 |
 | 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 / September 2008CHANGING VIEWS BLOG TO THE MOON
Man last stepped on the moon in 1972 with Apollo 17, and it has been the dream of that group of astronauts to go back to the moon. Now there is a effort to get back to the moon by 2020, To many that's a long time to wait. With projects such as Orion and the development of new rockets to carry heavy payloads it will take a long time before the dream of going back to the moon and to Mars becomes a reality. Some scientist want to get a head start on the race back to the moon by using the basic solid rocket booster design and lift capacity to lift to carry astronauts back to the Moon. CONTINUED http://changingviews1.blogspot.com/2008/08/to-moon.html erm, my brain quick calc says it cannot be done with Shuttle? Wanna know why? Well the fuel needed to slow the shuttle down on the way back to a speed that it can survive a re entry has no place to be stored I guess you might consider launching the craft for the moon from earth orbit as was the case with some of the interplanitary probes, taking it up on Shuttle, but it would be hard I think, even then to accommodate all the fuel and hardware. I mean if your really wanted to get back fast, simply rebuild some Saturn 5s, and some appals and lems. I'm sure the lem could be built with a less seat of the pants landing system these days! I'm never quite sure how seriously to take this person, judging by some of the other rants. 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 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Man last stepped on the moon in 1972 with Apollo 17, and it has been > the dream of that group of astronauts to go back to the moon. Now [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://changingviews1.blogspot.com/2008/08/to-moon.html > erm, my brain quick calc says it cannot be done with Shuttle? Wanna know > why? Well the fuel needed to slow the shuttle down on the way back to a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > "rapoltalk" <rapolt...@aol.com> wrote in message I am quite serious that is why I wrote a second blog. As I indicated it can be done by adding a extra fuel tank in the cargo bay as well as the oxygen and also a lander. why not? As far as the Saturn 5's are concerned If I remember right the plans no longer exist but I could be wrong, besides that would take a recovery effort almost as long as the development of the Saturn 5.. Ralph > news:1509952f-b606-4e99-b353-fe2fbad070f7@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > >http://changingviews1.blogspot.com/2008/08/to-moon.html Can't possibly work; the Shuttle weighs far too much for the amount of (very low density) propellant that could be held in the payload bay. That's the biggest of a number of problems. This is an old idea that has been hashed over repeatedly and shown to have too many unsurmountable problems. There was a potentially workable method using the Shuttle to launch a manned lander in the payload bay; an uprated Centaur type stage launched separately on a heavy EELV would be the TLI stage. --Damon I wonder if there are any specs on line somewhere that shows the amount of fuel that it carries now on a 14 day misson just on the shuttle not the booster. Ralph > Can't possibly work; the Shuttle weighs far too much for the > amount of (very low density) propellant that could be held in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > --Damon rapoltalk <rapoltalk@aol.com> wrote in news:931a8bc5-0757-4b29-8dfe- a4c483006e93@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > I wonder if there are any specs on line somewhere that shows the > amount of fuel that it carries now on a 14 day misson just on the > shuttle not the booster. That's easy: none. Apart from fuel cell reactants and the OMS/RCS engines, which are different chemistries. The bottom line is that the dry weight of the Shuttle orbiter kills the idea of a "lunar Shuttle" at every step of the way. Apart from the weight issue, there are a gauntlet of practical systems problems which only add to the difficulty. We've been over this subject repeatedly: it won't work. --Damon > rapoltalk <rapolt...@aol.com> wrote in news:931a8bc5-0757-4b29-8dfe- > a4c483006...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > > > I wonder if there are any specs on line somewhere that shows the wonder if they thought about some how refueling the shuttle in space somehow. Maybe some sort of depot which is in essence a gas station in space refueled over several flights of the shuttle in order to have enough fuel for a flight to the moon if indeed the shuttle can't lift off with the extra weight of the fuel. Ralph > > amount of fuel that it carries now on a 14 day misson just on the > > shuttle not the booster. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > --Damon >> rapoltalk <rapolt...@aol.com> wrote in news:931a8bc5-0757-4b29-8dfe- >> a4c483006...