Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

Euler · 2004-05-17 20:15:52

The 6000 launches/year seems rather optimistic to me, considering that the world's total launch market is under 100 launches/year right now. The number of satellites launched is not really increasing either, with companies using bigger satellites to increase capability rather than using more satellites.

The idea that the DH-1 could dramatically lower costs seems a little dubious. Small rockets have a higher cost/pound to get payload to orbit than large rockets. Manned rockets have a higher cost/pound to get payload to orbit than unmanned rockets. Reusable rockets have a higher cost/pound to get payload to orbit than expendable rockets. So it seems a little strange that a small, manned, reusable rocket would be much cheaper for transporting bulk cargo than a large expendable rockets.

dicktice · 2004-05-18 07:23:15

The more launches, the greater the reliability, not less, due to experience build-up and familiarity with standard launcher hardware. Look at the Soyuz for my argument.
And GCNR: MY inflatable enclosure is a balloon with only a demountable tetrahedron framework to support it (inside and/or outside, don't you see?) and used temporarily for vehicle assembly, then deflated, folded and stored. Why not? I ask you.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-18 11:34:55

Here here Euler *claps*

Actually no, vehicle reliability will decrease with usage overall, its simple statistics. All rockets have a possibility of failure on every flight, but the overall possibility that you will have a failure over the life of the vehicle is the per-flight chance multiplied by the number of chances. If there is a 0.1% chance of failure for one flight, then if you fly ten times there is a 1.0% chance of failure overall. Man-raiting is usually defined as ">99%" crew survival probability, giving you ten flights for such a vehicle without escape mechanisms.

Now, careful maintenance and engineering can mitigate this risk, reducing it to 0.01% per-flight lets say, so now you get 100 flights and so on... but six thousand? And if both stages are manned, then BOTH of them must also have the high crew survival probability... and if they aren't, then both stages must be insured and so on against loss too.

And as far as balloon inflatable structures, I will say it again... they aren't balloons, not safe ones anyway... TransHab is semirigid, its walls do not fold or roll up, and the walls are a foot thick. Thats why, number one. Number two, is how do you intend to get things in and out of the volume? It would have to be huge to accomodate a spacecrafts' fuel tanks and such, and you can't use a zipper or somthing for the door. Number three, we still aren't that good at building things in space... its hard enough to build things on the ground, where everything stays put (including you) and you have all the tools you didn't think you needed at your disposal. And how do you intend to weld things in orbit?

The trouble of planning space construction from a "kit" and ensuring that astronauts have and can do everything in zero-G with little help from Earth is so great that I think its beyond us at the moment - ISS was assembled, not constructed - and that we might as well just build it on the ground and launch it on a bigger rocket.

Bill White · 2004-05-18 11:43:55

The idea that the DH-1 could dramatically lower costs seems a little dubious. Small rockets have a higher cost/pound to get payload to orbit than large rockets. Manned rockets have a higher cost/pound to get payload to orbit than unmanned rockets. Reusable rockets have a higher cost/pound to get payload to orbit than expendable rockets. So it seems a little strange that a small, manned, reusable rocket would be much cheaper for transporting bulk cargo than a large expendable rockets.

For the lowest cost per unit mass of bulk cargo, doesn't this suggest looking at standardized disposable rockets capable of fabrication via factory line production in order to minimize production costs?

Take the same set of skills in materials engineering being used to develop RLV and instead develop the cheapest possible reasonably safe "use once and throw away" rocket motors and fuel tanks and payload fairings.

Then, go RLV for crew and "Bic disposable" for cargo.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-18 13:54:09

Unfortunatly, no such "assembly line" rocket is really practical... rockets that work at all are complex, precision, delicate things and making them by the hundred or thousand isn't financially practical.

The question if an expendable rocket is preferable to a reuseable one concerning reliability depends on the reuseable one... is it cheaper to make a large rocket that works only once or to fly an RLV many times and pay the extra for reliability parity. If the expendable is 99% reliable, and the RLV is 99.9% reliable, then you get ten shots of the RLV without increased risk.

