backtop

Print 59 comment(s) - last by ClownPuncher.. on May 19 at 5:36 PM
NASA, Russia reportedly crunch numbers regarding space flight costs

As the U.S. space agency prepares to retire the current fleet of space shuttles, it knew there would be a price to pay for relying on the Russian space agency for space travel.  That price is estimated to be $51 million USD for each trip from Earth to the International Space Station (ISS), several Russian news agencies have reported.

Starting in 2012, Roskosmos will begin to charge for each launch that has NASA astronauts, Anatoly Perminov said during a press conference.  The shuttles will be retired in 2010, though it's unknown what price will be paid for the first two years of space travel.

Roskosmos charged NASA $21.8 million for a flight to the ISS in 2006, but space tourists now pay upwards of $35 million for a two-week stay aboard the ISS.  Even though Russia will be responsible for ferrying NASA astronauts into orbit, the agency will continue to take paying tourists into space.

When NASA officially retires the shuttle next year, each partner nation will also be forced to rely on Russia to transport astronauts into space.  The next-generation Ares I/Orion space technology isn't scheduled to be released until 2014 – at the earliest – so NASA will need to purchase multiple trips into space aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft.

NASA's dependence on Russia led some politicians and space experts to try and convince President Obama to delay the fleet's retirement until 2011.  However, possible safety issues would make even an additional spaceflight on each shuttle too dangerous for consideration, along with the minimum $3 billion per year that would be necessary to keep the fleet flight-ready.

The U.S. space agency is desperately trying to finish construction of the ISS before the shuttle fleet is retired, which would help reduce the number of necessary flights to the ISS.  It's still possible the ISS will be completed by 2010, when the shuttle fleet is retired.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Suckas!
By ihova01 on 5/14/2009 10:39:56 AM , Rating: 4
Just kidding :)

It all doesn't look good for NASA. Russia did create a Shuttle analog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)) and used it once but soon realized it's not the right way to go to space. While single use rockets are being renewed with each launch, shuttles are deteriorating. It was a very bad idea from the beginning. The shuttle internals is an ancient technology. NASA would be in a much better position now if it didn't put a lot of effort into the shuttles and instead built its own space station like Russia did. And it's not the first time the U.S. uses Russia in space. That same Russian space station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir) was visited by U.S. astronauts who conducted scientific experiments.

Here is a quote from wiki:
Astronaut Shannon Lucid, who set the record for longest stay in space by a woman while aboard Mir (surpassed by Sunita Williams 11 years later on the ISS), also commented about working aboard Mir saying "I think going to work on a daily basis on Mir is very similar to going to work on a daily basis on an outstation in Antarctica. The big difference with going to work here is the isolation, because you really are isolated. You don't have a lot of support from the ground. You really are on your own."

What was quite amazing to me is the fact that the shuttle was "compatible" with the station and could be docked with it.

Although there has been a poor financing of the space program in Russia, it produced incredible results from a scientific value and reliability standpoints.




RE: Suckas!
By ClownPuncher on 5/14/2009 12:44:59 PM , Rating: 4
Buran made one flight in '88, then the Soviet Union collapsed shortly after. It wasn't that they "realized it didn't work". It's more like they "didn't have the money to operate it due to an overbloated military spending structure which caused a financial collapse in the USSR and all of the Eastern Bloc".


RE: Suckas!
By ihova01 on 5/14/2009 3:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
As I said, the space program in Russia has always been poorly financed. The Soviet Union collapse did not change anything. It was just a change of the government in Russia, nothing else. Buran itself was more a response to the Shuttle program as it was considered by Russia as a potential military threat. They showed that they can develop a similar technology and moved on. Later on, the knowledge and experience were used in other projects.

Also, it's worth mentioning that even though they had limited financial resources, Buran was designed to save lives of the crew in situations where a Shuttle would be a flying coffin.

"Overbloated military spending" does not cause a financial collapse. You should know that it's rather fuel for any economy.


RE: Suckas!
By segerstein on 5/14/2009 5:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
Overbloated military spending was one of USSR's problems. But when Gorbachev cut military spending, the whole country came to a halt. It's like closing half of government agencies, causing massive unemployment.

