Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

robcwillis · 2001-09-23 09:31:15

Energia is obviously the best HLV system ever developed. Let's use it. Any questions?

kelly · 2001-09-24 15:02:02

I wouldn't call it the "best" ever developed, but it is the ONLY one on the shelf today. The major problem I see is that Russia is in such a poor state that any attempt to buy/lease/build the Energia will end up in delays and cost overruns; just like the ISS sections.
I think a better HLV could be built out of 3 to 5 shuttle main engines with 2 or 4 SRBs strapped on. All the components are available now, including the experts needed to launch the thing.

BTW, wasn't Energia intended as the launch vehicle for the Buran? I cant imagine any other current payloads that would need that capabilty. Please correct meif I'm wrong on that. thanks

robcwillis · 2001-10-02 18:42:43

Use of the Energia HLV to support a humans to Mars porgamme will help prevent ISS type delays and cost overruns by keeping launch vehicle development costs at the minimum. The Soviet built ISS module originally intended for Mir 2 prior to the collapse, was delivered on time and within budget. The problem was that the near bankrupt post-Soviet Russian Space Agency (RKA) could not hope to pay Energia's Krunichev factory the agreed price for the brand new modules in time. Because of these delayed payments, Krunichev; like American companies, charged extra and delivered late. By contrast; month after month, year after year, Energia continues to deliver it's incredibly reliable Soyuz rocket to the Russian-French Starsem commercial launch company on time and at the agreed low price.

Energia HLV reactivation for an international humans to Mars programme is NOT dependent on any large expenditures by the RKA. Russia could, of course, help cut the launch costs of any such programme by contributing existing hardware, technology, and facilities already built by the Soviets. At Baikonur, more than 80 RD-0120 core motors remain mothballed in perfect condition. Here also, a dozen Zenit reusable strap-on boosters(most stripped of RD-170) and 3 complete Energia core stages remain in storage. The condition of the rocket stages, the two giant transporter-erectors, and the MIK assembly building itself ranges from perfect to repairable. The various
Energia launch pads and associated facilities are in poor condition. Repairing and reactivating the existing infrastructure at Baikonur is probably the cheapest way to go, but I would not object to building new Energia launch facilities at Kennedy, Kourou, or elsewhere.

It is reasonable to expect that most public funding provided by each country participating an international Mars programme would be spent "at home". No problem. If Energia is used to support a Mars Direct, DRM, CalTech or any other rational architecture for a near term piloted Mars missions, launch would represent at most 20% of total programme cost, and perhaps as little as 15%. Development of a new HLV could drive that up to 30%. The really big money is required for development and production of the actual spacecraft, TMI stages and other new equipment. Boeing, Lock-Mart, EADS and the like are probably most qualified to act as prime contractors, with subcontracts going to firms based in each country roughly proportional to its financial contribution. The ISS partners have more or less succeeded in accomplishing this balance. Of course, unlike ISS, the Mars programme should be done on a fixed cost commercial contract basis. The corporations should be held strictly accountable for failure to meet specifications or any delays in delivery, and governments should be held accountable for any delays in previously agreed funding. That being said, it is not unreasonable for the so called "have" countries to save their taxpayers substantial sums of money by allowing some small proportion of funds to be spent overseas to buy some very reliable, low cost equipment. After all, the U.S. expects many other countries to expend huge sums of public money on expensive American weapons, which they do. There is no harm in helping Russia and Ukraine pay their debts with a little hard currency.

The Energia HLV could be, and should be for our purposes, an international launch vehicle. As already stated, Russia can contribute existing hardware. Zenit boosters are currently in production by Yuznoyhe NPO of Ukraine for the Boeing Sea Launch partnership. I believe Boeing holds exclusive distribution rights on Zenit. The four chamber RD-170(171) is in production by Energomash for Sea Launch. Pratt and Whitney do final assembly and quality assurance on the two chamber RD-180 (RD-170 cut in half) for use on all current versions of Atlas. RD-170 was required by the Soviet specification to survive 10 re-uses. They have been proven to withstand more than 20 full duration burns! These engines are used because they are simply the best, most powerful, cost effective, reliable, clean burning, highest ISP, fully thottleable kerosene-oxygen rocket motors ever built. For the Mars progamme, Boeing could handle Zenit operations and new Ukrainian or U.S. based production if required. Ukraine could throw in what funding it can. Pratt and Whitney could provide between flight refurbishment of the reusable booster engines.

Only Vulcain and SSME can match the ISP of the highly throttleable RD-0120 hydrogen-oxygen Energia core stage motor. Although not designed for re-use, it is safer than SSME for a given single burn. If after many flights to Mars existing RD-0120 stocks run out, production could be restarted, or some combination of Vulcain and/or Rocketdyne's RS-68 could be used as replacements.

Sadly, most of the tooling for Energia core stage production has been sold as scrap and destroyed. Fortunately, unlike Saturn V, all detailed technical engineering data for the entire system has been preserved. More importantly, the vast majority of people who worked on the Energia-Buran progamme are still available. Lockheed Martin hold the patent on a lightweight high strength aluminum/lithium alloy now used for the Shuttle external tanks. Energia's American office has always been more than willing to license production of it's HLV. Lockheed could construct upgraded Energia core stages from the new alloy at their Michoud factory. In order to allow for use of up to eight strap-on boosters, these upgraded core stages would be built to carry a top mounted, rather than side mounted payload. Completed stages, and other large items such as fully assembled Mars transhabs could be flown to Baikonur, or elsewhere, atop the An-225 or NASA's 747. Several so called experts have dismissed Energia and the An-225 as "dead". Antonov's Mriya has returned to the skies. So can Energia.

Nate, in answer to your question, the Energia HLVs actually built and currently in storage at Baikonur were indeed intended to carry Buran type shuttles. However, unlike STS, this Energia version can, without modification, carry any side mounted payload up to 100 tonnes; be it Buran, a Mars Transhab, or whatever. Aside from this specific version, Energia designed it's HLV as a modular system, capable of carrying to LEO between 10 tonnes for a single Zenit, all the way up to 200 tonnes for the eight strap-on booster with core and upper stage. Development and testing to allow for this flexibility was a key consideration from the outset of the Energia programme.

The most efficient Energia configuration for Humans to Mars applications would be eight boosters mated to a standard size core, with payload top mounted. Four of the Zenits would be powered by RD-170s, and four with RD-180s, with core stage power from the usual arrangement of four RD-0120s. Even without an upper stage, this "upgraded" Energia would be adequate to deliver 150 tonnes to LEO from Baikonur at an orbital inclination suitable for TMI. The RD-170 powered Zenits can be recovered for ten re-uses with the existing cheap and simple parachute-airbag system. Recovery of RD-180 powered Zenits is possible, but might require ablative paint for light thermal protection. RD-180 engines mated with Zenit are probably not suitable for more than five burns.

Compared to Energia's Zenits, the SRBs have an inferior thrust
to weight ratio, inferior specific impulse, no throttle control, and are difficult and dangerous to transport once assembled. The fact that they cannot be shut down once ignited is a serious safety issue. SRBs are also environmentally unsound; producing CFC's as combustion products.

Although SRBs are relatively cheap to build, they are not reusable. They are recyclable. It costs almost as much to recover, dismantle, strip down and rebuild an SRB as it does to by a new one. Obviously, it also costs money to refurbish a Zenit, but the liquid booster still appears to be more cost effective, as well as demonstrating clearly superior performance and safety characteristics. NASA would do well to abandon the current STS launch stack in favor of a four Zenit Energia-Buran configuration. Obviously the core tank would not need engines as the Shuttle would retain it's SSMEs. This configuration would, at the very least, greatly improve the Shuttles payload capacity. This is a far cheaper and easier solution than the huge, winged "liquid fly-back" boosters that were once under serious consideration. Ending production of the existing shuttle ET would allow Lockheed to build a single, standard size stage tank structure to support both STS and Mars operations.

Trying to use SSMEs without the Shuttle on an STS stack based HLV is an unnecessary technical risk. For example, there could be problems with the asymmetrical thrust of the Ares layout. Mounting more than two SRBs, or more than one side mounted recoverable SSME pack and associated plumbing to increase payload or improve thrust symmetry, would require considerable core tank and launchpad modifications. Mounting such an engine pod under the tank core requires similar modifications, and might cause the SRBs to blow up due to the proximity of the exhaust plume.

robcwillis · 2001-12-18 19:21:46

Yes, I am replying to my own reply. So sue me.

Just wanted to freshen up the topic. Does anybody out there have any comments?

Bill White · 2002-01-10 14:10:06

To Robcwillis (or anyone):

How much technical work would be needed to equip the French launch facility in South America to handle Energia?

