A new HLLV essay

Michael Bloxham · 2005-03-18 21:01:57

My goal is to ramp up throw-weight to get us out of this
THALL SHALT NOT LAUNCH OVER 20 TONS TO LEO mindset the bean counters have locked us into.
SDV is only the beginning. I will not rest until SDV HLLVs are the smallest boosters we have, with that crutch of a Delta II banned and Sea Dragon flying with 550 tons to LEO. Only then will space open up to commerce--in bulk--not in Rutan's useless toys.
My mantra is that we all should be in the one true Church of the Heavy Lift.
Thy five segment solids comfort me--and the EELV heretics shall be put to the sword.

I'm in total agreement with you there. You have to ask yourself, if we make a booster twice as big, will we really need twice as many people to operate it? :;):

BWhite · 2005-03-18 21:35:28

Re-read this thread from the beginning. Lots of interesting stuff.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-18 23:37:46

*sighs* Gee you have a short, short memory publiusr or maybe you are just really bad at math... Probobly both... Lets review:

Shuttle SRB refurbish/reload: ~$30M
RS-68 engine: ~$15M

How about some simple multiplication? ...So for each SDV flight, you will spend the equivilent of 7 (seven) RS-68 engines worth of money (with three on ET for engine-out).

Here is another neat "math thingie," the "equals sign" ("="), which means two things have the same value.

Delta-IV HLV standard, LEO payload: ~27.5MT
Delta-IV "SHLV" modernized, LEO payload: 40MT (perhaps 45)

Does 27.5 = 40? Oooh thats a TOUGH one isn't it?

...So, you will need between two and three "SHLV"s to equal one SDV shot. So you will need an average of 7.5 RS-68 engines to the equivilent to 7.0 RS-68's for an SDV flight. Isn't math so handy and exciting?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Although my wind is probobly wasted on you since you continue to refuse to correct your clearly illustrated oversights (SRBs are not free) make SDV hardly superior engine-per-engine then EELV.

"Not having SDV is what will bankrupt NASA.

As I see it, we stand to lose Shuttle architecture, the CEV will be a pig"

I am of the opposit opinion, which I have formed based on documented history, and not "arm waving" as you have put it so well... 90% of the spaceflight budget goes to paying the Shuttle Army and the ISS Brigades, on or abouts. NASA needs to cut this money basically in half, preferably by 2/3rds, if it is to have enough money to DO anything beyond earth orbit.

Speaking of "doing," there will be a demand for intermediate payloads in the likly event that NASA will set up a manned Lunar base. If all you want to do is resupply, then the huge SDV would be seriously overkill, slower to respond (or not all with a tight flight schedule), and generally the wrong size. Having 40MT capacity would also open the door to large nuclear-powerd probes to the planets, like a Europa submarine, heavy Mars rovers or sample return missions, or nuclear/ion probes to the outter planets. Flexibility that SDV doesn't have.

NASA has struggled and fought and scheemed and lied for almost thirty years that The Army should remain employed no matter what... So you see, there is a problem of conflicting desires, that the NASA management has traditionally tried to maximize engineer employment, but NASA must radically reduce employment if it is to have enough money to do anything... I do not trust NASA to make the right choice. After all, they have made the wrong choice for over 25 years now to keep flying Shuttle.

"It keeps the shuttle jobs in place"

This is the worst possible thing that could happen, NASA will be going nowhere with that millstone around its neck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as space weapons, the future is not in ABM systems... the future is in space-to-surface and space-to-air weapons platforms in LEO/MEO.

Kenetic missile platforms, that launch tungsten-tipped rockets from space, able to defeat bunkers that not even the RNEP nuclear bomb could, without defense or need for local bases. Future models of the weapon would intentionally dispurse their energy on impact instead of penitrating, matching the power of the largest conventional bombs... any time, any where, with no defense.

Chemical lasers used to defeat threats other then ICBMs in a highly time-critical way... to destroy aircraft of all kinds, cruise missiles, AWACs planes, UAVs, TBMs, etc. Possibly high-value soft targets on the ground at exactly the instant you want (can you imagine how much the USAF/CIA/etc would love that?).

There is one limitation however... that these weapons would need to be numerous in order to provide good global coverage, and whatever launch vehicle that flies them must be able to deliver them fairly rapidly to replace units lost or out of ammunition. The launch vehicle must also be able to deliver them to a range of orbits, especially for MEO stationing.

