Chatroom
 

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

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Science and Space > Space Exploration
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 06:24 PM
skrap1r0n skrap1r0n is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Austin Tx
Posts: 979
Default Why does the shuttle roll upside down after launch?

Ok , I was looking into abort procedures about the shuttle to get some info for another thread and I was wondering why they orient the shuttle in an upside down position during their first roll manuver after the launch. I did google it (briefly) and the only things I found were speculation from others. These include:

1) So the pilot can see the horizon in the event they need to abort.

2) So Gravity will help seperate the shuttle from the main booster in the event of an emergency.

3) Because the shuttle orbits the earth in that position so they won't have to perform additional manuvers during Orbital insertion.

So I ask, whats the real reason it rolls into an upside down position during it's launch?
__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 06:27 PM
darkhunter's Avatar
darkhunter darkhunter is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,245
Default

IIRC its to reduce the shock of going supersonic on the stack. They also throttle back for a short time during the launch for the same reason.

edit: a misssspelled word can change you're whole meaning....
__________________
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." — Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

441!!!! :)
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 06:30 PM
Romanus Romanus is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,635
Default

The Shuttle usually orbits "upside-down", so part of it is just getting it in its orbital configuration. Though I'm no expert, I think another part of it is getting its velocity vector as tangential as possible (practical?) to the Earth's rotation to get the maximum boost.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 06:52 PM
Hamlet's Avatar
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,135
Default

From the Space Shuttle Reference Manual
Quote:
The orbiter flies upside down during the ascent phase. This orientation, together with trajectory shaping, establishes a trim angle of attack that is favorable for aerodynamic loads during the region of high dynamic pressure, resulting in a net positive load factor, as well as providing the flight crew with use of the ground as a visual reference. By about 20 seconds after lift-off, the vehicle is at 180 degrees roll and 78 degrees pitch.
It would seem aerodynamic loading and visual reference are the main reasons.
__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 06:59 PM
EckJerome EckJerome is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 84
Default

The roll is done for several reasons:
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/facts/faq07.html
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 07:01 PM
skrap1r0n skrap1r0n is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Austin Tx
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
From the Space Shuttle Reference Manual
Quote:
The orbiter flies upside down during the ascent phase. This orientation, together with trajectory shaping, establishes a trim angle of attack that is favorable for aerodynamic loads during the region of high dynamic pressure, resulting in a net positive load factor, as well as providing the flight crew with use of the ground as a visual reference. By about 20 seconds after lift-off, the vehicle is at 180 degrees roll and 78 degrees pitch.
It would seem aerodynamic loading and visual reference are the main reasons.
CLICK! Angle of attack, that makes sense. Upside down, the aerodynamic load squeezes the Shuttle and boosters together, Right side up, the forces would try to pull them apart.

Thanks
__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 07:53 PM
joema joema is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,073
Default Re: Why does the shuttle roll upside down after launch?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skrap1r0n
...So I ask, whats the real reason it rolls into an upside down position during it's launch?
Two main reasons are usually given for this:

(1) It optimally orients the vehicle in case of an RTLS (Return To Launch Site) abort.

Oriented "heads down", a simple powered pitch around maneuver is needed to return. Oriented "heads up", a more complicated roll plus pitch maneuver would be required.

(2) It decreases structural loading on the wings vs a "heads up" orientation. Heads down, the vehicle pitch is oriented to a slight negative angle of attack (wind flow relative to wings). Wings generate lift -- the higher speed the more lift. A slight negative angle of attack nulls this out thus lowering wing stress.

There are also less important reasons: it helps with comm coverage (antennas are on top of the orbiter), it provides the crew with a better horizon view, etc.

The vehicle is physically capable of flying a "heads up" profile and in fact that helps payload slightly. However because of the RTLS abort and wing loading issues I doubt they'll ever do that.

Why not just build the launch pad pointed the right direction? To save money the shuttle uses the old Saturn V pad. That was oriented south to facilitate alignment of the older guidance platform. However the shuttle flies (or used to fly) different inclinations. ISS is 52 degrees, whereas Hubble is 28 degrees (angle from the equator). Each one would require a different amount of roll so even if the pad was pointed toward the most common ascent inclination, some roll would still be necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 08:06 PM
tofu tofu is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: florida, USA
Posts: 2,566
Default