I would also like to note that an airplane style RLV, that has lift without propulsion, could be more reliable than a conventional brute-force rocket because it can abort and come back down intact.

clark · 2004-05-18 14:14:07

Unfortunatly, no such "assembly line" rocket is really practical... rockets that work at all are complex, precision, delicate things and making them by the hundred or thousand isn't financially practical.

So is every single Intel Pentium chip, and yet they make them by the hundreds of thousands, all financially practical. Now, perhaps rockets are harder, but I think it unwise to assume that it is impossible (which your posts seem to imply).

Improvements can be made in how rockets are produced. There haven't been any improvements because there hasn't been much of a need for it. I'm sure Henry Ford faced some of the same arguments you're throwing our way GNC.

t's just a matter of time, and incentive, and the costs will come down. Elon Musk is promising to prove this point. I will expect you to eat your hat when he shows you wrong. (just playing)

Bill White · 2004-05-18 14:35:17

There always is http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketsc … o.html]gun launched as a cargo option.

http://www.heronaerospace.com/Projects/ … html]Heron Aerospace and http://www.heronaerospace.com/Projects/ … html]Heron reviews HARP

= = =

Bragg sensors appear to be way cool.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-18 15:53:08

Heh actually Elon's rocket has a reuseable first stage, because he can't go throwing away the most expensive and precision part on every flight... Which he not yet proved works. Not even once.

As for the Pentium chip example, thats hardly applicable... computer processors:
~Have no moving parts
~Are etched lithographicly, no machining involved
~Do no operate at the risk of exploding and destroying everything within a kilometer
~Do not operate at thousands of degrees
~Packaging is simply not very big, so no giant Boeing rocket plant to make chips

Improvements can be made... to a point. There is a minimum level of complexity, which I think the likes of the Russian RD-170/180 and RD-0120 are pretty near. You can invest all the money in the world, but you aren't going to make a car that can reach interstate speeds for hundreds of miles for only a few hundred dollars.

Cannon launch might be fine for specially hardend satellites to LEO, but I don't think it will be useful for much else.

Bill White · 2004-05-18 16:25:36

Cannon launch might be fine for specially hardend satellites to LEO, but I don't think it will be useful for much else.

Build this http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/julncher.htm]thing - - but not buried in a mountain, rather along side an equatorial mountain aimed due East. Build it above ground from petrochemical pipe.

Purpose? Logistical support for a Mars colony.

Payload is tofu paste, plant food, clean uniforms, MREs anything that can withstand 1000 gees of acceleration.

Assemble into payload bundles in LEO (remote operation?) then use a solar ion tug to L1 then take the "Lo road" to Mars.

Create a logistical pipeline. Once the pipeline is filled, it does not matter how long it takes to travel from Earth to Mars. Payloads rain down periodically on the settlers as orbital mechanics allows.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-18 16:41:35

Problems:

~Still too rough on the payload, possibly destroy the capsule
~Collecting them in LEO would be hard, no easy way exsists
~How to land them when you get to Mars
~Not good for anything else...

Instead of spending all the money on one giant cannon that only does one thing sort of well, spend the money elsewhere on somthing a little more versitile... A real Shuttle-II perhaps. Runway operations, metal heat shield, no large expendable componets... Somthing like this:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shulelsa … ulelsa.htm
Expensive? Yes. Worthwhile? ...If you want to launch many many tons to orbit, it is.

It wouldn't even have to be built all at once if its TSTO, do the first stage first and a conventional expendable cryogenic upper stage on its back.

dicktice · 2004-05-18 17:00:58

Space cannons make me nervous. Reminds me of past experience with Saddam's infamous, thankfully aborted project. No control over the projectiles, once fired into ballistic trajectories, smacks of potential weapon hostage/terrorist threat potential, to me. (Two thumbs down.)