All of these traits in the launch vehicle are fulfilled by EELV, able to lift 40MT (the same as Regans' Zenith Star chemical laser satelite) to orbit, 100MT loads would be overkill. EELV can fly 12-15 times per year, rather then SDV's 4-5 (maybe 6). EELV can deliver payloads to their orbits individually, while SDV could only deliver them efficently in pairs... EELV wins for the military, hands down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So lets see here... the military would prefer EELV, SDV could bankrupt NASA, and EELV+ would require less development cost and offers more flexibility then SDV... The choice is hardly clear-cut unless SDV can offer a compelling price or arcitecture advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now about space commerce:

Space commerce will never "open" until you can not only reduce costs to orbit, but ALSO offer sufficently high flight rate and down-mass capability... SeaDragon would't offer the really radical price reduction nessesarry (had this argument with Anticarrot some time back, SD showed no price advantage versus super SDV) infact its sheer size makes it unaffordable because it is so hard to build, and the low flight rate would also be fatal.

The solution is, of course, to do what we should have done in the 70's... built a REAL RLV, which could fly often and crush even SeaDragon for efficency, fly basically whenever you want, and bring things back down. Great for carrying passengers too, unlike big rockets.

Ad Astra · 2005-03-19 00:16:35

When looking at SDV and EELV cost, it's important to note the following:

Right now, NASA is paying over $3 bil per year for the shuttle program. NASA has only paid for a few EELV launches because they fly so infrequently, and usually with commercial or military payloads.

NASA has three options for VSE: all-SDV, SDV + EELV, and all-EELV. The first scenario would force NASA to add to its operations cost for CEV capsule operations. SDV + EELV forces NASA to add this CEV operations cost AND increase its EELV buys substantially. The third scenario adds CEV costs and makes NASA buy more EELV's, but shuttle costs vanish.

Under this logic, all-SDV makes the most sense in my mind. But there's a catch: Most engineers (myself included) would not trust the manned CEV on a traditional SDV design. You would want to instead build an in-line SDV with the CEV on top. This becomes prohibitively expensive as commonality with the old ET is lost.

If all-SDV is off the table, we are left with the choice of SDV + EELV or EELV-only. We've acknowledged the difficulties of EELV-only already. For SDV + EELV to work, however, NASA MUST find a way to cut the shuttle fixed launch costs so it can afford the extra EELV launch that is required for each manned CEV.

Another thing worth considering is the pad and tower modifications needed to put a manned CEV on an EELV. They will need crew access gantries, elevators, escape baskets, and the other niceties that go into crew egress.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-19 00:47:49

I don't think those options are so bad...

First off, making an inline SDV shouldn't be all that difficult, and would offer signifigant efficency advantages. Putting a capsule on top though I am not so hot about, as man-rating a huge rocket is harder then smaller ones, and there is little flexibility that way.

If SDV launch costs can be kept under control, then I like the SDV+EELV mission best. You get the entire SDV flight for Lunar payload and TLI stage so you have plenty of mass, and the USAF will be paying to keep one EELV line open anyway, so put CEV on it a few times a year.

With CEV launched seperatly, you also have access to LEO without needing to launch a huge SDV full of lead bricks or sand, and as I mentioned man-rating small rockets should be easier then large ones. Future reuseable Moon/Mars vehicles would demand seperate crew launch too.

Modifying the EELV launch facilities for crews shouldn't be a huge expense, since the escape tower would provide the emergency egress function just like Soyuz.

Ad Astra · 2005-03-19 11:00:35

Modifying the EELV launch facilities for crews shouldn't be a huge expense, since the escape tower would provide the emergency egress function just like Soyuz.

I was referring to the launch tower, not the escape tower on the top of the capsule. The launh tower will need to be redone for astronauts, so they can ride the elevator up to their capsule, get strapped inside, and quickly zip-line away if the mission is aborted on the pad.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-19 11:15:40

No, I know what you are talking about. I am saying that we should forgo the silly zip-line entirely... If there is a major pad fire and the rocket is about to explode, the best thing to do would be to ignite the escape rockets and fly clear of the pad. I have always been pretty dubious of whether the zip-line thing was worth much considering how fast you would have to get out of the capsule if there were a big problem.

We might not really need a crew gantry either if we put crew on Delta. The Delta-IV launch pad is a grand total of a few hundred feet from the VAB... But anyway, a small elevator and a crew gantry should not be much of an engineering challenge.

BWhite · 2005-03-19 11:36:22

If all-SDV is off the table, we are left with the choice of SDV + EELV or EELV-only. We've acknowledged the difficulties of EELV-only already. For SDV + EELV to work, however, NASA MUST find a way to cut the shuttle fixed launch costs so it can afford the extra EELV launch that is required for each manned CEV.

More money helps.

Return to the Moon doesn't really start until 2011, so its really only 9 years between 2011 and 2020. Collecting $10 billion in media sales for return to the Moon adds over $1 billion per year to the exploration budget.

$10 billion for selling media rights for humanity's return to the Moon would pay for HLLV deployment and facilitate public commitment to the VSE.

My problem with an all EELV lunar return is that we will have so little in tangible accomplishment that maintaining public interest will be difficult or impossible.

If the VSE cannot attain take-off speed, and sustain public interest it is doomed. Wingo's idea, to mine the moon to fight pollution and grow the global economy, for all humanity's benefit would have broad traction, at least IMHO.

With all EELV it is darn hard to even pretend the Moon will offer commercial benefits within our lifetimes.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-19 11:41:29

Again, your statements are parroting others without basis Bill, stop putting down EELVs without a good reason.

WHY, why can't EELV+ do everything that SDV can for a Lunar program? Why would it not be any less sustainable or less affordable? Why can't we use it to set up shop on the Moon?

I will say it again so maybe it will stick this time... both EELV and SDV/light HLLV will deliver about the same size of payload to the Moon. The only real difference is that the EDS stage rides with the payload on HLLV, but seperate on EELV.

BWhite · 2005-03-19 13:29:16

Please show the math. . .

= = =

PS - - Both the Aldridge Commission and the Planetary Society concluded the VSE needs heavy lift. If they are wrong, explain how they made that error.

= = =

PPS - - Neither commission can be accused (IMHO) of being Zubrin-loving kool aid drinkers. :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1111260812

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-19 15:35:10

Now you aren't listening to me Bill, why am I wasting my time with saying the same exact thing over and over again? How is my last post not clear to you? Do you have a problem understanding the phrase "the same size of payload"?

They believe that HLLV will be inexpensive to operate. I think that the risk of SDV not being affordable is higher then they think, and since clean-sheet is too expensive to develop, EELV is the only choice that is a known and capable option.

I'm not so sure that the Planetary Society is much different from the Zubrinites as far as their... clarity on the situation. The Alridge comission could be right and HLLV could be plenty cheap, but until we KNOW, then it is off the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*Sigh*

Delta-IV HLV or a Atlas-V HLV could be modified to lift about 40MT in one go. Probobly 45MT without too much trouble.

SDV or light HLLV will deliver 80MT to orbit baseline, or perhaps 100MT with some improvements in technology.

EVERY Lunar SDV/HLLV shot will be launching two things for each and every Lunar sortie, the payload and the TLI/2nd stage. These things weigh aproximatly the same.

EELV+ can lift either one of these things for about half the cost, then mate them in orbit and go to the Moon. Okay Bill?

publiusr · 2005-03-23 16:28:09

Please show the math. . .

= = =

PS - - Both the Aldridge Commission and the Planetary Society concluded the VSE needs heavy lift. If they are wrong, explain how they made that error.

= = =

PPS - - Neither commission can be accused (IMHO) of being Zubrin-loving kool aid drinkers. :;):

-----------------------------------------------

I'm glad I am not the only one who understands that:

As far as math is concerned..

"Shuttle SRB refurbish/reload: ~$30M
RS-68 engine: ~$15M "

Lets do this per 100 tons...

Five Delta IV launches
15 RS-68s= $225 million (not including five upper stages, time on pad, etc.)
Actual cost is much higher.

Three RS-68s and two SRB= $105 million in engine cost.
Now how is $225 million cheaper than $105 per hundred tons again?

Something you may not have thought of. At least with Shuttle--for all its warts--all of its 20 ton payload is...payload. The orbiter has all maneuver and fuel load responsibility, leaving pure payload.

Not so with Delta IV.

What should disqualify EELV is that each 20 ton payload would have to resemble the Mir core blocks in that each segment has docking ports, thrusters, automated systems, etc. that an SDV HLLV needs only one of per 100 tons as opposed to five. Cryogenic storage will be a major problem with 20 ton segments--what with boil off.

It is either SDV, or cut bait.

"Delta-IV HLV or a Atlas-V HLV could be modified to lift about 40MT in one go. Probobly 45MT without too much trouble."

In the words of Harry Morgan "Horse hockey!"

With two extra CBCs you might get 30-35 tons to LEO. But whether you launch five three core Delta IVs, or three five core Delta V's--you still throw away 15 RS-68s to my three--no diff!

"EELV+ can lift either one of these things for about half the cost, then mate them in orbit and go to the Moon. Okay Bill?"

No--its not okay--because 15 RS-68s cost more than three--no matter how much you spin it.

And I'm not even counting the upper stages and pad time.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-23 17:31:28

"in the words of Harry Morgan "Horse hockey!""

...Is not a valid argument. I am not going to debate a troll, such as yourself, as it would be a waste of breath. If you can't come up with a reason why not, then your opinion is without merit.

We all know full well that Delta-IV is a thrust-limited rocket. It suffers from pretty signifigant gravitational losses during its slow acent... So, taking the Heavy model and adding some GEM-60 SRMs would solve this problem. Same deal with the upper stage, trading the old RL-10s for new RL-60s, and it adds a few more. The RS-68 itself today is hardly the final iteration of the engine possible, adding a regenerative loop like the RD-0120 and ratchet up the thrust a little, and it too would offer superior performance.

You would, by the way, need the RS-68R for Shuttle-derived HLLV anyway, or you would lose some 10-20MT in payload.

The Delta-IV HLV can launch twenty-seven point five metric tonnes, not twenty. It is not at all hard to believe that it could go from 30 to 40.

publiusr · 2005-03-24 17:28:05

That remains to be seen. I still need less engines, and wheteher you like engine-out or not, SDV will have it.

BWhite · 2005-03-24 17:38:05

publishr is correct that with EELV a portion of the payload will be needed for station keeping and docking while awaiting the next EELV, which IIRC must come from the same pad 37.

I began to fully comprehend this looking at Progress launched from Kouru payload totals. Progress will be about $2000 per pound to LEO including delivery by a fully functioning spacecraft.

Perhaps Delta IV will throw 27MT? 25MT? except how much parasitic weight will be required to keep the module in station keeping mode long enough to prepare Pad 37 for a 2nd launch of CEV? IF we have the 45-50MT super-plus needed for a two shot lunar mission.

= = =

I will not recant.

Guarantee that a 50MT Delta IV can be purchased in bulk for $200 million and can be deployed on Pad 37 in time for our first return to the Moon, and EELV starts to look attractive.

Even to a true-blue shuttle derived guy like me. :;):

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-24 18:39:23

That remains to be seen. I still need less engines, and wheteher you like engine-out or not, SDV will have it.

No it won't. If you lose one of the SRBs during acent, then the mission is a failure. If the crew is riding on the side of the SDV, then they are probobly going to all die too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Guarantee that a 50MT Delta IV can be purchased in bulk for $200 million and can be deployed on Pad 37 in time for our first return to the Moon, and EELV starts to look attractive."

Guarantee that a 100MT SDV can be flown for $400M or less and can be deployed six times annually from Pad-39 (50% of the vehicle it is based on) and it will start to look attractive. Me, I think I will stick with the rocket that actually flies and has already been sold for an affordable price, sans some low-cost SRMs and new engine nozzles (that you would need for SDV anyway), and not the "paper-tiger" SDV. Its easier to man-rate and its a better size for heavy satelites/probes and its a better size for a reuseable Lunar cargo network.

Station-keeping cold-gas jets and a docking beacon system shouldn't weigh that much, probobly less then a half a tonne, definatly less then one. Cargos using hydrogen/oxygen engines could even use the boiloff for power.

The control & communications hardware would be less complex then a cruise missile's, and the Tomahawk Block-III costs a little over $500,000 each for the whole weapon, including launch box.

Ad Astra · 2005-03-26 22:41:11

That remains to be seen. I still need less engines, and wheteher you like engine-out or not, SDV will have it.
No it won't. If you lose one of the SRBs during acent, then the mission is a failure. If the crew is riding on the side of the SDV, then they are probobly going to all die too.

It would be a repeat of Challenger.

Neither SDV nor a heavy EELV are truly capable of engine-out flight. You could lose an SDV main engine in certain flight regimes and survive, but an SRB problem is fatal, the odds of escape are zilch (unless the vehicle is rebuilt as an in-line launcher,) and some engine failures would also be fatal.

