Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Very close-up, slo-mo of the Columbia launch debris.
Florida Today ^ | 02/01/03

Posted on 02/01/2003 5:03:21 PM PST by Prov1322

Edited on 05/07/2004 6:04:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]


(Excerpt) Read more at floridatoday.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: astronauts; columbia; columbiatragedy; debris; disaster; feb12003; nasa; orbit; shuttle; space; spacecenter; spaceshuttle; sts107; video
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-186 last
To: ladyinred
Wondering also, since at the time they checked it out and said it was no big deal. Had they thought it was, wouldn't they have done something?

What could they do once they were in orbit? They don't have in-flight tile repair capability. That is a specialized operation only done on the ground. They couldn't reach the ISS. Columbia doesn't have the engine power for that height of orbit and anyway the orbit was set up for this mission such that the ISS was not within reach. They had consuambles for a set time. Sending another ship up to rescue them in time probably wasn't possible. We don't have these things lined up on the launch pads ready to go whenever we want.

The only thing I have heard suggested was changing the re-entry profile to that that damaged areas of the heat shield didn't get as much of the heat load as they normally might. But there are limits to that. There's no way you can completely avoid heating in an area. In fact, the gain maximum heat rejection you generally want to distribute the heat load evenly. Shielding one area means other areas are likely getting hotter.

151 posted on 02/02/2003 1:54:03 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: XBob
ok, good - you don't even need a pencil to put a hole in that, just stick your finger through it

If it punctures that readily, why doesn't the onrush of air during landing smash the tile?

152 posted on 02/02/2003 2:18:55 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: XBob
>>...how about giving us a link, please...<<

It was shown on TV. Sorry.

153 posted on 02/02/2003 2:27:48 PM PST by FReepaholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: XBob
This is the spouse of "One Sided Media" and I am relaying to you the information I passed on to NASA regarding what probably caused the destruction of Columbia.

In the news conference held about an hour ago, part of the discussion was about the "roll control" and the inertial control systems that attempt to minimize deviations in the pitch, yaw, and roll of the shuttle. We know that in the last couple of minutes of communication with the ship, the shuttle was rolling to its left, evident by the increase in surface temperature on the left hand side wing and fuselage. As of the last contact, excluding the 32 seconds of unformed date that the Director was mentioning, this battle for control was occurring. Within a few seconds of the telemetry failing, and it may have been what caused the communications failure, the shuttles' ability to self correct completely failed. My belief is that ultimately the roll control failed resulting in superheating of the tiles on top of the wing and fuselage as the shuttle rolled over, an area whose tiles were not designed for reentry temperatures. This superheating is what caused the explosion seen in the video that has been repeated through out the day.

The ultimate question will be as to why the roll control was lost.



154 posted on 02/02/2003 4:49:07 PM PST by One Sided Media
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush wants to boost funding for NASA by almost a half-billion dollars to modernize the space agency's aging shuttle fleet and develop a new space plane, an administration official said Sunday.


155 posted on 02/02/2003 5:20:52 PM PST by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: chimera
You know that. I know that. He knows that.

But he's still a human being who feels like his failure caused the death of seven collegues, and the loss of 1/4 of the fleet.

He was really hurting...
156 posted on 02/02/2003 6:32:41 PM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: null and void
>>>Obviously fairly soft as it puffed into a cloud of frost(?) powder.<<<

That "cloud of frost(?)powder" may very well have been tiles themselves disintegrating. They are very fragile and porous ceramic (not like your kitchen tiles at all) and the insulation from the fuel tank hitting them could have very possibly damaged them.

157 posted on 02/02/2003 6:47:41 PM PST by HardStarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard
Yup. Keep reading...
158 posted on 02/02/2003 6:50:48 PM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: null and void
You know that. I know that. He knows that.

But he's still a human being who feels like his failure caused the death of seven collegues, and the loss of 1/4 of the fleet.

He was really hurting...

Well, I hope the guy gets some help because its obviously not a call made by a single individual acting alone. The recommendation probably gets passed on by any number of people higher up. Technical decisions in any kind of engineering endeavor are often made by consensus, not a single, isolated person.

