PDA

View Full Version : Post-Shuttle Design Promises 100 Ton Capacity



PatKelley
2005-Aug-03, 01:07 AM
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050802/ZNYT02/508020399

The particular proposal suggests using existing Shuttle parts and labor to save time in accruing the resources and hopefully some design money.

Dunno if this was already posted or not...

Ilya
2005-Aug-03, 01:19 AM
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050802/ZNYT02/508020399

The particular proposal suggests using existing Shuttle parts and labor to save time in accruing the resources and hopefully some design money.

Dunno if this was already posted or not...
Using existing Shuttle parts (and maintenance structure) would certainly save development costs, but operational costs of all parts of STS are huge, and will remain so if retained. It is a perfect example of penny-wise, pound-foolish.

"It's safe, simple and soon," said Dr. Horowitz, an industry executive since he left the astronaut corps in October. "And it should cost less money" than the shuttles.
Why would he thinks so? Ah, I think I see the answer:

After leaving the astronaut corps, he went to work for the booster maker, ATK Thiokol, where he now leads the company's effort to develop the new family of rockets.

publiusr
2005-Aug-03, 07:50 PM
You know I'm happy.

The operational costs of EELV are a ton foolish--in that you would have to launch five to six three-core EELVs to put in orbit what one HLLV can loft while enjoying engine-out capability the EELVs lack.

Number of Delta IV RS-68 engines needed to lift 120 tons to LEO: 18
Number of SSME RS-68 engines for HLLV....................................3 to 4

Advantage HLLV:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/150/1



www.space.com/businesstechnology/050803_shuttle-derived_cev.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/421/1
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M1682578B
http://www.orbit6.com/rockets/shuttlec.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hear2015.htm
http://www.safesimplesoon.com/nextstep.htm

publiusr
2005-Aug-03, 07:58 PM
"It's safe, simple and soon," said Dr. Horowitz, an industry executive since he left the astronaut corps in October. "And it should cost less money" than the shuttles.
Why would he thinks so? Ah, I think I see the answer:
After leaving the astronaut corps, he went to work for the booster maker, ATK Thiokol, where he now leads the company's effort to develop the new family of rockets.

And the EELV hacks aren't trying to sell anything either right?

So why does the astronaut office not want to fly on EELV? Scott is an astronaut--and I'll take his word over the folks trying to foist the EELV albatross on Griffin.

tlbs101
2005-Aug-03, 11:36 PM
So why does the astronaut office not want to fly on EELV? Scott is an astronaut--and I'll take his word over the folks trying to foist the EELV albatross on Griffin.
Proabably because neither of the EELV's were designed, from the start, with human space-flight in mind. Boeing and Lockheed will have to jump through ALOT of hoops to get Delta IV and/or Atlas V human-qualified.

I've done the worst-case analysis for alot of the Delta IV first-stage control systems, and everything I have analyzed is very good from an operational standpoint. I have not done any reliability analyses on these systems, but, from my experience I could see that practically all of the avionics could employ components of a higher reliability, therefore raising the system reliability toward a threshold suitable for human spaceflight.

I think alot of the avionics can simply be retrofitted with higher reliability components, instead of redesigning the systems. Either way the cost, of course, will go way up.

ToSeek
2006-Mar-20, 05:46 PM
NASA Eyes Alternative to Shuttle Main Engine for Heavylift (http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_060320.html)


NASA is considering dropping the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) from its heavy-lift launch vehicle plans and using the cheaper-to-manufacture RS-68 engine instead.

Daniel Dumbacher, deputy director of the Exploration Launch Office at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., told reporters following his presentation at the Goddard Memorial Symposium here March 14 that a formal trade study is under way to examine the cost, schedule and performance merits of the SSME and RS-68. At present those two engines are NASA’s first choice for the main stage engines that would power the planned heavy-lift cargo launcher NASA intends to build to boost payloads on their way to the Moon.

Doodler
2006-Mar-20, 10:23 PM
Using existing Shuttle parts (and maintenance structure) would certainly save development costs, but operational costs of all parts of STS are huge, and will remain so if retained. It is a perfect example of penny-wise, pound-foolish.

