Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

Ad Astra · 2005-07-31 15:03:35

The Orlando Sentinel has gotten the scoop about NASA's moon architecture.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/cus … home-promo

A lot of the pieces are starting to come together. The CEV will be launched by the stick, then dock with the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) and lunar lander. The lander will take four astronauts to the lunar surface for a week at a time, then perform a lunar orbit rendezvous and return to earth.

There are a few surprises in store. The lander will use methane-fueled engines, in anticipation of using the same engines for a future Mars mission. The EDS will use two J-2S engines, showing that it doesn't make sense to re-invent the proverbial wheel that was built for Apollo.

A few things have changed since Apollo. There's the rendezvous in earth orbit, a longer stay on the moon, and a bigger crew. The capsule will land on terra firma instead of water.

There are a few unresolved questions, like how NASA plans on using an expensive shuttle main engine for the expendable upper stage of the "stick launcher." How many crew members will stay in lunar orbit? I'm assuing that six astronauts will fly to the moon, with four landing on its surface and two staying in orbit. I'm also trying to figure out how reusable the CEV will be--I'm guessing that the heat shield will be good enough for one reentry from lunar velocities, or ten reentries from LEO.

Overall, Bob Zubrin SHOULD be happy with the mission architecture. He gets his shuttle-derived heavy lifter, he gets his small CEV, and NASA is clearly looking at a methane-fueled lander.

John Creighton · 2005-07-31 15:34:58

The Orlando Sentinel has gotten the scoop about NASA's moon architecture.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/cus … home-promo
A lot of the pieces are starting to come together. The CEV will be launched by the stick, then dock with the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) and lunar lander. The lander will take four astronauts to the lunar surface for a week at a time, then perform a lunar orbit rendezvous and return to earth.
There are a few surprises in store. The lander will use methane-fueled engines, in anticipation of using the same engines for a future Mars mission. The EDS will use two J-2S engines, showing that it doesn't make sense to re-invent the proverbial wheel that was built for Apollo.
A few things have changed since Apollo. There's the rendezvous in earth orbit, a longer stay on the moon, and a bigger crew. The capsule will land on terra firma instead of water.
There are a few unresolved questions, like how NASA plans on using an expensive shuttle main engine for the expendable upper stage of the "stick launcher." How many crew members will stay in lunar orbit? I'm assuing that six astronauts will fly to the moon, with four landing on its surface and two staying in orbit. I'm also trying to figure out how reusable the CEV will be--I'm guessing that the heat shield will be good enough for one reentry from lunar velocities, or ten reentries from LEO.
Overall, Bob Zubrin SHOULD be happy with the mission architecture. He gets his shuttle-derived heavy lifter, he gets his small CEV, and NASA is clearly looking at a methane-fueled lander.

That is a very good article. It looks like this new plan will make a lot of people happy. I am curious why if the stick is a good launch vehicle by its self, why it hasn’t been used before as anything besides a booster.

Ad Astra · 2005-07-31 16:33:26

I'm not too fond of the stick launcher, because you can't throttle the engine and the o-ring erosion problem is still a valid concern. Also, I suspect that it will require significant changes to the fuel grain to reduce the accelerations on the astronauts.

However, a study by SAIC claims that the acceleration forces for the stick are within limits, so this has eased some of my concerns. Another thing about the stick is that it won't be very hard to develop compared to a new design launcher (some would argue that it's easier to create the stick than it would be to man-rate the Delta and Atlas, but I would disagree.)

SpaceNut · 2005-08-01 05:46:32

Well here is a little more on the derived versions for shuttle piece and or the delta/ atlas route in this article.
NASA's New CEV Launcher to Maximize Use of Space Shuttle Components

Can we trust the side mount to not be damaged by the foam, or is the hull hardened against such damage?

Ad Astra · 2005-08-01 19:43:00

I suspect that the in-line SDV option will gain some momentum as a result of the ongoing foam problems. If a side-mount SDV is chosen, it will be vulnerable (albeit not as bad as the shuttle) to debris strikes.

