Author Topic: Should Super Heavy (BFR/ITS) have a smaller prototype to ease development?  (Read 70208 times)

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #60 on: 02/19/2017 10:17 pm »
Give it up already. No HSF craft ever had a "mini me", no one ever will.  ::)

There have been scaled prototypes such as the DC-X and X-33 for proof of concept. A prototype might be a good idea instead of dropping billions into the largest rocket ever made. Probably won't happen because Musk is impatient. He wants to go to Mars and doesn't want to waste time, ending up too old to go.

I wish SpaceX success and hope ITS works as planned, but there is a chance this design won't work. Remember Lockheed was confident about the X-33 and it failed before having a test flight.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #61 on: 02/20/2017 04:46 am »
I see smaller test bed vehicles as likely. Calling them subscale prototypes, I don't know if this would be the right description. Smaller versions that initially fly to Mars, I see no way of that happening. Too expensive and too time consuming.

If the smaller vehicle has a development path to something smaller serving the satellite launch market that is fine. Quite possible, but that would be something else than a subscale precursor entirely. It would likely happen parallel, probably later than ITS.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #62 on: 02/20/2017 06:21 am »
Give it up already. No HSF craft ever had a "mini me", no one ever will.  ::)

There have been scaled prototypes such as the DC-X and X-33 for proof of concept.

Sure, and I also made small aircraft/rockets as a boy. Not HSF. Enormously costly and time consuming.

Quote
A prototype might be a good idea instead of dropping billions into the largest rocket ever made. Probably won't happen because Musk is impatient. He wants to go to Mars and doesn't want to waste time, ending up too old to go.

Perhaps he might know something. Just maybe.

Quote
I wish SpaceX success and hope ITS works as planned, but there is a chance this design won't work. Remember Lockheed was confident about the X-33 and it failed before having a test flight.

Sure, they did. They told NASA what it would take to fly. Aluminum tanks. NASA said "Tanks, but not thanks" ;)

Smaller versions that initially fly to Mars, I see no way of that happening. Too expensive and too time consuming.
Absolutely. Nothing "useful" as a LV/SC.

Quote
If the smaller vehicle has a development path to something smaller serving the satellite launch market that is fine. Quite possible, but that would be something else than a subscale precursor entirely. It would likely happen parallel, probably later than ITS.
Yes.

The most useful non-ITS Raptor vehicle would be a Raptor US not unlike ACES encapsulated in the lengthened fairing. Perhaps reusable. Musk says he's tempted, but he doesn't want the distraction. If a well paying gig for a much, much, much lower cost to develop, retiring the largest single risk earliest (Raptor at altitude, restarts, duration, recovery, ... landing) ... what in the world makes anyone think he'd do a lesser choice.

ITS itself is an enormous gamble. Like F9/Dragon. You'll note he skipped F5 too. And dropped F1e altogether. Distractions.

F9/FH are good enough for today's requirements. ITS has nothing to do with the market - zip zero nada. ITS "mini me" too. F9RUS would but Musk says that's not enough. Maybe post-ITS, ITS would schlep payloads when not doing its designed "duty", to shift some operating expense. But not what ITS designed for clearly.

Give. It. Up.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2017 06:22 am by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #63 on: 02/20/2017 06:33 am »
Maybe just a Falcon with two liquid propellant side boosters. How long could that take?

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #64 on: 02/20/2017 09:33 am »
Maybe just a Falcon with two liquid propellant side boosters. How long could that take?

Until it is really needed?

Offline Rei

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
  • Iceland
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 161
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #65 on: 02/20/2017 12:07 pm »
How about a merlin-based booster (ITS-lite) with 42 Merlins on the bottom?

I'd more expect to see the inverse - a Falcon-like methalox vehicle with Raptors.  I expect them to have a lot more trouble with the dual issues of "composites" and "scale" than with the high pressures, new fuel, and full-flow staged combustion.  So maturing the latter on a more humble-sized, aluminum-bodied vehicle while they work on the former would be logical.

Indeed, the more I think about this the more it makes sense.  Because they could also mature their own propellant plant at the same time - starting out by filling with standard pipeline methane and LOX from big steel tanks, and steadily switch to filling with Sabatier methane from electrolysis hydrogen with "permafrost brine" as the water source and "impure dusty CO2" as the CO2 source, with all fluids stored in / produced by flight-intent systems.  They'd need an outer partial-vacuum tank to mimic the low pressure Martian environment and radiative balance, but otherwise...  If they wanted to take it all the way, they could build an ice rink for harvesting the water from, constantly casting new permafrost to be harvested as the old stuff is ripped up, and the team regularly throwing in new curveballs for their harvester to deal with (varying water content, varying dissolved mineral content, various things mixed in (dusts, clays, gravels, boulders), etc.  Fully close the loop.

They'd be able to demonstrate that they can produce it on bulk scales, with non-ideal feedstocks, in a reliable manner, store it densified, fill, and that Raptor can operate on it.  All fundamental requirements.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2017 12:29 pm by Rei »

Offline Rei

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
  • Iceland
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 161
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #66 on: 02/20/2017 12:17 pm »
My recollection is he said it afterwards I think in the 2nd Q+A from Reddit.  He definitely said it, also that the 2nd landing with crew would complete the propellant plant.

I think this is what you're referring to?

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/590wi9/i_am_elon_musk_ask_me_anything_about_becoming_a/

Quote
We are still far from figuring this out in detail, but the current plan is:
Send Dragon scouting missions, initially just to make sure we know how to land without adding a crater and then to figure out the best way to get water for the CH4/O2 Sabatier Reaction.
Heart of Gold spaceship flies to Mars loaded only with equipment to build the propellant plant.
First crewed mission with equipment to build rudimentary base and complete the propellant plant.
Try to double the number of flights with each Earth-Mars orbital rendezvous, which is every 26 months, until the city can grow by itself.

Emphasis mine.  Nothing about the crew living in ITS.  I guess you can read that into it during "base construction time", but it's clear he doesn't want people living in them any longer than needed.

Also... IMHO.... not too comforting that he doesn't plan to have the propellant plant even finished, let alone have propellant stocks onhand, when the first colonists arrive.  They better well hope that nothing goes wrong that requires an evacuation (not an unlikely event), or all of them will be dead.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2017 12:34 pm by Rei »

Offline robert_d

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #67 on: 02/20/2017 01:06 pm »

How about a merlin-based booster (ITS-lite) with 42 Merlins on the bottom?

What risk would you be trying to retire with this? Would you build it with composite tanks? What role would it play in the 2020's?


Offline robert_d

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #68 on: 02/20/2017 01:38 pm »
Looking over the ITS plans and comparing them to either Mars Direct or SLS...it's on the verge of insanely ambitious. ...  Would it be easier to build a smaller version of ITS first beforehand or not?  Say something either at 1/2 or 2/3 scaled compared to the full ITS.

I think they could retire a lot of risk with something much smaller. But for several reasons, I think a dual core Falcon 9, maturing to a 4 core, would be required to get enough lift to address the goal that I see as doable without huge investment.

That goal is a single full sized Raptor powered reusable carbon composite second stage with some sort of reusable fairing system. Was it Elon Musk or Gwynne Shotwell that said that they want to reuse but don't want to have them land in the water? That means an air capture or maybe something more wild like small wings and engine to try and fly them back. In any case it will add weight. 

The dual core could support an elliptical cross section second stage supporting an elliptical cross section fairing of something like 8 x 5.5 meters. I could imagine a three section fairing where the two large sections would separate and return as they are planning now, with a small third section staying with the stage and payload. This section would act as the  leading edge upon re-entry.

This idea would not require huge heavy new payloads, just something like a lunar lander or maybe Europa mission class payload to justify development. I think lunar development with 1 lunar mission every 26 months in support of 1 SLS launch and 1 Mars mission at that launch window might be enough for NASA to consider contributing to development cost. Especially if SLS got cancelled altogether. By the way 2 dual core Falcon 9's would be nearly perfect SRB replacements for SLS.

If this reusable technology can be demonstrated at this scale, THEN I could see going on to a full scale ITS. It will need tremendous ground support development as has been noted before. Though I still don't see a Mars colony developing for at least 50 - 75 years.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2017 01:44 pm by robert_d »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #69 on: 02/20/2017 01:45 pm »
Looking over the ITS plans and comparing them to either Mars Direct or SLS...it's on the verge of insanely ambitious. ...  Would it be easier to build a smaller version of ITS first beforehand or not?  Say something either at 1/2 or 2/3 scaled compared to the full ITS.

