NASA need 1960's saturns to inspire them..

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
apc

posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Forty years ago it may have been, but today there are often many warnings prior to a catastrophic failure. Take the recent shuttle disaster for instance... thermal sensors failed prior to the explosion. And the shuttle uses twenty year old technology. A completely modern rocket would know it's going to explode even before the paint dries!




posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Maybe its just me, but this seems to be the end of all of the collective humanities space travel dreams. 50 years ago we had these rockets arc into space, 40 years ago allegedly to the moon, and here we are, 2006, looking to send a six man pod to the moon on an 'updated' saturn design.

50 years and all they can come up with is a rocket and a pod.
Im sorry but its just its shattered far far too many of my child hood dreams with that one. 50 years and still no further than the moon.... Mars seems a far far far remote prospect doesn't it? Does to me... and as for the rest of the solar system and galaxy.... Keep dreaming boys and girls!!!



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Well its a proven design. And they're not exactly rebuilding the Saturn-5 are they? They could be just looking at some parts and and saying to each other"How can we modernize this, make it smaller, more accurate, stronger and generally better. Even todays highest performance racing engins are based on the 120 year old piston in a cylinder with a combustible liquid. And thats after hundreds of millions of dollars in research in making it better. Would you rather they spend hundreds of millions of dollars brainstorming a completely new and unproven method? I just like to argue , look at my other posts.....


Buuuuutttt.... I think that NASA has much better anti-gravity and/or magnetic propulsion and they have been using it for years. This is probably a cheaper and easier way of fooling the public into thinking the only way humans can get into space is by strapping themselves to a huge tube filled with explosives.
It must be expensive to attach that useless shuttle to that HUGE fuel tank with two controled explosions on either side(doesnt that just sound crazy , just a little). This way NASA can just launch a HUGE model rocket and say thats how were getting into space. Bam, save millions on every fake launch.

OR..... Mabye we are really sending people up on those death traps. If we are then they certainly don't know about the anti-grav/magnetic/pixie-dust powered stuff that the real 'naughts use. If they did they wouldn't get in those things.

Oh yeah, If my satalite TV gets HDTV really clearly every freakin day, WHY WHY WHY does NASA TV ALWAYS look like !@#$ ?

-----------EDIT

I removed the quote of the above post as I got the next post. and for my cussin




[edit on 17-8-2006 by Tiloke]

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Tiloke]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
I fail to see whats wrong with using a Saturn inspired design to get back to the Moon

That would be space &size limitations, how much can you cary in a lunar module?
There would be limitation in eqiuptment that would be caryed to the moon.
Yow cant mount on a saturn rocket a bunker filled with anything that you need for the moon.

Also traveling on a similar device to the apolo missions would just repeat some caracteristics of the mission.

You would not be able to spend time due to radiation, if the apolo missions hapend for haven sakes we all know they would not be able to stay on the moon for a long period of time, maximum a day or 2, you cant not put 3 persons to sleep in a capsule, they would have to sleep in it to protect from radiation.
So there is no acomodations.

Another point would be leaving behind everything, like the rovers, and all the equiptment which would be a waste of milions and milions of dolars just like before.
You cant bring it back.



. It just so happens to be a good design. With the techonolgy we have now in computers and materials.

It does not matter if you have the materials, what good is it going to do if you are going to build from them a 2 diameter object like a iglu.



It should do rather well I'd think. Could you tell me why you think this isn't a good idea? What do you think would be better?

Something asembled in orbit, a ship a bit biger that can be suplied by the shutle while it's being built.
If it's too big and we cant get it off the ground because the gravity beeing stronger on earth , than why not build it in orbit, something a bit biger not that big, but something that would permit for astronauts to stay longer on the moon.
Something reusable, something that can get all the toys back once the mission is over.
If you think of it it would not have to be to ocomplex, all it has to have is ship plating to stand against the radiation.
It does not even have to land on the moon, poods can be used atached to it, and once it's orbiting the moon deploy from there, it's easy to get the poods back on it, it's not that big of a deal to take off from the moon, and the next day launch again, that way the mission would have a long stay on the moon.
You could cary more people in it.
You could cary more equptment in it.
You can stay longer on the moon.
You can get all the things that you used on the moon back.




NASA's very limited budget, it's better to go with what works.

the poods would have to be sofisticated while the station would not, hey if they built a space station they can pull this off easy.




[edit on 17-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shakeyjc
I swear i heard that this doesnt work somewhere - i heard that the rocket will blow up far too fast for the escape, and that it was just there to, well, make the pilots feel happy. Well there is a chance i spose lol.


Why not? They tested it in the 60s with the older rockets. Also, keep in mind that it wasn't until after the crew capsule hit the water that the Challenger crew died. So it worked then, 20 years ago, why not now?


Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
50 years and all they can come up with is a rocket and a pod.
Im sorry but its just its shattered far far too many of my child hood dreams with that one.


So, do you have a better way of lifting things into space? Sure, a space elevator would be great, but in the time they developed the proper technologies and finally built the thing we could have an established colony on the Moon and people on Mars... By using the same technology that worked years ago.


50 years and still no further than the moon....


Well, that's because we beat the Soviets there and thier government and economy wa sin decline. We had no reason to go further. I'm sure if they had one-upped us and shot straight for Mars we would have crews orbiting around Jupiter right now, though.


Originally posted by pepsi78
That would be space &size limitations, how much can you cary in a lunar module?
There would be limitation in eqiuptment that would be caryed to the moon.
Yow cant mount on a saturn rocket a bunker filled with anything that you need for the moon.


There would be limitations on what you can take no matter what the size of the craft.




Also traveling on a similar device to the apolo missions would just repeat some caracteristics of the mission.


So, because they're using a similarly designed craft they can't do new experiments, take better equipment, or more? Please do elaborate on what you're saying there.



So there is no acomodations.


Oh thee of little scientific education...




Another point would be leaving behind everything, like the rovers, and all the equiptment which would be a waste of milions and milions of dolars just like before.
You cant bring it back.


Had it ever occurred to you that things were left behind for a purpose? Many experiments were purposefully left behind. Also, why bring back tools you no longer need when you can bring back the same mass of Lunar rocks instead to be studied at leisure here on Earth?



It does not matter if you have the materials, what good is it going to do if you are going to build from them a 2 diameter object like a iglu.


What?



Something asembled in orbit, a ship a bit biger that can be suplied by the shutle while it's being built.
[...]
the poods would have to be sofisticated while the station would not, hey if they built a space station they can pull this off easy. [


So, how is the Shuttle supposed to maintain and build this behemoth when it can barely be used to construct and maintain the ISS?


apc

posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
... and is about to be retired. There is much more to the concept than going to the Moon... the shuttle needs a replacement. If a new lifter and a new lunar vehicle share the same basic design, expenses decrease dramatically. Moreso if they use simple, proven technologies. Leave the fancy prototyping to the private industry. NASA is on a budget.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   


So, because they're using a similarly designed craft they can't do new experiments, take better equipment, or more? Please do elaborate on what you're saying there.

I was refering to other caracteristics , like mission lengh, how much do you expect to stay on the moon in a lunar module? or do you want them to sleep on the moon directly
, we coverd this before and we agree that astronauts even if they did go on the moon they could not stay more than 2 days tops due to radiation factors


Had it ever occurred to you that things were left behind for a purpose? Many experiments were purposefully left behind. Also, why bring back tools you no longer need when you can bring back the same mass of Lunar rocks instead to be studied at leisure here on Earth?

Why bring back lunar rovers?
because problay some similar lunar rovers are going to be used, so why waste money when you can use the same lunar rover, do you have any idea how much one of those cost?, hey nasa has been using the same shutle for 20 years now.
The costs are huge, in stread of making things reusable for a period you just want to use it once?
Something new has to emerge, something that can be used for a while.



So, how is the Shuttle supposed to maintain and build this behemoth when it can barely be used to construct and maintain the ISS?


Space stations were build from the thanks of the rockets, it does not even have to be the size of a space station, the fuel tank used by the space shutle is biger than any lunar lander that was on the moon, the shutlle dumps it anway, so why not use it, just link 2 tanks in space, it was done alot of times in space before, that is how space stations are built, and then after you have the body ship plate it with plating, the space shuttle can cary parts one at the time, to cover material for 2 tanks it's not that hard, the shuttle is big in size as the tanks so a few trips would do it to get those reinforced walls in to place.
Add some rockets to it and send it in orbit to the moon, add a pood to it and deploy from moon orbit.
And there is your ship, cheap and eficent, the advantage is that the pod can dock with the station in orbit and do a few round trips to the moon, that would mean more time on the moon.


jra

posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
That would be space &size limitations, how much can you cary in a lunar module?
There would be limitation in eqiuptment that would be caryed to the moon.
Yow cant mount on a saturn rocket a bunker filled with anything that you need for the moon.


How much can you carry in a lunar module? Depends how big it is. With the new one, they plan to have it hold 4 people. The Apollo LM could only hold 2. I'm sure there will be plenty of room for equipment too.


Also traveling on a similar device to the apolo missions would just repeat some caracteristics of the mission.


At first perhaps, but they plan to stay on the moon longer then Apollo and maybe even land on the far side as well.


You would not be able to spend time due to radiation, if the apolo missions hapend for haven sakes we all know they would not be able to stay on the moon for a long period of time, maximum a day or 2,


Really? Only a day or 2? Apollo 17 stayed on the lunar surface for 75 hours, that's a bit over 3 days. They spent 148 hours in lunar orbit as well. The total amount of time for the whole mission was over 12 days.


you cant not put 3 persons to sleep in a capsule, they would have to sleep in it to protect from radiation. So there is no acomodations.


Not really sure what you are trying to say at all here. Could you clarify?


Another point would be leaving behind everything, like the rovers, and all the equiptment which would be a waste of milions and milions of dolars just like before.
You cant bring it back.


No but maybe it could be reused by another team if they land near it.


It does not matter if you have the materials, what good is it going to do if you are going to build from them a 2 diameter object like a iglu.


With lighter, stronger materials, as well as faster and smaller computers, it opens up more space for the crew. The new LM can also be made to be larger as well.



Something asembled in orbit, a ship a bit biger that can be suplied by the shutle while it's being built. If it's too big and we cant get it off the ground because the gravity beeing stronger on earth , than why not build it in orbit, something a bit biger not that big, but something that would permit for astronauts to stay longer on the moon. Something reusable, something that can get all the toys back once the mission is over.


And how long would this take to research and design? Too long. How long would it take to build? Too long. How much would this cost? Too much. NASA is trying to be very economical with the Constellation project.


If you think of it it would not have to be to ocomplex, all it has to have is ship plating to stand against the radiation.


Having "ship plating", whatever that's supposed to be, makes it less complex? I don't get it.


It does not even have to land on the moon, poods can be used atached to it, and once it's orbiting the moon deploy from there, it's easy to get the poods back on it, it's not that big of a deal to take off from the moon, and the next day launch again, that way the mission would have a long stay on the moon.


Your idea isn't bad, but to do something like that would take many years of research and development, many years to build. It would be extremely expensive. Just look at the ISS for example. The first piece went up in 1998. Its been 8 years and there is still a lot to go and don't forget that this is an international effort. Imagine the US trying to build it all on there own (which they originally planned: SSF) So I don't see it being possible to accomplish what you're proposing in any reasonable time, nor would the US Gov't supply NASA with the necessary budget to do so.

Remember NASA is planning to get to the moon in 6 years from now on a $16mil/year budget. Compair that to the cost of the entire Apollo Project, which was $135 billion. Your idea just isn't possible with the time and money that's availible.


the poods would have to be sofisticated while the station would not, hey if they built a space station they can pull this off easy.


Yeah, but as already stated above, building the ISS isn't easy, it's very expensive and it hasn't been finished yet. And the Shuttle will also be retired by 2010, so you can't use that to help build your ship.


jra

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I was refering to other caracteristics , like mission lengh, how much do you expect to stay on the moon in a lunar module? or do you want them to sleep on the moon directly
, we coverd this before and we agree that astronauts even if they did go on the moon they could not stay more than 2 days tops due to radiation factors


That's a load of rubish. The new missions plan for them to stay a week or so... On the surface in the LM.

I also don't recall agree that they could only stay for two days, please show me where that is said.


Why bring back lunar rovers? because problay some similar lunar rovers are going to be used, so why waste money when you can use the same lunar rover, do you have any idea how much one of those cost?,


Due to design limitations, it's cheaper to leave them there then to bring them back. If you were to bring them back you'd need a bigger LM, so that it could carry more fuel so that it could take off again with the lunar rover. But if you make the LM bigger, then you need to redesign the Saturn rocket so that it can carry more weight. It was more economical to just leave it there.


hey nasa has been using the same shutle for 20 years now.


They have more then one you know and it was design to be reusable. But it also doesn't need to go to the moon and back.


The costs are huge, in stread of making things reusable for a period you just want to use it once? Something new has to emerge, something that can be used for a while.


If they can they would make it reusable all, but like I explained already. It all depends on the design and if it's possible to build something to bring everything back.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   


How much can you carry in a lunar module? Depends how big it is. With the new one, they plan to have it hold 4 people. The Apollo LM could only hold 2. I'm sure there will be plenty of room for equipment too.

yes I'm sure like last time, not even aditional light source, it's still small, can you imagine it will have space for one more, I can imagine how big it would be.



At first perhaps, but they plan to stay on the moon longer then Apollo and maybe even land on the far side as well.

And sleep where? in the capsule? for how long? they can berly move in it, it's just not viable.




Really? Only a day or 2? Apollo 17 stayed on the lunar surface for 75 hours, that's a bit over 3 days. They spent 148 hours in lunar orbit as well. The total amount of time for the whole mission was over 12 days.

Beyond that it's not posible, it would become a hazard to astrounaunts.

If you remember the thread on the moon hoax I think we all agree that you can not sped more than a few days on the moon, lunar orbit is diferent and beeing on the surface of the moon is another thing, the moon is radioactive it's self, the surface, I'm not talking about space, so you cant really stay on the moon for long periods of time


I think this clears it up
science.nasa.gov...


We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a "FEW DAYS"," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.

When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!


If you want to stay a week on the moon you need something orbiting the moon, so the astronauts would dock on orbit and stay there, there is no other solution.



With lighter, stronger materials, as well as faster and smaller computers, it opens up more space for the crew. The new LM can also be made to be larger as well.

That would be how much? would it be even an meeter?


[edit on 18-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   
NASA is a joke. It's a smoke screen, to hide the new stuff we can't unclassify yet.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 05:39 AM
link   
The Lockheed Polecat UAV/UCAV/USV use wing warping for some flight controls, the Write brothers invented that by twisting an inner tube box. Sometimes we go full circle and the best way to do things in a given situation is the way the first guy figured it out. The Saturn program was and still is one of Mankind's greatest vehicles. I would not matter if it was invent a hundred years ago. When something works it works.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   
What a drama over nothing. Applying current techniques and technologies to the design basis of something that is proven to have worked reliably (ish) is fairly sensible - why re-invent the wheel if you can just make a wheel better in the first place?



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I don't mean to burst your bubble, shakeyjc, but Launch Escape Systems (LES's) like those used on the Apollo capsules are tested pretty rigorously before they're ever used on a manned flight. Testing has shown that they are pretty reliable, and "the big fireball" you talk about isn't usually the first warning that something is wrong with a rocket. Fluctuations in turbopump performance and other mechanical issues almost always presage a launch abort.

LES's have been used operation on only one known space flight, that of Soyuz T-10-1 (also check out the Astronautix page on the same event). It pulled the cosmonauts 2 km. straight up and away from their exploding rocket, exposing them to a couple seconds of 14 to 17 G's in the process. Good thing they were in good shape!


apc

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
If you want to stay a week on the moon you need something orbiting the moon, so the astronauts would dock on orbit and stay there, there is no other solution.

First of all, would you PLEASE use a spellchecker before posting. Yo're realy makeing my eys hert.

For radiation... it's called shielding. It works really well... cus it's like... shield... ing.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I was refering to other caracteristics , like mission lengh, how much do you expect to stay on the moon in a lunar module? or do you want them to sleep on the moon directly


I'm sure that they could sleep inside the module. After all, astronauts routinely sleep aboard the Shuttles, the ISS, and had slept aboard the previous craft as well.



, we coverd this before and we agree that astronauts even if they did go on the moon they could not stay more than 2 days tops due to radiation factors


I would never agree to such a silly thing. Please do not put words into my mouth.



...so why waste money when you can use the same lunar rover, do you have any idea how much one of those cost?,


The four built cost about $38 million dollars. Of course, back then it was entirely new technology and they didn't have the technology for batteries and other systems that we do today. I'd like to see you design and build four LRVs and several mock ups that can do the same things that those did for the same cost or less.



hey nasa has been using the same shutle for 20 years now.


Yeah, and it was built to be reused, unlike the rovers. Again, why bring back 210 kg of mass in the form of an LRV when you can bring back 210 kg of Lunar rock and soil to be studied? From a scientific point of view, that would just be idiotic.



The costs are huge, in stread of making things reusable for a period you just want to use it once? Something new has to emerge, something that can be used for a while.


Most launch vehicles are only used once. Should we develop a way for them to survive reentry too?

I think the problem is that you really just don't understand how much space exploration costs. When it comes to a lot of things it's actually cheaper to leave things behind or let them burn up in the atmosphere simply because to spend the money so whatever could be brought home or built to survive reentry would be a lot more costly.




Space stations were build from the thanks of the rockets,


The ISS needs the Shuttles to loft its parts. No other vehicle can lift the same amount of mass to LEO that the Shuttle currently can. I believe this was already touched on within this thread. Also, the Shuttle has emplacements such as the Canada Arm that allow it to build the ISS. Other vehicles do not.


it does not even have to be the size of a space station, the fuel tank used by the space shutle is biger than any lunar lander that was on the moon, the shutlle dumps it anway, so why not use it, just link 2 tanks in space, it was done alot of times in space before, that is how space stations are built, and then after you have the body ship plate it with plating, the space shuttle can cary parts one at the time, to cover material for 2 tanks it's not that hard, the shuttle is big in size as the tanks so a few trips would do it to get those reinforced walls in to place.
Add some rockets to it and send it in orbit to the moon, add a pood to it and deploy from moon orbit.
And there is your ship, cheap and eficent, the advantage is that the pod can dock with the station in orbit and do a few round trips to the moon, that would mean more time on the moon.


Right, and developing the new technology to do this would be amazingly cheap. Also, the Shuttle needs to dump the ET in order to attain LEO. If it wasn't released the Shuttle would come back down to Earth with it. So, that means we would need to develop more powerful/effecient SSMEs so that they could get the ET up into LEO. On top of that, the ET just had 535,000 gallons of LOX and liquid hydrogen inside of seperate tanks. How are they going to clear all of that out for people to live inside of? How are they going to put everything neccessary for people to live inside of them into it?

I'm not even going to question that one anymore. The logic behind it is so inane and laughable that there really is no point.



And sleep where? in the capsule? for how long? they can berly move in it, it's just not viable.


You've been inside one of the CEVs that have yet to be built or designed?


They slept in the Mercury and Gemini capsules previously, which were even smaller than Apollo. Why is that idea so implausible to you?



If you want to stay a week on the moon you need something orbiting the moon, so the astronauts would dock on orbit and stay there, there is no other solution.


So, they're supposed to go land on the Moon, come back up the orbiter for a rest, go back down for more work, come back again, etc? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Also, just like during Apollo, there will be a manned orbiter around the Moon.

IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THE LANDINGS OF ASTRONAUTS ON THE MOON, please do so in the An End To The Moon Conspiracy! thread. Thank you.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   


I would never agree to such a silly thing. Please do not put words into my mouth.

Hey why do ignore my quoting?

science.nasa.gov...


We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a "FEW DAYS"," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.

This would mean that nasa thinks there are hazards, and that it's risky for them to stay more than a few days.



Yeah, and it was built to be reused, unlike the rovers.

Hey rovers dont wear out, their not fuel.



Most launch vehicles are only used once. Should we develop a way for them to survive reentry too?

Yes, I think so , especialy when all that equiptment costs so much, or just find a way to leave it in orbit and then reuse it.


I think the problem is that you really just don't understand how much space exploration costs.

I do, that is why I'm for reusing everithing, it would rather be cheaper to construct somethig and reuse it for a period than for nasa to construct rovers , lems and capules each time it go's to the moon.



So, they're supposed to go land on the Moon, come back up the orbiter for a rest, go back down for more work, come back again, etc? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Also, just like during Apollo, there will be a manned orbiter around the Moon.

Why is it such a bad idea? to returtn and sleep in a larger place, the radiation factor would be diminuated.



IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THE LANDINGS OF ASTRONAUTS ON THE MOON, please do so in the An End To The Moon Conspiracy! thread. Thank you.

I dont wish to discus about that, this is not the place, what I was talking about is what nasa said on their own site when it came to spending more than a few days on the moon, but you just think the moon is a walk in the park, it's hard to shield on the moon, it's a serios problem.
Here
science.nasa.gov...


According to the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 and, eventually, to set up an outpost. For people to live and work on the Moon safely, the radiation problem must be solved.

It would just be safer in orbit.
The saturn project with a capsule atached on the top of it will just repeat the limitations that were previos present on the apollo missions.




[edit on 18-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Hey why do ignore my quoting?


I didn't ignore anything. You said "we all agree." I don't agree, so then we don't "all agree" now do we?



This would mean that nasa thinks there are hazards, and that it's risky for them to stay more than a few days.


NASA knows there are hazards. They're not morons. Also, what does a "few days" consist of? It could be three. It could be a dozen. Do you know? Of course the longer that the crew is in space or on the Lunar surface they'll be exposed to more radiation. Will it be enough to harm or kill them? No, because the amounts will still be minimal.



Hey rovers dont wear out, their not fuel.


So, the don't have parts that can break or need maintenence?



Yes, I think so , especialy when all that equiptment costs so much, or just find a way to leave it in orbit and then reuse it.


Leave it in orbit?


Why? So it can just add to the plethora of crap that is out there? So it can take up space that an actual satellite with a purpose could be using? So it could pose a threat to damaging other satellites already up or to go up?



I do, that is why I'm for reusing everithing, it would rather be cheaper to construct somethig and reuse it for a period than for nasa to construct rovers , lems and capules each time it go's to the moon.


Well, the CEV is going to be reusable. And no, it wouldn't be cheaper to just reuse everything. You would need to develop new technologies to make it all resuable, and new technologies cost far more than using preexisting ones. Oddly enough, that is what NASA is using the proven, preexisting rocket technology.



Why is it such a bad idea? to returtn and sleep in a larger place, the radiation factor would be diminuated.


And they get thier fuel for all of these excursions from...?



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
The Saturn engines were designed by an ex SS Colonel who was personally responsible for killing Jewish slaves when they were no longer productive in the secret arms facility he ran. He killed them himself with a garrot. There must be lots of negative Karma associated with that rocket engine. We should not honor the memory of this human monster by using any technology that he is associated with.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Umm... Do you have any credible source to back that up with? Because, it's rather laughable.






top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join