I don't agree with the poster above, that Russia is making lots of money with charging $50m a launch. What's $1bn these days...

Rockets are the future, not shuttles. This is why NASA will have a next-gen rocket, not a shuttle ;)


RE: Suckas!
By ihova01 on 5/15/2009 12:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
Major problems (not a "halt") were introduced with Eltsin being unable to govern the country. There wasn't a mechanism to support the new economy the right way which finally lead to the 98's default. Everyone was simply trying to seize more of the former public assets while it was yet possible. The economy is still an ugly monster in Russia. It's going to take many years to change things.

And there wasn't any massive unemployment in government agencies. People worked as they had worked before. They earned less overall, some were having troubles receiving their money. But they didn't have any morgages or credit balances. It took some time to shake things down.

I also do not agree that $50m would be profitable. Every ounce counts. And there is much more involved in training of the astronauts due to the different equipment, communication and such. One would expect Russia to provide free rides. But ISS is really a joint project. Everyone contributes.

I believe shuttles are the future. It's just not the right time yet.


RE: Suckas!
By ClownPuncher on 5/14/2009 7:50:27 PM , Rating: 4
Unless they aren't winning any wars, like...say...Afganistan...or say The Cold War. War isn't a "perpetual money machine". Iraq war = costing the US money. Vietnam war cost the US money.

The Soviet collapse DID change many many things. Tons of programs were cancelled, the country was almost bankrupt, the entire Eastern Bloc ceded, plus half of the asian areas(Turkmenistan etc).

Just a change in government? Time to pay for some courses at a local college, champ.


RE: Suckas!
By ihova01 on 5/15/2009 11:43:58 AM , Rating: 1
Neither Afghanistan nor the Cold War have ended per se. Same scenes, maybe a little different actors. The Vietnam war did end. The Iraq war is going to be over only maybe when there's no oil around.

War is a money machine. Just look at the losses of the U.S. army contractors once the government started cutting some of the programs. Everyone suffers -- from raw material developers to the IT industry. War doesn't cost money. War costs people lives.

And there wasn't in fact any SU "collapse". The dependent republics, which didn't play any major role as well as the Eastern block countries, just split off. Most programs were suspended, then resumed. Some programs were transformed due to the changed conditions. A natural resource provider country simply cannot go bankrupt. There can be a default, people may temporarily stop receiving their earnings on time. But it's not a big deal.

I'm telling you what you wouldn't hear at a local college or CNN. People graduated from a local college cannot identify Australia on the world map.


RE: Suckas!
By ClownPuncher on 5/15/2009 12:15:06 PM , Rating: 3
Afganistan and the traditional cold war are both over for russia. I am speaking of the USSR v. Afganistan conflict.


RE: Suckas!
By ihova01 on 5/15/2009 1:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
What's the traditional cold war? :) The cold war is never going to end. There will always be a conflict of interests. The latest missile defense system plans and Russian response to it as well as disagreement regarding the "START II" are reminders. Things do change, and we may see a new form of it in the future though.

And there wasn't a USSR vs. Afghanistan conflict. USSR supported the government party in its fight against mujahideen resistance (which was supported back then by the U.S.). The resistance faded out later and basically gave birth to the Taliban which the U.S. and allies army is fighting against now. (Crazy, isn't it? :) Same scene, slightly different actors. Russia does participate in it by allowing the delivery of supplies through its zones of interest (not much, heh?) and in fact is being affected by Taliban because of the drug flow coming from Afghanistan. Drugs are a Taliban fuel per se.


RE: Suckas!
By ClownPuncher on 5/19/2009 5:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
Only...USSR invaded Afghanistan and tried to occupy it for about 10 years. '79-'87 it was direct warfare. There were over 300,000 soviet troops in the country at one point.


RE: Suckas!
By modus2 on 5/15/2009 12:45:38 PM , Rating: 3
"Overbloated military spending" can mean different things, currently US is spending some 4% of its GDP on military purposes, which is a sustainable level demonstrated by many nations upholding that level over time. USSR on the other hand was spending some 25% of its GDP on military expenditure, a level that evidently was not sustainable.