If I may, the major cost of the shuttle system was the orbiter and all the technical gymnastics to keep its fragile butt intact during operations. Shed the orbiter, shed major operational costs along with it.

Nicolas
2006-Mar-20, 10:36 PM
Speaking of penny-wise, pound foolish: it's good to see serious attention into the (complex) cost analysis of the engine to choose.

It's a very interesting project from a design process/tradeoff point of view!

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-21, 05:13 AM
But the latter part of the article suggests that using RS-68s will end up costing more than the SSMEs because of lower Isp requiring more fuel suggesting a larger stack that might not fit in the assembly building or that would be fatter meaning new tooling... you get the picture. It'd be interesting to see a group of private investors do a design study to see just how expensive it would be to start new with HLLV man-rated tech.

Nicolas
2006-Mar-21, 06:08 PM
You mean to design a new engine next to the SSMe and RS-68 candidates?

I'm curious whether the expensive buut high Isp SSMe will turn out to be cheaper than the el cheapo but not so efficient RS-68 in total. ANd whether a new design would beat both of them.

I think that a new engine would have to be very cost efficient to regain the cost of designing and man-rating a completely new engine.

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-21, 07:39 PM
Yes. I was wondering if modern computers and advanced in materials sciences might let us construct a cheap, powerful, disposable, and mass-producible engine. I'm not a rocket engineer but aren't those engines using 30 year old or older designs? I think that if we design it to work only once and invest in mass production facilities then some tolerances might be relaxed, saving on parts and saving more on labor.

Nicolas
2006-Mar-21, 08:11 PM
The problem with man rated thingies is that tolerances can't be relaxed a lot, even if it's disposable. It needs to work only once, but it REALLY REALLY needs to work!

I wouldn't count on getting a significantly cheaper engine, as the same fuel and principles do limit the design possibilities.

I thought they were looking into making the SSME cheaper by redesigning it for dispposable use. Maybe they can save some money there.

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-22, 12:05 AM
I'd like to know where the costs are at. Are the materials just that rare and expensive? Is fabrication too expensive? Can they forge, mold and machine the parts cheaper? Are the costs due to research and development amortization or actual manufacturing? How much is due to Labor? How much can labor cost be lowered through automation, economies of scale, and sourcing fabrication to skilled technicians and only using high salary engineering Ph.D.s for quality control?

Glom
2006-Mar-22, 05:42 PM
Aren't the SSMEs some of the most powerful rocket engines we have? To waste them would be a mistake. It would be a good interim launch vehicle that makes use of them. The same market economics don't apply to this business. It's all about getting keeping the development costs the lowest while getting a viable product out of it. The biggest problem that has plagued NASA is the plug being pulled on so many development projects.

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-22, 07:21 PM
Why don't the same market economics not apply to this business? Economies of scale, amortization of costs over time and product, and labor cost reductions are part and parcel of all businesses.

NEOWatcher
2006-Mar-22, 07:45 PM
Why don't the same market economics not apply to this business? Economies of scale, amortization of costs over time and product, and labor cost reductions are part and parcel of all businesses.
1. Safety: Most consumer products don't have major consequences if safety is compromised.
2. Scale: What is the scale needed for the cost reduction of a rocket? Ford needs hundreds of thousands of a model of a car to make it economic and profitable. (although the thought of thousands of launches per year is fun)

Nicolas
2006-Mar-22, 08:31 PM
Some parts (many parts) of rockets will remain very costly. They're often made from a single piece of metal, are high precision, high grade parts. Material cost is quite a bit, but of course not everything. A lot of hours, material, very expensive equipment and testing go into an engine. They're really a work of art.

We've got an Ariane4 engine overhere. That's a simple engine (no extensive cooling loops around the nozzle to name one thing), but still it's fantastic to see. Just look at the nozzle and try to imagine what materials and production methods are needed to construct it. The same goes for the turbopumps, chamber, valves etcetc.

They do get cheaper with number produced, can be cheaper when there's no need for reuse, but they will remain expensive engines. If you want the efficiency of the SSME, you need very efficient = precise = expensive parts.

joema
2006-Mar-23, 01:29 AM
Aren't the SSMEs some of the most powerful rocket engines we have?...
While the SSMEs are very efficient, have good specific impulse and an excellent power-to-size ratio, they aren't that powerful relative to other large engines. Each SSME produces 393,000 lbf sea level thrust at 104% power.