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > enough fuel for a flight to the moon if indeed the shuttle can't lift > off with the extra weight of the fuel. Not possible. Even if you filled the entire volume of the shuttle's payload bay with propellant, it wouldn't be enough to get it to the moon. The only viable means of doing a manned lunar mission with the existing shuttle orbiter is to assemble the spacecraft in orbit over multiple flights. The orbiters themselves are just too heavy to go there, and their heatshields are just too light to survive the return trip. >Not possible. Even if you filled the entire volume of the shuttle's >payload bay with propellant, it wouldn't be enough to get it to the moon. ...Jorge, this isn't a questioning of your facts, but could you cite source for any NASA studies done where a fully-fueled shuttle in this configuration was gamed out for such a mission? Somewhere in the back of my mind I recall this being gamed out on .policy *YEARS* ago, and the conclusion that a figure-8 was possible. Henry may have been involved on that one, now that I think about it. The catch is that the cargo bay would be replaced with fuel tanks, and if you wanted to get something actually done other than the flyaround you'd strap on an ET fully fueled and even then you'd need about half the cargo bay for tanks. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >> Not possible. Even if you filled the entire volume of the shuttle's >> payload bay with propellant, it wouldn't be enough to get it to the moon. > > ...Jorge, this isn't a questioning of your facts, but could you cite > source for any NASA studies done where a fully-fueled shuttle in this > configuration was gamed out for such a mission? AFAIK, a study has never been done, just like there have never been NASA studies for using Faeries and Unicorns to get to the moon, and for the same reason. First principles: CSM/LM required an S-IVB to get to the moon Shuttle orbiter is twice the mass of the CSM/LM S-IVB tanks won't fit in orbiter payload bay Conclusion follows logically, no math required. The fact that the S-IVB was only partially full at TLI (since it was used for orbit insertion) is offset by the fact that the orbiter is twice as massive. That's even leaving aside the TPS issues. > Somewhere in the back > of my mind I recall this being gamed out on .policy *YEARS* ago, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fully fueled and even then you'd need about half the cargo bay for > tanks. I'd be really surprised if Henry were involved. > AFAIK, a study has never been done, just like there have never been NASA > studies for using Faeries and Unicorns to get to the moon, and for the > same reason. Wait a minute here... NASA did participate in such an exercise a number of years ago. When there was a huge asteroid headed for the earth, NASA officially worked with Hollywood and allowed Hollywood's more advanced space equipment and crews to launch from KSC to save the earth. The Hollywood shuttles stopped at the Mir station (docking through the side entry hatches, pretty neat :-) for refueling and then did a sling shot around the moon to catch up with the asteroid. It was then that Bruce Willis and Ben Aflek saved the Earth. Since we all know that NASA's PAO would not have allowed its facilities be used to make an impossible or dangerous endeavour, one must assume that before NASA approved this joint venture with Hollywood, it had done all the safety and feasability studies to ensure Hollywood's plans were realistic. (BTW, i have it on good authority that Bruce Willis survived and is safely back on earth, but he has since divorced Demi More). > That's even leaving aside the TPS issues. Ok, seriously: Leaving asside fuel issues here. Falling back from the Moon, could a shuttle have enough manoeuvrability with thrusters/OMS to precicely put itself in a path that would just hit upper atmosphere and have it enter an elliptical orbit ? At every perigee, it would hit atmosphere a bit to slow it down further until its energy level were low enough for the tiles to shield the shuttle ? This way, the shuttle would experience multiple heating events, but non would be too hot for tiles to widthstand and with time for tiles to cool down between each pass through atmosphere. Is this concept realistically possible, or would it be considered too risky because the slightest error would cause the vehicle to make a full re-eentry at the wrong angle and with way too much energy ? (replace "Shuttle" with other vehicles, am interested more in the concept than with a specific vehicle). Did not realize these links below existed. Might want to check them out, Even the below link talks about a fuel tank being sent in orbit ahead of the shuttle. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread318124/pg1 http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-59028.html http://www.safesimplesoon.com/default.htm > > AFAIK, a study has never been done, just like there have never been NASA > > studies for using Faeries and Unicorns to get to the moon, and for the [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > (replace "Shuttle" with other vehicles, am interested more in the > concept than with a specific vehicle). > Did not realize these links below existed. Might want to check them > out, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-59028.html These links are to forums and provide no real evidence, only useless argument and speculation. > http://www.safesimplesoon.com/default.htm This link does not propose sending a shuttle orbiter to the moon, but rather using (loosely) shuttle derived components to send a dedicated lunar craft (Orion) to the moon. >> Ok, seriously: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> slow it down further until its energy level were low enough for the >> tiles to shield the shuttle ? No. Another Idea why not make a larger Tank and also booster Rockets it would not be that big of a problem I would think. Ralph > > AFAIK, a study has never been done, just like there have never been NASA > > studies for using Faeries and Unicorns to get to the moon, and for the [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > (replace "Shuttle" with other vehicles, am interested more in the > concept than with a specific vehicle). > Another Idea why not make a larger Tank and also booster Rockets it > would not be that big of a problem I would think. Look at the schedule for Ares V (which is shuttle-derived but with a larger tank and booster rockets) and you will no longer be able to say with a straight face that "it would not be that big of a problem." > Another Idea why not make a larger Tank and also booster Rockets it > would not be that big of a problem I would think. We've been over this subject multiple times in the past. Apart from the time, cost and huge practical problems, the Shuttle weighs too much. That's always going to be the bottom line. Even with a payload bay fully loaded with propellant, 5 segment boosters and a stretched tank (most of which are major, expensive modifications), and attempting a very tricky single-burn TLI, the Shuttle at best MIGHT end up doing a lunar flyby with no payload. What's the point of doing that? Do you have any concept of the weight of a fully loaded ET, and what it'll take to get that into orbit? Nope, you don't. I won't even go into all the practical problems of propellant transfer, redesigning the SSMEs for restart in vacuum, and so forth. The ONLY rational solution is to build spacecraft designed for the purpose and launch them on suitable rockets. And that is what is being done, even as the Shuttle is being retired (sooner or later, as the case may be). --Damon The B52 is also old but it is still in use. Of course not much is left of the original plane but if the B52 can be retrofitted and updated with new parts and components why not the Shuttle. As far as the shuttle and the moon is concerned where there is a will there is a way. I helped develop some of the early OS's and computers and people then thought it could not be done but it was done, so I don't believe it can't be done if we put our minds into it. > > Another Idea why not make a larger Tank and also booster Rockets it > > would not be that big of a problem I would think. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > --Damon The B52 is also old but it is still in use. Of course not much is left of the original plane but if the B52 can be retrofitted and updated with new parts and components why not the Shuttle. As far as the shuttle and the moon is concerned where there is a will there is a way. I helped develop some of the early OS's and computers and people then thought it could not be done but it was done, so I don't believe it can't be done if we put our minds into it. The B52 is also relatively economical to operate. And most of it is the original plane. And as far as the shuttle and the Moon is concerned, physics is the limitation. You simply can't take the shuttle, fill the cargo bay and make it to the Moon, no matter how hard you wish it. And your analogy is flawed. If it were to be accurate, we'd be running Windows Server 2003 on a 8086. We're not. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: >The B52 is also old but it is still in use. Of course not much is left >of the original plane but if the B52 can be retrofitted and updated >with new parts and components why not the Shuttle. > >The B52 is also relatively economical to operate. And most of it is the >original plane. Sure, once you subtract the electronics, the engines, and vast portions of the structure - what's left is the original plane. Like the old family hammer that has had the handle replaced four times and the head thrice. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the old family hammer that has had the handle replaced four times and > the head thrice. Except, as far as I know, fast portions of the structure ARE original Derek. Do you have evidence to the contrary? > D. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: >> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Except, as far as I know, fast portions of the structure ARE original Derek. >Do you have evidence to the contrary? The wing has been extensively rebuilt (Pacer Plank among other programs), and portions of the fuselages have reskinned over time. (For corrosion control as well as to replace stressed/cracked skins due to agin.) Then there is the far less obvious changes under the skin as various smaller parts are upgraded over time. A friend of mine, when he worked for Boeing, spent most of a decade doing nothing but managing the hydraulic systems - ensuring that as aircraft rotated through overhaul the systems were brought up to the current spec. (Pump upgrades, valve changes, etc.) D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: > > The wing has been extensively rebuilt (Pacer Plank among other > programs), and portions of the fuselages have reskinned over time. > (For corrosion control as well as to replace stressed/cracked skins > due to agin.) I was thinking I recalled something about the wings, and I'll grant that's a major upgrade. I'm not sure I'd put the fuselage in quite the same category. I was trying to draw the line at major structural components. There's no doubt a lot of other stuff (such as hydraulics as you mention, as well as the engines) have been upgraded. > Then there is the far less obvious changes under the skin as various > smaller parts are upgraded over time. A friend of mine, when he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > D. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: >> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I'm not sure I'd put the fuselage in quite the same category. I was trying >to draw the line at major structural components. That's why I specified the skin - I don't think major structural members, outside of the wing, have been changed. They rarely do. >There's no doubt a lot of other stuff (such as hydraulics as you mention, as >well as the engines) have been upgraded. Which is why I made the comment about the old family hammer. Much is made of the B-52's age, but much of the systems and a goodly portion of the structure are younger than people think. And when it comes to systems, the same it true to some extent of the Shuttle. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Which is why I made the comment about the old family hammer. Much is Found a feasabilty study by Nasa done in 1991 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907_1991014907.pdf Ralph > made of the B-52's age, but much of the systems and a goodly portion > of the structure are younger than people think. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. > Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907_199101 > 4907.pdf And did you actually read this document? It thoroughly refutes your proposal as hopelessly impractical. The weight of the orbiter alone, let alone a host of other practical problems, kills the idea at the beginning. --Damon No I have not had a chance to read it yet and yes I know that the document has it's view point. I put it up there because I wanted the information with actual technical specs so I can evaluate it. I will read it probably won't change my mind since the report was written in 1991 and technology has changed a great deal since then. > >http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907_199101 > > 4907.pdf [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > --Damon > No I have not had a chance to read it yet and yes I know that the > document has it's view point. I put it up there because I wanted the > information with actual technical specs so I can evaluate it. I will > read it probably won't change my mind since the report was written in > 1991 and technology has changed a great deal since then. Nothing has changed, including the physics. Why would you want to send 100+ tons of dead weight to the Moon? That's the conclusion of the document, and everybody else with a rational point of view. --Damon Well I have not read the whole document yet and I'll get back to you tomorrow but you do realize this was done before ARES 5 was developed and the caveat of the document that there would no enhancements, and would involve refueling in orbit. I was around during the Apollo days and I remember the burn of the Saturn 5 to get to a speed of 25000 to get out of Earths Orbit TLI. After looking a couple of websites I wanted to see what was the payload capacity and weight of the Shuttle vs. the Ares 5 and the weight of the shuttle to see if the shuttle could be launched somehow using the ARES 5. I also don't have any figures on how heavy the new lunar lander would be and the specs for it. Shuttle Weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle Orbiter Only Empty Weight Vs. Full Empty weight: 68,585 kg (151,205 lb) Gross liftoff weight: 109,000 kg (240,000 lb) conflicting information ARES 5 Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it says 300000K on main website page here it says 320000 pounds. http://www.safesimplesoon.com/heavylift.htm Single Launch: 320,000 Pounds to LEO that would make it difficult to work but this does not match the main page figures of the heavy lift capacity of the ARES 5. Main Website Page http://www.safesimplesoon.com/default.htm# ARES 5 Shows something different on this page if this is correct then it could take a fully loaded shuttle to moon. 144K to TLI 316,000 LBS 300K to LEO 660000 LBS Based on the above figures and weight alone if I read this right ARES 5 could send a shuttle to TLI and the moon. Now physically is it possible based on the design of the ARES 5 that can be debated but weight alone it can. But let me get back to you tomorrow on this while I do some more reading the document. Ralph > > No I have not had a chance to read it yet and yes I know that the > > document has it's view point. I put it up there because I wanted the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > --Damon > Based on the above figures and weight alone if I read this right ARES > 5 could send a shuttle to TLI and the