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-18 17:24:09

I don't think that its a big security problem, since the operation of the thing is pretty complicated, and you aren't going to make a home-made WMD shell that can handle the acceleration.

The trouble is the thing would be really expensive to build and would only be good for launching small and extremely sturdy payloads into LEO over a very particular range of inclinations... and thats it. And you only get one cannon... spend the money on an RLV, and you can make additional ones much cheaper after development.

Bill White · 2004-05-18 17:40:13

Use an equatorial inclination. Essentially NO security risk to the northern hemisphere nations. Also deploy inspection teams at the launch site to examine every payload.

Funding? Dual purpose funding combined with economic development for the host country. Ecuador, Kenya and New Guinea are all suitable candidates.

Employ local nationals to the maximum extent possible and spread your funding across international aid programs. To build it you will need a mixture of medium and high tech construction workers and even some low skill workers. In the cheesy HBO movie about Gerald Bull, Saddam had workers carrying rock in baskets down the hill.

We wouldn't do that, yet we could employ a few thousand Ecuadorians or Kenyans at prevailing wage rates, boost their economy and get a limited use low cost method to send cargo to LEO.

= = =

Not good for anything else? Guilty as charged!

Fragile payload shells? Good issue, needs research and development.

Orbital recovery? Another good issue. Use a Soyuz from Kouru and round 'em up.

Land on Mars? Ballutes and parachutes and airbags for final touchdown.

= = =

In my almost finished book, 6 projectiles carry cargo, airbags and parachutes, one carries an aeroshell and solar panels and one carries a solid fuel trans-Mars injection stage.

8 projectiles are bundled together and sent on a very slow road to Mars.

JimM · 2004-05-18 18:08:48

Problems:
~Still too rough on the payload, possibly destroy the capsule
~Collecting them in LEO would be hard, no easy way exsists
~How to land them when you get to Mars
~Not good for anything else...
Instead of spending all the money on one giant cannon that only does one thing sort of well, spend the money elsewhere on somthing a little more versitile... A real Shuttle-II perhaps. Runway operations, metal heat shield, no large expendable componets... Somthing like this:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shulelsa … ulelsa.htm
Expensive? Yes. Worthwhile? ...If you want to launch many many tons to orbit, it is.
It wouldn't even have to be built all at once if its TSTO, do the first stage first and a conventional expendable cryogenic upper stage on its back.

(Sorry, I got fed up and went away to do other things after the earler thread 'imploded'. I've only just discovered that it had come back from the dead in this thread.)

Shuttle II?

Please, please, no! This is the way to dusty death for US manned space.

Shuttle I has been such a total catastrophic failure, have we learned nothing?

And, getting back to DH-1, that's also what's so worrying about it. Shuttle, we were promised by NASA would deliver payload to LEO for $60/lb.The last time I looked, it was more like $20,000/lb.

Shuttle would turn around and fly again within a couple of weeks. One year is nearer the actuality.

Shuttle, we were all assured, would be as safe as an airliner. Shuttle has an actual, track-record, reliability of about 97%. Man-rated is 99.9%. Shuttle should never fly again, on its record.

Do these costs, turnaround times, and safety levels remind you of anything we've been taking about here? DH-1, for example?

I'm not suggesting DH-1 will turn out to be 333 times more expensive per lb/LEO, or 20 or 30 times slower to turn around, or abour 30 times less safe to fly, than promised. I'm jsut saying it might be a lot more expensive, slower to turn around, and dangerous than advertised. After all, if NASA can be so far out, why should we believe a bunch or (sorry about this) relative amateurs?

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-18 19:32:53

Using local labor to build the thing isn't going to cut that much off the cost... building the barrel, the chaimbers, and the muzzle up the side of a very high moutain where the air is thin and cold and crap is going to be really expensive even with no labor costs. You are also talking ~alot~ of little payloads... Soyuz does good just docking itself, it is not suited to being a tug for dozens or hundreds of shells. Thats alot of RCS fuel and docking work, since orbital insertion isn't going to simply drop the payload right along side. I don't think its so easy to re-enter them with precision and reliability on Mars either... the small size of the payload also gets us back to the DH-1 nonsense.