The stuff on SpaceRef and NASA watch is quite good, and I look forward to reading the Cowing-Sietzen book when it comes out in December. Some of their info contradicts the Orlando Sentinel; SpaceRef shows a biconic spacecraft while the Sentinel has a pure capsule looking much like Apollo. I favor the pure capsule approach because it results in the lightest possible spacecraft.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-02 17:53:28

Well, that and:

-Better suited for escape velocity flights (eg Mars cargo) with larger possible upper stage

-Larger diameter payloads, 8m or more, good for Mars ships that don't need assembly on orbit (a big M. Griffin favorite)

-Higher maximum payload (110-120MT versus 90-100MT) due to more efficent engine placement and reduced drag

SpaceNut · 2005-08-04 05:31:35

Looking beyond the shuttle

What I find interesting is the developement dollars for this project. Why so much to recycle what we already use?

NASA has announced plans to design a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) by 2008 and ready the ship for its first manned mission by 2014. The CEV will cost an estimated $6.6 billion and use a service and command module similar to the old Apollo moonshot spacecraft, not anything resembling the shuttle.

Ad Astra · 2005-08-04 18:14:57

It's hard to even begin picking this editorialist apart because he's got so many facts wrong. If he'd been paying attention, he'd see that Michael Griffin is accelerating the CEV, and it will fly in 2011. He's ignored the fact that most of the shuttle system is apparently being recycled to launch the new vehicle. And it's premature to say that the CEV will be an Apollo clone. It could be a biconic like the Russian Kliper, or it could be Lockheed's "lifting monstrosity."

As long as we have the burden of the space station to support, we have no choice but to use the shuttle for resupply missions until the CEV is ready to do the job. Europe's ATV has been slow coming down the pipeline, and even when it does enter service it will not be able to bring experiments back down.

The eventual CEV design could have a huge impact on ISS operations. If it can carry six people in one shot, the ISS could finally grow to its original six-man configuration. The cargo-hauling ability of the unmanned CEV will effect the amount of science that can be performed.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-04 19:39:56

The vast ability of journalists to resist understanding fairly simple facts about spaceflight technology is kinda astounding.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-08 05:53:00

Well the shape of the next vehicle to replace the aging shuttle maybe capsule and then again it maybe a plane but in either case is there a need for an orbital tug.
One of the many combinations of whether it be SDV, EELV derived or some hybrid or the two seems. I too wonder if there is this need in order to make ships larger than what we can lift to LEO and or to do other things once in orbit ranging from repair to salvage. Also is the OSP dead or will it be revisited to save the station after all? Some of which are contained in this article;NASA's New Launch Systems May Include the Return of the Space Tug

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-08 08:18:39

The whole concept of orbital salvage and repair is a pretty stupid idea. Most space satelites are high in geostationary orbit, which requires quite a bit of fuel to go up to and back down from, which will require a "honking big" tug if it is powerd by chemical engines, the cost of building and fueling it exceeds the cost of just building a new satelite.

A tug powerd by ion engines is so slow, that it won't get many uses before its componets wear out (solar, batteries) plus would take months and months to return the repaired satelite to GEO (time = money), which also defeats the purpose. An ion tug will also be unable to move very heavy payloads (read: ISS/Moon/Mars) because of its extremely low thrust.

The simple fact is that it building new replacement satelites in bulk, like how Huges and Boeing and company are kinda doing, and launching a brand new satelite is a better deal then trying to fix old ones. Satelites are pretty reliable now, so if one were to fail, then chances are that it is pretty old. Old satelites depreciate in a huge way because of their obsolesance and shorter remaining reliable lifetimes, and there is no way in heck you are going gut a bird' and do a major upgrade cheaper then just launching a new one.

This goes the same for most of NASA's satelites, including Hubble; it actually would cost less money to build a brand new copy of Hubble, with double the lifespan and superior cameras/computers, then it would to send Shuttle to fix it. And this for a telescope that was designed for on-orbit repair by suited astronauts to an extent, not trying to fix one that isn't.

The only reason for this OMV tug to exsist is really very simple: so that you can use it to bring cargo to within range of the ISS robot arm. Since the ISS is without any real material worth, is basically going to bleed NASA all but dry, and has kicked the legs out from under a Mars mission prior to 2030 I say we shouldn't bother.

The OSP concept is not dead, as shown that Lockheed's CEV is essentially a rehash of their OSP with a big rocket engine on the back. The space capsule OSP, under the control of Northop/Boeing, has morphed into a pair of capsules, one basically a "quick fix" Soyuz knockoff and the other being a jumbo Apollo. Probobly done to "close the gap" between Shuttle's retirement and CEV's launch, which I think is nonsense since the ISS isn't worth flying to. Or maybe having a smaller, lighter "Plan B" capsule riding on Delta/Atlas that could carry three men if the big capsule had a Challenger/Columbia-style hiatus, or maybe just because SDV can't lift as much as advertised.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-08 11:38:29

So NasaWatch report of Griffin Begins to Shut Down ISS Science Research

Editor's note: NASA sources report that NASA HQ has directed NASA ARC to halt all animal and basic biology research, that all contractors working on this research are to be let go, and that NASA PAO has some sort of strategy to deal with this. The bulk of this research was to be carried out aboard the ISS in the U.S. lab module and the Centrifuge Facility. Stay tuned.
Reader comment: "There are also payload contractors at Glenn Research Center (GRC) that started receiving layoff notices last week. I'm aware of several other non-AMES or GRC payloads, both pressurized and non-pressurized, that are also being impacted. This is not a good time to be wanting to perform research in space..."

While I am sure that the science will be preformed it however is not the time for it since we need a vehicle to get us there. He has already gotten some cash in the pipe line for the CEV developement by other cancelations and with just a little more quite possibly the CEV timeline for manned use will be moved up some more.

John Creighton · 2005-08-08 11:43:43

So http://www.nasawatch.com/]NasaWatch report of Griffin Begins to Shut Down ISS Science Research
Editor's note: NASA sources report that NASA HQ has directed NASA ARC to halt all animal and basic biology research, that all contractors working on this research are to be let go, and that NASA PAO has some sort of strategy to deal with this. The bulk of this research was to be carried out aboard the ISS in the U.S. lab module and the Centrifuge Facility. Stay tuned.
Reader comment: "There are also payload contractors at Glenn Research Center (GRC) that started receiving layoff notices last week. I'm aware of several other non-AMES or GRC payloads, both pressurized and non-pressurized, that are also being impacted. This is not a good time to be wanting to perform research in space..."
While I am sure that the science will be preformed it however is not the time for it since we need a vehicle to get us there. He has already gotten some cash in the pipe line for the CEV developement by other cancelations and with just a little more quite possibly the CEV timeline for manned use will be moved up some more.

I hear stuff like this and all I can do is watch, cross my fingers and hope it is for the best.

John Creighton · 2005-08-08 12:21:10

Anyone read this yet.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1057
it seems to cover all the planning leading up to NASA current choice of SDV configuration. Although there seems to be a gap between proposals for a 100MT to LEO configuration to a 200MT configuration to LEO. I also think the article could flow a bit better.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-08 12:41:49

Yup this is part 2 of a Nasawatch article that I referenced on the tugs. Also part 1 gave more info back a page ago on CEV future derivatives and the possible out come of the 60 now 90 day report.

Here is that link for the NASA's New CEV Launcher to Maximize Use of Space Shuttle Components.

Ad Astra · 2005-08-08 19:32:37

Agonizingly, the excerpts we're seeing on Nasawatch are from a book that won't be released until December. But I want it NOW!

BWhite · 2005-08-08 19:44:25

Ad Astra, I believe Mike Griffin and Chris Shank will start spreading their plans next week. Griffin is scheduled to speak to an AIAA luncheon on August 31st and Chris Shank is speaking Saturday at the Mars Society convention.

These presentations may coincide with the release of significant mission architecture news since Griffin appears reasonably media savvy and wishes to include the space advocacy community in his outreach efforts. Also, Griffin owes Congress detailed answers to a number of questions and in sub-committee testimony, he promised those answers will be delivered during September.

The book should be a fun read, but we probably will know many of the hard facts before then.