The Pratt & Whitney RD-180 produces 860,000 lbf sea level thrust: http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_space_rd180.asp

The Boeing/Rocketdyne RS-68 produces 650,000 lbf sea level thrust: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/propul/RS68.html

By comparison the F-1 used on the Saturn V produced 1.565 million lbs of sea level thrust (Apollo 15-17).

pasha582
2006-Mar-23, 02:13 AM
The Energia-Buran has a bigger payload than the space shuttle and is clearly safer--no crew. So far two entire shuttle crews have been killed in mishaps. No one on the ground has been hurt by falling shuttle debris. Should the Buran shuttle ever crash, at least no one is likely to suffer anything greater than a little financial hardship.

And if we used the Baikonur Cosmodrome facilities, we would further reduce such risk. In the (literally) remote chance some Khazaki peasant ever get waxed by a failed Buran launch or rentry, we could settle for a tiny fraction of the cost any american taxpayer would demand.

As an added benefit, think of the international good will a joint venture would build--a commodity presently matching our federal debt. Instead of waging pointless and futile wars on other nations, it is high time we seriously directed some effort at reestablishing some modicum of good will.

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-23, 05:15 AM
1. Safety: Most consumer products don't have major consequences if safety is compromised.

No? Don't airline disasters result in more deaths? Even motorcoach crashes routinely kill more people than have been lost in the space program to date. Semi-tractor trailors carrying expensive equipment crash and lose their cargo. The same is true of seavessels.


2. Scale: What is the scale needed for the cost reduction of a rocket? Ford needs hundreds of thousands of a model of a car to make it economic and profitable. (although the thought of thousands of launches per year is fun)

Well, it depends on how you look at it. But I would like to see many more launches per year. However, it's better to look at it from a modular perspective. One large rocket may have half a dozen engines. If the space economy could support one launch a week globally then that's 50 rockets and maybe 150 to 300 rocket engines per year (assuming 3 to 6 of the same type per rocket, not counting booster rocket engines engines). Of course, there might be competition, but perhaps the market will end up using the same engine in different rocket bodies by different launch companies. The rest of the rocket would be even easier to mass produce, such as cylinder section skin panels.

Nicolas
2006-Mar-23, 09:13 AM
The Energia-Buran has a bigger payload than the space shuttle and is clearly safer--no crew. So far two entire shuttle crews have been killed in mishaps. No one on the ground has been hurt by falling shuttle debris. Should the Buran shuttle ever crash, at least no one is likely to suffer anything greater than a little financial hardship.

And if we used the Baikonur Cosmodrome facilities, we would further reduce such risk. In the (literally) remote chance some Khazaki peasant ever get waxed by a failed Buran launch or rentry, we could settle for a tiny fraction of the cost any american taxpayer would demand.

As an added benefit, think of the international good will a joint venture would build--a commodity presently matching our federal debt. Instead of waging pointless and futile wars on other nations, it is high time we seriously directed some effort at reestablishing some modicum of good will.

That's a little mispresentation.

Buran did fly crewless on its only flight indeed. But tell me, why does it have windows? Why does it have 2 decks with seats, one of which has a cockpit? Why can it carry up to 10 people? Because it was intended to be used with a crew!

It flew once without a crew, but its intended use was just like the shuttle's, with people aboard. So that argument of safety is not correct. For the rest of the safety record we can't know from just one Buran flight and 2 Energia launches.

Furthermore, Baikonour does not have an optimal location wrt the equator.

Energia Buran was quite nice, but it will not get us to the moon.

NEOWatcher
2006-Mar-23, 01:06 PM
No? Don't airline disasters result in more deaths? Even motorcoach crashes routinely kill more people than have been lost in the space program to date. Semi-tractor trailors carrying expensive equipment crash and lose their cargo. The same is true of seavessels.
First of all: I did say MOST because, I knew someone would make this argument. My point was to think about it not to debate it.
Second: Airliners are not that cheap, and they do make many of them. Besides how many airliners were found to have major flaws? Some airbus have history of landing gear problems, 737 rudder problems, 747 electrical problems, etc.
Semi's are not that safe, and the driver problems far outweigh any problems with the vehicle.
As for SeaVessels; think ferries.
How many times have you heard of safety recalls?
Space agencies tend to go much farther than commercial products because the publicity and visibility are much greater.


