Author Topic: Sea Dragon class LV thread  (Read 187182 times)

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #140 on: 11/23/2009 02:01 am »
...
Sea Dragon has nothing to do with the SpaceX Dragon capsule.  The Sea Dragon was a proposed ocean-launched superrocket developed by the NASA Future Projects branch before it was shutdown in the mid 60's.  It was designed to be built using many of the same shipyard tricks used to build submarines.  Its fuel would be seawater cracked into its components hydrogen/oxygen by the tender craft.  It could lift 550mT into orbit.  The second stage of the Saturn V could fit inside of its massive rocket nozzle.

Nitpick: Sea Dragon first stage was LOX / RP-1

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #141 on: 11/23/2009 02:53 am »
...
Sea Dragon has nothing to do with the SpaceX Dragon capsule.  The Sea Dragon was a proposed ocean-launched superrocket developed by the NASA Future Projects branch before it was shutdown in the mid 60's.  It was designed to be built using many of the same shipyard tricks used to build submarines.  Its fuel would be seawater cracked into its components hydrogen/oxygen by the tender craft.  It could lift 550mT into orbit.  The second stage of the Saturn V could fit inside of its massive rocket nozzle.

Nitpick: Sea Dragon first stage was LOX / RP-1
Yes, which helps enable the Sea Dragon to float as RP-1 is lighter than water.  I was thinking of the second stage when talking of the LH2
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #142 on: 11/23/2009 03:12 am »
Liquid Hydrogen is a LOT lighter than water. There's no way Sea Dragon wouldn't float, even if the first stage fuel was denser than water. In fact, with the RP-1 it needed ballast tanks to sink the base and bring it vertical. They were to be discarded at launch.

I'm a little uncomforatable with using N2 to pressurize the tanks:

1)  It's a lot heavier than Helium. I suppose that much He might be too expensive, although it could be recovered from the spent first stage and re-used.

2)  Nitrogen tends to disolve in LOX causing combustion instabilities.

If I was designing a Sea Dragon today, I might consider using He or N2 to drive a pistonless pump. (See Flowmetrics). The driving gas could even be produced by a gas generator.

This would have the advantage of reducing the weight of the main tanks, while increasing the combustion chamber pressures, without requiring expensive, complicated turbo-pumps.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #143 on: 11/23/2009 03:58 am »
Liquid Hydrogen is a LOT lighter than water. There's no way Sea Dragon wouldn't float, even if the first stage fuel was denser than water. In fact, with the RP-1 it needed ballast tanks to sink the base and bring it vertical. They were to be discarded at launch.

I'm a little uncomforatable with using N2 to pressurize the tanks:

1)  It's a lot heavier than Helium. I suppose that much He might be too expensive, although it could be recovered from the spent first stage and re-used.

2)  Nitrogen tends to disolve in LOX causing combustion instabilities.

If I was designing a Sea Dragon today, I might consider using He or N2 to drive a pistonless pump. (See Flowmetrics). The driving gas could even be produced by a gas generator.

This would have the advantage of reducing the weight of the main tanks, while increasing the combustion chamber pressures, without requiring expensive, complicated turbo-pumps.

Having lighter tanks (and not being as highly pressurized) means the rocket would be more difficult to survive impact and reuse, right? That's my feeling, but I've never done an in-depth analysis.

Also, the smaller surface-area-to-volume ratio of a larger fuel tank (like the Sea Dragon is) would seem to me to mean that proportionally less N2 would be dissolved in the LOX than for a smaller rocket, correct?
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
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #144 on: 11/23/2009 10:16 am »
Even 30 to 50 psi would give the tanks an awful lot of strength.

For a cylinder that ratio will mostly be equal to the depth of propellant in the tank. Sea Dragon's tanks are fairly squat, and at the end of the burn, won't have much depth. OTOH, I'm not an expert on exactly how N2 disolves in LOX. Could be some weird chemistry.  I've heard anecdotal evidence of problems with N2 pressure fed rockets. Pump fed ones don't seem to have as many problems with N2 pressurization, because the pressure is about 1/10th as much. YMMV.


Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #145 on: 12/15/2009 11:17 am »
km
Even 30 to 50 psi would give the tanks an awful lot of strength.

