Reusable LSAM

RedStreak · 2006-08-09 15:07:32

You have a good amount of faith in the utilization of tugs and lunar resources I must say neviden.

My architecture idea is based on simplicity and inspired by the original Mars Direct while utilizing what the VSE offers. The problem is when you start adding too many vehicles and components the budget gets strained and, also, you have to take it in the political factor - i.e. Congress cuts the budget, or your projects encounters massive overruns ala ISS. You have to deal with the physics of it all, physical and economical/political.

I cut tugs out of the equation and transfered the funtion to the CEV2 & RLSAM for good reason:

1) Inefficency of delta-V. Zubrin himself struck out the idea of orbital tugs or even utilizing the moon for Mars because its more than a matter of getting ships coordinated like refueling planes in mid-air. Assuming you're transfering LOX from Lunar orbit to LEO there's a tran-Earth burn, and then on the way back a trans-lunar burn and lunar orbit breaking; even with aerobraking you need to maneuver the probe otherwise you'd still end up braking through empty space. Given all the burns, all the fuel, all the oxidizer lunar or otherwise, it sadly amounts to spending $500 on gas to bring back home $15 bucks worth to save for the next trip. Rocket science not nessicary to figure out a problem...

2) Beyond a month cryogenic storage is questionable, even if heavily layered which then reduces the LOX that can be returned. This simultainiously eliminates ion propulsion in outgoing cargo vehicles and aerobraking - the Mars orbiters weight mere fractions of what either a lunar tug or lander would and even they take months to reach their low operational orbits. A lunar LOX facility on Moon would manage better but not an independent vehicle. Even in my RLSAM architecture I would assume for an incoming CEV within a month to avoid boil-off.

3) Altogether, it is like a 3rd wheel, and a rule to conserve mass in space is: "if it's unnessisary, why bring it?" Surely the fuel can be stored and transfered between existing tanks.

A lunar tug may or may not be useful - the idea is to reduce Earth-launched mass which is why LOX production is a must for long-term Lunar operations. I don't think it'd be practical for the short-term however, not with NASA under enough stress as it is.

RedStreak · 2006-08-09 15:33:43

One further note...

I will agree on the Point of Eternal Light being a good resource utilization area, but only because of two reasons:

1) Its a confirmed source of near-constant sunlight.

2) Its within the South Pole-Aitken Basin, the moon's largest crater with numerous geological sites of interest and study applications.

Although I do not have substantial doubt wouldn't it be wise to first learn what form lunar ice is in at the least? It could possibly be microwaved out but somehow I doubt it exists like snow here on Earth. Definetley send a lunar lander to investigate directly otherwise a manned architecture bringing in the wrong extraction equiptment may prove detremental.

SpaceNut · 2006-08-09 21:15:26

All the ideas so far use liquid fuels to make them reusable if water can be found.
But I am wondering if solid fuels much like a srb but different as noted here at Wickman Spacecraft & Propulsion Company Lunar Soil Propellant (LSP) with a followup liquid stage which would use less would not be a better way to go.

RedStreak · 2006-08-09 21:39:11

Possible, but I imagine there will be considerable sifting through lunar soil to find the right minerals.

I'd consider it for a 3rd-generation Lunar Lander myself (LSAM being generation one, my RLSAM concept for generation two, and then a fully Lunar-fueled RLSAM). Not immediately applicable but certainly worth investigating and hopefully applying within 20 years of our return to Luna.

neviden · 2006-08-10 04:41:24

The problem is when you start adding too many vehicles and components the budget gets strained and, also, you have to take it in the political factor - i.e. Congress cuts the budget, or your projects encounters massive overruns ala ISS. You have to deal with the physics of it all, physical and economical/political.

well, when you don't have to spend Ares 5 every time you want to change crews, that should help with a budget...

Assuming you're transfering LOX from Lunar orbit to LEO there's a tran-Earth burn, and then on the way back a trans-lunar burn and lunar orbit breaking;

I would not send only LOX from LLO, I would send LOX and H2.. If Tug was big enough (large enough tanks) to come from LEO with container, do TLI and lunar orbit breaking it would be big enough to return to LEO via aerobreaking with extra propelant on the way back..

even with aerobraking you need to maneuver the probe otherwise you'd still end up braking through empty space.

yes, you would only brake into LEO, but that is all you can do. I am not rocket scientist, but I think it would be possible to make this aerobreaking work.. it works on other planets.. it just needs to be bigger..

Given all the burns, all the fuel, all the oxidizer lunar or otherwise, it sadly amounts to spending $500 on gas to bring back home $15 bucks worth to save for the next trip. Rocket science not nessicary to figure out a problem...

It doesn't matter.. if everything is reusable, then the only cost is propelant.. if it takes 1000 MT of lunar ice to put 100 MT to LEO, you burn 900 MT to do it.. it would be cheaper than building ares 5, EDS and lunar lander EVERY TIME.. and all you need to get water from moon is: pick up dirt (best guess is it has 3% ice in it), put it in a bucket, heat bucket (sun), liquefy volatiles, electrolyse water (sun) and you have all the propelant you need..

all the costs are in design, setup and building.. once it is runing it would need minimal extra costs.. and all this is not that hard (compared to earth SSTO).. you would not have to design everything for earth reentry.. all you need is reliable H2/O2 engine that would survive lots of firings and lots of redundant things that can be easily fixed..

2) Beyond a month cryogenic storage is questionable, even if heavily layered which then reduces the LOX that can be returned. This simultainiously eliminates ion propulsion in outgoing cargo vehicles and aerobraking - the Mars orbiters weight mere fractions of what either a lunar tug or lander would and even they take months to reach their low operational orbits. A lunar LOX facility on Moon would manage better but not an independent vehicle. Even in my RLSAM architecture I would assume for an incoming CEV within a month to avoid boil-off.

Boil-off can be greatly reduced if you cool propelant .. or even completly eliminated.

but if this would still be a problem, you can always use water.. on the slow aerobrake to LEO you load tug with ice and once in LEO transfer this water to refueling station, where it is split into H2 and 02..

3) Altogether, it is like a 3rd wheel, and a rule to conserve mass in space is: "if it's unnessisary, why bring it?" Surely the fuel can be stored and transfered between existing tanks.

You need to conserve mass in space because it costs HUGE amount of money to bring it into LEO.. but once in LEO you still need propelant to get to anywhere.. if you need to send extra propelant to LEO you need tanks and thruster rockets anyway, so why bother..

but, if you can get this propelant elsewhere you don't have to send it from earth.. you can get it from moon.. you can get it from comets.. you can get it from asteoroids.. if you would have to use up 10.0000 mt of ice from comet/asteorid to get 1.000 mt of ice to LEO it wouldn't matter.. especialy if you only had to send 100 mt to LEO to get this ice, and you would be able to reuse this 100 mt spaceship.. then it would make sense to reuse.. but to reuse them, you need to develop space refuling, aerobraking, manufacturing, avtomate things as much as posible.. and if this things will not get developed you will just do another Apollo..

500.000.000$ to change crews on moon? That kind of money buys you 3.000 passenger luxury cruise ship that will be usefull for 30 years.. and you don't just sink it after you ran out of oil.. sure, you can't launch it to space, but you could BUILD it in space if you wanted (remember those asteoroids and tugs?).. in space it doesn't matter how big something is.. percentage of fuel to get anywhere is the same.. and if you build BIG you can always use fussion/fission to help you move things around..

A lunar tug may or may not be useful - the idea is to reduce Earth-launched mass which is why LOX production is a must for long-term Lunar operations. I don't think it'd be practical for the short-term however, not with NASA under enough stress as it is.

what short-term? NASA isn't going anywhere for 10 years.. it is building NEW rocket, NEW crew transport, NEW earth departure stage, NEW lander,... so why not design/build everything reusable.. that way, once you set everything up, you have something that is cheap to run..

Although I do not have substantial doubt wouldn't it be wise to first learn what form lunar ice is in at the least? It could possibly be microwaved out but somehow I doubt it exists like snow here on Earth. Definetley send a lunar lander to investigate directly otherwise a manned architecture bringing in the wrong extraction equiptment may prove detremental.

I agree.. we should get rover there to look what is there.. if there is lots of ice than moon can become much cheaper.. if there is no ice, we need to send probes to NEAs with low delta-v to check what are they made off (well we should send them anyway)..

and last of all.. if you found platinum group metals somewhere where it would be cheap enough to mine and refine, you could bring it to LEO the same way you bring ice, then land it on earth.. how much would 100 MT of platinum or gold be worth? That could fix that 'not enough money' problem..

RedStreak · 2006-08-10 18:22:11

Even if you found mountains of platinum and gold you'd still be lucky to come out even for balancing the NASA budget but who knows...

Carrying liquid water instead of liquid O2 and H2 isn't a half-bad idea - I am honestly suprised why neither VSE or even Mars Direct considered that possibility. The only vague downside I can see would be needing a seperate tank to hold the water but if we're already considering using spent LSAM lower stages for LOX storage then sparing a couple for H2O should be within capability.

Again I reiterate don't count on space tugs just yet, certainly not within the next quarter century barring, perhaps, development from commercial spaceflight. However making the tugs transfer H2O instead of cryogenics may boost their usefulness.

RedStreak · 2006-08-10 18:30:11

500.000.000$ to change crews on moon? That kind of money buys you 3.000 passenger luxury cruise ship that will be usefull for 30 years.. and you don't just sink it after you ran out of oil.. sure, you can't launch it to space, but you could BUILD it in space if you wanted (remember those asteoroids and tugs?).. in space it doesn't matter how big something is.. percentage of fuel to get anywhere is the same.. and if you build BIG you can always use fussion/fission to help you move things around..

No offense but asteroid cities and free-floating star bases shall remain fiction for a good century at least. Fiction conceived by people who overlook the physics and politics of real space travel.

And the Moon isn't a tourist attraction, its a world that ranges from beyond broiling hot to freezing below Antarctic temperatures. No money-flinging space entrepeanour is going to the moon for a while yet, nor would NASA or any space agency allow it at this critical a juncture.

We won't dump everything - why do you think I support a RLSAM and LOX production? If we maximize the potential of our space-borne and unmanned vehicle cost will drop.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-10 18:58:19

Neviden, I get the sense that you believe a few things that just aren't true:

1) Lunar (or asteroid for Hydrogen) infrastructure will be easy to set up and produce very large quantities of propellant. This is not the case, and the expense of Lunar extraction must be weighed carefully.
2) Reuseable landers will be capable of an arbitrary number of flights with little care or risk. Due to the very large propellant masses needed, consequently a very large number of flights will be required or extremely large landers/tugs.
3) Travel times are irrelivent and storage long enough for reuseability will be easy. Slow aerobraking imparticularly would require a large number of vehicles with very long storage.
4) Your outrage about cost by comparing it to Earthly things is arbitrary and irrelivent.

These all add up to an expensive, impractical way to get back to the Moon.

First of all, we do not know if there is any water on the Moon. We don't know if there is a single drop. Second, if there is water, it is all but certainly as a fine layer of snow buried in the dust and rock, not a lake of ice. Getting it out will be difficult in tonne quantities if possible at all. Thermal volatizing will be hard since its so energy intensive (must heat dust/rock too from extreme cold) and microwave won't work since the dust absorbs it. Solar thermal heating will be hard since the snow is only stable in Lunar shadow, or carting a tonne of Lunar soil might only yeild you 500-1000g of Hydrogen (assuming 90% yeild at 0.5-1.0% by mass H2O). How are you going to move all that Lunar dust? You would need an armored legion of extremely durable dumptruck rovers and a massive supply of electrical power to operate them plus regular human tending for maintenance and supplies for that.

Lunar Hydrogen may not even exist, and even if it does it will not be practical to collect without a really big mining operation. It may simply be easier to import every last gram of it from Earth. This way you won't be restricted to where your base can be, like the summit of one of those mountains with perpetual sunlight. Since the Lunar ice, if it exists, is in perminantly shadowed craters these are likely to be difficult to reach from said mountain by road as a mine would require.

Mining from near-Earth asteroids is a fable of crackpots, the lie of asteroid scientist to get funding, and staple of ignorant dreamers. To make a very long story very short, it ain't happening, you can't "dig" nor build on a spinning body with near-zero gravity. If you try and push a drill bit into the ground, what happens? You get pushed into the air instead. Can't walk on the surface, can't hover thanks to the odd spin, can't mount solar pannels on the surface.
Its just not going to happen, this is not a practical way to get Hydrogen nor mine for minerals any time soon.

The lack of access to Hydrogen anywhere except Earth is a show-stopper for this kind of ultra-reuseable system. Its not "unfortunate," it makes it unworkable.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-10 19:12:24

More specifically...

There are some technical problems about your scheme in general:

~You can't aerobrake into Lunar orbit, since the Moon has no atmosphere.
~Aerobraking into Earth slowly with solar pannel drag might not be possible, since the atmosphere is 115X thicker than the Martian atmosphere.
~There is no stable Lunar orbit, all vehicles in Lunar orbit must expend nontrivial amounts of fuel regularly.
~Boiloff collection adds substantially to the power, mass, and longevity issues for tug vehicles. Since this must be carried back and forth, it requires several times its mass to lug it around. Does this really save fuel?

Next, I don't believe you fully realise just how much fuel it would take to make such a scheme work: I would estimate that for every tonne of payload you want to send to Earth from the Lunar surface, you'd need around 3.0 tonnes of propellant. For every tonne you want to send from Earth to the Moon, you need about 4.0 tonnes of propellant. So lets say you have a 5MT lander (dry) and you want to get it to Earth, pick up 20MT, and return to the Moon?

+It takes 100MT of fuel to go from Earth to Moon
+You have to bring all the fuel from the Moon for this
=You need over 400 metric tonnes of fuel

This is assuming powerd braking at Earth since solar pannel braking is iffy, long term storage of cryogen fuel is undesireable, assumes near-zero mass for fuel tanks, and assuming near-100% propellant utilization. Its probably over 500MT with these factors. For one 20MT load.

Is this really any better? Put the 20MT load on top of a CLV and launch a second CLV with a booster or launch a single 40MT class rocket (Delta-IV HLV "6,6,3" or tripple Atlas-V). Send this to Lunar orbit, launch a Lunar lander up to it, bring the cargo down. Estimate 50MT for acent and 25MT for decent, 75MT total.

Edit: And I'm being conservative about that 4.0X figure.

RedStreak · 2006-08-10 20:04:33

Edit: And I'm being conservative about that 4.0X figure.

We have no doubt there.

Oh, and for your asteroid comment, its not into air its into the vaccum of space technically.

My personal guess is if we do extract any lunar water the likelyhood is it will be used exclusively for life support, supplementing LOX production, and propellant for surface and lunar orbital operations. More to consider as well: water even in ice form is a scarcity on the moon. There is likely no more water on the Moon than even in one of the Great Lakes, and if it is spent as grossly as fossil fuels here on Earth within a hundred years' time it will be used up leaving nothing for any budding lunar cities to utilize.

To paraphrase that famous saying from Vegas: what water's on the Moon stays on the Moon.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-10 20:46:14

It will take more to develop, but once you build and launch few tugs, few landers, few fuel factories (one on moon, one on LEO, one on phobos, few on asteroids, one on...)

A billion apiece for tugs and extra landers, the ice mining equipment versus just LOX, the power plants for the equipment, several times more ISRU capacity, and development tax for all of them... This would cost ten billion dollars easily versus just a reuseable lander and less extensive facilities. Just so we can save 50% on a crew transfer for one Ares-I instead of two? Thats only 12.5Bn over 25 years with two crews anually so you save nothing, reuseability is obviously just not a panacea. Cargo could be deliverd by Ares-V as low as $600M for 20-25MT too with expendable LSAM perhaps, which is a hard deal to beat, just $25M a tonne.

"you actualy don't even need 100 MT launcher"

Then were are never, ever going to Mars.

"send fuel from earth in containers until everything is runing smothly.. those containers would be usefull later in a propelant depos(sic)"

These "containers" are not dumb tanks, they too need maneuvering jets, power, computers, communications, docking, plus fuel transfer hardware and of course development.

so you land first at Peak of Eternal Light.. you have constant light and constant shade

Since you are on top of a mountain, these two things will be mutually exclusive.

I would not send only LOX from LLO, I would send LOX and H2.. If Tug was big enough (large enough tanks) to come from LEO with container, do TLI and lunar orbit breaking it would be big enough to return to LEO via aerobreaking with extra propelant on the way back..(etc etc)

Ignores the reality of just how much propellant you need for this scheme. Which is to say, LOTS. The mass of the fuel tanks alone for all this fuel, that I didn't calculate, will be tens off tonnes "tax" on your fuel requirements.

It doesn't matter

It really does matter:

if everything is reusable, then the only cost is propelant.. if it takes 1000 MT of lunar ice to put 100 MT to LEO, you burn 900 MT to do it.. it would be cheaper than building ares 5
~Those tugs and mega landers (or fleet of smaller ones) will cost alot of money to develop and build that you wouldn't need otherwise. These are not infinitely reuseable, and are only going to be good for so many trips, especially with solar flares, the Van Allen belts, and aerobraking erosion. A billion dollar tug, a billion dollar lander, another billion dollars for support, and a billion to launch both over ten flights and you still lose versus expendable Ares-V and lose big to lander reuse only. And loses even bigger to a partially reuseable launch vehicle too I bet.
and all you need to get water from moon is: pick up dirt (best guess is it has 3% ice in it), put it in a bucket, heat bucket (sun), liquefy volatiles, electrolyse water (sun) and you have all the propelant you need
~No, it sounds easy, but its really not. The "snow" buried in the dust is probably only 1%, but even if it were 3% you would have to process ungodly amounts to be useful. 500MT of propellant would require about 25,000MT of dirt be processed with 90% yeild (thats right, twenty five thousand metric tonnes). Plus the dirt is full of rocks, and the snow is where the sun never shines.

but, if you can get this propelant elsewhere you don't have to send it from earth.. you can get it from moon.. you can get it from comets.. you can get it from asteoroids.. if you would have to use up 10.0000 mt of ice from comet/asteorid to get 1.000 mt of ice to LEO it wouldn't matter... but to reuse them, you need to develop space refuling, aerobraking, manufacturing, avtomate things as much as posible.. and if this things will not get developed you will just do another Apollo

No no no, all this mining, reuse, and development and whatnot, its all so expensive that it can actually be more expensive than simply importing from Earth, and are all these things really harder than an Earth RLV or even a partially reuseable rocket? And why is "just like Apollo" so bad? With today's technology, just add a reuseable Lunar medium lander with no Lunar ice and expendable rockets we can explore the Moon and Mars.

what short-term? NASA isn't going anywhere for 10 years

This is a wrong-headed way to think, when you keep adding more development and more infrastructure, getting started becomes so expensive that you will never get started.

how much would 100 MT of platinum or gold be worth?

Asteroids aren't solid platinum, infact they are only like 0.0001% Pt. You'd need 1,000,000MT of asteroid ore to get this much metal.

By the time we could afford the huge investment for such a scheme, we could probably build a real space shuttle and all this business about Lunar fuel for Earth/Moon transit would be irrelivent.