I believe Soyuz has recently been licensed for used there as well, am I correct?

How much additional payload could an Energia lift to LEO if one were content to use an equatorial orbital inclination?

Is there any drawback to sending a MarsDirect mision to Mars from an equatorial orbit rather than from a higher inclination orbit like those used by the STS, ISS or Mir?

Bill White

robcwillis · 2002-01-11 22:45:13

Much work would have to be done to make Kourou capable of operating a new super-heavy launcher, but equipment and personell already in place there could be employed in support of such operations. I would guess that it could cost perhaps two or three billion for everything including final assembly facilities and new launchpads. Repairing/upgrading existing facilites at Baikonur would be cheaper.

I'm not sure if Starsem has as yet been given full clearance to operate Soyuz launch vehicles from Kourou, but this appears likely to happen. Asia Pacific Space Centre is definitely going ahead with plans to start launching the Soyuz derived Aurora from Christmas Island.

Baikonur apparently has an advantage over equatorial launch sites when it comes to throwing mass at Mars, but I don't have exact figures re. relative payloads to the appropriate orbital inclinations.

Europe could still make important contributions to an Energia derived HLLV even if Kourou is not selected as the launch site. For example, EADS is as capable as any U.S. based firm of building the large core stage.

RobS · 2002-01-16 15:32:32

I have two questions about the Energia Launch System:

1. Is there information on the web about the system? I am curious about the sizes and weights of the various stages, thrust, the various options, etc.

2. Does anyone have any idea how much it would cost to launch an Energia with, say, a 140 or 150 tonne payload; that is, the Mars Direct payload?

robcwillis · 2002-01-17 13:34:19

Hello RobS,

Your first question is much easier to answer than the second. By far the best technical website reference I have ever found on the subject of almost EVERY launch vehicle, rocket motor and spacecraft ever developed and put into production, as well as design concepts, launch sites, political and engineering histories is Mark Wade's PHENOMENAL Encyclopedia Astronautica:

www.astronautix.com

I demand that everyone reading this spend the rest of your lives drinking in this incredible site!

The specific Energia entry that should answer most of your weights and dimentions questions is:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm

There are also excellent entries on Vulkan and Energia M; the core stage of which I favour for development as the upper stage/TMI stage for a new Energia derived super-heavy lifter I have dubbed "Vulkan ILV" (International Launch Vehicle). Technical details of RD-0120, RD-170 and RD-180 are also available. Please note that the Buran layout Energia was designed to carry a 100 tonne side mounted dead weight. Top mounting the payload permits a much higher loading. Also, conventional aluminum was used. Switching to a lighter, stronger aluminum-lithium alloy should allow for core stage dry mass reduction. The site also provides an opportunity to compare Ares and Energia stages.

Links to detailed entries on the Energia system can also be found at:

www.buran.ru

Must go now. Will be back to have a go at your second question.

Bill White · 2002-01-31 14:29:06

The following article may be of interest concerning the goal of lowering launch costs via "on orbit assembly":

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/satellite-tech-02a.html

Michael Bloxham · 2002-04-01 13:53:40

Why use the Energia when we have our own Energia right here in the US? The Ares and Magnum vehicles proposed for a Mars mission both use the Solid Rocket Boosters of the space shuttle. Boeing is looking into producing reusable Liquid Boosters, like the ones on Energia, for the shuttle. These Liquid boosters can be shut down at any time, ensuring a higher degree of safety, unlike the SRBs used on the space shuttle today. Fitting 6 or 8 of these new boosters around a launch vehicle like Ares or Magnum would increase the payload capacity by maybe 40 tonnes. This cannot be done with present day SRBs because SRBs cannot be throttled up or down to keep the vehicle stable.

Michael Bloxham · 2002-04-01 22:25:53

What if a Magnum or Ares type launch vehicle were launched from a much higher altitude? Say 5000ft? How much more payload capacity is gained at such an altitude?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-04-02 04:03:18

Another brief question, Alexander. I note you class the Magnum booster as better than the Saturn V. From memory, the big Saturn could put 150 tons into LEO, while the Magnum can't manage even 100 tons.
Presumably your comparison is based on $$$ per ton rather than sheer tonnage, right? :0

Mark S · 2002-04-21 21:11:14

Let's just build Sea Dragon.