Now the Saturn V was a real engine-out vehicle. Stage 1 and Stage 2 were both capable of losing an engine and continuing on. This came in handy during Apollo 13 when Stage 2 lost an engine.

If money was no object, a Saturn V-inspired clean-sheet rocket would be ideal. The J-2 and J-2S engines could even be put back into production. The F-1 should probably be replaced by a modern, clean-sheet engine that has a higher chamber pressure, better Isp, and doesn't use asbestos.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-26 23:15:25

As nice as real engine-out would be, I don't think its important enough to be a requirement, so long as there is a good crew escape mechanism. The calculus of it is fairly simple, that a rocket with many smaller engines is expensive versus fewer, bigger engines. The marginal improvement offerd by real engine-out comes at a high price, and also contributes to the possibility of instantainious catastrophic failure. Every time you light up that engine, there is a chance that it will fail in such a way that the whole rocket will explode... The fewer engines you have to light up can actually be better then having real engine out.

I'm still envisioning a "light-HLLV," based loosely on the Atlas-V/Zenit. Build it 5-6m around aproximatly, with the kerosene first stage powerd by a pair of RD-170 or a quartet of RD-180 engines, and have a Hydrogen upper stage powerd by a cluster of RL-60 engines (at least three). Also, equip it with optional Shuttle SRBs for extra payload.

Build it so it could lift 40-50MT without boosters, and be safe enough for human crews, or 80MT (preferably 100) with the boosters.

Ad Astra · 2005-03-27 01:58:12

One obstacle to making an HLLV with one engine per stage is the difficulty of making a single engine that's big enough to lift the weight of the rocket. Imagine building an engine that can putout six million pounds of thrust for an HLLV.

There seems to be an optimal number of engines for any given vehicle. Most aircraft are designed to survive a single engine failure; that's why almost all passenger planes (with the exception of the massive A380, which falls under the same category as my first paragraph) have only two engines. That's also why the single-engine F-16 is nicknamed "the lawn dart."

The exorbitant number of engines on the N1 obviously argues against engine-out. I tend to think that 5 engines per stage is an optimal number. If each engine has a statistical failure risk of 2% or so, we have to weigh the benefits of single engine-out capabilities versus the added risk of failure.

srmeaney · 2005-03-27 03:20:05

If we want large production runs, then get the most bang for your buck. Using the Delta IV approach, you must expend 15 RS-68s to get 100 tons to orbit.

Terraforming Mars needs 3000 tonnes daily. With the Delta iv and the energia thats thirty launces a day for the next thousand years. That means a global commitment to launch facilities world-wide.

We need a cargo ship in space that will be able to haul a million tonnes from earth to mars every year. With a life span of a hundred years.
Task: It will need to deploy from an ocean port and achieve orbit from an ocean launch site well clear of population centres. Move 1,000,000 tonne cargo to Mars Orbit or Surface Depending on Cargo destination. It must then be able to return to Earth and Land on the Ocean, returning to it's port of origin for new cargo and refuel. It must do this at least once a year.

srmeaney · 2005-03-27 03:36:20

What I know about string theory is this: Gravity is the result of Strings being twisted in two possible directions, both creating matter and mass and Gravity yet both Clockwise and Anticlockwise having Opposing Gravity Because these two directions of twist can occur simultaneously as a string entangled condensate, "We" have a gravity that is the sum of two directions of twist g=gsu+gsn. Therefore we must create twist in strings that is in opposition to the dominant twist direction of our own gravity well. Such an engine will lift the vessel out of our gravity well and into it's own.

This is why heavy lift may have a replacement. It is going to need more financial commitment to applications of string theory. The Antigrav engine is at least a hundred years out. Mars colonization could begin tomorrow.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-27 06:48:37

One obstacle to making an HLLV with one engine per stage is the difficulty of making a single engine that's big enough to lift the weight of the rocket. Imagine building an engine that can putout six million pounds of thrust for an HLLV.
There seems to be an optimal number of engines for any given vehicle. Most aircraft are designed to survive a single engine failure; that's why almost all passenger planes (with the exception of the massive A380, which falls under the same category as my first paragraph) have only two engines. That's also why the single-engine F-16 is nicknamed "the lawn dart."
The exorbitant number of engines on the N1 obviously argues against engine-out. I tend to think that 5 engines per stage is an optimal number. If each engine has a statistical failure risk of 2% or so, we have to weigh the benefits of single engine-out capabilities versus the added risk of failure.