Argh why the knee-jerk condemnation of the concept of a space plane and the automatic equating with the Space Shuttle? Its not even a space plane, its a conventional rocket that happens to have a manned upper stage with wings... The current vehicle we call the "Space Shuttle" was a compromise design when Nixon cut the budget down to only $7Bn for the program plus demanded that it be done in a hurry, and it took Nasa's lies about the flight rate/cost to get even that to save manned spaceflight post-Apollo.

The concept of a space plane is still a sound one. It was back with the X-15 and it still is today... Big enough to avoid the DH-1's problem of useless flyweight payloads, doesn't require >1 thrust/weight ratio, and can take off then fly back to a runway dispensing with the need for the launch pad... Yes they are a little heavier for what you get than a ballistic rocket, but it can be done. Yes it is much more expensive to develop versus a ballistic rocket. But you don't get your ballistic rocket back to a runway on its own wheels...

The Space Shuttle was a product of desperation, a problem of politics, not of technology. We can do Shuttle right if we want to, even easier than back in the 70's, its a matter of need. We don't need Shuttle-II right now, and we won't for a while, but if we intend to colonize any place then more mass to orbit for less than what rockets deliver is a must. Two stages to orbit, carrier plane with turbine engines switching to LOX at speed/altitude, upper craft by LOX/LH or LOX/slush hydrogen, can provide the performance.

No booster rockets, no expendable main tank, no glass tiles, no unserviceable engines, no standing army to service the pad, no pad or crawler, and best of all... real abort options, where an engine failure isn't death like on the current Shuttle... The launch costs won't ever be the proverbial $50 a pound or whatnot, but it can certainly top conventional rockets, perhaps by a magnetude.

Bill White · 2004-05-18 21:37:47

I don't mean to knock the space plane. If you can get it funded, I would say "Hoo-rah!"

Also, I am unconcerned with saving money by using local labor. I am looking to build a political consensus amongst the "nation building" and foreign aid crowd. A two for one idea.

We can go to space =and= give thousands of equatorial people good well paying jobs for 5 or 10 years. Thus, we gain a political constituency that might well support the plan to build the mass launcher even if they do not a rats a$$ about space.

JimM · 2004-05-19 02:29:40

Argh why the knee-jerk condemnation of the concept of a space plane and the automatic equating with the Space Shuttle? Its not even a space plane, its a conventional rocket that happens to have a manned upper stage with wings... The current vehicle we call the "Space Shuttle" was a compromise design when Nixon cut the budget down to only $7Bn for the program plus demanded that it be done in a hurry, and it took Nasa's lies about the flight rate/cost to get even that to save manned spaceflight post-Apollo.
The concept of a space plane is still a sound one. It was back with the X-15 and it still is today... Big enough to avoid the DH-1's problem of useless flyweight payloads, doesn't require >1 thrust/weight ratio, and can take off then fly back to a runway dispensing with the need for the launch pad... Yes they are a little heavier for what you get than a ballistic rocket, but it can be done. Yes it is much more expensive to develop versus a ballistic rocket. But you don't get your ballistic rocket back to a runway on its own wheels...
The Space Shuttle was a product of desperation, a problem of politics, not of technology. We can do Shuttle right if we want to, even easier than back in the 70's, its a matter of need. We don't need Shuttle-II right now, and we won't for a while, but if we intend to colonize any place then more mass to orbit for less than what rockets deliver is a must. Two stages to orbit, carrier plane with turbine engines switching to LOX at speed/altitude, upper craft by LOX/LH or LOX/slush hydrogen, can provide the performance.
No booster rockets, no expendable main tank, no glass tiles, no unserviceable engines, no standing army to service the pad, no pad or crawler, and best of all... real abort options, where an engine failure isn't death like on the current Shuttle... The launch costs won't ever be the proverbial $50 a pound or whatnot, but it can certainly top conventional rockets, perhaps by a magnetude.

It's not kneejerk, it's facing facts.

The Shuttle IS a spaceplane on the return leg. That's the only reason it took these darn stupid brick wings up there in the first place.

As for the budget being only $7Bn, that was (a) about 30 years ago. In today's money that would be about $25Bn. And anyway (b) it did not cost $7Bn in the end, but more like $18Bn ($65Bn in today's money) That's a heck of a price to pay for cheapness-- especially when it delivers the precise opposite.

The concept of a spaceplane is NOT a sound one, not today. (The X-15 was not a spaceplane, just a airplane that stuck it's head up above the atmosphere for a couple of minutes.)

Between the military (Dynasoar), ESA (Hermes), and numerous NASA now-dead projects for Shuttle replacement spaceplanes of various colors, the amount of money spent on non-existing spaceplanes probably exceeds that $7Bn original Shuttle budget already.

I agree the concept is do-able, if you can throw money at it as if there was no tomorrow, but (a) there are such things as budgets, and (b) the SOLE goal of spacecraft development right now MUST be to reduce the cost of acess to space drastically, and a spaceplane NOW would do the very exact opposite.

Building earth-to-orbit vehicles because they are technically sweet, or challenging, or pushing the performance envelope, or whatever, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is needed today to get space acccess costs back down to earth. (Sorry about that one!)

Here's my suggested ground rules for a sane future space program:

(1) Never sent up human beings just to deliver cargo.

Why risk lives pointlessly, as Shuttle does, or your putative space plane would?

(2) Use the most reliable, safest way to transport humans in a vehicle that is designed for that function only.

On the basis of existing track records, that's not a spaceplane or winged brickyard, but a good old fashioned capsule, as per Apollo or one of the Russian ones. Why, they even have a launch escape tower stuck ontop to enable escape from a catastrophic launch failure. What's the escape mode for a space plane that explodes as it charges down the runway? (And don't say that couldn't happen. The thing would be a flying bomb, operating at the very limit of capability. S**t happens.)

(3) At all times, remember that COST is what matters, not a tiny performance increment bought at huge cost.

So, at all times stick to the principles of low cost design, as set out in "LEO on the Cheap: Methods for Acheiving Drastic Reductions in Space Launch Costs" by Lt. Col. John R London III (Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama) (It's available from Amazon.)

Particular points to note--

(1) Don't waste a fortune developing something new when existing technology will do the job far cheaper, although less glamorously.

(2) Make your booster as big as possible. Big boosters are cheaper per lb/LEO than small ones. Really huge ones are cheaper still. (A matter of simple geometry. Double the length, cube the volume.)

(3) Always remember the KISS principle-- Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Follow these guidelines properly, and you end up with a cargo lifter that is, guess what, a Big Dumb Booster.

There are a number of existing boosters powerful enough for the manned capsule. I don't propose using BDBs for manned missions.

clark · 2004-05-19 09:28:50

Also, I am unconcerned with saving money by using local labor. I am looking to build a political consensus amongst the "nation building" and foreign aid crowd. A two for one idea.

A multi-billion dollar program to develop advanced space related infrastructure in a destitute third world country... risk management question:

How do you ensure the investment won't be lost to a nationalization coup?

John Creighton · 2004-05-19 09:53:16

How do you ensure the investment won't be lost to a nationalization coup?

???
Mercenaries. Of course that didn’t work for some Canadian diamond company.

Bill White · 2004-05-19 10:02:43

Also, I am unconcerned with saving money by using local labor. I am looking to build a political consensus amongst the "nation building" and foreign aid crowd. A two for one idea.
A multi-billion dollar program to develop advanced space related infrastructure in a destitute third world country... risk management question:
How do you ensure the investment won't be lost to a nationalization coup?

First, use other people's money to the extent possible. Sell the program as foreign aid to stabilize a country in a volatile region.

Ecuador adjoins Columbia and can grow coca easily enough if Columbia and Venezuela get stabilized and their drug crops eradicated. Create good jobs before the drug growing threatens to migrate.

And a more stable Kenya is good for everyone, right?

Second, make your real money on secondary sales, like cell phone networks for the folks employed building and running the launcher.

Third, grant significant ownership to the current government. Make sure you are flexible enough to cut the same deal with any new government that comes to power.

The oil companies spend far more than these amounts all the time in places like Venezuela and Nigeria. Its a problem but not a new problem.

clark · 2004-05-19 10:08:24

Ecuador adjoins Columbia and can grow coca easily enough if Columbia and Venezuela get stabilized and their drug crops eradicated. Create good jobs before the drug growing threatens to migrate.

They grow the coca in large part because the rebels either force them to, or the rebels do it on their own. Wouldn't the south american route require greater military investments to stabilize the area?

Kenya adjoins Nigeria, correct? A more stable Kenya is good for everyone.

Not for people who sell guns to both sides...

Second, make your real money on secondary sales, like cell phone networks for the folks employed building and running the launcher.

How do you make the real money here?

Third, grant significant ownership to the current government. Make sure you are flexible enough to cut the same deal with any new government that comes to power.

Significant ownership in a cheap space access infrastructure requiring billions in foreign investment... perhaps the Panama Canal could be a better process- a lease for a hundred years?

Bill White · 2004-05-19 10:27:35

The Panama Canal is a good precedent to look into - - only in far less than 100 years the thing will be obsolete. Even a 20 year lease, or a 15 year lease, starting when the first payload is delivered.

Then its owned by the host government.

= = =

Problems? Sure but unless we start wealth creation in the poorer nations the global divide in economic wealth will remain problematic.

Space development and human development done hand in hand - - is that bizarre or what?

clark · 2004-05-19 10:33:21

Even a 20 year lease, or a 15 year lease, starting when the first payload is delivered.

What's the time frame for the return of investment?

Problems? Sure but unless we start wealth creation in the poorer nations the global divide in economic wealth will remain problematic.
Space development and human development done hand in hand - - is that bizarre or what?

I hear ya.

JimM · 2004-05-19 13:45:42

Kenya adjoins Nigeria, correct?

Uh... have you looked at a map of Africa recently?

It's big, man.

Kenya adjoins Nigeria like Alaska adjoins Florida.

Bill White · 2004-05-19 13:51:17

Kenya adjoins Nigeria, correct?
Uh... have you looked at a map of Africa recently?
It's big, man.
Kenya adjoins Nigeria like Alaska adjoins Florida.

D'oh!

I meant Ethiopia. . .

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-05-17 20:15:52

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#77 2004-05-18 07:23:15

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#78 2004-05-18 11:34:55

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#79 2004-05-18 11:43:55

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#80 2004-05-18 13:54:09

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#81 2004-05-18 14:14:07

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#82 2004-05-18 14:35:17

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#83 2004-05-18 15:53:08

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#84 2004-05-18 16:25:36

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#85 2004-05-18 16:41:35

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#86 2004-05-18 17:00:58

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#87 2004-05-18 17:24:09

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#88 2004-05-18 17:40:13

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#89 2004-05-18 18:08:48

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#90 2004-05-18 19:32:53

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#91 2004-05-18 21:37:47

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#92 2004-05-19 02:29:40

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#93 2004-05-19 09:28:50

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#94 2004-05-19 09:53:16

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#95 2004-05-19 10:02:43

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#96 2004-05-19 10:08:24

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#97 2004-05-19 10:27:35

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#98 2004-05-19 10:33:21

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#99 2004-05-19 13:45:42

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

#100 2004-05-19 13:51:17

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

Board footer

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION 2 - last topic got borked