Well, it depends on how you look at it. SNIP
Basically what I was getting at. When you get economies of scale, it's not the volume that causes the savings, it's some part of the process that can be re-used many times that you save. I don't know what that would be in the case of a rocket with very tight quality controls, with the exception of design costs.

pasha582
2006-Mar-23, 03:57 PM
No? Don't airline disasters result in more deaths? Even motorcoach crashes routinely kill more people than have been lost in the space program to date. Semi-tractor trailors carrying expensive equipment crash and lose their cargo. The same is true of seavessels.

Your statement would only be meaningful if astronaughts travelled the same number of passenger miles as cars and airplanes. The real measure of safety is the number of casualties per passenger mile, making airlines much safer than cars, and cars much safer than space shuttles.

Personally, I believe the astronaughts are intelligent people, and know a certain amount of risk is necessary to promote this grand endeavor. Without some small measure of risk nothing would ever be accomplished. Life would not be worth living.

pasha582
2006-Mar-23, 04:03 PM
Energia Buran was quite nice, but it will not get us to the moon.

But wait, will the space shuttle let us get to the moon? I was only comparing Energia with the Shuttle, not the Saturn V.

Buran has space for a crew because, obviously, on occasion the russians would wish to ferry passengers. Perhaps even most of the time.

Actually, I was hoping to hear more reasons why this would be a great idea, not reasons why we shouldn't do it. What did "can't" ever accomplish?

Nicolas
2006-Mar-23, 04:27 PM
Pasha582

Again: Buran was meant to be used with crew other than simply passengers, it has a 2 person cockpit fully equiped to fly the craft. Cockpits are not built for passengers! It flew without crew once, but the cockpit is very clear evidence that the intended use would be like the space shuttle. Compare it to the newest Soyuz generation: it can auto dock, but it is fully crewed, indeed with a cockpit in which a pilot follows the docking and goes manually if needed or wanted.

Furthermore, this thread is about the proposed CEV as you could read in the article in post 1 (link now broken). The thread title is a bit misleading though, as the CEV is more than a shuttle successor, so I understand the confusion. My response was from the perspective of using Buran instead of CEV, not instead of shuttle. That's why I dismissed the proposal: CEV is aimed at other things than Buran. Buran obviously envisioned the same missions as the shuttle, but again that's not what I was discussing.

That's why I said it can't be used to get us to the moon.

More "can't" ideology is not needed for me, as I work on cutting edge technology where the only question to answer is "can or can't it be done?"
If I'd say "can't" without ever trying, I would have no work whatsoever in the coming six months :).

The discussion whether Buran would be a good replacement for the shuttle to perform shuttleish tasks is a whole other thing. It clearly has advantages, but it also shares some disadvantages with the shuttle. I think I remember a thread somewhere where this discussion is held.

NEOWatcher
2006-Mar-23, 05:33 PM
snip
Actually, I was hoping to hear more reasons why this would be a great idea, not reasons why we shouldn't do it. What did "can't" ever accomplish?
That's because it didn't happen, and we can say why it didn't happen.
The reasons why we should were why it was built in the first place, and are negated by the fact that we shouldn't.
In other words the shouldn'ts have outweighed the shoulds by the experts and people with the purse strings, and that's sufficient reason to me.

Other than that comment, I would suggest you follow the advice of Nicolas:
The discussion whether Buran would be a good replacement for the shuttle to perform shuttleish tasks is a whole other thing. It clearly has advantages, but it also shares some disadvantages with the shuttle. I think I remember a thread somewhere where this discussion is held.

pasha582
2006-Mar-24, 01:51 AM
That's because it didn't happen, and we can say why it didn't happen. The reasons why we should were why it was built in the first place, and are negated by the fact that we shouldn't. In other words the shouldn'ts have outweighed the shoulds by the experts and people with the purse strings, and that's sufficient reason to me.

