 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2007Why install the payload at the pad?
I've wondered why the payload isn't installed in the payload bay either at the OPF or the VAB. Why is it often (always?) done at the pad? Just curious. Lee Jay > I've wondered why the payload isn't installed in the payload bay either > at the OPF or the VAB. Why is it often (always?) done at the pad? It avoids the risk of the payload being jolted around too much while the orbiter is being stacked in the VAB, and during roll-out. It can't be done while the stacked orbiter is in the VAB because there just isn't the equipment, and the VAB isn't clean enough. --Chris > > I've wondered why the payload isn't installed in the payload bay either > > at the OPF or the VAB. Why is it often (always?) done at the pad? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > done while the stacked orbiter is in the VAB because there just isn't > the equipment, and the VAB isn't clean enough. I can buy the second two reasons, but I can't believe the accelerations endured during stacking and rollout are close to those seen during launch. Lee Jay >> It avoids the risk of the payload being jolted around too much while the >> orbiter is being stacked in the VAB, and during roll-out. It can't be > I can buy the second two reasons, but I can't believe the accelerations > endured during stacking and rollout are close to those seen during > launch. he didn't say 'accelerations,' he said 'jolted.' launch is a ~8-9 minute period of vibration, acceleration, etc.. just the trip to the pad is what, the better part of a day? neglilgible acceleration, but i'd think a decent amount of vibration. if payload includes delicate instrumentation/hardware.. why subject it to that duration of needless abuse? -r (admittedly conjecture.. but it kinda makes sense) > >> It avoids the risk of the payload being jolted around too much while the > >> orbiter is being stacked in the VAB, and during roll-out. It can't be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the better part of a day? neglilgible acceleration, but i'd think a decent > amount of vibration. Vibration is acceleration (cyclic). Lee Jay > Vibration is acceleration (cyclic). Vibration doesn't have to be cyclic at all.  SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> > > Vibration is acceleration (cyclic). > > Vibration doesn't have to be cyclic at all. How can you have steady (DC) acceleration and still call it vibration? Lee Jay >>> Vibration is acceleration (cyclic). >> >> Vibration doesn't have to be cyclic at all. > > How can you have steady (DC) acceleration and still call it vibration? That's not what you said, nor is it what I said. You can have steady, cyclical acceleration and call it "vibration" but you can also have unsteady, non-regular accelerations with varying magnitudes and components (e.g., non-cyclical) and still call it "vibration." > Lee Jay SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> > >>> Vibration is acceleration (cyclic). > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > unsteady, non-regular accelerations with varying magnitudes and > components (e.g., non-cyclical) and still call it "vibration." Okay. This is a matter of semantics. To me, everything is either DC or a Fourier componet, all of which are obviously sine waves (aka, cyclical). Lee Jay > To me, everything is either DC or a Fourier componet, Fourier components are not what's happening in "reality." They're mere approximations of reality, much like the digitized waveforms on a CD aren't the same as the sound waves they represent. SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> > > To me, everything is either DC or a Fourier componet, > > Fourier components are not what's happening in "reality." They're mere > approximations of reality, much like the digitized waveforms on a CD > aren't the same as the sound waves they represent. I think most mechanical dynamicists would disagree with you. While they are approximations (unless you have an infinite number of them), flexible modes in structures respond to them. Lee Jay > While they are approximations (unless you have an infinite number of them), > flexible modes in structures respond to them. Flexible modes in structures certainly don't respond to Fourier components. They respond to real-word vibrations, not approximations. Anyone doing real work in vibrations of real systems had best keep that in mind. Anything else is hubris. SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> > > While they are approximations (unless you have an infinite number of them), > > flexible modes in structures respond to them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Anyone doing real work in vibrations of real systems had best keep that > in mind. Anything else is hubris. Uh huh. Let me get this straight. If I apply white noise vibrations to a structure, the only modes that will respond by vibrating from that forcing fuction are the white noise modes (whatever that means) because there are no real components to the stimulus? Lee Jay > Uh huh. Let me get this straight. If I apply white noise vibrations to a > structure, the only modes that will respond by vibrating from that forcing > fuction are the white noise modes (whatever that means) because there are no > real components to the stimulus? > > Lee Jay You do a remarkably poor job of understanding the written language. Let me guess - you're an engineer who thinks your FEA models are just like "the real thing." :-/ SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> > You do a remarkably poor job of understanding the written language. > Let me guess - you're an engineer who thinks your FEA models are just > like "the real thing." :-/ I've never run an FEA model in my enitire life. I