And, they used to fly heads down all the way to orbit, but the way they do it now is to actually roll back to heads up once in space, and they stay that way until main engine cut off. When flying the shuttle in orbitersim (and by flying, I mean watching the autopilot fly it) the heads down profile is much more aesthetically pleasing, but if you want realism, you have to let it make that roll and then just stare at the stars for a while.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joema
Why not just build the launch pad pointed the right direction? To save money the shuttle uses the old Saturn V pad. That was oriented south to facilitate alignment of the older guidance platform. However the shuttle flies (or used to fly) different inclinations. ISS is 52 degrees, whereas Hubble is 28 degrees (angle from the equator). Each one would require a different amount of roll so even if the pad was pointed toward the most common ascent inclination, some roll would still be necessary.
Trivia time. Does anyone know why the pad (and KSC) are where they are? I mean, why not build the launch complex closer to the equator, maybe in puerto rico or something?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 08:17 PM
Doodler's Avatar
Doodler Doodler is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Laurel, Maryland
Posts: 9,891
Send a message via MSN to Doodler Send a message via Yahoo to Doodler
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tofu

Trivia time. Does anyone know why the pad (and KSC) are where they are? I mean, why not build the launch complex closer to the equator, maybe in puerto rico or something?
Seems easy enough, the facility was built during the Cold War. Its the closest you can reasonably get to the equator in the continental US and not be near any major population centers. I imagine it was also selected for its proximity to water, which in the event of an emergency prior to orbit, you could abort and recover from the waters near the facility. This, of course, would have been the way you would want to recover a Mercury, Gemini or Apollo capsule, which is what flew when the Cape was first converted into a launch facility.

Added: kind of a reach, but I wonder if the location didn't also have to do with its purpose being to support moon launches, and the 'default' launch path would be favorable to the orbital alignments needed for TLI.
__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 08:38 PM
tofu tofu is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: florida, USA
Posts: 2,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodler
Added: kind of a reach, but I wonder if the location didn't also have to do with its purpose being to support moon launches, and the 'default' launch path would be favorable to the orbital alignments needed for TLI.
That's the *only* reason If you launch from KSC and head due east, you're at the same inclination as the moon. At any other latitude (except the duplicate one in the southern hemisphere) a fuel expensive plane-change maneuver would be required for a trip to the moon. From KSC, you just wait for the moon to pass overhead, which it does once each day, and launch due east. Voila, you're in a parking orbit.

Other concerns, like proximity to water, are available pretty much anywhere on the east coast. They could have built KSC a little farther south and done the plane change maneuver at launch - that's cheaper than doing it in orbit. But the best option in terms of fuel use is to have the launch complex exactly where it is.

To get the ISS, the shuttle has to head a little farther north. I don't remember the exact inclination, but it's higher than the moon. Basically, the ISS's orbit is a compromise between what NASA and the Russian space agency can easily reach. If we had built the ISS ourselves, you can bet that it would have been in the exact same inclination as the moon.

Edit to correct this: you just wait for the moon to pass overhead, which it does once each day

What I mean is, the *orbit* of the moon passes overhead, or more accurately, the earth rotates putting KSC under the moon's orbit.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 08:45 PM
Doodler's Avatar
Doodler Doodler is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Laurel, Maryland
Posts: 9,891
Send a message via MSN to Doodler Send a message via Yahoo to Doodler
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tofu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodler
Added: kind of a reach, but I wonder if the location didn't also have to do with its purpose being to support moon launches, and the 'default' launch path would be favorable to the orbital alignments needed for TLI.
That's the *only* reason If you launch from KSC and head due east, you're at the same inclination as the moon. At any other latitude (except the duplicate one in the southern hemisphere) a fuel expensive plane-change maneuver would be required for a trip to the moon. From KSC, you just wait for the moon to pass overhead, which it does once each day, and launch due east. Voila, you're in a parking orbit.
Now that the dust is off the memory, didn't the moon only match that inclination a couple times a year? I do seem to recall there were certain launch windows that had to be observed.
__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 08:52 PM
ToSeek's Avatar
ToSeek ToSeek is offline
Vulcan Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greenbelt, MD
Posts: 25,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tofu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodler
Added: kind of a reach, but I wonder if the location didn't also have to do with its purpose being to support moon launches, and the 'default' launch path would be favorable to the orbital alignments needed for TLI.
That's the *only* reason If you launch from KSC and head due east, you're at the same inclination as the moon. At any other latitude (except the duplicate one in the southern hemisphere) a fuel expensive plane-change maneuver would be required for a trip to the moon. From KSC, you just wait for the moon to pass overhead, which it does once each day, and launch due east. Voila, you're in a parking orbit.
Considering that Cape Canaveral was established as a rocket launch site in 1949, I don't think that the choice of site had anything to do with the Moon. Also, the Moon's inclination relative to Earth's equator varies over the course of a month from (roughly) 18 to 28 degrees. From what I recall of the Apollo launch windows, there were only a couple of days each month that were suitable.