RedStreak · 2006-08-10 21:09:38

It doesn't matter
It really does matter:[list]
if everything is reusable, then the only cost is propelant.. if it takes 1000 MT of lunar ice to put 100 MT to LEO, you burn 900 MT to do it.. it would be cheaper than building ares 5
~Those tugs and mega landers (or fleet of smaller ones) will cost alot of money to develop and build that you wouldn't need otherwise.

And that in turn leads to a Lunar fiasco equivellant to ISS. If the plan's kept simple that's our best chance.

These are not infinitely reuseable, and are only going to be good for so many trips, especially with solar flares, the Van Allen belts, and aerobraking erosion. A billion dollar tug, a billion dollar lander, another billion dollars for support, and a billion to launch both over ten flights and you still lose versus expendable Ares-V and lose big to lander reuse only. And loses even bigger to a partially reuseable launch vehicle too I bet.

Given those factors I'd give, conservatively, a RLSAM 5 to 10 uses before permenantly grounding it on the Moon, and by that either a final landing or a junked crash - preferable the first if we want to salvage the equiptment especially for the propellant tanks. That's more cost effective than the regular dumping of Russian Progress or stretching it out as riskily as the space shuttles.

but, if you can get this propelant elsewhere you don't have to send it from earth.. you can get it from moon.. you can get it from comets.. you can get it from asteoroids...but to reuse them, you need to develop space refuling, aerobraking, manufacturing, avtomate things as much as posible..
No no no, all this mining, reuse, and development and whatnot, its all so expensive that it can actually be more expensive than simply importing from Earth, and are all these things really harder than an Earth RLV or even a partially reuseable rocket?

Totally agreed GCN. That's thinking too far ahead and too out of reach. We have to balance everything realistically. The Shuttle has proven that a RLV isn't cost effective versus expendable nor safe. I'd go with the VSE plan as it is first and foremost, as long as some equiptment is landed on the lunar surface itself. Only after some rudimentary LOX is established is reuseability an open option, and even then we still have to largely work with what we have now.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-10 21:16:25

A few more thoughts and notes...

~Why seperate tug and lander? If the lander must carry all the fuel the tug needs, then the landers' tanks will be almost as big as the tankers'.
~The 25,000MT of dirt figure for 500MT propellant assumes 5.5/1 Hydrogen-Oxygen ratio, thus you need 79MT Hydrogen. (See J-2S engine)
~Water might be present between 1-3% in Lunar soil, but Hydrogen is only 0.1-0.3% (assuming 90% yeild.
~Mining oxygen only from Lunar dirt is far easier, since it is perhaps >50% oxygen in some places, and is everywhere.
~A reuseable lander for carrying payloads from LLO to the surface will weigh less than your mega lander that must lift 300MT+ tonnes of fuel with less thrust/tankage/structure.
~Partially reuseable 50MT class rocket combined with reuseable Lunar lander would make 20MT class payloads cheap versus any kind of Lunar Hydrogen mining/transport scheme

For goodness sakes, just import the Hydrogen from Earth!

Edit: Oh, and if memory serves, the most reliable throttleable Hydrogen engine available (the RL-10) is supposed to be good for up to ten firings, which is where I came up with the figure above for a reuseable lander.

SpaceNut · 2006-08-10 21:35:35

The Shuttle has proven that a RLV isn't cost effective versus expendable nor safe.

Sorry RedStreak but the shuttle is a refurbished vehicle in that it is torn down, inspected, rebuilt, modified, repaired, retested, and more at a huge cost by the standing army that the shuttle needs to not only maintain but to fly it.

A truely RLV is one that requires minimal inspection, refueling, maybe some new batteries and off we go...

RobertDyck · 2006-08-10 21:52:36

Shuttle requirements in 1968 & 1969 called for up to 66 flights per year. The proposed flight schedule included 60 to 66 flights per year for 1978-1985. The shuttle as built was expected to fly 50 flights per year; not quite what they wanted but then the original requirements were for a fully reusable Two Stage To Orbit. In fact, ATK Thiokol built solid rocket moulding pits capable of manufacturing 100 SRBs (50 pairs) per year, and Michoud is sized to produce 50 ETs per year. Orbiter processing proved to be much more than they expected, in fact the engine section was not designed for engines to be removed and overhauled after each flight. There isn't ready access to the engines, making removal difficult and time consuming.

The Shuttle was a system that proved a reusable spaceplane can work. It's a major achievement. However, it also proved cost controls are absolutely necessary. The cost for this one has grown insanely high, and the flight rate is way too low for a reusable vehicle. Try calculating the cost per flight at 50 launches per year instead of 6, and you'll see what a reusable vehicle can do.

RedStreak · 2006-08-10 22:06:44

For a Reuseable LSAM concept we ought to establish several bare minimums so the purpose of the vehicle isn't skewed too horrifically.

1) Exclusively for crewed vehicles.

- The only reason today that spacecraft return to Earth is to retrieve samples for more intensive study on Earth and, for more obvious reasons, to return men and women safely back to Earth. With scientific equiptment and laboratories being established on the lunar surface and geologists coming for "hands-on-research" the need to bring back lunar samples diminishes quickly. A cargo vehicle's purpose is to deliver the maximum amount of cargo; for reuseability you have to sacrifice a solid portion of that cargo capacity - which is why the shuttles are no longer in the buisness of delivering even military satellites into orbit. If a VSE cargo-exclusive lander can deliver a few tens of cargo to the Moon, its purpose it done with no need of extensive redesign. Also...why would we bring LOX from the Moon? Why to lower propellant cost and breathable atmosphere. But if people are on the Moon, there's no need to take it beyond lunar orbit, and if our limit is lunar orbit then we just load up the RLSAM with our LOX. No reuseable unmanned landers period.

2) Optimized for operations in lunar space.

- Once its brought to lunar orbit the RLSAM is in its element. Taking it anywhere beside the Moon itself is not just unessicary but wasted effort. A lunar lander is meant to deliver people to and from the Moon. In both the old Apollo and VSE architectures the lander is dumped anyway once the crew is ready for the trip Earthward. If it is reuseable may as well keep it there, but nothing like flimbsy heatshields ought to be added at all.

3) Supplemented by LOX.

- If we have to constantly send all the propellants to the Moon it undermines the benefits of the RLSAM, so at the very least we should eliminate oxygen out of the equation. Possibly H2 from Lunar Ice but that's still iffy, but LOX should be possible to establish with expendable landers and then utilized by reuseable ones. The benefit of RLSAM is to reduce the mass needed from Earth - adding LOX further reduces it.

4) Realistic reuseability.

- GCNRevenger pointed out the innevitable damage caused by radiation and even micro-meteoroids. And as the shuttle itself has taught us a vehicle can only be reused so many times. The autonomous Progress is used once as will ESA's ATV, but surely more flights could be done than that. I suggest conservatively 5 to 10 reuses before 'retiring' a lander on the Moon. Even then its a piece of equiptment not mere garbage, so once on the Moon canibalize the crew compartment while saving the fuel tanks.

Anyone want to make suggestons, further amendments to this RLSAM 'draft'?

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-10 22:08:04

Heres what I would like to see happen, one more time, with a new additional idea:

(1) Ares-I and Ares-V with CEV/EDS/LSAM are completed to specification and used to scout the Moon and build the initial base.
(2) The base would consist of rad-hardend housing for 4-6, small nuclear plant w/ solar augment, small ISRU plant for Oxygen with diggers, maybe a "garage."
(3) LSAM adapted or new lander developed for reuseability, minimum 10 flights, to/from LLO only. Two versions would be made, a 10MT crew vehicle and a 5MT cargo vehicle for ferrying payloads from LLO.
(4) 20MT Hydrogen is imported from Earth to mix with Lunar Oxygen 1.5 times anually: this would provide enough fuel for crew rotations (30MT propellant, 5MT Hydrogen) and two 20MT cargo landings (70MT propellant, 10MT Hydrogen) or multiple suborbital hops per year. (*These landings could cover delivering Hydrogen fuel from Lunar orbit)
(5) Crews or 20MT cargo loads could be sent a variety of ways:

~Ares-V direct cargo to the Lunar surface
~Pairs of Ares-I, one for CEV or 20MT cargo and one for mini-EDS, Centaur derived (EELV).
~Pairs of EELVs, eg Atlas-V or Ariane-V, maybe Falcon-IX
~Single upgraded Delta-IV "663"
~Single partially reuseable launch vehicle*

(6) This closes the loop, and makes long term Lunar exploration affordable. The rest of NASA's budget goes to Mars programs.

*Such a vehicle I am envisioning: upgraded Delta-IV core vehicle with the improved RS-68R/AlLi/pH2 and increased 6.5m diameter upper stage/payload faring, flanked by 2-3X winged kerosene-fuel "flyback" rocket boosters that cost $10M to fly each. Target payload of 40MT to LEO or 20MT to Lunar orbit using mini-EDS. It should be man-rated to deliver CEV to Lunar orbit. Assuming $125-150M per launch, and all crew and cargo needs to maintain a Lunar base cost could cost as little as $500-600M to launch. Throw in $1Bn for telescopes, mining equipment, and support and NASA could "do the Moon" well for under 10% of its budget!
Flyback booster concept from early Magnum/Ares-V idea

RedStreak · 2006-08-10 22:32:32

Not a bad architecture. Obviously when we have just expendable vehicles we prioritize scouting a suitable site and then work to establish long-term essentials like power, life-support, and LOX production to make way for the RLSAM.

Until we have confirmation on accessible lunar ice I have to second the LH2 importation, certainly for the initial base setup. As an idea consider storing the LH2 in H2O to avoid cryogenics.

If sending up a 2nd CLV with a EDS atop is possible I recommend that.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-11 07:10:19

Even if we do find Lunar ice as a fine layer of snow, I think we ought to forget about it, since its just not worth the trouble.

As a side note, there is no reason why two Ares-I's would have to be used for crew rotations, you could just as easily send up one Ares and another EELV to deliver the mini-EDS stage. This would be a good time for a Methane engine for the CEV too.

The partially reuseable rocket probably won't get funding from NASA (at least not until we're on Mars), but maybe the USAF would build it. It would be a big help, greatly reducing the cost of Lunar base support plus deliver Earth-return fuel for reuseable Mars vehicles as in my "modified" DRM-III plan.

40MT for the price of 15MT with manned launch either to the Moon or GEO orbit (for satelite maintenance by CEV too?), the USAF would love that.

neviden · 2006-08-11 09:45:15

uh.. lot's of coments..

No offense but asteroid cities and free-floating star bases shall remain fiction for a good century at least. Fiction conceived by people who overlook the physics and politics of real space travel.

'star base' like that would need lots of material.. but it would be built the same way cruse ships are.. it would actualy be easier to build such star base than ISS.. you need tehnology to smelter/refine metal into sheets, weld this sheets together, once airtight spin, and you would have no idea that you don't work on earth.. everything would work the same.. where do you get material? the same place you get H2O - moon, asteroids, comets..

Neviden, I get the sense that you believe a few things that just aren't true: 1) Lunar (or asteroid for Hydrogen) infrastructure will be easy to set up and produce very large quantities of propellant. This is not the case, and the expense of Lunar extraction must be weighed carefully.

yes, it will not be easy.. all-reusable, LEO exporting propelant production infrastructure size would be big.. but that is not really the point i try to make..

the point is, that you need to develop space resources to the point where you don't need all that much stuff from earth.. you can start small, but you should know where are you going.. thinking big forces you to focus more on what can you build and how and less on how light something is.. manufacturing.. refueling.. extraction.. if it is too big to send from earth, what it would take to make it from lunar metals..

2) Reuseable landers will be capable of an arbitrary number of flights with little care or risk. Due to the very large propellant masses needed, consequently a very large number of flights will be required or extremely large landers/tugs.

you build them sturdy and just fly them untill they can fly no more.. new landers would take care of critical stuff (cargo, humans).. old for noncritical (water, propelant, metals or anything else).. plan it soo, that if they fail, there is no big deal.. main obstacle is of course engines, but i have read somewhere comments about RL-10 from designers, that if you don't stress them too much, they will run forever (not really, but you get the point)..

3) Travel times are irrelivent and storage long enough for reuseability will be easy. Slow aerobraking imparticularly would require a large number of vehicles with very long storage.

build them sturdy.. build lots of them.. if one breakes, no big deal.. you would use them to send stuff to TEI and to help transfer propelant/water to make this posible.. you could even use them to return material from the rest of solar system.. once you develop them, only costs are to build them and launch into LEO.. if they are built to last 15 years and you have 10 - 100.. of them in various stages of return to LEO.. who cares about travel times.. use the one that is curently checked, loaded and in LEO..

4) Your outrage about cost by comparing it to Earthly things is arbitrary and irrelivent. These all add up to an expensive, impractical way to get back to the Moon.

I am not outraged about costs.. but if we plan to send more than 4 people to moon or mars, you have to look at costs.. in a ways ships and spaceships are the best comparisson..

First of all, we do not know if there is any water on the Moon. We don't know if there is a single drop.

well.. we all agre that we have to check what is there.. and if it is there, how best to extract it.. if there is no or very little Hydrogen there, there would be no point..

How are you going to move all that Lunar dust? You would need an armored legion of extremely durable dumptruck rovers and a massive supply of electrical power to operate them plus regular human tending for maintenance and supplies for that.

you would need a real base.. probably something that is dug into mountain.. so you have lots of space in caves with air so you can do everything as you would do on earth.. you would have machine shop that could make lots of things localy (with stuff like rapid prototyping machines).. complicated parts would be sent from earth, easy parts would be made localy.. no need to develop everything new since only change would be 1/6 gravity.. you would grow your own food and recycle water/air so suport costs would not kill you, and since you could cheaply send more people that could work there, you could.. and if you need more space, just dig deeper.. if you need more power just build more solar panels/reflectors..

you start small.. 4 crew and landing modules.. LOX extraction from dirt.. then slowly add things.. first you send H2 from earth.. digger, small machine shop.. H2 would be sent untill you get your production started.. first you reuse human lander.. later you reuse (or if first ones were single use - send from earth) cargo modules to transport modules form LLO to surface.. later (when you increase Hydrogen production) you can refuel tugs..

Since the Lunar ice, if it exists, is in perminantly shadowed craters these are likely to be difficult to reach from said mountain by road as a mine would require.

you can build converyer belt.. you can build cable carts.. you can make mirrors so you don't need to bring all that soil to the top, but you can heat it from above (inside a big box, so you can capture steam).. there are many ways that depend on specific location..

Mining from near-Earth asteroids is a fable of crackpots, the lie of asteroid scientist to get funding, and staple of ignorant dreamers. To make a very long story very short, it ain't happening

Mining near-Earth asteroids is less a fable than teraforming Mars, but people still think how it could be done.. asteroids are there.. how you get stuff from them is a engineering problem.. but things get simpler if you have to deal with very small asteroids.. like.. 10 m across.. or one that is not spinning realy fast.. i don't care how it is done if you can get stuff from that rocks to tugs and deliver tugs to earth orbit..

The lack of access to Hydrogen anywhere except Earth is a show-stopper for this kind of ultra-reuseable system. Its not "unfortunate," it makes it unworkable.

yes.. you have to find hydrogen and carbon.. and deliver it to LEO.. otherwise all this is unfortunate.. moon is a good start and once you have propelant to spare you can get it from other places (comets?).. it's still workable, because you must send H2 from earth, but you can get O2 from moon.

You can't aerobrake into Lunar orbit, since the Moon has no atmosphere.

You would only aerobrake into LEO. To get to Lunar orbit you would use propelant.

~Aerobraking into Earth slowly with solar pannel drag might not be possible, since the atmosphere is 115X thicker than the Martian atmosphere.

i read a report that it is posible to aerobrake from GTO to LEO, so i guess it would be posible..

~There is no stable Lunar orbit, all vehicles in Lunar orbit must expend nontrivial amounts of fuel regularly.

there is no need for stable lunar orbit.. nothing stays in orbit for long.. tug comes from earth, lander from moon.. later they return back..

~Boiloff collection adds substantially to the power, mass, and longevity issues for tug vehicles. Since this must be carried back and forth, it requires several times its mass to lug it around.

most of tug's propelant would be in LEO.. on the way back to LEO you could load tug with water so there is no boiloff no matter how long it takes to get there..

Next, I don't believe you fully realise just how much fuel it would take to make such a scheme work: I would estimate that for every tonne of payload you want to send to Earth from the Lunar surface, you'd need around 3.0 tonnes of propellant. For every tonne you want to send from Earth to the Moon, you need about 4.0 tonnes of propellant. So lets say you have a 5MT lander (dry) and you want to get it to Earth, pick up 20MT, and return to the Moon?
+It takes 100MT of fuel to go from Earth to Moon
+You have to bring all the fuel from the Moon for this
=You need over 400 metric tonnes of fuel
This is assuming powerd braking at Earth since solar pannel braking is iffy, long term storage of cryogen fuel is undesireable, assumes near-zero mass for fuel tanks, and assuming near-100% propellant utilization. Its probably over 500MT with these factors. For one 20MT load.

there is not one.. there are two ships.. they are similar, but one has legs (lander), other has big panels to airbrake with (tug)..

Is this really any better? Put the 20MT load on top of a CLV and launch a second CLV with a booster or launch a single 40MT class rocket (Delta-IV HLV "6,6,3" or tripple Atlas-V). Send this to Lunar orbit, launch a Lunar lander up to it, bring the cargo down. Estimate 50MT for acent and 25MT for decent, 75MT total.

ok, I will explain one more time...

- Expendable Rocket caries container to LEO. 20 MT waiting to be delivered.

- 'tug' comes, picks up this container, loaded with 30 MT of propelant (H2 and O2), goes TEI, moon orbit insertion and waits in LLO empty (well.. at least without O2.. it could have extra H2 to transfer to lander) for lander.

- 'lander' loaded with 100 MT of propelant goes into LLO, meets with 'tug' picks up container, transfers 15MT of propelant to tug, then returns to moon with container. (if you don't have enough H2 on moon you transfer 'tugs' extra to 'lander' to be stored on the moon)

- another lander launches with 40 MT of water/O2 and 60 MT of propelant. meets with 'tug', transfers water/O2, returns empty to moon. (you can repeat this couple of times.. depeanding how much capacity 'tug' has - more you load it, more time it will take to aerobrake back to LEO)..

- 'tug' starts engines, starts aerobraking and slowly returns to LEO with load of water/O2 (40 - 120 MT)

- once in LEO 'tug' either transfers propelant to LEO depo or electrolises water into H2 and O2 with solar panels for next trip..

cost of moon propelant to bring 20 MT container to moon: 30 + 100 + 60 = 190 MT. Large? Well.. once you have everything running it is free..

But this will work even if you only have O2.. instead of water you return LOX via airbrake to LEO. So you have LEO depo full of LOX, so you only need to send H2 from earth.. 100 MT of hydrogen will get you 100 MT of cargo delivered to moon..

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-11 14:20:37

it would actualy be easier to build such star base than ISS.. you need tehnology to smelter/refine metal into sheets, weld this sheets together... where do you get material? the same place you get H2O - moon, asteroids, comets

No. Zero-gravity ship building is a pipe dream too for the next half century at least. This is so far away that there is no sense in discussing it. Mining base metals or propellant from the Moon/asteroids is again a thing of a dreamy far future, its just so hard to do that its not easier than Earth launch.

yes, it will not be easy... the point is, that you need to develop space resources to the point where you don't need all that much stuff from earth... what it would take to make it from lunar metals

This is the wrong way of thinking. Space construction, operation, etc are all very expensive endeavours and their cost must be weighed against just building it here where we have all the food, water, and energy in abundance and just launch it. I am not just talking in the short term but the long term as well, that the initial costs are so massive and the operations cost still so high by virtue of its difficulty that competing with Earth will be difficult. For instance, Lunar mining/smelting and factories to build anything of useful scale would be very large, as would factories and support. Can this really be cheaper than just building on Earth and flying from here? Not just now, not just in the short term, but ever.

you build them sturdy and just fly them untill they can fly no more

Again, reuseability is not always the cheaper option. A tug or lander will have to fire its main engine four times for each trip, and so to even last ten trips you'd need an engine with four times the service life of the best engine, the RL-10. If the lander or tug can't make many missions, then there is no point in bothering with them at all, particularly when they have to be big enough and have enough thrust to move 100's of tonnes of payload.

build them sturdy.. build lots of them... only costs are to build them and launch

No! You make it sound like building these big ships will be cheap and their cost negligible, this is not only untrue, but frankly its misleading. If these vehicles cost anything like what I expect (say $500M each) then building 100 each is one hundred billion dollars.

if they are built to last 15 years and you have 10 - 100.. of them in various stages of return to LEO.. who cares about travel times.. use the one that is curently checked, loaded and in LEO..

Building a vehicle to last 15 years without expensive servicing (eg new engines) will be a tall order, and will add to the cost of each unit built substantially. Furthermore, fuel boiloff really is critical for such a scheme, that if travel times are slow or the vehicles have to wait in orbit alot of that fuel is going to be lost.

If you add condensing equipment (or large fuel tanks), beware, because if a vehicle is reuseable its empty mass can be more critical, not less. For each tonne of vehicle mass you add, you are going to burn several tonnes of fuel round trip each time. Multiply this by ten trips and it begins to add up... how much better is this than a cheap one-shot throw-away EDS stage direct from Earth that doesn't need a boiloff condenser or extended fuel supplies?

in a ways ships and spaceships are the best comparisson

But they aren't, that was my whole point. Your comparison is wrong because they are nothing at all alike.

you would need a real base.. probably something that is dug into mountain.. so you have lots of space in caves with air so you can do everything as you would do on earth... you would grow your own food and recycle water/air so suport costs would not kill you

No no no, that is my whole point, the cost of this massive Lunar base project, it can never possibly compete over facilities on Earth coupled with less expensive launch. Even building the super SSTO spaceplane would probably be no more expensive. It might look good on paper, but later on when we are able to build such a thing, we would also be able to build more advanced launch vehicles (much less a space elevator). There is no future in this massive base idea if it is just to extract fuel from the Moon.

you can build converyer belt.. you can build cable carts..you can make mirrors so you don't need to bring all that soil to the top, but you can heat it from above

But there really aren't, the cost of building a conveyer belt up a several kilometer run up a mountain side would be ruinously expensive to build on the Moon, and a mirror big enough to reflect enough sunlight to heat literally millions of tonnes dust anually is not happening. No, there are not lots of ways.

how you get stuff from them is a engineering problem.. but things get simpler if you have to deal with very small asteroids.. like.. 10 m across.. or one that is not spinning realy fast.. i don't care how it is done if you can get stuff from that rocks to tugs and deliver tugs to earth orbit

Again, engineering problems are no less of a problem if they are insurmountable for intents and purposes. There are some things that are just so hard that they will never be worth bothering with. Things are NOT simpler for smaller asteroids, because it takes the same amount of fuel per tonne of asteroid to stop their spinning reguardless how big they are. A small asteroid might be easier, but its also worth much less. The fuel to get to multiple smaller asteroids will also be larger than one central asteroid. You simply not caring how its done doesn't make the problem go away; there is a principle in applying quantum mechanics to real-world situations that is apt here, that if something is very very unlikely then it is for all intents impossible.

otherwise all this is unfortunate.. moon is a good start and once you have propelant to spare you can get it from other places (comets?).. it's still workable, because you must send H2 from earth, but you can get O2 from moon.

But its not just "unfortunate," its a show-stopper. It stops your plan completly. If you have to bring Hydrogen from Earth, then there is no point bothering to lug Oxygen from the Moon to mix with it, it would be better just to bring the Oxygen from Earth too for everything except landing. The Moon, as mentioned, even if it does have ice it won't be practical to extract Hydrogen in quantity, and comets require much more fuel to reach plus spin just like asteroids do. Not to mention the whole random surface explosion bit.

i read a report that it is posible to aerobrake from GTO to LEO, so i guess it would be posible.

To do so in any reasonably amount of time before the cargo of rocket fuel boiled off would need a heat shield, which would weigh about as much as boiloff condensing equipment or extended tankage I bet. This saves little versus powerd braking I bet.

there is no need for stable lunar orbit

Not true, your tugs will have to wait at least some in Lunar orbit for return fuel, and I doubt that you can leave for Earth any time you want from polar orbit without incuring a large fuel penalty.

you could load tug with water so there is no boiloff no matter how long it takes to get there

Which requires an orbital water cracking/cryogen liquifying station with tank farms, which will cost money. Lots of money if ISS construction is any guide. You keep on adding and stacking up these ten digit infrastructure expenses, and it just can't compete with less reuseable arcitectures.

but one has legs (lander), other has big panels to airbrake with (tug)

So you want to go through all this trouble to develop a different vehicle that trades thrust and a little structure for an aerobrake shield and boiloff condenser? Why? Just use the lander and powerd braking, skip the tug alltogether.

More to come later

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-11 15:44:45

'tug' comes, picks up this container, loaded with 30 MT of propelant (H2 and O2), goes TEI, moon orbit insertion and waits in LLO empty (well.. at least without O2.. it could have extra H2 to transfer to lander) for lander.

You miss the whole point, you will need about 100MT more propellant to push that 30MT off the surface to Earth plus a little left for the tanker/lander to go back down again.

To get this fuel you will have to process 6,500MT of Lunar dust to extract its Hydrogen (assuming 0.3% Hydrogen). This is really a huge figure! Let me try and put this in some perspective, that the biggest dump truck in the world (Cat 797B) can haul 300MT of dirt and itself weighs 275MT. Its power plant, which is a hybrid drive, is about 2.5 megawatts (ISS solar arrays = 0.18MW).

All that Lunar mining, all that dirt processing equipment, all that power requirement, and all the people and supplies required to produce it. How can this possibly be better than a 20MT throw-away booster? Short answer: it can't! The fuel and rockets to send supplies enough to support a mining operation that size exceeds the fuel you produce!

Forget the tug, forget importing fuel to Earth orbit, it doesn't make sense.

publiusr · 2006-08-11 16:43:53

I like your HLLV HLV (hybrid) architecture. Those winged craft would replace EELVs on their won with Magnum/AresV for the rest.

Here is how I would undertake such a scheme.

Get Ares V built at all costs.

I would do as you suggest, and then expand a bit

Consider large HLLV nuclear-electric craft under a black budget that can also be used as probes

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/intaltug.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/stages/erta.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/11b97.htm

These can come later and are a bone thown to the all-science folks. This will be for cargo only and reusable. Place a station in Lunar orbit with small micro-landers for quick sample returns with the station as a safehouse.

The moon base would be near any fissure, evacuated lava tube found and filled with air.

The nuclear tug can take 100 tons to Geosynch--or the moon perhaps. Ares launched the tug and the payload in two flights.

Direct missions with capsules atop Ares V.

A lot of mass can be moved very quickly--and the science mongers get JIMO out of the deal too.

RedStreak · 2006-08-11 20:56:23

Get Ares V built at all costs.

Oh definetely. I'd even prioritize that over the Ares I and CEV.

Consider large HLLV nuclear-electric craft under a black budget that can also be used as probes

Nuclear is a major iffy - sure it provide constant and maybe even more power than solar but if you plan for more than a couple RTGs you'll have not just every enviormental agency on your back but the Atomic Associations.

These can come later and are a bone thown to the all-science folks. This will be for cargo only and reusable.

Good to see you're being realistic.

Place a station in Lunar orbit with small micro-landers for quick sample returns with the station as a safehouse.

A similar discussion was made before - Lunar space stations aren't nessicary and it'd be wiser to keep landers on the moon rather than worry over a free-floating platform being dragged down by the surface's uneven gravity.

The moon base would be near any fissure, evacuated lava tube found and filled with air.

Not a bad idea actually once you find such sites; I heard similar ideas floated for Mars too.

Direct missions with capsules atop Ares V.
A lot of mass can be moved very quickly--and the science mongers get JIMO out of the deal too.

Good news and bad news. I agree with the Ares V idea, especially to allow for larger varriants of the CEV. Bad news is JIMO is dead - it and Prometheus were canceled just before O'Keffe resigned.

Good to see some people thinking here and with different ideas.

neviden · 2006-08-12 07:52:05

Since this thread is titled "Reusable LSAM" i will write only about reusable lander in this thread and open another thread for the rest of stuff..

Even if we do find Lunar ice as a fine layer of snow, I think we ought to forget about it, since its just not worth the trouble.

Since we don't know if there is ice there, how much ice is there, how hard it would be extract it, let us concentrate on O2 in dirt.. we KNOW we can get it and how.. we can hope to get rest of H2 some day, but since O2 is 90% of all the propelant needed, we can send H2 from somewhere else (earth, asteroids,..).

how would I do it.. NASA will build Ares V.. i don't think anyone doubts that.. if you have ways to put 130 MT to LEO it makes everything much more simple.. but even if you don't build it everyone has rockets that can put 20-25 MT to LEO for about 100 M$ (Delta IV, Atlas V, Chang Zheng 5, Proton, Ariane 5). You size lunar lander for your maximum LEO size (or if you have 100+ MT launcher for half that size)

Our priority is to start producing O2 as soon as posible..

if you have only 20 MT LEO you do it like this: You launch 20 MT container, launch 20 MT EDS, meet with container, do TEI and wait there. You launch 20 MT lander (loaded with fuel), launch 20 MT EDS, meet with lander, do TEI, pick up container, land on the moon. 4x launches, 2x EDS, 1x lander, 1x container, 3x dock - 20 MT on moon. Repeat untill you have basic base on the moon that can start making O2. If something blows up and doesn't get delivered there is no rush.. you just re-send it.. once everything is set up, you do 4x launches.. only this time container is for human transport to the moon + suplies.. when everything is ok, you do 2x launches, EDS + something that can suport crew for 14 days, can stay in LLO for some time (a year?) and can return crew back to earth.. resuply moon with 20 MT containers, change crews with manned ship.

if you have 130 MT LEO, you can skip meeting with EDS in orbit, but you deliver only 60 MT to the moon. you do 2x launches untill you set up base, later you do either 1x big launch that deliveres 60 MT to the moon surface or you pick up your CEV + deliver smaller container..

Resuply would include H2 (if you can't get local).. if there is easily exploitable H2 you can make new fully reusable EDS ('tug').. but, even if there is none, you are already producing O2 (90% of needed propelant), that you can transfer to the 'tug' in LLO for trip back to earth.. if you can get H2 from other places than earth, you have ready market for it on moon..

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2006-08-09 15:07:32

Re: Reusable LSAM

#127 2006-08-09 15:33:43

Re: Reusable LSAM

#128 2006-08-09 21:15:26

Re: Reusable LSAM

#129 2006-08-09 21:39:11

Re: Reusable LSAM

#130 2006-08-10 04:41:24

Re: Reusable LSAM

#131 2006-08-10 18:22:11

Re: Reusable LSAM

#132 2006-08-10 18:30:11

Re: Reusable LSAM

#133 2006-08-10 18:58:19

Re: Reusable LSAM

#134 2006-08-10 19:12:24

Re: Reusable LSAM

#135 2006-08-10 20:04:33

Re: Reusable LSAM

#136 2006-08-10 20:46:14

Re: Reusable LSAM

#137 2006-08-10 21:09:38

Re: Reusable LSAM

#138 2006-08-10 21:16:25

Re: Reusable LSAM

#139 2006-08-10 21:35:35

Re: Reusable LSAM

#140 2006-08-10 21:52:36

Re: Reusable LSAM

#141 2006-08-10 22:06:44

Re: Reusable LSAM

#142 2006-08-10 22:08:04

Re: Reusable LSAM

#143 2006-08-10 22:32:32

Re: Reusable LSAM

#144 2006-08-11 07:10:19

Re: Reusable LSAM

#145 2006-08-11 09:45:15

Re: Reusable LSAM

#146 2006-08-11 14:20:37

Re: Reusable LSAM

#147 2006-08-11 15:44:45

Re: Reusable LSAM

#148 2006-08-11 16:43:53

Re: Reusable LSAM

#149 2006-08-11 20:56:23

Re: Reusable LSAM

#150 2006-08-12 07:52:05

Re: Reusable LSAM

Board footer