For a cylinder that ratio will mostly be equal to the depth of propellant in the tank. Sea Dragon's tanks are fairly squat, and at the end of the burn, won't have much depth. OTOH, I'm not an expert on exactly how N2 disolves in LOX. Could be some weird chemistry.  I've heard anecdotal evidence of problems with N2 pressure fed rockets. Pump fed ones don't seem to have as many problems with N2 pressurization, because the pressure is about 1/10th as much. YMMV.



To bad we can't develope some form of gas impermiable material that would remain flexibile ane elastic at cryogenic temperatures.
     Then one could make both the LH2/LOX and the LH2 / LN  bulkheads out of said material and be able to pressurize the LH2 and LOX tanks without mixing, gasses.

Jason
« Last Edit: 12/15/2009 11:18 am by JasonAW3 »
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #146 on: 12/15/2009 11:39 am »
I have a basic question;

     Development costs and construction of four Sea Dragons, (including smaller sub scale versiona used for testing) were estimated to be 16 billion dollars back in 1961.

     As much of the testing can now be done in computers, alot of practical testing was done with the Sea-Bee and Sea-Horse programs, and the construction techniques have chenged a great deal since 1961, How much would it cost to build test and impliment a group of 4 of these, including a semi-dediacted shiyard  facility.

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #147 on: 12/15/2009 11:48 am »
If you want to get really creative,

     Install some ISS style hatchways between bulkheads on the upper stage, a docking adaptor to the topof the upper tank, use a 4 petal payload shroud, 2 being solar power panels and 2 being heat sinks, go dry for wet, bring a good chunk of the payload into the inside of the beast, and you now have a Skylab style space station with many times the internal volume of bothe Skylab and the ISS COMBINED.

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #148 on: 02/01/2010 10:15 am »
What was the planned payload fairing size for Sea Dragon and the smaller Excaliber?

Offline JasonW3

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #149 on: 02/01/2010 02:45 pm »
Yes, quite easily.

The problem isn't that it could do that, the question is how do you pay for all that hardware to go fly on a single rocket -- that laundry list you suggest is worth billions and billions!   More importantly:   Do you really want to risk putting all those eggs in a single basket?

If anything happened to that launch, you would lose everything in your entire *program* not just a single element.

A Sea Dragon could just-about launch the equivalent mass of two International Space Station's in a single shot.

While we would have loved to have had that capability ten years ago when we started lifting all those modules, there isn't much in the way of payloads around today -- or even planned in the next 20 years -- which would fill a single Sea Dragon each year -- and Sea Dragon's cost benefits required it to have a decent flight rate around 12 flights per year (just like every other launcher).

If you didn't have that many launches, then the same old rules come into effect and the infrastructure costs start dominating the cost of each flight -- making the system non-viable again.

The entire world's launch requirements -- government, military and civilian combined -- amounts to just a very small fraction of the 6,600mT of LEO lift capability which this system needed to make it worthwhile.


And it's one hell of a gamble to go pay all the money needed to develop this in the hope that "if you build it they will come".   That approach failed to work out very well for either EELV, did it?

This needs a totally different business model to have any chance at all -- and I personally don't think NASA would ever choose to fly anything on it.

Ross.

Ross,

      Here's another point that I'm not sure has been addressed;
     With this much liftingv capacity, you can "Dumb Down" the equipment launched to oldere VASTLY more reliable equipment that could last decades on the moon or Mars instead of only a few months.
      As muich as I hate to say it, maybe we should have the Russians design things like the Rovers and habitat modules.  They have far more experience when designing equipment cheaply that will work in almost any terrestial environment, thus adding a couple of factors such as vaccum and corrosive dust shouldn't be too much of a stretch for them.  Yes, Mir could be brought up as an example of bad engineering with the fire that they had, but still, keeping that thing aloft for over twenty YEARS on almost no budget, when it wasn't designed for half as long?  Pretty awsome if you ask me.

     Sometimes it's better to use a low tech, heavier, highly reliable solution to a high tech, questionable reliability, lightweight component.  If my life were to depend upon it, by god, I'd rather have a system with plenty of spares that I had to swap out the filter once a week than a system that if it failed, I'd have to jury-rig a solution that might not work.  Apollo 13 shows BOTH sides of this coin when the life support of the capsule was failing but they used the square air treatment cannisters from the LEM using duct tape, hoses, a plastic bag, parts of a notebook and a sock, (yes a freaking SOCK, good thing they weren't using one of mine, the smell would have killed them instantly) to rig a system where they could use square cannisters in a round fixture.  Again, low tech, cheap solution, but with life or death consequences.  If, as had at one time had been designed into the Shuttle, the crew cabin had been built to be able to detatch, re-enter, and splashdown, we MIGHT (VERY, VERY slim chances in both Challenger's and Columbia's cases) have been able to save the crews.  But instead of upping the mass to orbit ability, we choose to eliminate that ability.  (Admittedly, it was early on inb the design phase that this was eliminated, but it WAS considered at one time, much like the ejectible crew capsule of the FB-111)  It was eliminated due to low probability of that sort of catastrophic failure and the limited mass requirements that they had.

     But the point here is;  If you use it STRICTLY as a cargo lofter, and use low cost, reliable equipment that could bee easily replaced, (with plenty of spares) the loss of a single booster would not be a show stopper.

     In fact,  If I had the money, I'd be willing to bet, with the combination of a relaible man rated lofter of some sort, (and I prefer a lifting body design of some sort, either as the whole craft or the manned section) and the Sea Dragon, within a VERY few years, 10 to 20 at the most, the payloads would grow in to the max capacity of 650 tons in a very short order.

     And my final point is; I'd rather have too much payload capacity to orbit than just enough.  Too many comprimises have been taken in the past to right mass a payload to the available capacity, rather than have enough excess available to avoid those kind of life threatening issues.

     So screw it, let's design and build a series of two stage reusable non-cryogenic, ocean launched, steel hulled, cargo launch vehicles in the 200, 300 400 and 500 plus tons to orbit ranges, and start going to the other planets!  If we build the 200 and 300 ton to orbit beasts NOW and start using them, by the time we NEED the 400 to 500 ton plus monsters,the tech will have matured enough that they wilol bed MUCH more affordable.

     The Excalibur would be a good start at 200 tons lofted, but we need to be ready to go up qui8ckly in mass from there.

Jason

Offline JasonW3

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #150 on: 02/01/2010 02:54 pm »
Ok,

     I'm probably whipping a dead horse with this one, but;

     Assuming one were to build the Sea Dragon today with today's tech, costs etc, assuming one went for hydrogen peroxide / kerosene for both stages,  (Yes, I know that there would be a drop in mass to orbit, but how much would it be?) and assuming that you were to make two versions, both cargo rated, for now, one that would boostp to 500 tones to orbit and one that boosted 200 tons to orbit, (the upper stage using a plug nozzle and ballute for re-entry and splash down, the lower stage using simply the ballute system) how long would it take to test, using bthe testing that has gone before as a starting point, (and the smaller, 200 ton bird as a proof of principle craft) and how much would such a program cost to set up and operate today?

     I put forth that construction costs, (at least labor) should be lower due to advances in technologies, the avionics should cost a fraction of what they would have in the 1960's and due to the fact that that your using non-cryogenic fuels fueling costs should also be lower.
     However, I realize that hydrogen peroxide is both somewhat corrosive and volitile in high concentrations, but the savings in cryogenics costs should offset this cost greatly.

     Again, I need to know how much mass is sacrificed by going all hydrogenperoxide on both stages, instead of the Kerosene / LOX mix for the first stage and the LH2 / LOX mix for the upperstage.
     Then I need real world costs for construction, testing, towing out to sea, launching, recovering the ballist tankage, and both the first and second stages.  Could this be a cost effective alternative, due to economies of scale, to what we now have?  (Which is nothing).

     From what I have gathered so far, the current administration doesn't want NASA piloting ANY craft, but simply a conmmercial company boosting scientists into space, flying them to the Moon and Mars, and acting as the maintenance people for the craft involved, while the scientistsare chauffered there.  (Maybe even to the point of both b ase constrruction and ground vehicle driving?  Great.  First dune buggy driver/mechanic on Mars.   Hmmm... Still...  That WOULD be one hell of a title, now wouldn't it?)

Jason

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #151 on: 02/03/2010 02:09 am »
I'd still go with lox methane or lox kerosene for the LV vs messing with any odd propellant combinations such as high concentration hydrogen peroxide.

Turning a natural gas tanker into a lox carrier shouldn't be too hard.
It almost would be within the reach of a well funded altspace company.

Heck if you go smaller a 100 to 200T LV you probably could get by with a used container ship and several off the shelf industrial lox storage tanks.

Handling liquid oxygen is a lot more common then you think and it's considered safe enough to have large lox tanks near hospitals and welding supply shops in town.

Just about any industrial town with a population larger then 10K has a few large lox tanks.
I see them all the time in any town that has any oil industry or manufacturing.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2010 02:16 am by Patchouli »

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #153 on: 07/15/2010 05:02 am »
     The idea of using one upper stage of a Sea Dragon as a dry-for-wet space station is not too bad.  So long as you don't intend on rotating it along the long axis to produce a quarter Gee of gravity.
     You'd be using a radius of 37.5 feet and the rotation would be a bit too fast for normal dockingprocedures, and the torque that the rotation would put on an off center docked craft's docking mechanism would be excessive and, if using it for a nine month trip to Mars, might not be able to detach or, might give way during the flight.
     There is also the issue of corealis effects with such a small radia for the rotation.  The difference in Gee load between a persons head and lower extremities would be enough for a serious amount of disorientation, and possibly health issues.

     I think the use of three to five of these upper stages, using one as a center module and the others docked to it at 90 degree angles to the center module, and in opposition to each other, and tied together with girdework.
     With each of these upper stages being 200 feet long and 75 feet wide, not only would it require a slower rotation for 1/4  Gee at a radius of 237.5 feet, but docking or docked space craft would have much less stress put on docking mechanism, and docking with the rotating structure becomes that much easier.  Physiological and psychological issues are likewise reduced.

     As the upper stage would be 200 feet tall, one should be able to set up at least 14 decks, allowing for the curvature of both the LOX and LH2 tanks. Which would give a ,uch more gradual drop off of centripedial force and largely eliminate Corealis effect disorientation.

The central hull would be configured with three concentric decks, with a meter of water, (some recombined from risidual fuel stores in the tanks of the upper stages, some possibly from the Moon, and some shipped up from Earth) surrounding all three of these decks.
     Assuming that each deck is normally 10 feet in height, the innermost 'deck', or 'core' would have a width of 24 feet, allowing it to both act as a storage area for much of the consumables, as well as a central "storm cellar" and. in the LOX tank, a central control and communications center for the entire structure.

     A three tank configuration, using a set of four to six VASMIR style engines, and at least one to six nuclear power plants, would not only allow for enhanced redundancy, but would allow for a much larger crew than either the NASA baseline mission concept, but also allows for isolation of potentile contamination from Mars bourne contaminantes.  The infected crew would be isolated in the hydrogen tank section of one of the 'Spoke ' habitats, with sufficent supplies to survive a return trip to Earth and a central core 'storm cellar' to protect against radiation.
     Once the contaminated personnel and equipment are isolated in the Hydrogen tank section of the craft, and all vacume sensitive equipment and materials ar removed from the oxygen ection of that spoke, the hydrogen tank would be set to local enviromental recycling with a dedicated power supply, (multiply redundant, nuclear, solar and fuel cell, as well as batteries) the oxygen tank between the lower section of the spoke and the core  would be emptied of air, further isolating the contaminated from the rest of the ship.  While this may seem harsh, the health and safely of the rest of the crew should be paramount to the mission.
     a craft using five of the Sea Dragon upper stages would have the central core with four spokes, which would make it large enough to to act as an aldrin style cycler.  (Although, personaly I'd prefer having six spokes to maximize the potentile  volume of living space.

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline go2mars

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Calgary
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #154 on: 07/22/2010 04:32 pm »
I never thought of stringing a few of them together like that for the rotational gravity at greater radius.  An elegant solution! 

Another way to slow down the middle one further for docking/unloading would be have 7 of them, the central one, and attach 2 more end-to end so they go in 400 foot long spokes from the central point.  With fairly short rotation.  Gravity could almost feel natural at the bottom of those. 

Here's an interesting document I found...

http://neverworld.net/truax/Truax_Engineering.pdf


Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #155 on: 07/22/2010 05:50 pm »
I never thought of stringing a few of them together like that for the rotational gravity at greater radius.  An elegant solution! 