am an experimentalist, and your guess was dead wrong. Lee Jay > > You do a remarkably poor job of understanding the written language. > > Let me guess - you're an engineer who thinks your FEA models are just > > like "the real thing." :-/ > > I've never run an FEA model in my enitire life. I am an > experimentalist, and your guess was dead wrong. You said vibration doesn't have to be cyclic. The dictionary definition of vibration is, "a periodic motion of the particles of an elastic body or medium in alternately opposite directions from the position of equilibrium when that equilibrium has been disturbed." "Periodic" is defined as, "consisting of or containing a series of repeated stages, processes, or digits : CYCLIC." So, by definition, vibration is cyclic, specifically cyclic acceleration. Lee Jay > So, by definition, vibration is cyclic, specifically cyclic acceleration. Nope. SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> >> You do a remarkably poor job of understanding the written language. >> Let me guess - you're an engineer who thinks your FEA models are just >> like "the real thing." :-/ > > I've never run an FEA model in my enitire life. Good. I was having severe doubts about the quality of university education and engineering corporate culture again. > I am an > experimentalist, and your guess was dead wrong. Than as an "experimentalist" you should realize that what goes into the system is NOT the same thing that your FFT approximates coming out. > Lee Jay SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> > Than as an "experimentalist" you should realize that what goes into the > system is NOT the same thing that your FFT approximates coming out. No but an FT (fast or not) of the input is a very good approximation of the input. What's coming out has to go through the transfer function (linear, nonlinear or otherwise) that is the system first. An FT of the output is a good approximation of the output and, in many ways, more useful than the actual output time series. Lee Jay > An FT of the output is a good approximation of the output and, in many ways, > more useful than the actual output time series. But useful or not, it is not REALITY and should not be presumed to be, a point you seem to be intentionally missing or avoiding in order to prolong an argument. SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> > > An FT of the output is a good approximation of the output and, in many ways, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a point you seem to be intentionally missing or avoiding in order to > prolong an argument. It's an exact (with infinite series) mathematical abstraction of reality. Any periodic function can be broken down into its component parts to arbitrary precision. You seem to think that the fact that its a description of reality makes it completely disconnected from reality which is just flat wrong. I use them all the time to understand and predict the performance of my experimental machines. Like any tool it has to be applied correctly, but the problems with such models are never with the transform, they are always with the plant (the non-linear transfer function). Lee Jay > It's an exact (with infinite series) mathematical abstraction of reality. Next time you run your "exact, infinite series" abstractions of reality, let me know. LOL Such a representation may in theory be possible with the advent of functionally-useful quantum computers, but I'm not going to hold my breath. In the meantime, the best you can hope for is an approximation of reality, not a perfect abstraction of reality, the point you again seem intent on ignoring. SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> snip > In the meantime, the best you can hope for is an approximation of > reality, not a perfect abstraction of reality, the point you again seem > intent on ignoring. The FT transfer function is close enough to be very useful in predicting fludder in the system. Danny Dot > The FT transfer function is close enough to be very useful in predicting > fludder in the system. Many models are close enough to predict many behaviors in many systems. I never said otherwise. What I have said, and wgat seems to be forgotten or ignored by the other fellow involved in this subthread, is that these tools are at best approximations. Devils can (and often do) hide in details, many of which are set aside in creating these tools, or ignored as being "unreasonable," etc. Tools are tools. They are not reality. Engineers need to remember this at all times or risk being the victims of their hubris (as I said several posts ago). SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> >> The FT transfer function is close enough to be very useful in predicting >> fludder in the system. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > this at all times or risk being the victims of their hubris (as I said > several posts ago). What you say is true. A Fourier Transform (FT) is an approximation of the system -- as almost all engineering tools are. What you loose typically with the FT are the high frequency components of the system. One needs to be careful that the high frequency components that are not modeled are not important. FTs are used extensively and effectively in aerospace engineering for looking at the dynamics of a stucture. If I recall correctly, structural failure dynamics are captured in a reasonable FT of the system. This was true in 1978 when I did my Master's thesis work using FT techniques on a light aircraft. I can only assume with todays computers FTs are much better -- e.g. model the higher frequencies better. It has been a while, but I recall in 1978 the FT modelled dynamic responses up to about 30 Hz. We could have gone higher by making computer runs that used more computer time, but we didn't need to. Dynamic responses higher that 30 Hz were not going to cause flutter of the system we were looking at. Take all this with a grain of salt. I am recalling information from a LONG time ago. Danny Dot www.mobbinggonemad.org snip > > Than as an "experimentalist" you should realize that what goes into the > > system is NOT the same thing that your FFT approximates coming out. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the output is a good approximation of the output and, in many ways, > more useful than the actual output time series. Arrgh! I'm three months late responding to this, but I can't let it go by. This is absolutely wrong, wrong, wrongitty, wrong if your system has any nonlinearity at all. The FT, being linear, will discard the nonlinearity in the output and you'll never even know it. It's not a good approximation and it's certainly not more useful than the actual time series output. Give up the outdated frequency-domain techniques and try using a time-domain technique. Try something like PEST; it works for non-linear systems quite nicely. Mary "x-dot = Ax +Bu; let's hear it for the state space equations" SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. reunite.gondwana@gmail.com or miliff@qnet.com Visit my new blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/ >>No but an FT (fast or not) of the input is a very good approximation of >>the input. What's coming out has to go through the transfer function [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > good approximation and it's certainly not more useful than the actual > time series output. Say what? He explicitly said that the FT applied to the output of the system, when any potential non-linearity had already done its work! For any periodic function - and any real (as in real-world) function can be made periodic by virtue of the fact that you only have a finite time for measuring, and the warp-around artifacts can suitably be taken care of - the Fourier transform is a homomorphism on this space (which happens to be one of the square-integrable Hilbert spaces of functions). As such, it is information-conserving. Jan >>> Than as an "experimentalist" you should realize that what goes into the >>> system is NOT the same thing that your FFT approximates coming out. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > good approximation and it's certainly not more useful than the actual > time series output. Thank you for your support. I could've used it a few months back. :-) SignatureYou can run on for a long time, Sooner or later, God'll cut you down. ~Johnny Cash > Than as an "experimentalist" you should realize that what goes into the > system is NOT the same thing that your FFT approximates coming out. Not because of the FT, but because of the inaccuracies of the transfer function ("plant" model). Lee Jay >> Than as an "experimentalist" you should realize that what goes into the >> system is NOT the same thing that your FFT approximates coming out. > > Not because of the FT, but because of the inaccuracies of the transfer > function ("plant" model). That's not my point. SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> >Okay. This is a matter of semantics. To me, everything is either DC >or a Fourier componet, all of which are obviously sine waves (aka, >cyclical). I see - the problem is that you have a self generated definition that bears no relationship to the real world, and then you get agitated because the real world fails to accept your delusion. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > >Okay. This is a matter of semantics. To me, everything is either DC > >or a Fourier componet, all of which are obviously sine waves (aka, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bears no relationship to the real world, and then you get agitated > because the real world fails to accept your delusion. Have you fallen and hit your head on something hard? Any periodic signal with bias can be modeled the way I said (Fourier components + DC offset). This is just the way I prefer to think of many signals which is just as correct as thinking of everything as a time series, only more convenient for many analyses. Lee Jay > .... Any periodic > signal with bias can be modeled the way I said (Fourier components + DC > offset). I wonder if substituting "fluctuating signal" for "periodic signal" would avoid another round of postings arguing about definitions. Tom >> .... Any periodic >> signal with bias can be modeled the way I said (Fourier components + DC >> offset). > >I wonder if substituting "fluctuating signal" for "periodic signal" >would avoid another round of postings arguing about definitions. Changing the terms won't eliminate the underlying flaw in Lee's logic. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >> >Okay. This is a matter of semantics. To me, everything is either DC >> >or a Fourier componet, all of which are obviously sine waves (aka, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >is just as correct as thinking of everything as a time series, only >more convenient for many analyses. Who the f.ck cares about modeling or analysis? They aren't the topic under discussion here. What's under discussion here is *your* nonstandard definition of vibration. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > What's under discussion here is *your* nonstandard definition of > vibration. What's non-standard about it? I define it as cyclic or oscillating accelerations, which obviously give you cyclic or oscillating velocities and positions as well. Vibration: Oxford English Dictionary: "The rapid alternating or reciprocating motion to and fro, or up and down, produced in the particles of an elastic body by the disturbance of equilibrium" Merriam-Webster: "a periodic motion of the particles of an elastic body or medium in alternately opposite directions from the position of equilibrium when that equilibrium has been disturbed" Dictionary.com: "the oscillating, reciprocating, or other periodic motion of a rigid or elastic body or medium forced from a position or state of equilibrium." Lee Jay > What's non-standard about it? None of the three sources you cited were in the bibliography of my vibrational analysis class as an engineering undergrad. Perhaps they were in yours? Here's a free clue: "vibration" does not have to be "periodic" - it can and usually is exceedingly random, all your abstractions and analyses to the contrary, the point you AGAIN refuse to acknowledge. GRASP THIS: your mathematical analyses =/ "reality." They are at best an approximation and always will be. No matter how good you think your analysis is, it will ALWAYS be an approximation. DO NOT FORGET THIS or the real world will find a way to bite you on the a.s. Grok it? SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> > Here's a free clue: "vibration" does not have to be "periodic" - it > can and usually is exceedingly random, all your abstractions and > analyses to the contrary, the point you AGAIN refuse to acknowledge. And you refuse to acknowledge that random noise has periodic components - a fact we use daily to complete modal tests using pseudo-random forcing functions from electrodynamic or hydraulic shakers as inputs to our flexible structures. Lee Jay > And you refuse to acknowledge that random noise has periodic components Wrong. What I HAVE said, time and again for you who seem so hard of comprehension, is that vibration does not have to be periodic the way you think, and that your analytical tools and models are only approximations of reality, as anyone with any sense should be able to understand. Your continued denials of reality are more than tiresome. Enjoy your stay in the cooler with the rest of the net.kooks. SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> > > And you refuse to acknowledge that random noise has periodic components > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > approximations of reality, as anyone with any sense should be able to > understand. Duh. That's why I'm an experimentalist moron. And you seem unable to grasp the simple and obvious facts of what I've said. Every first-semester dynamics student (should) know this stuff. > Your continued denials of reality are more than tiresome. Enjoy your > stay in the cooler with the rest of the net.kooks. You have no idea who I am and little idea of what I know or what I work on. Lee Jay > Wrong. What I HAVE said, time and again for you who seem so hard of > comprehension, is that vibration does not have to be periodic the way > you think, and that your analytical tools and models are only > approximations of reality, as anyone with any sense should be able to > understand. A Fourier transform is not (only) an analytical tool. It is a bijection on the space of L2 functions. As long as they do not have infinite energy, all real signals are in this set. Thus, the Fourier transform of a - measured or modeled - time series is just an alternate representation of the data that is just as "valid" or "real" as the time series itself - which is all Lee is saying, as far as I can tell. Any physical system, incidentally, is a sum of band-pass filters. This means that the application of any signal, be it random or not, will result in a response that is periodic, with different periods of course. Given that in most cases, all or most of these periods will have rational relationships, the complete response will also be periodic. So there. Jan > that the application of any signal, be it random or not, will result in > a response that is periodic, with different periods of course. Given > that in most cases, all or most of these periods will have rational > relationships, the complete response will also be periodic. So there. Take a road bike with high pressure tyres and ride on a poor road surface or unpaved road. Tell me the bumps are predictable mathematically. You might be able to record the vibration with sensors and later on produce a dataset that reproduces the road details. But there will be periods of quiet, periods of constant vibration, periods of a single pumps, and periods with repeated indentifiable bumps (such a a corrugated section of unpaved road). Since the trip from VAB to pad is very "routine" and fairly constant, NASA could easily build a vibration profile for the shuttle and then determine if payloads can widthstand that vibration or not. But to create that profile, NASA would have to record the trip from start to finish, and include any possibel manoeuvers (such as engine going to neutral, being shut down, and then started again, and engaging transmission to start moving the stack again). You,d also have to measure rotational torque for those areas where the road has a curve in it. (and I'd be willing to bet that NASA has already recorded vibration profile for the shuttle during movement from VAB to pad. >> And you refuse to acknowledge that random noise has periodic components > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > approximations of reality, as anyone with any sense should be able to > understand. Let me say I think you are BOTH right. In theory any vibration can be modelled with a periodic Fourier Transform -- i.e. one that models zero Hz to infinate Hz. This works OK for math majors that can work with infinate Hz. I am an engineer and can't model infinate Hz in my computers, so my ability to make a perfect model of the periodic nature of vibration is limited. Perhaps one of you is talking mathimatics and one is talking engineering. Just a thought on my part. Danny Dot www.mobbinggonemad.org > Your continued denials of reality are more than tiresome. Enjoy your > stay in the cooler with the rest of the net.kooks. >> Here's a free clue: "vibration" does not have to be "periodic" - it >> can and usually is exceedingly random, all your abstractions and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > forcing functions from electrodynamic or hydraulic shakers as inputs to > our flexible structures. IIRC, white noise has a flat power vs. frequency Fourier Transform, i.e. its power for any frequency is the same. Stuctures definately have many different frequencies as they vibrate at different modes (e.g bending vs. torsion). Danny Dot www.mobbinggonemad.org > Lee Jay > What's under discussion here is *your* nonstandard definition of > vibration. Forget the damned definition of vibration. Sorry, but I fail to see why transporting the shuttle from VAB to pad would/could generate any shocks/vibration/whatever that would even come close to what the payloads are designed to endure during launch. And when you consider how fragile the foam on tank and shuttle tiles are, I would think that even the mating processes within the VAB would also be extremely precise with very few shocks. > Sorry, but I fail to see why transporting the shuttle from VAB to pad > would/could generate any shocks/vibration/whatever that would even come > close to what the payloads are designed to endure during launch. I agree. The workflow explaination makes much more sense. Lee Jay > I've wondered why the payload isn't installed in the payload bay either > at the OPF or the VAB. Why is it often (always?) done at the pad? When you consider how long it takes between the shuttle bay doors closed at OPF and the actual launch, your cargo wouldn't be able to carry any perishable experiments. If the whole flow of work had been done so that they could be like a Soyuz: move to the pad and launch the next day, then perhaps they could have done payload loading in the VAB. The one advantage of the current process is that it frees the VAB quickly. This way, they can pipeline the work with an orbiter in OPF, one in VAB and one at the pad, and thus theoretically have more frequent launches. > > I've wondered why the payload isn't installed in the payload bay either > > at the OPF or the VAB. Why is it often (always?) done at the pad? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This way, they can pipeline the work with an orbiter in OPF, one in VAB and > one at the pad, and thus theoretically have more frequent launches. Interesting. I hadn't thought of those reasons. The only reasons I could think of involved the need to "maintain" the payload with electricity and other consumables and that doing so would be difficult during stacking and rollout. I don't know if that's a real reason or not. Lee Jay Certainly this latter reason was what I recall being said when they were originally planning more frequent launches in the early days. I think its a legacy from those days and if it works, why change it? Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> I've wondered why the payload isn't installed in the payload bay either >> at the OPF or the VAB. Why is it often (always?) done at the pad? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This way, they can pipeline the work with an orbiter in OPF, one in VAB > and one at the pad, and thus theoretically have more frequent launches. Actually, many payloads are installed in the OPF. To put it in a really simple way, if it is a horizontally processed payload such as the old Space Labs, or Space Station elements, it is installed while the orbiter is horizontal. Vertically processed payloads are installed at pad via the PGHM. > Certainly this latter reason was what I recall being said when they were > originally planning more frequent launches in the early days. I think its [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> in VAB and one at the pad, and thus theoretically have more frequent >> launches. > Actually, many payloads are installed in the OPF. To put it in a really > simple way, if it is a horizontally processed payload such as the old Space > Labs, or Space Station elements, it is installed while the orbiter is > horizontal. Vertically processed payloads are installed at pad via the > PGHM. That's not as true now as it used to be. Pretty much all space station elements of late (which are all processed horizontally) have been installed at the pad. --Chris > I've wondered why the payload isn't installed in the payload bay either > at the OPF or the VAB. Why is it often (always?) done at the pad? > > Just curious. > > Lee Jay One of the main reasons that most shuttle payloads are installed at the pad is that the VAB is periodically off-limits due to hazardous SRB-related lifting operations. The place would never have been able to handle the originally-planned high launch rates, so payload installation was moved to the pad when shuttle was developed. No such hazards existed when the Saturn launch vehicles *and their payloads* were assembled in the VAB. - Ed Kyle >No such hazards existed when the Saturn launch vehicles *and >their payloads* were assembled in the VAB. Well, the solid-motor Launch Escape System, bigger than a Delta's strap-on booster, was conveniently ignored. Brian > >No such hazards existed when the Saturn launch vehicles *and > >their payloads* were assembled in the VAB. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Brian True, but it was the very last step before rollout, sometimes completed only one day before rollout. - Ed Kyle >No such hazards existed when the Saturn launch vehicles *and >their payloads* were assembled in the VAB. True - but considerable work and testing was still done on the pad. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.