Quote:
To get the ISS, the shuttle has to head a little farther north. I don't remember the exact inclination, but it's higher than the moon. Basically, the ISS's orbit is a compromise between what NASA and the Russian space agency can easily reach.
Not so much a compromise but close to the only possible inclinations: flights from Baikonur have to have an inclination of at least 49 degrees (without a very expensive plane change), and KSC launches can only go up to 57 degrees (before going over land and compromising safety).
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 09:16 PM
joema joema is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,073
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tofu
That's the *only* reason If you launch from KSC and head due east, you're at the same inclination as the moon....
In addition to avoiding plane change delta V, launching eastward from the Cape's latitude imparts major additional payload.

This is due to the earth's rotational velocity. It seems small -- just 1670 km/hr at the equator (1440 km/hr at the Cape), about 5-6% of orbital speed. However rocket payload is very sensitive to dry weight. The eastward rotation acts like an invisible booster, effectively lowering dry weight, giving a very non-linear payload improvement.

Even at the Cape's latitude that improvement DOUBLES the shuttle's payload, vs a polar inclination launch:

http://globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sts_brm.htm

The improvement is so significant the Sea Launch program built an entire towable sea platform, partially to launch further south at the equator:

http://www.sea-launch.com/
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-February-2005, 11:51 PM
tofu tofu is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: florida, USA
Posts: 2,566
Default

aw man, the first time in my life that I'm wrong and wouldn't you know, toseek is there! :wink:

j/k. thanks for the correction. I'm going to do some googling and see what the complete history of the cape is. I'm not aware of any mechanism that would change the inclination of an orbit except for interation with another body, and tidal forces. When you say the moon's inclination changes, are you sure you're not thinking of libration?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 12:40 AM
ToSeek's Avatar
ToSeek ToSeek is offline
Vulcan Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greenbelt, MD
Posts: 25,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tofu
aw man, the first time in my life that I'm wrong and wouldn't you know, toseek is there! :wink:

j/k. thanks for the correction. I'm going to do some googling and see what the complete history of the cape is. I'm not aware of any mechanism that would change the inclination of an orbit except for interation with another body, and tidal forces. When you say the moon's inclination changes, are you sure you're not thinking of libration?
The Moon's inclination is relative to the ecliptic, not the equator. So as the orbit precesses around (which takes 18.6 years, not a month - I was wrong about that), it can add or subtract from the ecliptic's inclination depending on whether the Moon's inclination is the same as or opposite to the ecliptic's inclination. However, you are correct in that the inclination relative to the ecliptic doesn't change.
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 12:48 AM
Gullible Jones's Avatar
Gullible Jones Gullible Jones is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,032
Default

Ehh? The shuttle's not upside down... The Earth is!

(Well, at least for the astronauts.)
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 02:48 AM
Manchurian Taikonaut's Avatar
Manchurian Taikonaut Manchurian Taikonaut is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sol's pale blue dot
Posts: 1,645
Default

Just to make a somewhat un-related comment but I also understand it goes in reverse while in Space, there are other dangers aswell called space debris or space junk, space junk has serious destructive potential a few flicks of paint or garbage almost smashed in the front window on shuttle. So who will start cleaning this dangerous stuff up, the guys at NASA, the Russians should do it, the EU or UN should fund it ? Debris of all sizes can be dangerous, a paint fleck can gouge a shuttle window. Space collisions are frequent enough that NASA on average now replaces a window after each shuttle mission. In one shuttle two windows were replaced and scientists later found 51 pits in them. They contained meteoroids, paint chips, aluminum, stainless steel, silver, copper and plastic, now there is a plan to fly backwards to reduce the chances of exposing vulnerable parts of the craft to debris
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 04:27 AM
tofu tofu is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: florida, USA
Posts: 2,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manchurian Taikonaut
So who will start cleaning this dangerous stuff up,
It's impossible for us to clean it up. If you tried to chase down a single fleck of paint so that you could scoop it up into a waste basket, you would definitely end up shedding a few flecks of paint along the way. that's just the way machines are.

Fortunately, LEO cleans itself. The atmosphere expands and contracts due to heating by the sun. That imparts just a tiny about of drag on everything in LEO. In the case of debre, it eventually causes it to reenter the rest of the way.

This is the reason that the ISS is at its current altitude. It's in the zone where the atmosphere is self-cleaning. Unfortunately, that means that left to itself, the ISS would eventually be pulled further into the atmosphere and burn up. To prevent this, the shuttle (and, I'm guessing, the progress supply ships) give the ISS a little boost every time they dock.

Basically, that's the best we can do. If we fly in space we are going to occasionally drop a nut or bolt or whatever. You either live with that reality or give up your intercontinental phone calls and news reports, live broadcasts of sporting events, advance warning of hurricanes, etc. etc.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 08:16 PM
Maddad Maddad is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royersford, Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Why does the shuttle roll upside down after launch?
It's better than rolling upside down on landing.
__________________
http://members.elirion.net/~maddad
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who do not.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 09:00 PM
skrap1r0n skrap1r0n is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Austin Tx
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullible Jones
Ehh? The shuttle's not upside down... The Earth is!