The earlier discussion about damage by the piece of insulation mentioned high speeds of the material and/or wing surface. Sure, they're all travelling fast at that point of the launch, but is not damage inflicted by the impacting object a function of the relative velocities? The familiar example is the image of a piece of straw driven by tornadic winds impaling itself in a tree trunk. A normally flimsy and light object driven to high speeds penetrates and damages a relatively strong material. But there the target is stationary and the moving object hitting with a high relative speed. If the two objects are moving together or at close relative speeds, is not the energy imparted somewhat reduced? I'm thinking here of the classical mechanics problem of conservation of momentum in the center-of-mass frame of reference. Unless there was tremendous slowing down of that piece of foam as it left the external tank, I can't imagine the relative velocities being too terribly different.

159 posted on 02/02/2003 7:26:07 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: XBob
I seem to vaguely recall some discussion, years ago, of replacing the current crew cabin configuration on the orbiters with an integral, reentry-survivable pod. If an emergency arose during launch, it could be ejected under its own power and soft-land. It could also re-enter the atmosphere from orbit if the orbiter failed the re-entry burn.

Do you recall why that option was never utilized? Cost? Technical hurdles?

160 posted on 02/02/2003 7:45:49 PM PST by strela (You could look it up ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Enlightiator
Guess what? I can't get that link to open now. :-(
161 posted on 02/02/2003 9:47:00 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Jael
147 - "Do you know anything about the formula of the insulation foam being changed?"

Not really. I do know that the external tank foam was like high density, polyurethan, pretty hard (compared to the white foam on the shuttle), and seems to 'skim' over on drying, so that it remains relatively water proof. I remember some hail damage patches, and also some 'bird' damage. we had some birds which decided they wanted to peck some holes in the insulation, and they needed to be driven off and the holes patched. I don't remember what the solutions were to either problem, But I do remember patches.

All that work was out on the pads (about 10 miles away), where I rarely went.

Kennedy Space Center is a wild life refuge, and there are all kinds of 'greenies' guarding the 'wild life'. They routinely tried to shut down launches in the 80's. And they forced terrifffffic extra expenses. (Like catching each grain of sand and paint when sand blasting the rust on steel gantries on the edge of the ocean, and packing it all up in 55 gallon drums and trucking it as hazardous material for burial in Alabama). Catching rats, which would routinely eat the communication cable insululation, in glue traps, and then analyzing each rat to see if was one of the 'endangered' rats, before killing it. Not allowing us to return any of the daily/weekly/monthly water quality test samples from local water systems (ponds, canals, etc) back to the place we got them from , even if they were not contaminated, or even dump them into sewage disposal system. (so we built a 10,000 gallon tank, where we stored them, for years - they probably still haven't figured out what to do with them - and that is 14 years ago). Not being allowed to put any water from our drinking water (contained chlorine) system on the ground , so we had to make special disposal.

I remember how they dictated that we couldn't drinking water for the heat supression system (500,000 gallons of water pumped out in 15 seconds to cool the gantry to keep the rocket blast from melting them), we had to use 'natural' water. So jillions snails got into the (nice warm, dark, wet) giant tanks system, clogged up our gigantic tanks and pumps. It took months to fix them. Then we had to build a special plant to process 'natural water' to keep 'natural' things out of the 'natural' water.



162 posted on 02/02/2003 10:42:11 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Balata
thanks
163 posted on 02/02/2003 10:43:46 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
152 - "If it punctures that readily, why doesn't the onrush of air during landing smash the tile?"

good question, and out of my area of expertice, except that the white, supersoft tile is on the top of the wing.

And perhaps on this re-entry. it did.
164 posted on 02/02/2003 10:49:42 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: XBob
Catching rats, which would routinely eat the communication cable insululation, in glue traps, and then analyzing each rat to see if was one of the 'endangered' rats, before killing it.

A few local wild cats would have solved this problem?

165 posted on 02/02/2003 10:54:24 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: One Sided Media
You have a good point. I do know that the 'pilots' on the shuttle don't have to, and mostly don't 'fly' it. Everything can be done automatically from start to finish, but they gave them back control after re-entry for landing so that they could have some 'job' and respect.

Personally, from what you are saying, and what I have seen and heard, and know I postulate -

1. take off tile damage over the left wheel well
2. tiles start coming off at left wheel well, slowing down left side
3. computer tries to sompensate, steering right
4. heating tires, explode, blowing out wheel well and wing, losing aerodynamics
5. putting low heat tiles into high heat air stream
6. which melts/breaks airframe

scenario 2 - new computer program screws up re-entry attitude (doubt this, because everyone would have been worried over california, instead of not being worried much at all, except about no temperature guage, until they were gone over texas). In listening to the tape excerpts I have heard, I don't hear any fight for control, or worry about control, until there is none.