The people in control of the purse strings should answer to the taxpayers (that's you and me). The title "Post-Shuttle Design Promises 100 Ton Capacity" threw me--I don't think I read the first post. Energia was designed to lift between 80 and 150 metric tons. I think the program collapsed not because it was no good, but because russia had other difficulties at the time. Is competition always superior to cooperation?

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-24, 02:41 AM
First of all: I did say MOST because, I knew someone would make this argument. My point was to think about it not to debate it.
Second: Airliners are not that cheap, and they do make many of them. Besides how many airliners were found to have major flaws? Some airbus have history of landing gear problems, 737 rudder problems, 747 electrical problems, etc.
Semi's are not that safe, and the driver problems far outweigh any problems with the vehicle.
As for SeaVessels; think ferries.
How many times have you heard of safety recalls?
Space agencies tend to go much farther than commercial products because the publicity and visibility are much greater.

Some consumer products may not have major consequences if safety is compromised, but I would hesitate to say most. In fact, when safety is an issue it is usually because the consequences are major.

I figure we should compare apples to apples, so transportation technology would seem analogous. But if you want to compare deaths from food contamination, I think in some instances more people have died from e. coli in hamburger than have died in a single space incident. Decreased revenues from a loss of consumer confidence and product liability litigation can and have cost some industries large sums of money that, over time, may equal or exceed money losses for space accidents.

I had been responding to 777Geek when he said "The same market economics don't apply to this business." I think that economics apply to all businesses. Now, if you want to claim it's not a business then that's different, but I have been referring to an emergent industry that could be either private or public.


Basically what I was getting at. When you get economies of scale, it's not the volume that causes the savings, it's some part of the process that can be re-used many times that you save. I don't know what that would be in the case of a rocket with very tight quality controls, with the exception of design costs.

If you don't want to put the idea of "amortization of research and development and capital expenditures over increasing numbers of product reduces costs per item" under the aegis of "economy of scale, then we can consider it separately. (In other words, the more you buy the cheaper they are.) But I think I can agree with your point of reusing fabrication processes. That's one reason I recommend automation wherever possible.

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-24, 02:56 AM
Your statement would only be meaningful if astronaughts travelled the same number of passenger miles as cars and airplanes. The real measure of safety is the number of casualties per passenger mile, making airlines much safer than cars, and cars much safer than space shuttles.

I'm not sure I agree with that calculation. Failures in mechanical systems tend to occur during changes in operation. So, I think per mission cycle is a better comparison. But we could compromise on duration of operation: comparing the thousands of hours of an aircraft engine at cruise to the tens of minutes of a rocket engine when active. Either way I don't think freefall should be included in those calculations.

Nicolas
2006-Mar-24, 08:44 AM
btw a shuttle does an enormous amount of miles when it's up for 2 weeks

D/PM is just one of the safety calculations. There is no "best" safety measure overall. And each measure has a dfferent outcome.

pasha582
2006-Mar-24, 05:04 PM
I had been responding to 777Geek when he said "The same market economics don't apply to this business." I think that economics apply to all businesses. Now, if you want to claim it's not a business then that's different, but I have been referring to an emergent industry that could be either private or public.

The railroad were granted huge concessions to get them started. As I recall, the railroads originally received land grants of alternating square miles each side of the track to offset their cost of development.

The national highway system is another huge government expenditure we would be in much worse shape without. I find the whole concept of toll roads somewhat obscene.

Space exploration is enormously expensive, and the ROI has little appeal to investors who aren't space enthusiasts. It has been nearly 50 years since humans first placed an object into orbit, and I don't believe any private enterprise has yet turned a profit. And who funds exploration? There may be some historical precedent, but all the famous explorations I can think of were financed by government. Cristobol Columbus discovery of the americas was financed by Spain. The Lewis and Clark expedition was funded by the US government. What economic incentive could someone dream up for the Cassini mission to Saturn?