I think they could retire a lot of risk with something much smaller. But for several reasons, I think a dual core Falcon 9, maturing to a 4 core, would be required to get enough lift to address the goal that I see as doable without huge investment.

That goal is a single full sized Raptor powered reusable carbon composite second stage with some sort of reusable fairing system. Was it Elon Musk or Gwynne Shotwell that said that they want to reuse but don't want to have them land in the water? That means an air capture or maybe something more wild like small wings and engine to try and fly them back. In any case it will add weight. 

The dual core could support an elliptical cross section second stage supporting an elliptical cross section fairing of something like 8 x 5.5 meters. I could imagine a three section fairing where the two large sections would separate and return as they are planning now, with a small third section staying with the stage and payload. This section would act as the  leading edge upon re-entry.

This idea would not require huge heavy new payloads, just something like a lunar lander or maybe Europa mission class payload to justify development. I think lunar development with 1 lunar mission every 26 months in support of 1 SLS launch and 1 Mars mission at that launch window might be enough for NASA to consider contributing to development cost.

If this reusable technology can be demonstrated at this scale, THEN I could see going on to a full scale ITS. It will need tremendous ground support development as has been noted before. Though I still don't see a Mars colony developing for at least 50 - 75 years.

Why would you launch a reuseable spacecraft/entry vehicle in a fairing? It has to take aero loads on return anyway.

And there is absolutely no reason to develop a multi-core Falcon anything other than Heavy. If you can't do it on Heavy it's not worth doing.

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #70 on: 02/20/2017 02:06 pm »
My recollection is he said it afterwards I think in the 2nd Q+A from Reddit.  He definitely said it, also that the 2nd landing with crew would complete the propellant plant.

I think this is what you're referring to?

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/590wi9/i_am_elon_musk_ask_me_anything_about_becoming_a/

Quote
We are still far from figuring this out in detail, but the current plan is:
Send Dragon scouting missions, initially just to make sure we know how to land without adding a crater and then to figure out the best way to get water for the CH4/O2 Sabatier Reaction.
Heart of Gold spaceship flies to Mars loaded only with equipment to build the propellant plant.
First crewed mission with equipment to build rudimentary base and complete the propellant plant.
Try to double the number of flights with each Earth-Mars orbital rendezvous, which is every 26 months, until the city can grow by itself.

Emphasis mine.  Nothing about the crew living in ITS.  I guess you can read that into it during "base construction time", but it's clear he doesn't want people living in them any longer than needed.

Also... IMHO.... not too comforting that he doesn't plan to have the propellant plant even finished, let alone have propellant stocks onhand, when the first colonists arrive.  They better well hope that nothing goes wrong that requires an evacuation (not an unlikely event), or all of them will be dead.

No, that is not it. He was specific.  I have a lot to do today I probably will not have time to look for it .

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #71 on: 02/20/2017 02:14 pm »
With rocket development, changing diameter is a big deal - basically, you need to replace all tooling, and often the buildings too.

But stretch is a "much smaller deal".

Thus, "smaller" ITS can be simply a full-diameter, but very squat ITS, significantly below optimum. With all tooling, buildings, pads built to accommodate a much longer rocket later on.

Offline gin455res

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • bristol, uk
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #72 on: 02/20/2017 02:15 pm »

How about a merlin-based booster (ITS-lite) with 42 Merlins on the bottom?

What risk would you be trying to retire with this? Would you build it with composite tanks? What role would it play in the 2020's?



Potentially none, but if desired it could be a tank test-bed.

More, the September presentation gave us all a little more freedom to really play with scale and investigate the benefits that it might offer. Elon clearly has.

It could just be a way of capitalising on the Merlin fully.  One large booster only needs one avionics package.  Return to launch site is pretty much proven now, perhaps road transportability is less important?

An upper*-stage with  4 vacuum merlins and a central sea-level merlin (potentially allowing complete reusability). Cost to orbit?

Might squeeze New Glenn and SLS.


[Later, fly a Raptor-based upper-stage with 2 vacuum raptors and a central sea-level raptor


- what is the minimum number of engines needed to mix sea-level and vacuum engines on an upper stage and enable vertical landing; 3,4,5?]?