Does my theory #1 answer your question:

"The ultimate question will be as to why the roll control was lost."

I havent heard/analyzed a transcript, so again, this is just guessing. Plus, I didn't see any landing gear wreckage.

166 posted on 02/02/2003 11:15:21 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: kanawa
155 - "WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush wants to boost funding for NASA by almost a half-billion dollars to modernize the space agency's aging shuttle fleet and develop a new space plane, an administration official said Sunday."

The last new shuttle, to replace challenger, cost $2 billion+, used existing spare parts.

There are no more spare parts, and no more spare parts factories. Try building one, and only one brand new 1966 Studibaker.

They will spend $499 million buying $1 in spare parts.

Sorry, that was an error, it was meant to be $1 million. Freudian slip I guess.
167 posted on 02/02/2003 11:21:57 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: strela
160 - "I seem to vaguely recall some discussion, years ago, of replacing the current crew cabin configuration on the orbiters with an integral, reentry-survivable pod. If an emergency arose during launch, it could be ejected under its own power and soft-land. It could also re-enter the atmosphere from orbit if the orbiter failed the re-entry burn.

Do you recall why that option was never utilized? Cost? Technical hurdles?"




There really is no way to survive more than very minor problems. The original shuttle design they adopted can't be modified effectively.

Here is what became of that idea.

They changed the crew door, made it larger, and put explosive bolts on it. they designed a pole, about 10 feet long, for the astronauts to line up, attach pole to the doorway, and one at a time, slide down this pole and jump out in their space suits with parachutes, all the while hurtling to earth in an emergency.

(And as silly as that sounds, it is no joke - that is the proposal which was finally adopted - though I don't know if it was ever implemented) I saw the tape demonstrating how it was to be used.

You probably have never heard of it, justifiably so. But we used to play it as part of our 'training' time when we wanted a good laugh.
168 posted on 02/02/2003 11:39:10 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
LOL - "A few local wild cats would have solved this problem?
"

well, actually, we thought about that, but were told we couldn't get a cat, or a trap, unless it could distinguish between a protected and a non-protected rat.

And so, we had to pull up the cable trays in the floor each morning and check for glued rats. and then if we had one, we had to call the rat man, who would come out and take the rat away for further determination. One day, we just found a rat leg. They wrote us up for not checking our glue traps often enough, and asked us to check every 8 hours. (but we filed that directive in the circular file and 'found' no more legs).
169 posted on 02/02/2003 11:47:54 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: strela
I forgot, I think you will see the astronauts wait now for about 30-45 minutes to get out after landing (while they un-explosivise the bolts).
170 posted on 02/02/2003 11:51:14 PM PST by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: XBob
Reowr
171 posted on 02/03/2003 12:00:37 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: chimera
Agreed, on all points.
172 posted on 02/03/2003 7:41:51 AM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: ironman
aha! I'm a Trek fan, are they the same as reaction control thrusters ( pitch,yaw and atitude)?
173 posted on 02/03/2003 9:57:45 AM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
Yes, same thing.
174 posted on 02/03/2003 11:38:18 AM PST by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: null and void
What art of engineering allows incidents of debris to be incorporated into an acceptable design?

All mechanical engineeering. Your car hits pebbles all the time, and has an air filter. No farm equipment would work if it couldn't tolerate dirt...

I appreciate what your saying although your examples are of debris external to the vehicle, whereas in the shuttles case the debris is a functional part of the vehicle. It would be as though my cars tires falling off or the hood disengaging from the car was an acceptable design.

No?

175 posted on 02/03/2003 6:34:39 PM PST by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: null and void
From another thread....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/835276/posts

http://ltp.arc.nasa.gov/space/team/journals/katnik/sts87-12-23.html

"Damage numbering up to forty tiles is considered normal on each mission due to ice dropping off of the external tank (ET) and plume re-circulation causing this debris to impact with the tiles. But the extent of damage at the conclusion of this mission was not "normal." The pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations, and the number, size and severity of hits were abnormal. Three hundred and eight hits were counted during the inspection, one-hundred and thirty two (132) were greater than one inch. Some of the hits measured fifteen (15) inches long with depths measuring up to one and one-half (1 1/2) inches. Considering that the depth of the tile is two (2) inches, a 75% penetration depth had been reached. Over one hundred (100) tiles have been removed from the Columbia because they were irreparable.

176 posted on 02/03/2003 6:53:01 PM PST by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: kanawa
Good point.
177 posted on 02/03/2003 7:23:01 PM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: XBob
Those increases for NASA were layed out and in print prior to the loss of the Columbia.
178 posted on 02/04/2003 3:13:20 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
B4ITS2LATE WROTE: "Yes, hindsight always 20/20."

EXCEPT in the case of the Klintons!!! The IDIOT RATS out there elected THEM TWICE!!! (And HER THREE times)

179 posted on 02/05/2003 12:40:59 AM PST by Concerned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh; Wright is right!; Kozak; A Citizen Reporter; spokanite; TheDon; TLBSHOW; #3Fan; ...
AIMHIGH WROTE: "Here's what I found about the tiles: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question308.htm "

AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "The space shuttles are protected by special silica tiles. Silica (SiO2) is an incredible insulator. It is possible to hold a space shuttle tile by the edge and then heat up the center of the tile with a blow torch. The tile insulates so well that no heat makes it out to the edges. This page discusses the tiles: "

AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "Aerobraking tiles are produced from amorphous silica fibers which are pressed and sintered, with the resulting tile having as much as 93% porosity (i.e., very lightweight) and low thermal expansion, low thermal conductivity (e.g., the well known pictures of someone holding a Space Shuttle tile by the corners when the center is red hot), and good thermal shock properties. This process can be readily performed in space when we can produce silica of the required purity."

AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "And from another site:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/8/r81/055/space_shuttle/shuttle.html "

AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "Shuttle orbiters use a system of 30,000 tiles made of a silica compound that does not ablate, but does rapidly radiate heat away from the orbiter. These tiles can be repaired in space. Major disadvantages are fragility (tiles easily damaged before launch and by orbital debris -- lots of tile damage due to debris since anti-satellite tests in mid-80's) and complexity (many people needed to manually attach tiles to orbiter in a tedious and time-consuming process, and to inspect them all before launch)." [AND BEFORE REENTRY!!!]

AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "It's the easily damaged part that is of interest here. Note they can also be repaired. It would seem logical that every flight would include a space walk to ensure the integrity of the tiles."

BINGO!!! Great info.

180 posted on 02/05/2003 1:10:00 AM PST by Concerned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ELS
ELS WROTE: "One of the NASA managers at the press conference today said that the astronauts cannot access the tile side of the shuttle during space walks."

Well, IT'S ABOUT TIME THEY FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT!!!!!!! These guys are ENGINEERS!!!!!

181 posted on 02/05/2003 1:22:04 AM PST by Concerned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Concerned
How Things Work? You mean the Childrens book series right? THAT's your "definative" source?
Oh I guess the Astronauts were too busy to read that reference text so that they could acquire the knowledge to repair the shuttle. Maybe it should be included in the EP's (Emergency Procedurec Checklist) for the next flight.
182 posted on 02/05/2003 5:12:49 AM PST by Kozak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
KOZAK WROTE: "How Things Work? You mean the Childrens book series right? THAT's your "definative" source? Oh I guess the Astronauts were too busy to read that reference text so that they could acquire the knowledge to repair the shuttle. Maybe it should be included in the EP's (Emergency Procedurec Checklist) for the next flight."

No, I don't believe that's the Children's series.

The other reference is by a Dr. Robert G. Melton, Prof. of Aerospace Engineering at PENN STATE UNIVERSITY.

I guess your implication is that PENN STATE UNIVERSITY must have hired an idiot to TEACH the subject of AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING? I don't know the man, but I kind of doubt it. I bet he KNOWS the subject---inside and out. Nice try, though.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/8/r81/055/
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/8/r81/

183 posted on 02/05/2003 7:02:16 AM PST by Concerned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Concerned
AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "It's the easily damaged part that is of interest here. Note they can also be repaired. It would seem logical that every flight would include a space walk to ensure the integrity of the tiles."