= = =

At "Return to the Moon" I heard a funny anecdote about Chris Shank I posted somewhere else in a now buried thread. It seems that in late Winter 2005, in his role as a Congressional staffer, Chris Shank wrote an extremely detailed and technically astute request for information and submitted it to NASA.

Then, Mike Griffin hired him to work at NASA.

His first assignment? Answer that request for information he prepared.

True? I dunno. But I sure hope so, because its a funny story.

Ad Astra · 2005-08-09 18:27:42

Griffin will be doing the right thing when he explains the moon-Mars planning to Congress. If he doesn't give them answers, they are less likely to give up the money that will be required to do exciting things in space.

I'd really like to hear how NASA intends on developing the "stick" launcher before 2011. The first stage is structurally complete, but the fuel grain needs to be redesigned to limit the accelerations on the astronauts. Stage 2 will be an all-new design that will require significant investments of time and taxpayer dollars. NASA might be able to save time if they commission Boeing to provide a stretched version of the Delta IV upper stage, with more thrust (either from multiple RL-10's, an RS-68, or an RL-60.) J-2S was a good engine but it may take forever to get production restarted. The SSME is way too expensive to put on an expendible rocket. Existing expendible engines are the way to go.

Regarding the Sietzen and Cowing articles, they helped me to realize the inefficiencies of the original Shuttle C and how it could be improved. The original Shuttle C Cargo Element had too much structure in common with the orbiter. An all-new payload shroud would be much lighter, and it could be cast off after the stack has escaped the lower atmosphere.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-09 19:16:27

The "stick" launcher, thanks to the high thrust but low specific impulse of the solid rocket engine, needs a more powerful upper stage then any direct derivitive of any current launcher can provide. One or two RL-10/RL-60s are far too small. RS-68 lacks specific impulse, plus is awfully large physically and overkill thrust wise.

The engine of choice is a tossup... single or twin J-2S engines or a single simplified SSME.

SSME is a great engine, mature and reliable - the most reliable large liquid engine in the world probobly - with fantastic specific impulse and very modest thrust. Its already man-rated too. The key to making it viable is to make a low-cost derivitive of it, a simplified version engineered for just one use and no future refurbishing. Such an engine would also go a long, long way to reducing the cost of the big heavy lift SDV too. In fact, a "cheap" version of it might be nessesarry for VSE to be financially practical.

But the argument for J-2S is a good one two... a pair of them would give you similar thrust, and are not so far from production as you think... the linear aerospike engines for the X-33 were really a bank of eight J-2S engines with the nozzles cut off... this wasn't that long ago, and the original engine could be used as-is without modification. However, the old J-2 operates at relativly low Isp compared to SSME, so you would incur a substantial payload penalty (~15-20%!).

What its sounding like is that the high specific impulse of SSME with its very high chaimber pressure (and political pressure not to eliminate SSME facilities) is nessesarry for Shuttle-derived heavy lifters to have enough payload for Moon/Mars missions, where 100MT+ is really nessesarry for economical Lunar missions. So, if we are going to be building SSMEs anyway, then make a derivitive expendable version and buy them in bulk for The Stick too from Boeing/Rocketdyne/P&W/whoever to get a lower per-unit cost, and make a more powerful launcher to boot.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Shuttle-C's inefficencies run deeper then that I think, and going that route will tempt NASA to trade ease and cost of development for future performance. Trade a few tonnes here for not modifying the main tank, trade a few more for not changing the launch pad, and so on and so forth. Basically, trading the future beyond just getting boots on the Moon to save some money and trouble...

An inline launcher is the obvious option, that to really seriously explore the Moon efficently you will need substantial payload to ride with the crew, and since the lander will be riding on the SDV, it absolutely needs to be bigger then "just enough" to repeat Apollo.

-Moon based IR/UV-Vis/X-Ray telescopes
-Radio telescope nodes for interferrometry
-Heavy multimeter drills for prospecting and science
-Pressurized rovers to cover larger areas in 1-2 weeks
-Communication hardware on moutain tops
-Extended fuel supplies for "hopping" to multiple sites
-Extended fuel supplies for trips to/from polar regions
-Bringing Mars equipment to test on the Moon

The logical way to get these relativly small payloads to the Moon is to send them on the lander with the crew, and the best way to do this is to make the launch vehicle somewhat bigger rather then sending them up seperatly. That means more then ~90MT to orbit, preferably 110-120MT. Having an extra 20% of payload with only one launch makes a world of difference, as missions which can actually accomplish real exploration and development can be mounted with a single HLLV launch.

And then after the Moon, when we are ready to start thinking about Mars, do we want to bother building another new launch vehicle, and throw away all the work and treasure spent on Shuttle-C? Certainly not! But the proposed Shuttle-C cannot carry a full-size HAB module like either MarsDirect or NASA DRM calls for, since its payload diameter is limited to ~6.5m. This is not enough, nor could Shuttle-C carry a powerful upper stage needed for MarsDirect, or launching other heavy payloads directly to anywhere, without substantial and expensive modification. An inline launcher would not have such a limitation, plus is overall more efficent for a number of reasons, like m ain engine thrust is axial rather then at an angle, reduced air drag, and more fuel volume with the larger tank.

Ad Astra · 2005-08-10 00:13:16

But the argument for J-2S is a good one two... a pair of them would give you similar thrust, and are not so far from production as you think... the linear aerospike engines for the X-33 were really a bank of eight J-2S engines with the nozzles cut off... this wasn't that long ago, and the original engine could be used as-is without modification. However, the old J-2 operates at relativly low Isp compared to SSME, so you would incur a substantial payload penalty (~15-20%!).

I think that the J-2S turbomachinery used in the X-33 engine testing came from components that were fabricated during the Apollo program. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that most of the J-2 / J-2S tooling is gone, even though at least a dozen engines are in storage (not to mention the engines sitting in museums.) In a worst-case scenario, it would be possible to reverse-engineer a J-2 series engine from the ones still in existence--but it wouldn't make fiscal sense.

An inline launcher is the obvious option, that to really seriously explore the Moon efficently you will need substantial payload to ride with the crew, and since the lander will be riding on the SDV, it absolutely needs to be bigger then "just enough" to repeat Apollo.

I suspect that the in-line option is gaining favor with the NASA leadership due to the continuing problems with foam shedding on the ET. Granted, the SDV cargo element is less vulnerable than the orbiter, but you still don't want to risk another fatal impact.

One aspect of the in-line studies that struck me was NASA's choice of a payload fairing that's smaller than the 8.4m diameter of the shuttle ET. Zubrin went with a larger fairing (10m) with Ares. Further, no mention is made in the studies about a side-mounted engine pod such as the one on Ares. I suspect that it was rejected out of hand because of the gross misalignment between the thrust vector and the velocity vector (which results in velocity losses.)

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-10 08:09:46

Really? I didn't think that Lockheed would use recycled Apollo-era parts for the X-33. I guess that is another mark in favor of the SSME... NASA really needs to take the manufacturer by the lapels and get them to tell what it really costs to build them in bulk (a dozen a year minimum), and how they could be simplified.

I don't think that foam shedding is a major concern for any of the SDV models, since the payload faring or engine housings should be strong enough to resist impacts, and they only have to be used once. People are never ever going to ride on this thing, after all.

I think that Bob Zubrin's figures for the performance of Ares are a little optimistic (which would be typical), and take into account that Ares would be using the massive ASRM boosters instead of the Thiokol sticks. A huge payload faring probobly weighs too much and puts too much drag on the rocket. A ~8m wide one should be big enough for a Mars ship or Lunar HAB. The side-mounted engine pod was probobly the lamest part of the baseline Ares design.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-11 20:14:13

It would seem that phase 1 design info needs NASA JSC Presolicitation Notice: Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Phase II Call for Improvements

Prospective offerors other than the phase I contractors shall notify this office of their intent to submit an offer no later than September 1, 2005.
NASA anticipates requesting proposals for the second phase on or about October 1, 2005 and proposals will be due 60 days thereafter.

But what was the deliverable of phase 1...

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-10-01 17:37:18

more CEV & Mars info

Where do we go from here? Making the Vision for Space Exploration a reality
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/458/1
Deciphering Mars: The Future
http://www.rednova.com/news/space/25127 … he_future/
NASA reveals plan for next moon landing
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-091905a.html
Nasa's new Moon plans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4262168.stm

SpaceNut · 2005-10-05 08:10:56

So what is so hard about building Da Stick from what we have available?
Are not these tried and true components needing little modification to work?