moon. Now physically is it > possible based on the design of the ARES 5 that can be debated but > weight alone it can. Why would you want to send 100+ tons of dead weight to the Moon? Not payload, just an orbiter that's nothing more than a package to wrap the payload in. Use the Ares V to send the payload itself to Moon. Forget Shuttle. --Damon 240,000 lb full payload shuttle 151,205 lb empty shuttle no crew supplies or payload. Can hold 88.000 pounds would not be empty. Why a Shuttle if possible save time and money with a known technology to get there 5 years quicker. Could carry the Lunar lander extra fuel not sure on the weight of the Lunar Lander so I say that with a grain of salt. a larger crew that would be around in case of a emergency to manuver the shuttle with the LM current plans have Orion orbiting around the moon unmanned which I disagree with and is another story. Carry Lunar Habitats again not sure of the weight. But that is a large cargo bay the Shuttle has if you have been to Houston or KSC and seen one. Ralph > > Based on the above figures and weight alone if I read this right ARES > > 5 could send a shuttle to TLI and the moon. Now physically is it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > --Damon rapoltalk <rapoltalk@aol.com> wrote in news:3ed61bac-3085-423e-bde7-14e0da1b0df4@p10g2000prf.googlegr oups.com: > 240,000 lb full payload shuttle > 151,205 lb empty shuttle no crew supplies or payload. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > large cargo bay the Shuttle has if you have been to Houston > or KSC and seen one. Why, why, oh WHY are you sending 100+ tons of dead weight to the Moon? Just send the lunar lander itself with its cargo--many times over--with the same effort as sending 100+ tons of orbiter dead weight to the Moon? The lander is perfectly capable of making the trip by itself. Send along a much smaller spacecraft for the humans to travel to the Moon and back. Why can't you perceive the huge logical fallacy of your proposal? Please read that document. --Damon > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >The B52 is also relatively economical to operate. And most of it is the > >original plane. Thats what I said but it is still flying > Sure, once you subtract the electronics, the engines, and vast > portions of the structure - what's left is the original plane. Like [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. > Oct 5th, 2004 JDL Soyuz could do a orbital mission to moon pretty easily, if the russians had the bucks. The shuttle isnt practical:( Finally we built the saturn 5 knowing llittle about space travel in what 10 years? How long has nasa been wasting money on the stick? Its not going anywhere but the scrap heap of design failures > The B52 is also old but it is still in use. Of course not much is left > of the original plane but if the B52 can be retrofitted and updated [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > then thought it could not be done but it was done, so I don't believe > it can't be done if we put our minds into it. You really don't understand the situation, do you? Dream on, then. --Damon Yes I do quite well Thank you > > The B52 is also old but it is still in use. Of course not much is left > > of the original plane but if the B52 can be retrofitted and updated [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > --Damon Well you only need to see the small mass you got back with respect to the launch mass of Apollo to see why you have to keep things light. I was very surprised to see them opt for solid this time. I guess if the craft survives the first stage shaker, it will probably work the rest of the mission! Brian SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! > rapoltalk <rapoltalk@aol.com> wrote in news:931a8bc5-0757-4b29-8dfe- > a4c483006e93@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > --Damon Yes, maybe there is, but the hardware is still very heavy on its own, and quite plainly not designed for anything other than what it does. I was just wondering what everyone is going to do with that growing constellation of dead sats up just past the orbit used by Geosynchronous satalites. ie all the dead ones. Probably get so out of date so fast, its not worth going up there and fishing them back for re use. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! I wonder if there are any specs on line somewhere that shows the amount of fuel that it carries now on a 14 day misson just on the shuttle not the booster. Ralph On Aug 29, 1:47 pm, Damon Hill <damon1S...@comcast.netnet> wrote: > Can't possibly work; the Shuttle weighs far too much for the > amount of (very low density) propellant that could be held in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > --Damon > Man last stepped on the moon in 1972 with Apollo 17, and it has been > the dream of that group of astronauts to go back to the moon. Now [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://changingviews1.blogspot.com/2008/08/to-moon.html There's no way in hell this would work. The shuttle bay can't hold enough extra fuel to get the shuttle TO the moon, let alone back. It's just not physically possible. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html |
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.