Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Topics related to manned space missions

Moderator: clayton

Post Reply
petemn2004
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:01 pm
Real Name: Mark Petersen
Location: Maple Grove, MN

Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Post by petemn2004 »

I was listening to some of the public hearings this week of the Augustine hearings this week concerning the future of U.S. manned spaceflight and I am not too optimistic about the it's future. This committee was charged with reviewing NASA current plans and other options and give an assessment about U.S. manned spaceflight to the Obama administration. Their report is due out by the end of August.

The future of the U.S. manned spaceflight will be limited by the fiscal constraints of the increased pressure on the budget due to massive government overspending.

NASA wants to stop flying the shuttle and use the money saved to develop the Aries 5 Super Heavy booster needed to go to moon and beyond. NASA has not let out contracts to continue the development of the Aries 5 Super Heavy booster because the money that would have been saved is slated to be reduced from NASA's baseline budget.

NASA it seems would also like to not fund the ISS past the contractual obligation of 2016 to save money towards its goal of getting beyond low earth orbit. It would be a shame to ditch the ISS in the Pacific so soon after the effort it took to get it up there. I know there is not much scientific benefit relative to the dollars spent on the ISS. It was a good exercise in learning how to cooperate with other space fairing nations. The other nations should get a return on their investment, the ISS completion was delayed by the Columbia accident. The number of entitled US scientific racks goes will go underutilized by maybe 40%. The natural destination for a space shuttle is a space station and yet most of the shuttle missions were not to a space station. There will be a 60 metric ton shortfall to the ISS without the space shuttle.

The ISS was not possible with out the space shuttle with its unique capabilities. It has flown for 28 years. The space shuttle was over sized for Department of Defense purposes and under funded during its development. It is risky to fly relative to a capsule yet it is safer now than ever based on what was learned about operating a shuttle from the accidents. The shuttle takes off like a rocket and lands like a huge overweight glider on a runway and does not end up in the ocean like earlier US spacecraft. The shuttles have flown over 100 missions. I cannot see the number of Orion (capsule) missions flying anywhere near that many. The shuttle can return to large payloads back to earth. It is expensive to fly, about 1/2 billion dollars per mission. I for one will be sorry when they retire it. Some day Discovery will likely be at the Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy museum at Dulles near Washington, DC. The others will end up at locations that won a bidding contest. The United States was the only country to develop and operate a fleet of shuttles. The Soviet Union did launch their version one time unmanned and it made 1 or 2 orbits and was never launched again.

The Orion spacecraft and Aries 1 booster are not slated to have initial operating capacity (IOC) until 2015 and is likely to be delayed by up to a couple of years. Without the ISS around, where will it go?

I do not see the political will and the available dollars to go to the moon or beyond at this time.

Just a little musings.

Mark Petersen
Sparrow
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:34 pm
Real Name: Gwen Brogmus
Location: St. Paul, MN USA

Re: Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Post by Sparrow »

Well-stated musing, Mark. I've pondered these issues a lot, also. I think that, ultimately, keeping "all our eggs on one planet" is racial suicide. (Race meaning human, in this context.) If our technical civilization is going to survive, we're ultimately going to need the natural resources available in the solar system at large; energy, heavy metals, volatiles, and the knowledge to be gained from exploration. We're going to have to be able to deal with asteroids or comets headed our way. Perhaps most importabtly, we're going to have to learn to think and act for our long-term best interests, not the politics of the moment.

Before he was killed, JFK was talking with the Soviets about going to the moon together because the costs of the Apollo program were seen as too high. The Chinese are working on going to the moon. They'll probably pull it off, because they're not tied to short-term election cycles. Why not go together, along with Russia, the EU, Japan, and whoever else wants to contribute?

Short of a major international effort, I'd guess that manned space exploration isn't going to happen on any serious scale until and unless there's real economic incentive for it.
8-inch Schmidt-Newtonian
Ham radio callsign w0vye
gbrogmus@comcast.net

"There is no democracy in physics." - Louis Walter Alvarez
"That's not right. It's not even wrong!" - Wolfgang Pauli
acluguy

Re: Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Post by acluguy »

Sparrow wrote:Short of a major international effort, I'd guess that manned space exploration isn't going to happen on any serious scale until and unless there's real economic incentive for it.
Great posts guys. No matter how sad it is, I don't think anyone can disagree with the quoted statement above, (edit: unless war/competition, or an ideological change necessitates HSF.)

On a side note:
When the Star Tribune wrote about why we shouldn't have a moon base a few years ago, i wrote their ombudsman (a position they have since eliminated) and explained how important their duty was to educate people about space exploration and its benefits, not just in terms of benefits to mankind, but to ensuring that as a country and race we inspire people to enter fields such as the sciences, engineering and technology. Two days later they printed an editorial again about the moon base--seemingly responding to my protest to the ombudsman--which was much more favorable about exploration, just not manned exploration. Soon after that they began adding a great deal more articles about the shuttle, unmanned exploration and space discoveries--which continues to this day.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, i think on C-SPAN2's BookTV for "The Pluto Files", was talking about the hunger the public has for space. I think the problem is that far too many people don't make it known. So, i say attempt to inform people who say things like "why spend money on space when we have hunger and poverty." Write your elected representatives about how important NASA is (believe me, as someone who has worked responding to constituent letters, they make a difference to elected officials.)

With the hope that my addition to this discussion was of some benefit,
Mike :-)
User avatar
Dick Jacobson
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Cottage Grove, MN

Re: Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Post by Dick Jacobson »

Mark, you made a great point about the Orion capsule. It is being developed to go three places: the ISS, the Moon, and Mars. The ISS may be at the bottom of the Pacific before Orion is ready. Funds for the Ares V are being cut so there may be no Moon base for it to visit. Mars is very far in the future in my opinion. We may be back to the 1960s with a few astronauts circling Earth in a tiny capsule!

The bitter truth is that manned space activities have been largely a failure. The three great multi-year programs of the U.S. - Apollo, the Shuttle, and the ISS - have not lived up to expectations. Sure, the astronauts accomplished their missions and came back alive in most cases. But overall, the programs they were participating in did not achieve the desired results.

After the brilliant and thrilling Apollo 11 mission, each succeeding Moon landing was about half as interesting to the public as the previous one. Later missions almost seemed like video replays of previous ones. Eventually the "been there, done that" feeling, plus the high cost of Saturn V and Vietnam put an end to the program. There were no permanent Moon bases, no further explorations.

The Shuttle was supposed to reduce launch costs by 90% and enable weekly flights to orbit that would be almost as routine as airline flights. It turned out to be no better than expendable rockets and in some ways worse.

It is probably premature to call the ISS a failure, with full-crew activities barely beginning. But early hopes for exciting research and even manufacturing in orbit have not been realized.

With this record of disappointment, plus the Challenger and Columbia disasters, it is not surprising that interest in manned space exploration seems to be at a low ebb, at least in the U.S. I think we are at a crucial decision point: either we make a re-commitment to support manned space activities at an adequate level, or else admit that manned spaceflight is more expensive than we care to support and cancel everything.

So imagine that President Obama makes the following announcement: "I have determined that manned spaceflight has no adequate justification. I have directed NASA to cease funding all programs related to human activities in space. The astronauts will be laid off. All equipment related to human spaceflight will either be given to museums or sold for scrap. The Manned Spaceflight Center will become an office park." How would you feel?

I would feel miserable. I would be ready to call for impeachment! Why do I feel so strongly about human spaceflight, given its failures? Primarily, I think it's because I believe that we are at the beginning of a great, multi-century expansion of human activities throughout the Solar System. I want to feel that I'm a small part of that expansion. I want a few of my tax dollars to help support it. Giving up on human spaceflight would seem like a betrayal of that dream.

So where do we go from here? Assuming that we don't throw in the towel, the first thing to do is cancel the Shuttle as soon as the ISS is complete. 28 years of experience should have taught us that the Shuttle, as it now exists, can never be reliable or economical. The current situation, where the heat shield needs to be meticulously examined after launch to see if it is (maybe) safe for re-entry, is ridiculous. The orbiter is too fragile and the 1/200 estimated chance of fatality per flight is unacceptable. The Orion/Ares system is expected to be 10 times safer. Only time will tell if this is true but I think it is realistic. The cost is estimated to be reduced to $130 million per flight, versus $500 million or more for Shuttle.

I hope the Augustine panel recommends to continue developing the Ares I / Ares V architecture. Boeing would love to see it canceled so it can sell flights on the Delta IV Heavy at $300 million a crack. There are other proposals from previous losing candidates that I hope are rejected.

There is a lot of talk about extending the ISS operation to 2020. I hope it is extended as long as safety allows. The ISS is crucial to developing equipment and doing human spaceflight experiments at a relatively low risk. If your air or water supply breaks down and you're 100 million miles from home, it's a very bad day. The recently approved water recycling system (which the press seems to regard mainly as a "urine drinking system") was a giant step forward, maybe more important than the Apollo moon landings in the long term.

I haven't seen any discussion of a successor to ISS. I believe space stations are the most important component for developing human spaceflight. I sent the Augustine Commission an idea (which I'm sure they'll ignore) for a "perpetual" space station. This would be a design that enables new modules to be added at one end while worn-out ones are removed from the other end. The overall station could be kept in operation forever since it would be continually renewed one module at a time.

As for the Moon, I hope we find water at the South Pole (we'll know in a few months). Developing the first extraterrestrial Water Works will be a great long-term challenge. We need a long-term program to maintain public support. In the 1960s there was steady progress from sub-orbital Mercury flights to John Glenn's orbital flight, then longer flights, the 2-man Gemini, the first rendezvous and docking, space walks, the 3-man Apollo capsule, all of which contributed to a sense that progress was being made.

I believe President Kennedy hit the nail on the head when he said "We choose to go to the Moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard." Human spaceflight is hard. It is expensive. It is dangerous. It is prone to failure. It is an adventure, like life itself. It is therefore an inspiration to the best and brightest (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Paul Allen, Richard Branson, all the astronauts, etc. etc.) We must not give up on it.
30-inch homemade Newtonian with periscope
20-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian with periscope
14-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian
10-inch Newtonian that folds flat
6-inch Russian Maksutov-Newtonian on Vixen equatorial mount
Too many small scopes and binoculars to mention
acluguy

Re: Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Post by acluguy »

Hi all,

I'm sure everyone is paying close attention to the panel making suggestions about NASA's future but, in addition to the Washington Post article today, i thought you may be interested in an interview on the NewsHour with the chair of the panel Norm Augustine (form LMT exec). (Yes he misspoke when he said "planets.") Link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/share ... 1s2ed0qb0e

Mike

Postscript: the Washington Post article can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02244.html
User avatar
Brad E
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:34 am
Real Name: Brad Enderle
Location: Woodbury, MN
Contact:

Re: Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Post by Brad E »

I agree with the statement that "Us interest in Manned spaceflight is at an ebb" I grew up with the Shuttle, and have no other comparison other than movies and archival footage of the great Saturn Series rockets that made history, I've personally been to Stennis Space center, and stood in the expansion chamber for an F-1 (Saturn V Main) Engine.. and it was awe-inspiring. I have high-hopes for the Orion - Constellation program, but I fear that public fervor will be turned inward, and it will be argued we need roads.. or schools, or any other social spending outlet rather and hard-line R&D, and scientific progress made through expenditure of both money, material, and even sometimes lives. I'm only 29, but I really think that unless someone truly visionary wakes up NASA, and ignites the public response like Kennedy did, and the Apollo Program Did, NASA is really doomed to be the State-Run Satellite launch service... (Read: AMTRAK for satellites) and we all know how well the Govt. does at running things.

I hope my children someday get to experience the same sense of awe and wonder staring at a newscast, or video of someone walking on mars, or somewhere else just like all the boomers did, watching the historic steps of Neil Armstrong. I just hope in the next 10 years, that the same boomers that put a man on the moon, and built a great economy that could do that, won't suck it dry, or turn us into a modified U.S.S.A where funding for everything but welfare, health-care, bailout-care, rules the country.
Scope: 8" Dob
"I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker."
-Voltaire
User avatar
Dick Jacobson
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Cottage Grove, MN

Re: Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Post by Dick Jacobson »

I remember the excitement of the space program in the 1960s. There was a sense of rapid advancement, somewhat like the Internet today. It was the dawn of the Space Age (a term I don't hear much any more). Many people including myself believed that in our lifetimes ordinary citizens would be taking vacations in space. The press reported each new achievement breathlessly. There was still a lot of the 1950s faith in science and technology that would solve all the problems of mankind.

We can probably never re-create that sense of excitement about space. It was a unique era. Yet today we have certain advantages over the 1960s. Space is more and more an international enterprise with cooperation instead of competition. There is a thriving commercial space industry. We have the benefit of 50 years of experience. I think we have a more realistic attitude about what space exploration can do for mankind. Space exploration is not going to solve all our problems, but it is a worthwhile enterprise that inspires many talented people, can enhance international cooperation, creates a sense of purpose for mankind, and has the potential for many practical benefits through technology development.
30-inch homemade Newtonian with periscope
20-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian with periscope
14-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian
10-inch Newtonian that folds flat
6-inch Russian Maksutov-Newtonian on Vixen equatorial mount
Too many small scopes and binoculars to mention
User avatar
Dick Jacobson
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Cottage Grove, MN

Re: Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Post by Dick Jacobson »

Here's my summary of the main points of the Augustine Human Spaceflight review.

Stop cutting the budget
Safety first
Focus on goals, not destinations
Dump the Shuttle
Save the Space Station
Dump Ares I
Develop a heavy-lift rocket
Develop in-space refueling
Turn astronaut launch over to private enterprise
Develop new technologies
Forget Mars

And here's a little more detail, plus my own opinions.

Stop cutting the budget. The FY 2010 budget profile calls for flat or decreasing dollars for human spaceflight through 2014, then increases slower than the rate of inflation after that. The consequence is that the Space Station is at the bottom of the Pacific before the new Ares I/Orion launch system is ready. The Ares V moon rocket is not available until the late 2020s and the lunar lander not until the late 2030s if ever. Human spaceflight is not cheap. The current budget is $9 billion or $30 per year for every U.S. citizen. The Augustine committee suggests raising this by $3 billion or $10 per capita to have a viable program. 70% of Americans support human spaceflight and 50% support it "strongly". If we're serious about this, we need to kick in some more dollars.

Safety first. The committee refused to consider any concepts that fall short in crew safety. While it would not be hard to find volunteers for dangerous and even suicidal missions, public support would quickly evaporate if the spaceflight program turned into an astronaut killing program.

Focus on goals, not destinations. The committee determined that "the ultimate goal of human exploration is to chart a path for human expansion into the solar system." The report emphasizes that we shouldn't get too hung up on a specific destination like the surface of the Moon or Mars, but should also consider flights to lunar or Mars orbit, Lagrange points, and near-Earth asteroids. The main point is to develop capabilities, not reach specific locations.

Dump the Shuttle. Actually, the report recommends extending the Shuttle program into FY 2011 to avoid a hazardous rush of flights in 2010. After that there will be a gap of at least 6 or 7 years until the next U.S. human launch system is ready. They include one option to continue Shuttle launches on a minimal schedule into 2015 as the only feasible way to close the gap. Technically, I don't see any problem with relying on Soyuz. It seems just as reliable as Shuttle and cheaper. I suppose it is a political decision. Can we trust the Russians to continue supplying Soyuz at a reasonable price? I would hate to see an extended Shuttle program eating up the dollars that should be spent on a better launcher.

Save the Space Station. De-orbiting ISS in 2016, as currently planned, would be a poor use of the $100 billion investment and would sour relations with our international partners. Its operation should be extended to 2020. Automated supply vehicles have been developed, or are being developed, by Russia, the European Space Agency, Japan, and two private companies. A possible vaccine against Salmonella is being developed based on orbital research. A company is developing a more efficient rocket (VASIMR) that could cut the Mars travel time to 39 days, and wants to test it at the Space Station. In my opinion a space station is the foundation of the entire human spaceflight program and it would be unthinkable to de-orbit it before the end of its useful life.

Dump Ares I. The tight budget makes it difficult to develop both Ares I and Ares V. The committee feels it might save money to launch both astronauts and equipment on a "Lite" version of Ares V.

Develop a heavy-lift rocket. Most current launchers can lift 25 metric tons or less to low Earth orbit. For Moon/Mars landers a much larger rocket is needed, and this could also be useful for scientific and national security payloads. The current planned Ares V would lift 160 tons. Alternatives are Ares V "Lite" (140 tons), a Shuttle-derived rocket (100-110 tons), or an EELV rocket (75 tons, I assume they are referring to Delta IV Heavy). I agree this would be important new technology and could make possible a monolithic 8-meter space telescope or a better space station.

Develop in-space refueling. Larger and more capable spacecraft could be launched minus fuel, then fueled in orbit. This would provide an excellent opportunity for free enterprise fuel delivery services. Some experiments have already been done in this regard. Intuitively, refueling in space seems easier than airborne refueling which the Air Force has done for decades.

Turn astronaut launch over to private enterprise. It seems an appropriate time to get NASA out of the business of routine launch to low Earth orbit, so it can concentrate on leading-edge research and deep space missions. There is an interesting private proposal for a lightweight version of the Orion capsule, minus the large fuel tanks and heavy heat shield needed for Moon/Mars missions. A privately run launch service based on a capsule and rocket optimized for low-orbit operations seems to make sense. Private companies launch satellites and fly people around the world reliably, why shouldn't they be able to launch astronauts?

Develop new technologies. NASA should resume its role, which has been cut back in recent years, of developing leading-edge technologies for space. I agree, things like air-breathing rockets or scramjets, nuclear rockets, advanced life support systems, better heat shield materials, things that are hard to finance privately should be done by NASA.

Forget Mars. Although the surface of Mars is an obvious long-term destination, it's a difficult goal given current technology and financing. Other destinations are more appropriate, including a trip to the moons of Mars where astronauts could operate rovers on the surface without the long time-delay to Earth. Why do we need to do everything now? Why not leave the Martian surface as an inspiring goal for our children or grandchildren? I suppose the discovery of life on Mars could provide a big motivation for putting humans on Mars, but aside from that possibility I don't see mankind as being ready to commit that level of resources to the project right now.

I think the Augustine report is an excellent road map to a healthy and sustainable human spaceflight program. I see such a program as including a healthy research program including a space station, occasional manned deep space missions (Augustine suggests once per year), and a strong role for private enterprise in launch of cargo, fuel, and astronauts to orbit. What do the rest of you think?
30-inch homemade Newtonian with periscope
20-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian with periscope
14-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian
10-inch Newtonian that folds flat
6-inch Russian Maksutov-Newtonian on Vixen equatorial mount
Too many small scopes and binoculars to mention
petemn2004
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:01 pm
Real Name: Mark Petersen
Location: Maple Grove, MN

Re: Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Post by petemn2004 »

The Obama administration should be commended for enlisting the Augustine Commission to assess where we are and what options are available for the future of U.S. manned spaceflight. The congressional hearings highlighted the fact that Nasa's budget has been curtailed since 1993 by both Republican and Democratic administrations and congresses. If Nasa's budget had remained at pre-1993 funding levels there would be enough money to do the Constellation Program in the time frame by the early 2020s.

The Constellation program as it was planned is the right path forward. If the Ares I is cancelled then the money already spent on it would not bring us any benefit and add years of additional delay. A competitive commercial venture to provide human access to low earth orbit is prohibitedly expensive and funding more that one is duplicate spending. If they want the cheapest access to space then copy the Russian Soyuz system or the Chinese adaptation of the Soyuz. The Orion capsule is designed for operations outside of low Earth orbit. I would rather get the first piece to the needed infrastructure in place and work on getting the Ares 5 funded later. Who knows, the ISS may still be around when Orion finally flies.

The congressional members of the committees seems sympatric to increasing Nasa's budget. It is up the current administration and congress to set the correct priorities and fund them accordingly. We need to dream, be challenged and have worthy goals like Kennedy's goal of the moon. We also need to include other nations like we did with the ISS but we should lead.

Mark Petersen
User avatar
Dick Jacobson
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Cottage Grove, MN

Re: Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Post by Dick Jacobson »

Extending the Space Station to 2020 or later seems almost a certainty from the comments I've seen. The next priority, according to Augustine (which I agree with) is to develop some kind of heavy lifter. We can't do much beyond Earth orbit without it. Ares V Lite would use the 5-segment solid boosters being developed for Ares I and would use the same second-stage motor, so the money spent on Ares I would not be totally wasted. Deep space missions could use a pair of Ares V Lites instead of a I + V as previously planned - probably not as efficient or safe but cheaper to develop. I agree, I would rather see us continue with the original plan. I am a little surprised that the Augustine committee put so much confidence in private rockets and spacecraft that have not yet been built, but I think that is the correct long-term path.

The Obama administration is looking for ways to pay for the Wall Street bailout and set up the Augustine panel to see what else could be carved out of human spaceflight. The answer is NOTHING, if you want a viable program. I agree 100% with former NASA administrator Mike Griffin when he says that it is "shameful" that, 40 years after Apollo 11, we are discussing whether to shut down human spaceflight.

Ponder this: The average 2009 compensation for the 30,000 employees of Goldman Sachs is estimated at $700,000 (yes that's right, five zeroes, believe it or not). Multiply those two numbers together and you get $21 billion. Compare this with the entire NASA budget which is $18 billion. It would seem that pampering the employees of one Wall Street bank is more important than the entire U.S. space program.

In the days of Apollo 13 the motto was "Failure is not an option". If we continue starving NASA, this may change to "Success is not an option".
30-inch homemade Newtonian with periscope
20-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian with periscope
14-inch homemade equatorial Newtonian
10-inch Newtonian that folds flat
6-inch Russian Maksutov-Newtonian on Vixen equatorial mount
Too many small scopes and binoculars to mention
User avatar
Brad E
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:34 am
Real Name: Brad Enderle
Location: Woodbury, MN
Contact:

Re: Not Optimistic about Future of US Manned Spaceflight

Post by Brad E »

I could not agree more... it seems so many people want their own personal "Bailout" be it Soc. Security, Welfare, etc... and we do it. It's sad that people are crying to pour money into government black holes designed on paper to fix society that will never- ever work, yet we are dumping our Technical workforce, for a service-based economy, and saying goodbye to the old days, when Buying American really meant something.. now it just means you got it for a higher price and like most Americans don't want it.

I belong to the exception group as do most of us here if not all of us but i can't speak for anyone but myself when I say that I could care less if the govt wants to spit out a check for me when I hit 70.. personally i consider it an insult to live in a country where I'm given every opportunity in the world to succeed and I'm counting on a nearly-bankrupt program to help me in 40 years? I'd rather put that money into a program that re-ignites the US Tech. Industry.. and gives the populace something to dream for and hope for Like Apollo did, we're so concerned about safety because of a few big setbacks that we lost our cojones' in the process, in the 60's we just said.. gimme the money.. and let's Go!.. and we did.. a dozen men on the moon later we want to give up because we don't have the government telling us it's safe? Give me a break.. the government can't even look out a window and tell me if the sun is shining let alone manage anything minimal.. not to mention a billion dollar space program, with hundreds of contractors and sub-contractors.. and ideas floating around.. why can't Washington just agree to cut a funding check.. to increase them say..to..50-150 billion.. and tell them.. Go for Broke... and let some US Engineers loose like we used to.

Sigh.. i'm 29, but wish I was 50+ if only to say I'd lived through the 60's & 70's of the glory days of Spaceflight. like some of you guys had..
Scope: 8" Dob
"I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker."
-Voltaire
Post Reply