Proposed by Robert Truax in the 1960's, Sea Dragon was over 450 feet tall, and could put 550 tonnes into LEO. It would be towed by a nuclear-powered ship (possibly a retired aircraft carrier or submarine) to an equatorial launch site, where a plant onboard the ship would electolyze the sea water into hydrogen and oxygen fuel. The rocket would then fill its attached launchpad with water for ballast and take off directly from the sea.

Sea Dragon would be cheaper than similarly sized boosters because it would be built in a shipyard from maraging steel, and it would use pressure-fed engines. Furthermore, no new launch pads would be built to support Sea Dragon. When we finally decide to go to Mars, Sea Dragon will spare us the trouble of on-orbit assembly while still providing the crew with adequate equipment.

Aaron Chester · 2002-04-23 10:50:57

I did a little research on the Sea Dragon. I had never heard of it before you mentioned it. When I hear about this kind of work it makes me wonder whether or not the shuttle was too ahead of its time. The article I read said that the Sea Dragon could have put up payloads for $60 - $600 per kg. Isn't that approximately $150 - $1500 per pound? And, isn't the space shuttle cost somewhere around $10,000 per pound?

http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/truax.htm

The article I read was from astronautix and can be found at the above website.

Aaron Chester · 2002-04-23 11:04:19

Whoops! I did my conversions the wrong way! The research done on the Sea Dragon estimated that a payload could be put up for $27-$282 per pound. Granted these are estimates, but still how far could the estimate be off?

Bill White · 2002-04-23 12:13:45

Sea Dragon stats from the Astronautix website:

<<LEO Payload: 450,000 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 90.0 degrees. Liftoff Thrust: 36,000,000 kgf. Total Mass: 18,000,000 kg. Core Diameter: 23.0 m. Total Length: 150.0 m. Launch Price $: 300.00 million. in 1962 price dollars. >>

$300,000,000 / 450,000 kg = $667 per kg in 1962 dollars, right? Or have I failed at long division?

40 years of inflation obviously increases this price significantly, however, I would think that technological and materials advances would offset at least some of those increases.

$3 to $5 billion for development costs plus the successful purchase of a used nuclear aircraft carrier and a private launch company would be in business.

I would love to watch one of these guys go up - from a suitable distance, of course!

Bill White · 2002-04-23 12:32:20

Sea Dragon would seem to be one of those "Big Dumb Boosters"

Here is a 1998 website that discusses the merits/demerits of Big Dumb Boosters:

http://www.optipoint.com/far/farbdb.htm

Can any of the more technical people weigh in on this issue?

Mark S · 2002-04-23 16:23:14

I guess I wouldn't yet be one of those "more technical people," but I might be able to weigh in on this. Most rockets are approximately 90% fuel by mass. When you drive a car or fly an airplane, you do not think of the cost of fuel as being a significant portion of the vehicle's cost, because neither vehicle has a fuel fraction as high as the rocket. But with the rocket, it's structure makes up less of the total cost of flying the vehicle.

By building inexpensive structures instead of rugged, reusable ones, it might be possible to build an expendable booster that is cheaper than a reusable one. Materials like steel, while heavier than aluminum, are cheaper to produce. It is also lighter and cheaper to develop a pressure fed engine instead of clustering existing pump-fed engines for the rocket.

I do not think that enough studies have been done comparing the virtues of "big dumb boosters" and RLV's. Certainly, the Space Shuttle has not been run in a cost-efficient manner like it should have, and we have yet to build a commercially-viable big dumb booster.

Within the next year I hope do do some research with a small pressure-fed engine, similar in concept to the engines that Andrew Beal tried to develop for his big dumb booster. When I am done I will be more than happy to share my experiences with this forum.

robcwillis · 2002-04-25 18:02:26

A prejudicial "right here in the good old USA" attitude that automatically favors any particular development simply because it is of American origin or likely to be exclusively U.S. built, does nothing to further the goals of the Mars Society. Unfortunately, only limited support for these goals exists both inside and outside the U.S. The only realistic chance of success demands that both existing and potential support be maximized worldwide. Although the U.S., if willing to divert perhaps 2 or 3 percent of it's current "defense" expenditures could easily afford to go it alone without any increase in taxation, the powers that be are unlikely to make such a move. Friendship and co-operation between countries is a noble pursuit, but there is nothing sentimental about favoring an international Humans to Mars programme. If people are to get to Mars any time in the foreseeable future, an international effort is prerequisite. Nothing and nobody is willing to pay the price of going it alone. I fail to see why Europe, Russia, Japan, Canada, or any other country on the face of the Earth would contribute funding to a Mars programme that was nothing more than a giant subsidy dropped in the laps of the U.S. Aerospace industry.

Clearly most of the corporations best suited to serve as prime contractors for the actual manned Mars craft (TransHab, ERV etc.) happen to be American, and will undoubtedly get the lions share of funding. Good for them. Conversely, a concept like Vulcan ILV; (Energia derived 155+ tonnes to LEO) is inherently far more suited to international production than Magnum, Ares, Sea Dragon, or any other proposal that has any hope of becoming a reality.

Magnum does not exist and has never been flown. Although much of the technology would be derived from STS, the differences between Magnum and STS are greater than those between Energia (four booster version as flown with Polyus and Buran) and Vulcan ILV. The Energias that have been sitting in storage at Baikonur for the last 12 years are more capable than the proposed Magnum. The CFC spewing solids required to give Magnum it's specified performance are NOT the same as those currently in production for STS, but enlarged "Advanced SRBs". Thankfully, NASA has rejected Boeing's "reusable liquid booster" (winged liquid fly back booster study) due to enormous projected development costs, excessive dry weight and other drawbacks. Why waste a couple billion dollars of American taxpayers money while Zenit is currently in well below capacity production at Yuznoyhe of Ukraine? Zenit is in commercial use both for Boeing Sea Launch and at Baikonur. The reusable parachute/airbag version as flown with Energia can easily be returned to production.

Existing facilities at the Cape cannot support a Magnum based manned Mars effort and the ISS/STS programme simultaneously. Scrap STS/ISS? Spend a couple billion for new Magnum facilities? A better alternative would be to contribute a much smaller amount as part of an international effort to repair Baikonur's Energia pads, an effort that could also employ American contractors.

RD-170(171) is in production by Energomash (Russia) for Zenit/Sea Launch, RD-180 is soon to enter U.S. production by Pratt and Whitney for Atlas. EADS in Europe, or Mitsubishi in Japan, or anywhere else with suitable factories could build Vulcan ILV core stages/upper stages.

Development costs, as well as cost per kilogram to orbit for Vulcan ILV are likely to be lower than Magnum. Magnum's primary drawback is that nobody has come up with a workable mission architecture that can use Magnum without resorting to Earth orbit rendezvous/assembly. For example, three Vulcan ILV launches could replace six Magnum launches per mission cycle, using identical TMI stages and delivering identical spacecraft as per NASA DRM (addendum).

So much for Magnum.

Sea Dragon is a valid concept. I would favor something like this in the long run once there are markets for very large payloads on Mars. It could certainly throw some massive spacecraft at Mars, but such spacecraft would be very expensive. However, Vulcan ILV is a more practical near term solution, again due mostly to lower development costs. There is no current commercial application for a vehicle in the Sea Dragon class. As already mentioned, major components of Vulcan ILV would come largely from current commercial production lines or stocks of existing surplus.

From an environmental standpoint, Sea Dragon's kerosene burning first stage could be somewhat polluting due to the relatively low combustion efficiency of pressure fed engines.

Mark S · 2002-05-03 15:54:40

If a "Sea Dragon" type booster is built, it should definitely use hydrogen fuel for both stages, for the simple fact that the hydrogen can be obtained from the sea water at zero cost. RP-1 kerosene would represent a greater expense.

I am in favor of a USA-only Mars expedition for many reasons, the largest of which is the example set by the ISS. If an international Mars program faces the delays and waste that ISS does, we should forget about it. Another reason behind my "America only" stance has to do with a belief that America is the "New Zion." America is the greatest nation because we descended from the British empire, which in turn was originally founded by the Roman empire. If a new "promised land" is to start on Mars, it will be the United States that sets the ball in motion.

Adrian · 2002-05-03 17:04:50

Just to warn you in advance, Mark, many people here aren't too keen on the whole American Imperialism idea. Besides, the idea that the Roman Empire founded the British Empire is frankly not true, and neither did the British Empire found the USA - I'd say that Americans founded the USA.

Any discussion of a putative 'New Zion' or such should go into the Martian Politics section.

Canth · 2002-05-04 09:24:31

I don't favor american emperialism over any other method myself. I would not be in favor of restricting immigration to americans even in such a case as an american empire. I am for space colonies however they come however. Waiting for an international group to do it when the U.S. could do it faster is not my cup of tea. I think all methods should be persued and the one giving the most progress for the shortest time, assuming we could get funding, should be chosen. American, and other nations, imperialism could be the quickest way to space as it inspires copetition and government funding. China's upcoming manned launch might spawn the american (that is my) government into space big time, it will almost certainly result in some funding increase. It could also get europe to create a manned launch program uping the number of nations or groups of nations capable of putting a man in space with things built only within those nations to four. The Russian Federation, The United States, and hopefully within the next decade The Peoples Republic of China, and Europe (I beleive the european space agency is not affiliated with the european union.)

robcwillis · 2002-05-06 19:02:17

Unfortunately, liquid hydrogen cannot be obtained from seawater at anything close to zero cost. Construction of a ship based hydrogen plant is possible, but expensive, and not strictly necessary for a Sea Dragon type operation. Kerosene is cheaper than liquid hydrogen. We should keep in mind that whatever fuel is used, propellant represents a miniscule proportion of overall costs no matter what launch vehicle system is used.

On the subject of an exclusively U.S. vs. international effort to get Humans to Mars, anti-international arguments are self-defeating. The fact that the ISS has been plagued by cost overruns does not mean that any and all future international space efforts must inevitably suffer similar problems, nor does it mean that exclusively U.S. efforts will not. STS was an almost exclusively U.S. programme, and was the victim of massive gouging by it?s American contractors. We have seen similar abuses perpetrated by the multinational contractors involved in building ISS.

The way to prevent such victimization of the client by the contractor is through FIXED PRICE COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS. The vendors should be held strictly accountable for any cost overruns. Failure to deliver the specified goods or services on time and at the agreed price should result in lawsuits followed by appropriately large fines and asset seizures. Ideally, the offending CEO and his board of directors would then be imprisoned and forced to work off their debts in a labor camp.

With respect to cost overruns, whether the client is NASA alone or a consortium of agencies is largely irrelevant. If the offending contractor is based in Japan, Ukraine, the U.S., Russia, Europe or Canada is equally irrelevant. What is relevant is that below a certain minimum level of funding, even the cheapest imaginable Humans to Mars programme becomes impossible. More The current U.S. administration is unwilling to consider funding any such effort on it?s own. China sending up an astronaut will do nothing to change this. We are not ?waiting for an international group to do it?. Mars exploration supporters worldwide are waiting for the U.S. to lead a co-operative venture. As the Space Station nears completion, the Mars Society should commit itself to an all out campaign to encourage.

Mark S · 2002-05-06 19:18:59

I certainly disagree with "American Imperialism," as America was never intended to be an imperial power (despite our dabbling in imperialism during the end of the 19th century.) If a Russian booster is the key to getting to Mars, we should not be so foolish to reject it. And once foreign powers are ready to colonize Mars, we should encourage them rather than forcing them join with us.

However, I am convinced that the first mission to Mars will be financed and manned by America alone. We are the only country that has been to the moon. The same spirit which drove America to put men on the moon will enable us to travel to Mars. The first footsteps on Mars will then open the floodgates for more nations to follow.

Peter Pevensie · 2002-05-07 01:47:39

^^^ Just like on the Moon, huh?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2001-09-23 09:31:15

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#2 2001-09-24 15:02:02

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#3 2001-10-02 18:42:43

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#4 2001-12-18 19:21:46

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#5 2002-01-10 14:10:06

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#6 2002-01-11 22:45:13

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#7 2002-01-16 15:32:32

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#8 2002-01-17 13:34:19

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#9 2002-01-31 14:29:06

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#10 2002-04-01 13:53:40

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#11 2002-04-01 22:25:53

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#12 2002-04-02 04:03:18

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#13 2002-04-21 21:11:14

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#14 2002-04-23 10:50:57

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#15 2002-04-23 11:04:19

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#16 2002-04-23 12:13:45

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#17 2002-04-23 12:32:20

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#18 2002-04-23 16:23:14

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#19 2002-04-25 18:02:26

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#20 2002-05-03 15:54:40

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#21 2002-05-03 17:04:50

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#22 2002-05-04 09:24:31

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#23 2002-05-06 19:02:17

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#24 2002-05-06 19:18:59

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

#25 2002-05-07 01:47:39

Re: Launch Vehicles - Energia, Ares, Magnum etc.

Board footer