Another way to slow down the middle one further for docking/unloading would be have 7 of them, the central one, and attach 2 more end-to end so they go in 400 foot long spokes from the central point.  With fairly short rotation.  Gravity could almost feel natural at the bottom of those. 

Here's an interesting document I found...

http://neverworld.net/truax/Truax_Engineering.pdf


Interesting document.
     The plan, as given, allows for an incremental evelopment and deployment of technologies for the Sea Dragon, through the design, testing and use of the smaller craft.

     Thank you for the complement, however, I am uncertain as to the capibility of the upper stage with another stage attached, of withstanding the stresses that would be applied.  At the mid point between the two stages in the spoke, there would be just over 1/2 Gee of loading on any connectors, (actually more like 1 Gee, due to the mass and the 1 Gee of gravity at the last deck of the spoke, plus the tortional stresses that the Corialis effects would have on any connections between the two stages as well as the hulls of the upper and lower segments of the spokes.
     Overall, bad juju.  Plus one would have to rig outrider cabling and towers to stablize the longer spoke length against these stresses and help to avoid a catastrophic failure of the whole structure.
     From an engineering standpoint, simpler is always better.  There would still have to be cabling to hold the whole thing together, but not only as much, but it would be less vurnrable to damage ore overstressing.

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline go2mars

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Calgary
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #156 on: 07/23/2010 06:23 pm »
I wonder how rigid Bigelow's inflatables will be...  Perhaps a long inflatable habitat tube could touch the tips of all these tanks and keep them in proper alignment.  Air pressure can provide a lot of rigidity.  It would look like a bike tire with really really fat spokes and a big fat hub. 

This would enable useful volume at higher G's and connect access to the tips.  You could go jogging along the entire outside wall of the inflatable tube.  Mission duration is less relevant if you have lots of volume for astronaughts to roam at higher g-force. 

If they were attached stage to stage for the extra length, perhaps you could weld or bolt the nozzles together.  That would provide even more space.  Agreed that some well placed cables would be highly desirable. 

Central hub tank would have docking ports, nuclear reactor, and engines (perhaps vasimr).  Or polywell drive...


« Last Edit: 07/23/2010 06:29 pm by go2mars »

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #157 on: 07/23/2010 06:54 pm »
I wonder how rigid Bigelow's inflatables will be...  Perhaps a long inflatable habitat tube could touch the tips of all these tanks and keep them in proper alignment.  Air pressure can provide a lot of rigidity.  It would look like a bike tire with really really fat spokes and a big fat hub. 

This would enable useful volume at higher G's and connect access to the tips.  You could go jogging along the entire outside wall of the inflatable tube.  Mission duration is less relevant if you have lots of volume for astronaughts to roam at higher g-force. 

If they were attached stage to stage for the extra length, perhaps you could weld or bolt the nozzles together.  That would provide even more space.  Agreed that some well placed cables would be highly desirable. 

Central hub tank would have docking ports, nuclear reactor, and engines (perhaps vasimr).  Or polywell drive...


     I actually consideredt that possibility at one time.  An inflatable torus, continious, with docking hubs at each spoke point, a curved rigid structure would be rigged to the outside of the torus, with cable rigging back to the central hub supporting them, much like on a suspension bridge.
     One issue that had occured to me; A rotating torus would tend to wobble as mass is moved from one side of the torus to another.  I had considered the use of water tanks under the walking surface using computer controlled pumps to transfer water between tanks on the opposite side of the torus from the offcenter mass, to compensate for and counteract the wobble.

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #158 on: 07/23/2010 07:24 pm »
Good idea.  Water also is a good insulator for radiation.  It can be cracked for fuel with solar power attached. 

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Sea Dragon class LV thead
« Reply #159 on: 07/23/2010 11:40 pm »
Good idea.  Water also is a good insulator for radiation.  It can be cracked for fuel with solar power attached. 

Not so much fuel as rad shielding, balance and drinking water.

     I considered the possibility of putting a layer of water around the whole structure, but that would mass hundreds of tons, and, unless one would be lifting the water from the moon or grabbing it from comets or wet asteroids, it would be WAY too expensive to boost from Earth.

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Tags:
 

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