RE: Suckas!
By 91TTZ on 5/14/2009 3:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It all doesn't look good for NASA. Russia did create a Shuttle analog and used it once but soon realized it's not the right way to go to space.


LOL, Way to conveniently misrepresent the facts there. They wanted to progress with the program (which is why they spent all the money building it) but the Soviet Union collapsed.


RE: Suckas!
By ihova01 on 5/14/2009 4:11:21 PM , Rating: 1
Nothing indicates they wanted to progress with the program. Although there are some people who say that Russia should resume the program. The Shuttle program showed that the concept is wrong. At least for now.

And again, Soviet Union collapse was just a change of the government in Russia. The new goverment was incapable of managing the updated economy which affected everything including the space programs. However, they did continue to work on less expensive things (and I would say more interesting and important). The research work on the Mir station was invaluable.


RE: Suckas!
By 91TTZ on 5/15/2009 1:19:03 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Nothing indicates they wanted to progress with the program.


False.

In addition to the orbiter that was launched, another was about 95% completed and there were 3 additional orbiters in the process of being built.


RE: Suckas!
By ihova01 on 5/18/2009 10:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
Nothing indicates they wanted to progress with the Buran program as a delivery panacea. They needed to show a response to the Shuttles, and they did. It was cancelled since it didn't make sense anymore. The program wasn't a waste of time and resources though. Zenit boosters are being used today (the successors are actually used on some Lockheed Martin and Boeing rockets). An-225 is being used today.


Soyuz safer than the Space Shuttle?
By ayat101 on 5/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Soyuz safer than the Space Shuttle?
By FishTankX on 5/14/2009 8:55:13 AM , Rating: 2
That's not 50 million per man.

That's 50 million per flight.

I can't remember the last time America sent up just one person.


By BladeVenom on 5/14/2009 9:55:24 AM , Rating: 4
MASA (Mexican Aeronáutica y Spacial Administración) can do it for $200.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/35726


By ayat101 on 5/14/2009 9:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
Are you sure? The article says per trip. The title says per launch...


By modus2 on 5/14/2009 10:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
The last solo mission for the US was Mercury-Atlas 9 launched 15 May 1963.

However even if it is per launch, the current Soyuz-TMA still only takes 3 people, and considering Russia likely wont allow an all american crew, its still at best 2 people for the 50M$. Admittedly its anyhow way cheaper than current Shuttle cost (~100M$/person, though to be fair you get a payload included in that) but at the price of being reduced to essentially a charter tourist :).


RE: Soyuz safer than the Space Shuttle?
By micksh on 5/14/2009 1:06:40 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
but since when was Russian tech safer than the Shuttle?

Since 1986 at least

Shuttle killed 14 people in 1986 and 2003
"No deaths have occurred on Soyuz missions since 1971, and none with the current design of the Soyuz"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_disaster


RE: Soyuz safer than the Space Shuttle?
By ayat101 on 5/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Soyuz safer than the Space Shuttle?
By Fat32 on 5/14/2009 4:04:52 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
LOL NO deaths that we KNOW of. How quickly people forget... in the old USSR if a disaster happened and made the state look bad, it was covered up. So, I would only count the record since the Russians stopped being able to hide their stuff ups.


Possible but highly improbable. Multiple agencies monitor space craft launches and returns. It would have been in US interest to discredit Soviet space program. If launch failed with fatalities and was covered up, you'd see magically leaked intel to media blowing all this up. So, no - I don't think any mortalities have been concealed.


RE: Soyuz safer than the Space Shuttle?
By ayat101 on 5/15/09, Rating: -1
By Fat32 on 5/15/2009 9:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it took decades to find out some of them, it is entirely likely THERE ARE MORE THAT WERE NEVER FOUND OUT. Keep in mind that during the Cold War there was no monitoring of the kind you speak of... it may be the case now, but NOT then.


