider has a longer loiter time that the SR71 (neither of with would be consider a sub-orbital vegicle). I don't think SR71s did much close-air support during Vietnam, but the A-1 did, and it did it better than the F-4 Phantom or any other jet then in service. It was low and slow, could loiter for hours and could get into places jets could not. Both require the presence of air to manuver, so they aren't sub-orbital. On the other hand, the X-15 could be considered as sub-orbital, since it required reaction jets to manuver at altitude.


I can't believe I missed this.

Do you even know what an SR-71 is? Close air support during Vietnam? :roll:

There were only three SR-71 variants ever built that carried any sort of armament, none of which were involved with anything more than testing when it came to armaments. These were not ever meant for close air support, especially not flying by at Mach 3+ in excess of 80,000 feet.

The SR-71 could fly for hours with arial refueling, the typical mission of an SR-71 would usually have 2 or 3 of those. None of the Xprise vehicles will have a flight time of much more than a few minutes giving virtually zero loiter time over any area. Additionally none of these vehicles will have the range of an SR-71. Also the additional altitude coupled with the much smaller range would actually be a big detriment when compared to an SR-71 for most things the plane actually did.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post Re: Here we go!   Posted on: Tue May 25, 2004 8:18 am
dr david you said, Wed May 19, 2004 5:35 pm, in your second post to this thread ...

"And what am I going to do with 250 kg of sub-orbital payload? Make sure that 100kg of that is booster rocket so I can get my 150kg payload into orbit!"

I believe this proves that you DID intend that your rule changes would move the goal from sub-orbital to orbital. I will not label you a liar, but I will accuse you of willfull short-term memory loss.

So the phobic are occasionally forced to fly. That's true. The point is that ultimately they are forcing themselves. What part of this concept dont you understand? Besides what possible emergency could force someone to take a sub-orbital tourist hop? What in hell are you babbling about?

Your final paragraph in your last post effectively says that you would graciously allow the rules to include a pilot after all. Gee thanks.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Tue May 25, 2004 9:26 pm
I think I remember now why I've never made a post in this thread.... :roll:

The SR-71 was a supersonic high-speed reconnaisance aircraft. Recon birds don't have a loiter time, they want to get in and out of the target area as quickly as possible -- the Soviets specifically designed the MiG-25 "Foxtrot" (I believe that was the UN designation) to shoot down SR-71s.

The SR-71 had a flight time measured in hours. An X-Prize vehicle has an engine burn time measured in seconds. You do the math.

Okay, I support human payloads as opposed to cargo payloads for a very simple reason: there is exceedingly little cargo that will pay well for a suborbital trip. Let's face it: if somebody's going to put a million-dollar payload on top of an oversized firecracker in the first place, they'd might as well spend a little extra and push it up another twenty miles into orbit.

Humans, on the other hand, will pay money for *anything*. Give me about ten million for an advertising campaign (oddly the same amount as the Ansari X Prize), and I can get people to line up around the block to hand over their life savings.

Individuals are suckers. Businesses are not. Individuals will pay thousands of dollars for 30 seconds of 0g. Businesses will laugh at you.

Again, you do the math.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Tue May 25, 2004 10:56 pm
spacecowboy wrote:
I think I remember now why I've never made a post in this thread.... :roll:

The SR-71 was a supersonic high-speed reconnaisance aircraft. Recon birds don't have a loiter time, they want to get in and out of the target area as quickly as possible -- the Soviets specifically designed the MiG-25 "Foxtrot" (I believe that was the UN designation) to shoot down SR-71s.

The SR-71 had a flight time measured in hours. An X-Prize vehicle has an engine burn time measured in seconds. You do the math.


Although the Blackbird did flash by very quickly they did have the option to circle just out of range and still get viable photo intel or turn around and make a second pass. So while they don't have the loiter time of something that was truly designed for 'close air support' such as an A-10 they certainly would do a much better job than an X-prize vehicle.

The Mig-25 may have been designed to counter the SR-71 but in reality it fell far short of catching one. From what I've read the pilots themselves were very afraid of taking it past Mach 2.5 and the few times one did break Mach 3 it needed new engines.

I'm still having trouble believe that someone can claim to be a doctor, and seem to be some sort of aerospace enthusiast yet still try to make strange equating sort of comparisons between X-Prize vehicles, SR-71's and a prop plane like the A-1.

If this guy really holds a doctorate in something I think it's one of those doctorates Heinlein was poking at in 'Number of the Beast'.


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 2:26 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Kentucky
Post    Posted on: Mon May 31, 2004 4:18 pm
TJ, the discussion of the SR-71 came up by Bullspace about the ability to put up a recon craft via an X-prize-type craft. He indicated that it would serve the needs of recon better than an X-prizer, but I responded about the various loiter times.

We had the SR-71 for Vietnam. Plenty of jet aircraft, and the prop-driven A1 Skyraider. I was merely informing Bullspace about the loiter times (the A1 being much better than a jet) and manuverability in Vietnam's terrain (the jet's speed precluded entry into some areas where the A1 could go), and it was generally better at close-air support than any other aircraft.

Dr_Keith_H: Your "proof" is wrong. We were talking PAYLOAD, were we not? I said, ""And what am I going to do with 250 kg of sub-orbital payload? Make sure that 100kg of that is booster rocket so I can get my 150kg payload into orbit!" Read carefully now: "my 150kg payload". That's P-A-Y-L-O-A-D. I have never said that the craft have to be orbitial. I was pointing out that I could (well, I'm guessing since I haven't done the math) get a payload into orbit by using the X-craft as sub-orbital delivery vehicle. And as for "babbling", providing valid reasons why someone might be required to use a sub-orbital craft is not babbling. It's enlightening the folk who can't or refuse to think of a reason why someone might have to take the flight.

Okay spacecowboy, your turn. You said, "Individuals are suckers. Businesses are not. Individuals will pay thousands of dollars for 30 seconds of 0g. Businesses will laugh at you." Again, I must "babble" (i.e., provide a valid reason). If I'm XM Radio, and I wish to enter more markets that my current satellites cannot cover, I need to get a new one into space. Using my previous example, if I can get an XM satellite down to 150kg, use the other 100kg to boost it into orbit (again, I'm guessing since I haven't done the math) and get it done for $5-10M, I doubt you'll find them laughing. Well, you MAY find they laughing because it was so much cheaper to get the satellite to sub-orbital flight using an X-craft and using another small rocket to boost it into orbit, rather than using an Arienne rocket to get it up there.

Finally TJ said, "I'm still having trouble believe that someone can claim to be a doctor, and seem to be some sort of aerospace enthusiast yet still try to make strange equating sort of comparisons between X-Prize vehicles, SR-71's and a prop plane like the A-1." The issue dealt with loitering times for the various craft and which might do better. Your, "..they certainly would do a much better job than an X-prize vehicle." comment suggests the Blackbird can do something other than photo-recon. I wouldn't think about using an X-craft for photo-recon, beacuse we already have a great platform for that task. But I cannot use an SR-71 for payload deployment. It wasn't designed for that! Use the right tool for the right job, and the ONLY job of the Blackbird was photo-recon.

_________________
Educator and science enthusiast


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:04 am
dr_david_c wrote:
Use the right tool for the right job, and the ONLY job of the Blackbird was photo-recon.


ONLY?

Primary yes but hardly only.

Image

Image

Image

One thing it never did was any kind of close air support. Odd that you can now claim that it's only job was photo recon yet earlier you didn't think that it did any close air support during Viet Nam. Which implies a truly severe lack in any sort of knowledge of this particular aircraft. Which also isn't a problem, unless your going to start using it as any sort of example.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


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