Oh its alot less then 2% per-engine with modern engines, but yeah more then 5-6 engines becomes too complex... Its really a question if engine-out is really all that desireable.

I still like the idea of a modular "mega Atlas" or a clean-sheet "stage and a half" vehicle with high-thrust hydrogen engines (see NLS study), which would give flexibility and performance without a radical increase in complexity, only size.

Hey srmeaney, when you get done with babbling about the illudium-66 explosive space modulator (for providing a clear view of Venus from Mars), perhaps you would start talking some sense about your insane terraforming idea, or at least realize that this is the wrong thread to post about anti-gravity flying saucer engines.

srmeaney · 2005-03-27 10:34:55

Hey srmeaney, when you get done with babbling about the illudium-66 explosive space modulator (for providing a clear view of Venus from Mars), perhaps you would start talking some sense about your insane terraforming idea, or at least realize that this is the wrong thread to post about anti-gravity flying saucer engines.

I'm not talking about UFO engines. I'm talking about a science that perhaps a hundred people on this planet barely know the answers to. I'm talking about the future of Heavy lift. Terraforming and colonizing Mars needs The next stage in technology because heavy lift will never meet those needs. That is antigravity based on real applied science. Not the burning of fuel and oxidizer but the application of theory.
When we have antigravity, Rocket heavy lift is economicly dead. The economy around Rocket fuel production is dead.

Austin Stanley · 2005-03-27 12:48:45

I have to agree that the idea of dumping coal on mars as a method of terraforming is totaly bogus. No doubt extream amounts of enginnering is required for teraformation. Asteriod/comet impacts, titanic orbital mirrors, huge nuclear power plants and chemical manufacturing activity. But dumping coal? This is pretty silly.

As for anti-gravity. I'm not going to be foolish and say it isn't possible. But we tend to stick with science that is well established and accepted here.

publiusr · 2005-03-31 16:04:53

"Neither SDV nor a heavy EELV are truly capable of engine-out flight. You could lose an SDV main engine in certain flight regimes and survive, but an SRB problem is fatal, the odds of escape are zilch (unless the vehicle is rebuilt as an in-line launcher,) and some engine failures would also be fatal."

Even so, the medium EELVs will use solids--and these smaller solids with no heavy steel casing worry me. SDV has multiple liquid engines, and plently of solid thrust ot minimize any liquid-fueled engine problems and certainly clear the pad. Delta IV cannot do this. A Saturn rebirth is clearly out of the question. SDV is about as best as we can hope for--the EELV will cost more in the long run--will waste more engines and upper stages--will make putting 100 tons in orbit a tedious, long process.

Frankly--we haven't seen that Delta IV can put 20 tons in LEO yet.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-03-18 21:01:57

Re: A new HLLV essay

#77 2005-03-18 21:35:28

Re: A new HLLV essay

#78 2005-03-18 23:37:46

Re: A new HLLV essay

#79 2005-03-19 00:16:35

Re: A new HLLV essay

#80 2005-03-19 00:47:49

Re: A new HLLV essay

#81 2005-03-19 11:00:35

Re: A new HLLV essay

#82 2005-03-19 11:15:40

Re: A new HLLV essay

#83 2005-03-19 11:36:22

Re: A new HLLV essay

#84 2005-03-19 11:41:29

Re: A new HLLV essay

#85 2005-03-19 13:29:16

Re: A new HLLV essay

#86 2005-03-19 15:35:10

Re: A new HLLV essay

#87 2005-03-23 16:28:09

Re: A new HLLV essay

#88 2005-03-23 17:31:28

Re: A new HLLV essay

#89 2005-03-24 17:28:05

Re: A new HLLV essay

#90 2005-03-24 17:38:05

Re: A new HLLV essay

#91 2005-03-24 18:39:23

Re: A new HLLV essay

#92 2005-03-26 22:41:11

Re: A new HLLV essay

#93 2005-03-26 23:15:25

Re: A new HLLV essay

#94 2005-03-27 01:58:12

Re: A new HLLV essay

#95 2005-03-27 03:20:05

Re: A new HLLV essay

#96 2005-03-27 03:36:20

Re: A new HLLV essay

#97 2005-03-27 06:48:37

Re: A new HLLV essay

#98 2005-03-27 10:34:55

Re: A new HLLV essay

#99 2005-03-27 12:48:45

Re: A new HLLV essay

#100 2005-03-31 16:04:53

Re: A new HLLV essay

Board footer