(Well, at least for the astronauts.)
Are you an Aussie?
__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 09:02 PM
skrap1r0n skrap1r0n is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Austin Tx
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manchurian Taikonaut
Just to make a somewhat un-related comment but I also understand it goes in reverse while in Space, there are other dangers aswell called space debris or space junk, space junk has serious destructive potential a few flicks of paint or garbage almost smashed in the front window on shuttle. So who will start cleaning this dangerous stuff up, the guys at NASA, the Russians should do it, the EU or UN should fund it ? Debris of all sizes can be dangerous, a paint fleck can gouge a shuttle window. Space collisions are frequent enough that NASA on average now replaces a window after each shuttle mission. In one shuttle two windows were replaced and scientists later found 51 pits in them. They contained meteoroids, paint chips, aluminum, stainless steel, silver, copper and plastic, now there is a plan to fly backwards to reduce the chances of exposing vulnerable parts of the craft to debris
I'm not sure how we would go about cleaning up all that junk. any ideas?
__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 09:07 PM
um3k um3k is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skrap1r0n
I'm not sure how we would go about cleaning up all that junk. any ideas?
We could send up big blocks of aerogel.
__________________
Moraliser Overtax Porn
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 09:15 PM
skrap1r0n skrap1r0n is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Austin Tx
Posts: 979
Default

solar powered elecrtomagnets?
__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 09:23 PM
Doodler's Avatar
Doodler Doodler is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Laurel, Maryland
Posts: 9,891
Send a message via MSN to Doodler Send a message via Yahoo to Doodler
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skrap1r0n
solar powered elecrtomagnets?
Whats to keep the magent from flying to the satellite and not the other way around? Also, what about aluminum and other non-magnetics (paint, plastic and whatnot)?
__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 09:48 PM
skrap1r0n skrap1r0n is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Austin Tx
Posts: 979
Default

well just reducing the Ferrous material would be a start. and I have NO idea how we would do it in practicality.
__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 10:13 PM
joema joema is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,073
Default

My guess is there's not much ferrous material used in most space vehicles. Weight is so critical they're generally built from aluminum, magnesium, titanium, or even aluminium-lithium alloys, all of which are non-ferrous.

Lauch costs can be over $10,000 per pound (that's DOUBLE the price of pure gold), it pays to use exotic materials to reduce launcher and payload weight. Most of these are non-ferrous.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 08-February-2005, 11:05 PM
Evan Evan is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Williams Lake, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,522
Default

There is a LOT of garbage in orbit. Apparently over 4 million pounds of trash bigger than one centimeter and an unknown but much larger quantity of smaller stuff. Estimates are over 330 million bits larger than one mm.



Note: Free use image from Wikimedia Commons.

The soviets were the worst offenders. Their nuclear powered radar satellites (RORSAT series) were a major contributor. At least sixteen of these leaked huge numbers of radioactive sodium-potassium droplets up to several centimeters in size from the reactor cooling systems. There are estimated to be over 115,000 of these frozen droplets alone at about the orbit of Hubble.

What really has some people worried is that we may be approaching a critical mass where collisions begin a chain reaction that could make LEO off limits for a long time.
__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 09-February-2005, 01:55 AM
skrap1r0n skrap1r0n is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Austin Tx
Posts: 979
Default

By chain reaction, I am assuming you mean one collides with another which collides with another etc?

If thats a concern then we could use that as an advantage. Well placed explosions, strategically places ABOVE this plane could knock areas out of orbit creating temporary windows.
__________________
The More I learn, The More Ignorant I Become

Eagle Eye Observatory
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 09-February-2005, 05:29 PM
Avatar28 Avatar28 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 784
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evan
What really has some people worried is that we may be approaching a critical mass where collisions begin a chain reaction that could make LEO off limits for a long time.
How would that happen, exactly? I mean, sodium/potassium won't exactly fission, right?
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 09-February-2005, 05:57 PM
Doodler's Avatar
Doodler Doodler is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Laurel, Maryland
Posts: 9,891
Send a message via MSN to Doodler Send a message via Yahoo to Doodler
Default

Evan, might want to make that a link. The BA's bandwidth allotment is going to hurt from that pic.

Manchurian, the worry is that big lumps of space junk colliding makes lots and lots of little space junk, which is more deadly, because some of it can't be tracked by current technology, and there's suddenly a LOT more potential impactors on orbiting vehicles.

The chain reaction in question is more like a golf ball on a box of mousetraps. One event leads to several events, and it escalates geometrically.
__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today