It's true that before spy satellites started coming on-line Soviets did conceal several failed lunches in sixties where for example in one of those they tried to perform repairs on lunch pad without draining fuel tanks first. Result: epic fail with almost 600 injured.

But manned space craft launches were huge PR events demonstrating superiority of communist economy over western capitalism. Those launches were surrounded by media, interviews and etc. Don't you think it would be suspicious if upon return there was not a word about well-being of cosmonauts?

Regards.


By Samus on 5/16/2009 7:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
People forget. Russian engineering is overall pretty good. But when budget cuts begin...and the soviets have a history of doing this a lot, safety always suffers. For the past 20 years, however, their space program has been 'properly' funded and I believe them when they say that haven't lost anybody to the cosmo's.


By lewislink on 5/14/2009 2:03:21 PM , Rating: 3
"... but since when was Russian tech safer than the Shuttle?"

Since Morton Thiacol isn't involved. They are the ones who crashed the 1986 shuttle because, instead of listening to the engineer who told them of a freezing problem with the o-ring seals, they ignored and harassed the fellow and made his life a living hell after the crash simply because he made known he warned them all.

Morton Thiacol is why I don't use their salt anymore.


RE: Soyuz safer than the Space Shuttle?
By 91TTZ on 5/14/2009 2:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
There will be a gap between the time when the Shuttle is retired and the next rocket comes online. Soyuz will be used then.


RE: Soyuz safer than the Space Shuttle?
By ayat101 on 5/14/2009 2:49:23 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, that's the idea. I was refering to using as one of the justifications for all this that the Shuttle is too dangerous to operate any longer. The argument says indirectly that right now Soyuz is safer than the Shuttle... I find it hard to believe that this is true... but I guess if people die, you can blame the Russians :)


RE: Soyuz safer than the Space Shuttle?
By Carl B on 5/14/2009 6:06:26 PM , Rating: 3
If the Soyuz spacecraft are as reliable as an AK-47, then you have nothing to worry about. In all seriousness, Russian hardware is generally fairly straightforward and robust.


By ayat101 on 5/15/2009 1:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
All I have to say that the AK47 is a SIMPLE piece of machine that you can take apart, put back together and reload with your eyes clsoed. A hammer will not break either... A rocket is a different matter... been there, done that, and Russian production was regarded as JUNK and a JOKE.

However, those that wish to believe in the superiority of the Soyuz over the Shuttle, GO AHEAD :) I just think it is the silly season when you start doing it.


The Russians wouldn't do it
By BernardP on 5/14/2009 1:22:08 PM , Rating: 3
Let's say the roles were to be reversed. Would Russia pay NASA to ferry Russian cosmonauts into space? I don't think so either: The Russians are too proud.

It's a shame that after winning the moon race, the USA sunk into complacency and now have to rely on their former rival.

The Russians have kept using technology that works, on a shoestring budget. The tortoise is now ahead.

Psst! Look out for those Chinese and Indian astronauts!




By BuckinBottoms on 5/14/2009 4:33:46 PM , Rating: 5
Except we did take 2 Russian crew members to MIR in 95. Another into space in 97. Guess those slipped your mind. And the US has returned a number of cosmonauts from MIR and the ISS in the shuttle. Also seemed to have slipped your mind.

Complacency?
Yep so complacent we put in place the Hubble Space Telescope, Galileo, Magellan, Chandra X-ray Observatory, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory and of course the ISS modules; Unity, Destiny, Quest, Harmony, Columbus, and the two JAXA modules all from the shuttle.

Of course we've only launched a few satellites in that time, you know "just a few." Built gps and satellite communications networks for the entire planet.

I suppose we were also just complacent when we landed rovers on Mars. Or that we've sent satellites to just about every planet in our solar system.

I suppose people just wont be happy until we colonize something. Doesn't matter how utterly useless that would be unless we can return something of value that we can't already get using probes. What wouldn't be complacent to you? Should we be flying around the galaxy firing lasers at space rocks?

Excuse me while I sit here complacently and wonder what you have done to further space exploration besides sit around complacently yourself and complain why other people aren't moving fast enough for you.