*Perhaps this might optimise best as a 2nd stage of a 3-stage system.

Offline robert_d

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #73 on: 02/21/2017 02:30 am »


Why would you launch a reuseable spacecraft/entry vehicle in a fairing? It has to take aero loads on return anyway.

That's not what I meant. I meant that the Raptor powered second stage would be reusable. The payloads would be traditional Moon bound or Mars bound spacecraft or segments of larger vehicles. But Raptor, Composite tanks and TPS could all be validated for multiple uses. 

Quote
And there is absolutely no reason to develop a multi-core Falcon anything other than Heavy. If you can't do it on Heavy it's not worth doing.
The reason is the larger fairing, larger payload and testing proof-of-concept reusable 2nd stage powered by a full sized Raptor.   
Today they have Falcon Heavy with a more limited fairing size and throw-away second stage. For just one core more (the two center cores stay attached and land as a unit) They would have the margins to add weight to the fairings and landing fuel for the second stage. 
« Last Edit: 02/21/2017 02:37 am by robert_d »

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #74 on: 02/21/2017 02:31 am »
Someone double-check my figures to be certain; however I think for a smaller mission this could suffice to get the ship to Mars even without the tanker Elon wants in the full version.

Not suggesting there is anything wrong with your ΔV calculations, but when you talk about a scale model, that refers to a linear dimension, not to mass. What you are describing is roughly a 0.8 scale model of the ITS.

Elaborate on scale models.  I'm curious is there's an optimal scale that is best for testing, not to mention whether it's better to scale by volume or by mass.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #75 on: 02/21/2017 03:23 am »
Someone double-check my figures to be certain; however I think for a smaller mission this could suffice to get the ship to Mars even without the tanker Elon wants in the full version.

Not suggesting there is anything wrong with your ΔV calculations, but when you talk about a scale model, that refers to a linear dimension, not to mass. What you are describing is roughly a 0.8 scale model of the ITS.

Elaborate on scale models.  I'm curious is there's an optimal scale that is best for testing, not to mention whether it's better to scale by volume or by mass.

Keep in mind that scale models are usually (?) done as proof of concepts. Some of the more successful scale models (DC-X) focus more on specific technologies. Scale models that try to do to much - replicate everything at a smaller scale - like X-33 can run into problems.

So the question is... what specific kinds of challenge technologies do you hope to test and verify using a "small ITS"? And is verifying those really that much more cost-effective using a smaller scale?

I'll start by pointing out three things I see as big challenges:
- ITS reentry shape (scale changes mass properties, for example going from Apollo to Orion was more difficult and costly than imagined *despite* same shape)
- ITS TPS (similar concern as above, scale affects mass and heat loading)
- structural composite cryogenic tanks (this testing can be done all on the ground, no smaller vehicle needed)

I think arguing for a smaller final ITS system because it would be more affordable is one argument that I might agree with. But I don't think creating a smaller pathfinder system is worth it.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #76 on: 02/21/2017 08:53 am »
An alternative would be to have a full size (dimensions) ITS prototype, but at lower performance.

So lower numbers of lower thrust Raptor on the booster. Only part fill the tanks. Aim for 50 tonnes of payload, rather than 300 tonnes.

Offline OneSpeed

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
  • Liked: 4930
  • Likes Given: 2078
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #77 on: 02/21/2017 10:11 am »
Elaborate on scale models.  I'm curious is there's an optimal scale that is best for testing, not to mention whether it's better to scale by volume or by mass.

The engineering choice to model a design is not bound by any single optimal scale. There are many reasons to use, and not to use scale models.

SpaceX has produced scale models of some of their designs as proofs of concept. Falcon 1 was roughly 1/3 the scale of Falcon 9, but they never produced the 1/2 scale Falcon 5 version, and history shows it wasn't necessary for them to test at that scale. 

The Kestrel and Merlin 1A engines in the Falcon 1 were both kerolox, although the Kestrel was pressure fed, and the Merlin has a turbo pump. The Kestrel was about 1/3 the scale of the Merlin 1A, and helped its development. However the Merlin engine was full scale in all three Falcon designs, it was only necessary to vary their number.