I get worked up on this topic because my cousin argues that NASA should be abolished, and space exploration left entirely to private enterprise, meaning that it might become cost effective in another thousand years (maybe) and in the meantime we should simply remain ignorant--because Henry Ford did not use government funds to develop the automobile.

pasha582
2006-Mar-24, 05:18 PM
I'm not sure I agree with that calculation. Failures in mechanical systems tend to occur during changes in operation. So, I think per mission cycle is a better comparison. But we could compromise on duration of operation: comparing the thousands of hours of an aircraft engine at cruise to the tens of minutes of a rocket engine when active. Either way I don't think freefall should be included in those calculations.

A space vehicle could be damaged by a solar flare, or meteorite. I think free fall should be included, but agree that "passenger miles" is probably not good. Hours the occupants are on board the plane or spacecraft, regardless of miles travelled. After all, a plane just being loaded with passengers on the tarmac could be struck by another plane trying to land. That ought to factor in to safety considerations--even if there is nothing mechanically wrong with the plane being struck.

publiusr
2006-Mar-24, 09:10 PM
I get worked up on this topic because my cousin argues that NASA should be abolished, and space exploration left entirely to private enterprise, meaning that it might become cost effective in another thousand years (maybe) and in the meantime we should simply remain ignorant--because Henry Ford did not use government funds to develop the automobile.

He needs a good talking to. Explain to him that, yes BIG GOV'T Heavy Lift SOVIET rocketry was a bigger success than collective farming was a failure. Now that the gov't has paid for its big booster, it has glutted the market and the vehicles are only now being privatized after having been engineered.

Space has more to do with TVA than MSN. Explain to him that allRutan has done is build an ME-163 clone with SS1.

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-25, 04:17 AM
btw a shuttle does an enormous amount of miles when it's up for 2 weeks

D/PM is just one of the safety calculations. There is no "best" safety measure overall. And each measure has a dfferent outcome.

As Mark Twain once said "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Ara Pacis
2006-Mar-25, 05:02 AM
The railroad were granted huge concessions to get them started. As I recall, the railroads originally received land grants of alternating square miles each side of the track to offset their cost of development.

I think it was something like that: offering the companies to claim a Section (square mile) that track passed through. That is why train tracks are not straight east-west or north-south, the train barons wanted to claim as much land as possible and so the tracks meander across the countryside.


The national highway system is another huge government expenditure we would be in much worse shape without. I find the whole concept of toll roads somewhat obscene.

I use the interstate system as an analogy for space infrastructure all the time. I would be fine with government doing the heavy lifting and setting up moon bases and all, but I would expect private enterprise to spring up around it like gas stations, hotels, and tourist traps pop up along interstates. I'm not sure if a toll road analogy means much WRT space, but highway tolls are acceptable in some circumstances, I think.


Space exploration is enormously expensive, and the ROI has little appeal to investors who aren't space enthusiasts. It has been nearly 50 years since humans first placed an object into orbit, and I don't believe any private enterprise has yet turned a profit. And who funds exploration? There may be some historical precedent, but all the famous explorations I can think of were financed by government. Cristobol Columbus discovery of the americas was financed by Spain. The Lewis and Clark expedition was funded by the US government. What economic incentive could someone dream up for the Cassini mission to Saturn?

I get worked up on this topic because my cousin argues that NASA should be abolished, and space exploration left entirely to private enterprise, meaning that it might become cost effective in another thousand years (maybe) and in the meantime we should simply remain ignorant--because Henry Ford did not use government funds to develop the automobile.

As I said, it could be a public or private space industry. And I was not referring to ROI on space exploration. I am only discussing the market principles or building rockets here, not missions. Right now, lots of rocket parts are outsourced to private industry and that is a business model and follows economic principles, even if the only purchaser is government. If there is an ROI to consider, it is the ROI of the outsourcing companies that could increase profits (or more preferably, lower prices) by reducing costs such as labor by increasing the use of interchangeable parts, mass production, and automation and also by amortizing capital equipment upgrades by spreading those costs over more products.

Of course, for these private industries to invest in mass production technologies they need to have enough orders to justify the expenditures... which is where government comes in. We need government to increase orders. Once costs start coming down, then it may be possible for some private corporations to start purchasing these components.

publiusr
2006-Mar-30, 07:02 PM
As long as it gets done.

Like a lot of things, it gets down to "who pays?"