BUMP
184 posted on 02/05/2003 7:08:31 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Concerned
"AIMHIGH CONTINUED: "It's the easily damaged part that is of interest here. Note they can also be repaired. It would seem logical that every flight would include a space walk to ensure the integrity of the tiles." BINGO!!! Great info."

I stand vindicated. Just what I said should come out of this - a simple repair kit/tools, mandatory EVAs for inspection and a simple tether arrangement. Nice to know that what I thought of in my living room had already been proposed by Carnegie-Mellon.

Michael

185 posted on 02/05/2003 7:26:25 AM PST by Wright is right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Concerned
As opposed to:

At a news conference Sunday, Ron Dittemore, the shuttle program manager, said that early in the shuttle program, NASA considered developing a tile repair kit, but that "we just didn't believe it was feasible at the time." He added that a crew member climbing along the underside of the shuttle could cause even more damage to the tiles. .

Another idea, widely circulated on the Internet, was that the shuttle could have docked with the International Space Station once the damage was discovered. But without the external fuel tank, dropped as usual after launching, Columbia had no fuel for its main engines and thus no way it could propel itself to the station, which circles the earth in a different orbit at a higher altitude. .

"We have nowhere near the fuel needed to get there," said Bruce Buckingham, a spokesman at the Kennedy Space Center. .

Another shuttle, Atlantis, was scheduled for launching on March 1 to carry supplies and a new crew to the space station, and it is possible to imagine a series of events in which NASA rushed Atlantis to the launching pad, sent it up with a minimal crew of two, had it rendezvous with Columbia in space and brought everyone down safely. .

But Atlantis is still in its hangar, and to rush it to launching would have required NASA to circumvent most of its safety measures. "It takes about three weeks, at our best effort, to prepare the shuttle for launch once we're at the pad," Buckingham said, "and we're not even at the pad." Further, Columbia had enough oxygen, supplies and fuel (for its thrusters only) to remain in orbit for only five more days, said Patrick Ryan, a spokesman at the Johnson Space Center here. .

Finally, there is the notion that Columbia's re-entry might have been altered in some way to protect its damaged area. But Dittemore said the shuttle's descent path was already designed to keep temperatures as low as possible. "Because I'm reusing this vehicle over and over again, so I'm trying to send it through an environment that minimizes the wear and tear on the structure and the tile," he said at his news conference Sunday. .

On Monday he added that he did not know of a way for the shuttle to re-enter so that most of the heat would be absorbed by tiles that were not damaged, on its right wing. .

Even if that had been possible, it would probably have damaged the shuttle beyond repair and made it impossible to land, requiring the crew to parachute out at high speed and at high altitude. He said there was no way managers could have gotten information about the damaged tiles that would have warranted so drastic a move. .

Gene Kranz, the flight director who orchestrated the rescue of astronauts aboard the crippled Apollo 13 in 1970, said that from what he knew about the suspected tile damage, there was probably nothing that could have been done. "The options," he said in a telephone interview, "were just nonexistent." HOUSTON Even if flight controllers had known for certain that protective heat tiles on the underside of the space shuttle had sustained severe damage at launching, little or nothing could have been done to address the problem, space agency officials say. .

Virtually since the hour Columbia went down, the space agency has been peppered with possible options for repairing the damage or getting the crew down safely. But in each case, officials in Houston and at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida say, the proposed solution would not have worked. .

The simplest would have been to abort the mission the moment the damage was discovered. In case of an engine malfunction or other serious problem at launching, a space shuttle can jettison its solid rocket boosters and the external fuel tank, shut down its own engines and glide back down, either returning to the Kennedy Space Center or an emergency landing site in Spain or Morocco. .

But no one even knew that a piece of insulation from the external tank had hit the orbiter until a frame-by-frame review of videotape of the launching was undertaken the next day. By then, Columbia was already in orbit, and re-entry would have posed the same danger that it did 16 days later. .

Four other possibilities have been discussed at briefings or in interviews since the loss of Columbia, and each has been rejected by NASA officials. .

First, repairing the damaged tiles. The crew had no tools for such a repair. At a news conference Sunday, Ron Dittemore, the shuttle program manager, said that early in the shuttle program, NASA considered developing a tile repair kit, but that "we just didn't believe it was feasible at the time." He added that a crew member climbing along the underside of the shuttle could cause even more damage to the tiles.

186 posted on 02/05/2003 7:35:25 AM PST by Kozak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-186 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson