Author Topic: ALTERNATIVE - NON SLS: Exploration Gateway Platform - Reusable Lunar Lander  (Read 98208 times)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
What's the slam for?

Not a slam, just more irony. You're not generally known as a proponent of eliminating the need for HLVs.

Correct, I'm not. And there was nothing in that to indicate such. Too often however you, among others, misrepresent me, forgetting that my position is actually as an advocate of Heavy Lift *capability*, not a Heavy Lift *rocket*, so allow me to restate this once more, for the record.

I do not believe that the best way forward -for NASA-  (important distinction) is to develop and deploy a Heavy Lift Rocket. The most efficient thing for NASA to do is to develop and deploy a Medium Lift rocket that can be flight configured, as the need arises, to provide Heavy Lift *capability*. That is why I resisted efforts by others to make DIRECT's Jupiter a true Heavy Lift Rocket, capable in its *core configuration* of placing 100 tonnes (plus) into LEO. Big rockets have big price tags and cost even more to actually use because they can't be used very often. We designed the core configuration of the Jupiter to be a Medium lift rocket flying with 3xSSME's and no upper stage, delivering 70 tonnes to LEO. Heavy lift was accomplished (when needed) by adding a 4th SSME to the universal Thrust Structure and an upper stage, and delivering 110 tonnes to LEO. I honestly don't see NASA ever needing to deliver more than this in a single launch to LEO. In this way the rocket would fly far more often, in its core configuration as a Medium Lift, driving down its cost by an increased flight rate. This is why I initially said I did not support the SLS - because its *core capability* is as an HLV and will therefore not fly often - it's just too expensive. I have sense modified my stance to a begrudging support because the economy is such that the Block-1/1A is likely to be the flight configuration that sees the most use for a long time, which will likely allow it to fly more often. But make no mistake - it is still too big. Even in its core configuration it uses too many engines, requires an upper stage just to make orbit and requires too much additional development in things like a barrel stretch and entirely new load paths etc. But at least it's something we can live with. I don't like it but I can live with it.

Falcon Heavy is properly sized as a Medium lift rocket. But it is not capable of providing true Heavy Lift, which *will* be needed on occasion. That's why I preferred the SDHLV approach that resulted in DIRECT's Jupiter, and far LESS efficiently, the SLS.

So, for the record: I am not a promoter -for NASA- of developing and deploying a Heavy Lift *ROCKET*, but I am a promoter of making sure NASA has Heavy Lift *CAPABILITY*. The Jupiter would have provided that in an affordable way, while the SLS will also provide it, albeit for an unnecessarily high price tag.

Ok, having set the record straight - back to the Gateway station article please.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2011 01:24 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
I like the Reusable Lander concept, but how about saving some money and speed up development. Use Orion as a basis for the Lander as well. They could transform the demo flight with the Delta upper stage into a Lander similar to the Phoenix. No need to develop a pressure vessel for the Lander. They don’t have to retain the heat shield for the Lander. OTOH they could retain it as a back-up contingency vessel to return to Earth.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/09/sls-mission-improving-crewed-moon-mission-2019/
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LUNOX.html



I've always liked this idea, where the SM would accompany Orion to the station and upon arrival be detached and stored and the lander itself attached to Orion in the SM's place. In the forward end of the lander would be a “utility compartment”, a “mud room” if you will :), accessible to the crew via a “thru the Heat Shield hatch”, wherein are stored surface EVA suits, various tools and supplies, and an inflatable airlock which would allow surface operations. This would also minimize lunar rigoleth dust from actually getting into Orion's interior, as well as always protecting Orion's heat shield from outside contact.

Upon return to the station from the surface, the lander would be docked for reuse and the SM reattached to Orion for the return trip home. This would make the most efficient use of the investment in the development of Orion itself.

It also allows the lander to be developed independently of crew accommodations, which would be an Orion function. This would allow a continual upgrade path for the lander as we learn more and adjust accordingly, as well as allow special purpose landers to be developed. The only necessity would be to maintain a common interface with Orion.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2011 01:13 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I like the Reusable Lander concept, but how about saving some money and speed up development. Use Orion as a basis for the Lander as well. They could transform the demo flight with the Delta upper stage into a Lander similar to the Phoenix. No need to develop a pressure vessel for the Lander. They don’t have to retain the heat shield for the Lander. OTOH they could retain it as a back-up contingency vessel to return to Earth.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/09/sls-mission-improving-crewed-moon-mission-2019/
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LUNOX.html



I've always liked this idea, where the SM would accompany Orion to the station and upon arrival be detached and stored and the lander itself attached to Orion in the SM's place. In the forward end of the lander would be a “utility compartment”, a “mud room” if you will :), accessible to the crew via a “thru the Heat Shield hatch”, wherein are stored surface EVA suits, various tools and supplies, and an inflatable airlock which would allow surface operations. This would also minimize lunar rigoleth dust from actually getting into Orion's interior, as well as always protecting Orion's heat shield from outside contact.

Upon return to the station from the surface, the lander would be docked for reuse and the SM reattached to Orion for the return trip home. This would make the most efficient use of the investment in the development of Orion itself.

It also allows the lander to be developed independently of crew accommodations, which would be an Orion function. This would allow a continual upgrade path for the lander as we learn more and adjust accordingly, as well as allow special purpose landers to be developed. The only necessity would be to maintain a common interface with Orion.
Chuck
I like the idea of a “mud room” to keep the cabin clean (They could use the rear section of the SEV) and the heat shield hatch was tested in Gemini, at less than Lunar return entry velocity. Throw in some Bigelow modules for Habitats and we’re on to something sensible and possibly realistic…

Regards
Robert

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/space-hotel-pioneer-envisions-inflatable-moon-bases
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemnibrm.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/295224main_jsc2008e139397.jpg

"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Somehow I think a capsule and lander maybe difficult to combine in one spacecraft. When I was reading about the development of the Apollo LM two problems were found with using a capsule. First was that the best position for launch (backs to the ground) is a bad position for landing in terms of visibility (looking out a window ect). The second related to ingress/egress (hard to get in or out). Also I suspect the structure of the capsule is built for 1g. There may be possible mass savings if it is built to operate in less than one g.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Problems with landing visibility are completely negated by televised visualization. We just don't have to look out windows anymore. We are completely free to locate and orient crew stations without depending on windows. There are better ways to "see" the landing site. Lighter is always better but mass is not going to be the problem for a lander stationed at EML-1 that it was for an Earth-launched lander.

Submarines routinely run in patrols, sometimes only mere feet from each other, with no danger of collisions, with no windows. There are lots of ways to "see". As it turns out, as long as you have the proper equipment, the least efficient way to see minute detail is not with your human eyes acting as the visual data gatherer. All the interference commonly associated with "kicking up dust" and other such hinderences to visibility can be completely eliminated by using other means to gather visual data to be made available to the pilot. Using such equipment will provide the pilot with far better visibility than what would be available looking out the window.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2011 06:56 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Chuck, the engineering problem with lunar night isn't visibility, it's power and thermal.

In lunar night, you have zero option for solar power, but you have much greater power requirements due to having to heat the crew and electronics (and any hypergolics). Not a happy combination. So unless you mount an RTG on your reusable lander, it's not going to land at night.

Of course, the point is moot, as ostensibly the entire reason for landing is field geology, which will require illumination for rock-hunting (if not power/thermal for the suits).

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Chuck, the engineering problem with lunar night isn't visibility, it's power and thermal.

In lunar night, you have zero option for solar power, but you have much greater power requirements due to having to heat the crew and electronics (and any hypergolics). Not a happy combination. So unless you mount an RTG on your reusable lander, it's not going to land at night.

Of course, the point is moot, as ostensibly the entire reason for landing is field geology, which will require illumination for rock-hunting (if not power/thermal for the suits).

I envision the lander being a horizontal lander, like the image above or something similar, with deployable solar panels that are stowed for the transit down and back, deployed at the LZ. Initially all landings will be limited to the lunar daytime at the LZ. Eventually, when that no longer remains practical, then power will be supplied by either fuel cells or RTG's, bearing in mind that it will need to provide thermal energy as well as electrical power.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
For crew on lunar surface

How many landings are there most likely to be over a 3 to 5 year period ( for crew and supplies )?

So is it wise to start with reusable landers for the first mission?
Would it not be better to go with hypergolic fuel ( maybe a reusable ascent stage )?
Could later use CH4/lox or (H2/LOX if good water source found).

Possible for EELV's to do the job with fuel depots if no HLV in a good time frame for lunar missions.

Reusable landers are a good idea if we are to have many landings.

Is it possible to have the lander stay in lunar orbit and refuel there?
What is the orbital decay rate in lunar orbit?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Leaving the lander in LLO removes all benefit of a reusable lander because then it's future use is limited to a narrow band beneath its orbital track. LLO is not the right place to stage surface operations from. EML-1 or EML-2 is the right place.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2011 12:41 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Solar power… definitely! Synthetic vision along with the old Mk-1 eyeball is great for landing. Throwing away descent stages is really yesterday’s news. We really have to get away from the Apollo way of thinking. That program was a “sprint”, what we really need to think is a “marathon”. Reusability will lead us to sustainability in the long term. I hope the idea finally takes hold for good where applicable and within the limits of technology.

Robert
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline SaxtonHale

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 143
About the seating arrangement during landing:

I  know the MPCV is supposed to be highly configurable, meaning they can stow the seats to increase habitable volume.  Couldn't they also reposition two seats to have a forward view in addition to the monitors?

Also, didn't the Apollo astronauts land their vehicles standing up (Or at least upright with their feet hooked in)? That might be even easier to arrange.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
I don't much like the idea of moving an Orion CM from SM to lander and back. That's effectively two extra dockings added to each mission. And forces compromises in both modes.

IMO, a light-weight, space/low-g optimized lander cabin, using Orion derived ECLSS & avionics makes more sense, since you only have to deploy it to L1 once with the rest of the re-usable lander.

Mud-room, good idea.  Perhaps even an inflateable like the airlock on the D-TAL concept.

Much prefer the horizontal lander. That ladder looks pretty tall.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
I see a lot of arm-waving on this thread but little or no numbers.

There's no way to get a crewed Orion to EML-1 with only one launch of any LV smaller than SLS.

There's no way to get a (non-ZBO) hydrolox crasher stage to EML-1 with only one launch of any LV smaller than SLS.

There's no way to get a hypergolic crasher stage to EML-1 with only one launch of any LV smaller than SLS or Falcon Heavy. Yes you could use an SEP tug, but that would still require several tons of reaction mass. SEP still uses propellant, if more efficiently.


For the architecture as proposed, without SLS, you will need 4 x D-IVH, with at least 3 of them launched in a 2 week period.

Change to a hypergolic crasher and you will need 6 x D-IVH, with at least 2 of them launched in a 2 week period.

Change to all hypergolic beyond LEO and you will need 8 x D-IVH, but you can launch the as far apart as need be. But the maximum mission rate will be less than 1.5 per year. ULA can't make enough cores to exceed that.


Overall, if you're not going to use SLS, I think somthing like the ULA ACES based architecture would be much better.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I see a lot of arm-waving on this thread but little or no numbers.

There's no way to get a crewed Orion to EML-1 with only one launch of any LV smaller than SLS.

There's no way to get a (non-ZBO) hydrolox crasher stage to EML-1 with only one launch of any LV smaller than SLS.

There's no way to get a hypergolic crasher stage to EML-1 with only one launch of any LV smaller than SLS or Falcon Heavy. Yes you could use an SEP tug, but that would still require several tons of reaction mass. SEP still uses propellant, if more efficiently....
A lot of arm-waving yourself.

How much would a crasher (descent) stage mass? Maybe 10mT, if it's hypergolic like the Apollo descent module or perhaps methane/LOx? Delta IV Heavy can put something like 25mT into LEO. The low-thrust delta-v from LEO to EML-1 is about 7km/s. Xenon Ion thrusters like NSTAR (which isn't even that good compared to newer thrusters... realistically, they probably would use NEXT, which can do at least 40km/s... I'lll assume NEXT for the rest of the calculations) have an exhaust velocity of about 30km/s. e^(7/30)=mass_initial/mass_final=1.2214...


So, if the initial mass is 25metric tons, the final mass will be: 25mT/1.2214= ~20.5mT, so that's expelling about 4.5mT of Xenon. The mass of the tug would have to include 150W/kg solar arrays (for Ultraflex, 670kg there), plus a PPU of about 480kg (for 100kW of power) plus Xenon tankage of about 10% of the propellant mass (pretty typical and conservative for ion thruster systems I've seen) so 450kg, plus ~300kg for the NEXT thrusters and propellant management system, and you have a tug with a mass of less than 2mT for the ion thruster and power parts, plus another 2mT for other tug-related stuff for good measure (i.e. avionics, etc), and you still have a payload of about 16.5mT on a single launch on a Delta IV Heavy placed at EML-1 within about a year. Give it a little more time (so you have a less massive tug and operating at a higher Isp), and you can increase that by a few tons if you want. And that's only if the tug is launched on the Delta IV Heavy along with the payload.

16.5mT should be plenty of payload on a single Delta IV Heavy launch to EML-1 using a solar-electric tug (or SEP-EDS may be more fitting in this case, since you insist on single-launch).

If you assume the Delta IV Heavy is launching just payload and the Xenon needed for the (pre-launched but empty) tug, then you're back up to around 20mT of payload to EML-1 per Delta IV Heavy launch.


By the way, I would assume in this case you'd use the newer Delta IV Heavy variant with RS-68A (which I believe would be the only one available pretty soon here) along with a parking orbit lower than 500km (more like 350km) and an inclination less than 51.6 degrees (more like 28 degrees) to get to 25mT. Atlas V Heavy is always an option, too.

In any case, 16.5mT is more than the entire Apollo lunar lander, let alone just a descent stage. And there are lots of options here, too. You could launch a non-ZBO hydrolox crasher stage with a full fuel tank on a faster trajectory with a Delta IV Heavy, and fill up with oxygen sent via SEP-tug. That'd allow all the efficiency hydrolox while leveraging SEP for most of the delta-v to EML-1.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2011 04:28 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Assuming a 2200 m/s dv, 320 Isp, and 4 mt dry mass, the hypergolic crasher stage needs to be about 23 mt wet. Remember it's taking a 15 mt lander from L1 to near the lunar surface, not doing an Apollo style descent from LLO.

No way does your SEP tug mass less than 4 mt.

DS1 with only 2.5 KW (2.1 for the thrusters), massed nearly 500 kg. You're looking at more like 10+ mt dry for the SEP, and therefore 9 mt of Xenon per transfer. 10 with tankage and transfer equipment.

Even using your numbers it's still around 8 mt of Xenon.

23 + 8= 31 mt. Far too much to launch on one D-IVH. 

I did do the math before posting. :)


Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
You guys are far better at math than I, but I knew a standard Delta IV-H probably couldn't do it: that's why I've been mentioning upgraded (Phase-1) 35-40 tons-to-LEO Delta IV-H, working in conjunction with Falcon Heavy. I've been imagining mission architectures based on 1x launch each of Falcon & Delta-H; leveraging pre-positioned assets such as Depots and Solar Tugs. On rare occasions, you might need a further launch of either booster - but hey: they can always build another launchpad!! ;)
« Last Edit: 12/05/2011 09:27 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
I see a lot of arm-waving on this thread but little or no numbers.There's no way to get a crewed Orion to EML-1 with only one launch of any LV smaller than SLS.

Why is this a problem? Launch Orion unmanned to ISS. Launch crew on ccdev craft. Launch EDS stage. Only EDS stage is time sensative.  2 launches required and 1 launch that was going to happan anyway( the ISS crew rotatation launch). ISS will likely be around till 2028.  The two needed Delta IV launches will cost less than the fixed costs of any HLV and so long as you do 1-2 trips a year this works out fine.

Heck you probably need atleast 4 trips before it makes any sense to use Heavy lift.  In addition you can switch to FH or any future launcher that can lift a 25MT EDS stage in the future. You can swicth to cheaper ccdev in future and so forth. With SLS you have locked your costs in.


Quote
There's no way to get a (non-ZBO) hydrolox crasher stage to EML-1 with only one launch of any LV smaller than SLS.

Why does it have to be hydrolox? You can use storables, you can use SEP(which again offers reuse). Why does it HAVE to be done with 1 launch?

Quote
There's no way to get a hypergolic crasher stage to EML-1 with only one launch of any LV smaller than SLS or Falcon Heavy. Yes you could use an SEP tug, but that would still require several tons of reaction mass. SEP still uses propellant, if more efficiently.

Propellant can be launched either in one launch or launched to a depot or tanker in LEO. If forced to something like a Falcon 9 or a Taraus II could probably launch enough propellant for an SEP stage and again there is a huge launch window here(i.e.  it is going to take months for the SEP to come and go to and from LEO).

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Article:
Quote

This use of EML-1 related to the launch of a single HLV, carrying a depot to be refuelled using commercial vehicles, reducing the mass required to launch from Earth’s surface on a Lunar or deep space mission via “dry” – and potentially reusable – landers.

Both SLS and and EML-1 depot do not solve the major cost drivers for NASA missions:  launch costs, boiloff, and too many transfer stages with expensive hardware

Notice the wording:  reduces the mass required, but it does not compare it to a depot in LEO.  This will be shown below.

---
Article:
Quote
“A propellant depot at the Earth-Moon L1 point would significantly improve lunar and deep space exploration mission operations by providing an infrastructure capability for deep space transportation and by opening up participation to international partners and commercial vehicles.

By delivering more mass to LEO with Zero Boiloff Depot, significantly more propellant can be delivered to L1 due to the amplification factor.  Further, costs are less because significantly fewer transfer stages are needed to L1, and participation can also be opened up with a LEO depot

Again, the L1 only depot architecture inefficiently attempts to avoid the the boiloff issue by frequency moving the propellant to L1 via transfer stages.

---
Why is the L1 Only depot not solving the $$$ issue for NASA?
It is shown in Figure 1 here:

Quote
From the ULA AIAA 2010-8638 Evolving to a Depot-Based Space Transportation Architecture:

"Existing Atlas/Centaur performance is highly constrained and upgrading to a larger upper stage, while valuable, is only a small incremental benefit. Taking those same stages and departing from a LEO {...} depot enables the same hardware to deliver far larger payloads to extremely high energies"

Be careful reading the plot.

Compare "ACES From L2 Depot, 60% Propellant Retained" to "ACES From LEO Depot" - the figure very subtely shows that staging propellant that does not boil away in LEO offers tremendous cost savings

The "60% Propellant Retained" means that 40% of the propellant was used moving it to L2+boiloff, *if* this percentage can even be achieved (typically an Atlas delivers about 48% of the mass to GTO/LEO).

The issue again is reducing the costs (by reducing the size of the launch vehicle, zero boiloff, and reducing the number of LEO to L1 transfer stages with expensive hardware).

Now if the propellant was moved from LEO to L2 via a solar electric tug with ZBO....wow that is a game changer!

Edit:  Link to the boeing depot concept from LEO
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/01/boeing-propellant-depot-useful-space.html

"Anyone can make propellant, and anyone can deliver it. The orbital reservoir will allow for different quantities from tanker vehicles both small and large. The payload itself is cheap, so even low-reliability launchers could potentially be used. "
« Last Edit: 12/05/2011 01:38 pm by muomega0 »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Heh, I guess that it's not as much fun to talk to folks that agree with you.
Ah HA! I find that I disagree with that assesment! Or I will... At some piont... In time... Maybe... I think... Sortof...  ;)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Leaving the lander in LLO removes all benefit of a reusable lander because then it's future use is limited to a narrow band beneath its orbital track. LLO is not the right place to stage surface operations from. EML-1 or EML-2 is the right place.

LLO also is not stable (except for a limited number of frozen orbits) due to lumpy lunar gravity which is due to irregular concentrations of mass.

LLO (unlike LEO) is not a good place for conducting operations.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1