NASA's Lunar Vision: The Devil's in the Details

Unproven features
For one, the use of a shuttle solid-rocket booster (SRB) as a main stage will require extensive engineering, modeling, and flight-testing, Grey said. "The structural, aerodynamic, vibration, and other environmental conditions for an SRB having an upper stage and a large, heavy, top-mounted payload are very different from those involved in the current usage of these motors," he said.
Furthermore, an SRB has never flown in this configuration but has always had the structural support of the external tank, Grey pointed out. Also, integration of the upper stage and the top-mounted payload, and providing the necessary electric power, guidance and control, communications, and other "housekeeping" functions to the upper stage and the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), raise a whole host of technical requirements -- especially in validation and verification -- that have never been addressed for the SRB, he said.
"So although by itself the SRB is a well-proven piece of hardware, the new flight article will have many new and as yet unproven features that have yet to be human-rated," Grey added

It is the plan that ATK put forth as the maker of the SRB. So why would Nasa be in such a tizzy about its use. I think the vendor could answer many of these questions. So why trump up more engineering costs.

Now for the upper stage:

Vacuum restart
Another hardware hurdle to be overcome is use of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME). Built for re-use, the SSMEs are in the NASA strategy as an upper stage motor, as well as clustering five of them for the heavy-lift booster.
Although well proven in its current usage, Grey said, both projected applications of the SSME involve new technical matters that must be addressed.
The SSME has never been used in an upper stage, which itself will require a whole new design, and as yet not human-rated, Grey said. "This will involve a new propellant feed system to the engine, validation of a totally different set of environmental conditions than the engine has experienced in the past, and almost certainly a re-start capability -- in vacuum -- which involves a whole new set of technical requirements."
"Remember, too, that although the engine has operated in vacuum during part of the shuttle launch trajectory, it will now require not only vacuum re-start, but also an initial chill-down and start under vacuum conditions, Grey noted, utilization that will demand human-rating, he said.
Yet another issue of tasking the SSME to upper stage duty, now optimized for the shuttle launch trajectory, also means that the engine’s specific impulse will be lower. Specific impulse is a performance measure for rocket propellants that is equal to units of thrust per unit weight of propellant consumed per unit time.

Restart? Well when these engines are remanufactured the are tested and then put into the shuttle an they work then, so where is this problem or is this only in a vacuum that a restart needs to be tried?

How do we get less ISP when from other references this usually more in a vacuum?

If these are so much of an issue then go with either a newly designed engine or find another choice to use.

Other than the capsule and support unit that rides on the upper stage this should really be a no brainer and should cost very little to develope or to make.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-05 08:43:28

Lower specific impulse?? Extensive re-man-rating testing?? GRIFFIN!

If this is the case, then why oh why aren't we just putting a pair of tried-and-tested J-2 engines on the thing??

...to keep Stennis open, of course

*sighs*

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-07-31 15:03:35

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#77 2005-07-31 15:34:58

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#78 2005-07-31 16:33:26

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#79 2005-08-01 05:46:32

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#80 2005-08-01 19:43:00

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#81 2005-08-02 17:53:28

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#82 2005-08-04 05:31:35

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#83 2005-08-04 18:14:57

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#84 2005-08-04 19:39:56

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#85 2005-08-08 05:53:00

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#86 2005-08-08 08:18:39

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#87 2005-08-08 11:38:29

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#88 2005-08-08 11:43:43

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#89 2005-08-08 12:21:10

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#90 2005-08-08 12:41:49

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#91 2005-08-08 19:32:37

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#92 2005-08-08 19:44:25

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#93 2005-08-09 18:27:42

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#94 2005-08-09 19:16:27

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#95 2005-08-10 00:13:16

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#96 2005-08-10 08:09:46

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#97 2005-08-11 20:14:13

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#98 2005-10-01 17:37:18

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#99 2005-10-05 08:10:56

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#100 2005-10-05 08:43:28

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

Board footer