Sounds good to me
By nafhan on 5/14/2009 8:47:42 AM , Rating: 4
Put that $3 billion a year into Orion. With 6 flights a year at $51 million this will cost $306 million. That's an order of magnitude of savings. I think it's worth losing indigenous manned launch capabilities for a few years, if that's the price to hurry up the shuttle replacement program.
On the other hand, I seriously doubt all $3 billion of shuttle related costs will magically disappear once they stop flying the shuttle.




RE: Sounds good to me
By nayy on 5/14/2009 11:03:24 AM , Rating: 1
How dare you giving a logical and reasonable opinion when America's pride is at stake?
Out sourcing space flights to Russia?? the 60's must be rolling around in their graves!!
</sarcasm>
Seriously I'm not American but it worries me to see a $3 billion dollars estimate for keeping the shuttle around, especially when compared to Russia's costs, should NASA slim down their cost structure?
NASA is facing the same issues of many big American corporations, big budget cuts and expensive qualified workers that are a lot cheaper in other parts of the world.
I like your Orion investment proposal, let's hope the current administration doesn't chop that off.


Where'd you find that old picture?
By danrien on 5/14/2009 12:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
That's an old picture of the shuttle! It has a white external tank, which was discontinued when engineers found out that you could save fuel by not painting the external tank. Interesting that you would choose that picture.




By Bubbacub on 5/14/2009 1:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
i think the first 2 flights had a white tank. the photo is of columbia in 81


Space faring nations
By werepossum on 5/14/2009 2:45:06 PM , Rating: 3
Hey, we may not be a space faring nation anymore, but at least we'll have a government-controlled economy! And once we've achieved Europe's level of taxation, redistribution, and government control, we'll have just as good a space program as the European nations' - . . . Um . . .

Wait a minute!




pretty cheap
By Bubbacub on 5/14/2009 8:47:45 AM , Rating: 2
50 million per trip isn't that bad a deal. its a lot cheaper than keeping the shuttle in business.

if the US was so worried about having to rely on russia then they should have entertained offers from the ESA on a joint manned program. the Arianne V rocket was originally designed for manned exploration and all that was needed to get a man capable system was to build a re-entry capsule onto the ATV. this could have been done from between 2004 and 2010 without too much hassle or money and this whole mess could have been avoided.




Bargain?
By FishTankX on 5/14/2009 8:49:34 AM , Rating: 2
If it costs 51 million per flight, and costs 3 billion to maintain the shuttle in flight readiness for an extra year, doesn't that mean that we could take 4 flights a month and still break even?

Even if it's only 3 billion for 4 years, we could still make a flight every month for that cost, no? And still come out paying a little less than half as much.

It seems like this is quite cost effective versus the alternatives of holding our own fleet

And i'm SURE the shuttle doesn't' fly every month.




It's about time
By Zingam on 5/14/2009 2:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
When will they stop with that crap! When will NASA, MASA and all Space agencies stop fooling us! When will they take out the space cruisers finally? NASA, stop hiding those flying saucers!




Cost savings
By Elementalism on 5/15/2009 10:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
Each shuttle launch cost us 1.3 billion on avg. If they can get this done for 51 million, what a contrast.




oh2
By swizeus on 5/14/2009 8:46:23 AM , Rating: 1
So America hasn't had the technology going to outer space since Russia stole the space technology when the Allied joint venture attacking Germany ? Or is it licensed so America will have to pay Russia ?




Warlord Bush's Legacy
By Proteusza on 5/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Warlord Bush's Legacy
By siliconvideo on 5/14/2009 8:48:10 AM , Rating: 1
Of course the first comment is Bush bashing and pleading to Obama to fix it. For the past decades since JKF all elected representatives have tried to flat line or cut the NASA budgets.

Just think what all the available cash could do for science if that was no war on terror, no war on poverty, no war on cancer, all of which have failed. We still have terror, poverty and cancer.

The shuttle was the best technology available during the 70's when this program was started. Now we are paying the price for not investing in our future. We're reliant on a foreign country for manned access to space.