More recently, a deliberately scaled model of the Raptor engine was produced for testing, and has so far been successful. However, the test carbon fuel tank was almost full size for the ITS spaceship, and failed in an early test. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps a smaller scale model would have been a cheaper first iteration?

ArticleSizeMassScale
Falcon 121.3m38.5mT1:3
Falcon 529.0m155.0mT1:2
Falcon 9 1.054.9m333.4mT1:1
Kestrel1.2m52kg1:3
Merlin 1A3.6m470kg1:1
Raptor scaled0.9m?1:2
Raptor 501.8m?1:1
« Last Edit: 02/21/2017 10:19 am by OneSpeed »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #78 on: 02/21/2017 05:31 pm »
Elaborate on scale models.  I'm curious is there's an optimal scale that is best for testing, not to mention whether it's better to scale by volume or by mass.

The engineering choice to model a design is not bound by any single optimal scale. There are many reasons to use, and not to use scale models.

SpaceX has produced scale models of some of their designs as proofs of concept. Falcon 1 was roughly 1/3 the scale of Falcon 9, but they never produced the 1/2 scale Falcon 5 version, and history shows it wasn't necessary for them to test at that scale. 

It would be incorrect to label Falcon 1 and Falcon 5 as scale models for Falcon 9. Falcon 1 was simply the first orbital launch vehicle they could build. Falcon 5 would have had the same stage diameter as Falcon 9.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #79 on: 02/21/2017 06:25 pm »
When I was a kid watching Apollo 11, and 2001: A Space Odyssey, if you asked me back then that in 50 years would Musk's ITS was too large, I would have expected that kind of scale. But I also expected that there would have been moon bases with commercial flights flying there, and man would be on Mars before the end of the 20th century. So back then, looking 50 years ahead, this would make perfect sense. Somehow, we lost the future that looked so promising back then. What ITS does is give us back the future.

HOWEVER

The scale is ludicrous, and there is no business case for it. I understand Musk's rational, to have the economics to go to Mars for less than a quarter million dollars per passenger. But let's put our business hats on. He should build a 1/4 scale lander, focus on orbital space tourism, lunar tourism and even a true space shuttle for space deliveries. The rocket is too large for just about any commercial or government client. Maintain a cash flow while perfecting the technology and let the systems mature. Sure, there will be duplicate costs by building two systems instead of one, but a two pronged approach won't bankrupt him. It reminds me of Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose. Build it and he can only afford one flight with it.

It's scale is huge, sure.
But we need to remember that ITS would be a paradigm shift.  And we have to stand on our heads a bit to account for that. 
It's huge...but fully reusable...with not only booster recovery and reuse, but "return to launch site" recovery and reuse.  Right now  F9-FT is technically much larger than necessary for what it needs to do.  But it's grown larger and more powerful as SpaceX has explored booster reusability.   It uses that extra performance to land the booster on a barge or back on land, depending on payload requirements.  But they've squeezed about as much performance out of the hardare and technology as they can.  If SpaceX could redesign Falcon 9 from scratch today, knowing everything they know now, and if road transportation wasn't a consideration, I think it'd be even larger...and probably methane, which would make it even larger yet as CH4 is less dense than RP-1.    That way they could launch all the commercial sats to GTO and still RTLS the booster...which is ideal.   They may even go larger yet, and get up into EELV-heavy payload range and RTLS the booster, but without the need for the complex tri-core booster.  That way they have just one common single-stick booster for pretty much every potential payload, and it could return the booster to the launch site for all of them.  Now, if you added a reusable upper stage to that, then your scale goes up again to account for that.  But while very oversized, it could still be very economical.
ITS is just really an extension of that.
 
It wouldn't be unlike the Space Shuttle.  STS was of a Saturn V scale of LV, yet it was only capable of launching EELV class payloads to BLEO (with use of an 2nd stage) or EELV-heavy payloads to LEO.  It was about as big and powerful as Saturn V, but could only put about 1/6 the payload into LEO.  And originally, that was deemed acceptable by NASA and USAF.  So why would it be so different for ITS?  Except [hopefully] ITS would correct many of the issues with STS which kept it from realizing it's original cost and time saving ambitions.

Besides, if there were a new lunar program for NASA, that may be a good first business case for it, if SLS and Orion were to be cancelled at some point.



Tags: Space X ITS 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0