RE: Warlord Bush's Legacy
By ksherman on 5/14/2009 8:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
I take it your a Star Trek fan ;)


RE: Warlord Bush's Legacy
By Spivonious on 5/14/2009 9:31:55 AM , Rating: 2
Add the war on drugs to your list.

You'd think we'd have learned our lesson from prohibition - that making otherwise harmless things into illegal things just generates more crime. Legalize drugs, tax and regulate their distribution, and I guarantee you make more money than any "war" is going to give you.


RE: Warlord Bush's Legacy
By teldar on 5/14/2009 9:41:28 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the shuttle was a money pit and the only reason it ever got off the ground was that Nixon demanded it. It was never something that should have been built.
Too expensive and unsafe for what it was supposed to do. Look into the history of the controversy surrounding it's development.


RE: Warlord Bush's Legacy
By ipay on 5/14/2009 12:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
The Shuttle was the vehicle that ended the space race because the USSR couldn't build anything to compare with it (and still can't). The taints on its safety record are due to human failure, not poor design or engineering. As for cost, if the Shuttle had been continually developed - as it should have been - it would cost far less to launch. And be far safer.

Thanks to short-sighted presidents and even more short-sighted voters, Russia is once again ahead in space.


RE: Warlord Bush's Legacy
By stromgald30 on 5/14/2009 12:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
Um. . . the Russians did build a shuttle (it flew 7 years after the US shuttle's first flight), and it's remote controllable, unlike the US shuttle. However, it's only flown once (without a crew) since it was done during the decline of the USSR in the late 80s.

But, to say that they couldn't build anything to compare with the US shuttle is just deluding oneself.


RE: Warlord Bush's Legacy
By stromgald30 on 5/14/2009 12:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
The thing that ended the 'space race', was that we put a man on the moon first and went back repeatedly. That's one feat the Russians never were able to accomplish.


RE: Warlord Bush's Legacy
By Bubbacub on 5/14/2009 1:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
"ended the space race because the USSR couldn't build anything to compare with it"

you obviously haven't heard of buran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)

it did everything the shuttle did but a bit better. it had a totally autonomous launching and landing capability, greater payload to LEO. turbo jets in the orbiter making it capable of powered flight. the energia launching system was probably the most capable and flexible rocket made since apollo. it was capable of launching the buran shuttle on a regular basis and was capable of moon missions. it was such shame that the end of the cold war killed it (though one can argue that the end of the cold war and its associated pissing contests should have killed the shuttle program)

i think apollo ended the space race. at the time the russians pissed away a whole load of money on the N1 rocket which kept on blowing up every time it was launched. after that public interest was never the same again. with lower prestige from space missions the cold war moved on to other targets (e.g. how many thousands of warheads each side could accumulate)


RE: Warlord Bush's Legacy
By 91TTZ on 5/14/2009 3:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it did everything the shuttle did but a bit better. it had a totally autonomous launching and landing capability, greater payload to LEO.


I would hope so since it was unmanned.

quote:
turbo jets in the orbiter making it capable of powered flight.


False. They only installed jet engines on a prototype of the Buran used for flight testing.

The Buran was a political statement and not much more. It never carried people and only really served as dead weight on the back of the Energia.


RE: Warlord Bush's Legacy
By Elementalism on 5/15/2009 10:41:16 AM , Rating: 1
Obama is cutting spending for NASA sorry. This looks like it may be the only legacy of Bush that will cost less however. The Shuttle is extremely expensive compared to this.


Subduing to the Enemy?
By Hacp on 5/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Subduing to the Enemy?
By aegisofrime on 5/14/2009 8:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not very well versed on this topic, so is there any reason why NASA won't go to the Europeans for access to space instead of the Russians?


RE: Subduing to the Enemy?
By Karmena on 5/14/2009 8:51:55 AM , Rating: 3
because Europeans have unmanned rocket available to carry cargo up in space, not living beings. And they themselves will go through Russia.


RE: Subduing to the Enemy?
By danrien on 5/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Subduing to the Enemy?
By lewislink on 5/14/09, Rating: -1
"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki