Author Topic: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?  (Read 32435 times)

Online pippin

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
  • Liked: 58
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #20 on: 04/02/2012 11:03 PM »
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's wrong to do an expendable design, I just believe, if we look at what one would do NOW, it would not look the least like Energia, maybe like a half-size Energia.

Even if you want a large crew cabin, glider for cross-range and all of that, you'll be fine with something twice the size of a Zenit or so to get that thing into orbit, gives you 25t to LEO, should be fine for a crew vehicle. Or something like Energia-M with around 30t. That's four times the weight of a Soyuz.

Reuse? May or may not be, you can decide on that later.

That same, still much smaller-than-Energia launcher that uses 1/3 of the number of engines the "big" Energia could be used for cargo launches as well with a similar payload capability to the "shuttle" systems. OK, now you need two launches but even together they still use fewer of your expensive components (engines) plus all your infrastructure can be much smaller and you gain flexibility.

And how many payloads that exceed 30t and really need to be brought up in one piece will you ever have?

No, had they built Energia-M instead of the big thing right away, we would probably see it fly even today (political issues between Russia and Ukraine aside).
« Last Edit: 04/02/2012 11:04 PM by pippin »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3709
  • Liked: 18
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #21 on: 04/03/2012 02:05 AM »
As I understand things, the wings cause a lot of problems.  They are useless dead weight until the last minutes before landing.  To keep them from ripping off on ascent, you have to do deep throttling around MaxQ, build them extra strong (and therefore heavy), or both.  The wings go to orbit, so every pound put into the wings detracts from upmass.   

I do wonder what Max Faget's orbiter would have been like to operate.  Maybe it would've still had those cursed SRBs and the icy-foam-ET-next-to-delicate-thermal-protection problem.  Did the DC-3 get far enough along that a TPS for it was baselined?

I need to read The Space Shuttle Decision; but Jenkins' book and this forum give some excellent insights.  I love the Shuttle as much as the next guy (possibly more), but I don't think the final product was a good idea. 
The need for the SSME's to deep throttle is more due to the SRBs being unable to throttle then the presence of wings.

The Saturn V actually had only a slightly higher Max Q then STS 700 to 760 vs 647 to 700 lbs sq ft.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2012 02:14 AM by Patchouli »

Online wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 558
  • Liked: 31
  • Wake Forest, NC
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #22 on: 04/03/2012 01:37 PM »
As I understand things, the wings cause a lot of problems.  They are useless dead weight until the last minutes before landing.  To keep them from ripping off on ascent, you have to do deep throttling around MaxQ, build them extra strong (and therefore heavy), or both.  The wings go to orbit, so every pound put into the wings detracts from upmass.   

I do wonder what Max Faget's orbiter would have been like to operate.  Maybe it would've still had those cursed SRBs and the icy-foam-ET-next-to-delicate-thermal-protection problem.  Did the DC-3 get far enough along that a TPS for it was baselined?

I need to read The Space Shuttle Decision; but Jenkins' book and this forum give some excellent insights.  I love the Shuttle as much as the next guy (possibly more), but I don't think the final product was a good idea. 

No, throttling at max-q is done to prevent the entire stack from crumpling like an aluminum can under a truck tire.

The wings stay on because the stack flies at a slightly negative alpha-angle, where the wings essentially produce no lift.

IMO, Shuttle was probably hurt more by the decision to use an ET than anything else. It was the longest lead time and most expensive item. Even if every other system had worked flawlessly, ET's would have limited the flight rate to 24 per year.

S1C booster was very seriously looked at, but even Boeing had to admit that making it into a reusable, fly-back stage was more akin to a new design than retro-fitting an old one.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5593
  • Liked: 230
  • Spokane, WA
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #23 on: 04/03/2012 05:03 PM »
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's wrong to do an expendable design, I just believe, if we look at what one would do NOW, it would not look the least like Energia, maybe like a half-size Energia.

Even if you want a large crew cabin, glider for cross-range and all of that, you'll be fine with something twice the size of a Zenit or so to get that thing into orbit, gives you 25t to LEO, should be fine for a crew vehicle. Or something like Energia-M with around 30t. That's four times the weight of a Soyuz.

Reuse? May or may not be, you can decide on that later.

That same, still much smaller-than-Energia launcher that uses 1/3 of the number of engines the "big" Energia could be used for cargo launches as well with a similar payload capability to the "shuttle" systems. OK, now you need two launches but even together they still use fewer of your expensive components (engines) plus all your infrastructure can be much smaller and you gain flexibility.

And how many payloads that exceed 30t and really need to be brought up in one piece will you ever have?

No, had they built Energia-M instead of the big thing right away, we would probably see it fly even today (political issues between Russia and Ukraine aside).

Well, I think a reusable, large capsule would be fairly easy to do.  Its an efficient and simple design, and easy to make robust without adding a lot of mass, unlike a space plane.  A large version of the Gemini or Dragon capsule, except with all the features of the Shuttle cabin, plus an integral, internally stowed manipulator arm.  I think Orion is around 8mt, so Id think you could do something like that for 20mt.  Give it a very strong and well fueled RCS/OMS system so that it can maneuver itself and large payloads and act as a tractor/tug.  With a wall angle closer to Dragon than Apollo, the LAS/landing engines could act like SMME/OMS engines.  It would need to be designed to have enough fuel for OMS maneuvers, as well as land.  But an expendable upper stage would really do most of that work for orbital insertion.  The OMS/LAS thrusters would just be used for maneuvers.

My previous thoughts about a skinny core, with STS boosters was taking into account the desire for maximum reusability in the 70s.  Today we see that that didnt save any money, and SRBs introduced a lot of handling and safety issues.

Starting a little more clean-sheet, Id stick with the large reusable capsule tractor, landing like Dragon will, with a similar pusher LAS system.
For the LV, Id probably go with a single 5-6m RP-1 core, powered by F-1A engines (assuming we are in the 70s figuring out something more reusable and cheaper than Saturn, but more practical than STS), and an S-IVB upper stage.  Something thatd give you about 40-50mt.  Then if you wanted heavier lift, you can go with a two core, or three core.  2-core seems a little odd, but its not much different than the offset loads STS had anyway.  I believe the NLS concept had a 2-core config.  Youd just want to design enough gimbal in your engines to accommodate that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Launch_System

So, now you can launch a single core LV at about 50mt.  A two core LV at about 80-100mt, and a 3 core version at about 120-150mt (roughly).  The big one might require a stretched core S-IVB, but if the 3-cores are crossfed so the central core burns longer, maybe not.  All of your cores and engines are the same.  You have medium to heavy lift.  All of your logistics are the same.  You can modify the Saturn ML to accomodate 1, 2 or 3 cores, kind of like LC-37 accomodates single core D4, or 3-core D4H.  hopefully you could use just one upper stage for it all.
5-6m is a pretty good diameter for the core, because it allows for enough PLF size potential for heavy loads.  And you instruct DoD to use them for their launches, as Reagan did for them to use STS.  Except the LV cant be grounded based on some human safety issue like STS was after Challenger. 
I like this a little better than the STS hydrolox core.  So that you have total CCB commonality.

The boosters could eventually be developed into flyback boosters, if the system flew enough to make that feasible.  That could be a future evolution, but wouldnt be needed at first. 

Thats probably be my favorite design.  Sort of like AVP2 or FX, but obviously those didnt exist back in the 70s.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1654
  • Liked: 3
  • EU.Ro
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #24 on: 04/03/2012 08:31 PM »
How does the Shuttle Super Light Weight Tank compares to Energia's core ?
Is/was a SLWT even an option for Energia ?
Energia boosters were lifting from bottom, or from top ?


Offline Archibald

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1338
  • Liked: 14
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #25 on: 04/04/2012 01:52 PM »
The Saturn shuttle was not that bad, and that really what James Fletcher wanted as of September 1971. Nixon OMB decided otherwise, and four months later NASA ended with the compromised Matematica shuttle instead.

Still, even the Saturn shuttle had a couple of issues - how to reuse the S-IC, and the big external tank.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2012 01:53 PM by Archibald »
That logarithm in the rocket equation is rather annoying...

Offline oscar71

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • Liked: 0
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #26 on: 04/04/2012 03:21 PM »
"Yes. A good point. But if you don't reuse the Zenit stages it's an expensive solution, especially since there are four of them.
Yes, there were plans to recover and reuse them but then: how many Zenit stages have been recovered and reused?"


Wasn't NASA studying replacing the SRBs with expendable liquid rocket boosters in the 1980s?  If I remember correctly they predicted a cost savings.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3709
  • Liked: 18
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #27 on: 04/04/2012 03:44 PM »
If I were to choose a new design for the shuttle with I'd use the McDonnell Douglas concept as a starting point.
Though I'd change a few things such as the first stage would be hydrocarbon vs hydrogen fueled.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2012 03:47 PM by Patchouli »

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3613
  • Liked: 113
  • Earth
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #28 on: 04/04/2012 03:53 PM »
Well, I think a reusable, large capsule would be fairly easy to do.  Its an efficient and simple design, and easy to make robust without adding a lot of mass, unlike a space plane.  A large version of the Gemini or Dragon capsule, except with all the features of the Shuttle cabin, plus an integral, internally stowed manipulator arm.  I think Orion is around 8mt, so Id think you could do something like that for 20mt.  Give it a very strong and well fueled RCS/OMS system so that it can maneuver itself and large payloads and act as a tractor/tug.  With a wall angle closer to Dragon than Apollo, the LAS/landing engines could act like SMME/OMS engines.  It would need to be designed to have enough fuel for OMS maneuvers, as well as land.
I like that too.  Basically a F-X heavy and dragon 2.  Picturing a dragon 2 as using methane also though, and with a taller mould line (for when long "umbrella" satellites are in it).  Crew version would seat 25 or so.  But I would rather see this bypassed for a reusable F-XX heavy and "really big" dragon 2 combo.  ;)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21981.msg682814#msg682814  There's a big debate in this thread about capsule vs. wings for larger sized stuff.  The link pretty much arrives at the opening salvo.     

Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Online wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 558
  • Liked: 31
  • Wake Forest, NC
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #29 on: 04/04/2012 04:53 PM »
How does the Shuttle Super Light Weight Tank compares to Energia's core ?
Is/was a SLWT even an option for Energia ?
Energia boosters were lifting from bottom, or from top ?



Photos I've seen of the Energia booster show a similar, "ridged" intertank structure, so I'm guessing it had some sort of forward thrust beam like our ET. Also the LOX tank looked larger and plumbed to the LRB's, so I'm guessing the LRB's only tanked kersone. The larger LOX volume would have been extremely heavy, thus the boosters would have had to support all of that. All that screams "lifting from top".

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5593
  • Liked: 230
  • Spokane, WA
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #30 on: 04/04/2012 06:02 PM »
If I were to choose a new design for the shuttle with I'd use the McDonnell Douglas concept as a starting point.
Though I'd change a few things such as the first stage would be hydrocarbon vs hydrogen fueled.

Yes,
I agree.  If I had to choose a winged orbiter today, and maximum reusability was a program driver (as opposed to cheaper  expendibles.  IN which case I still like my triple 6m F-1A core design)  this seems like a much better plan.  RP-1 is better for a booster obviously, than LH2.  Your booster would be smaller too, with the denser RP-1.  Not to mention you reduce your foam/ice issues by not having that big LH2 tank to worry about.  Maybe they could have modified the S-IC (heavily modified), probably slimming it down and making it longer, but using some of the same systems, including the F-1A engines. 
After booster separation (which youd want to stage low enough that the booster can fly back and land), you could either build an LH2 system into the Orbiter, with say, a J2S engine, for a fully reusable system.  (although thatd cut into your usable payload volume of the orbiter).  Or design a disposable upper stage thatd mount on the rear of the orbiter and be air-lit as a 2nd stage that would get it to a disposal orbit (so the on-board OMS could do the circ burn like STS) or do the circ burn too, and have ullage motors which would dispose of the stage.
I imagine the latter would be best, so the orbiter itself would have enough usable volume to be similar to shuttle, and not need an even larger TPS.  Maybe use a modified S-IVB or larger Centaur stage?

Of course, this concept can be used with a large capsule too.  Then you dont have to worry about all the drawbacks to wings before landing.  Be easier to mount a disposable upper stage on too.

Makes you wonder why this design wasnt chosen in the 1970s?
« Last Edit: 04/04/2012 06:19 PM by Lobo »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5593
  • Liked: 230
  • Spokane, WA
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #31 on: 04/04/2012 06:13 PM »
Well, I think a reusable, large capsule would be fairly easy to do.  Its an efficient and simple design, and easy to make robust without adding a lot of mass, unlike a space plane.  A large version of the Gemini or Dragon capsule, except with all the features of the Shuttle cabin, plus an integral, internally stowed manipulator arm.  I think Orion is around 8mt, so Id think you could do something like that for 20mt.  Give it a very strong and well fueled RCS/OMS system so that it can maneuver itself and large payloads and act as a tractor/tug.  With a wall angle closer to Dragon than Apollo, the LAS/landing engines could act like SMME/OMS engines.  It would need to be designed to have enough fuel for OMS maneuvers, as well as land.
I like that too.  Basically a F-X heavy and dragon 2.  Picturing a dragon 2 as using methane also though, and with a taller mould line (for when long "umbrella" satellites are in it).  Crew version would seat 25 or so.  But I would rather see this bypassed for a reusable F-XX heavy and "really big" dragon 2 combo.  ;)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21981.msg682814#msg682814  There's a big debate in this thread about capsule vs. wings for larger sized stuff.  The link pretty much arrives at the opening salvo.     



Well, there wasnt an FX for FXX concept back in the 1970s era were we are setting this hypothetical.   We already had an FXX so to speak, with Saturn V, and the powers that be decided they didnt want that.  I already have a thread about if the Saturn V hadnt been canceled, what we might have today?  Almost heartbreaking to think about the possibilities.  It would have been refined, lightened, streamlined, and make cheaper and more efficient over time, just as all of our ELVs have been with the advent of automation and CAD in the interim years.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26667.0

This thread is about Saturn V still being cancelled, and a semi-reusable system needed to be designed and built no matter what.  How could we have done it better?

Something more along the FX or AVP2 size.  Then you can use the booster cores by themselves, or use them together to launch an orbiter or other heavy load. 
If FXX is desired, they could have just restarted the Saturn V line for that.

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21864
  • Liked: 58
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #32 on: 04/04/2012 10:45 PM »
This would have been the ultimate shuttle (in concept)

Now let me get out of here before Jim starts throwing things  ;D

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 2
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #33 on: 04/05/2012 01:30 AM »
IIRC, one of the early Shuttle program managers (Thompson?) said that selection of the expendable ET was the key decision that allowed the design to close.  And I don't think that they were all that expensive, are they?  Maybe $50M each?  Less than 10 percent of each launch.
F=ma


IMO, Shuttle was probably hurt more by the decision to use an ET than anything else. It was the longest lead time and most expensive item. Even if every other system had worked flawlessly, ET's would have limited the flight rate to 24 per year.


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5593
  • Liked: 230
  • Spokane, WA
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #34 on: 04/06/2012 05:47 PM »
This would have been the ultimate shuttle (in concept)

Now let me get out of here before Jim starts throwing things  ;D

VentureStar was pretty sweet in concept.  Just wondering if it every had actually been built and flown, and even if it operated properly, would it have suffered the issues the Shuttle did, but even several fold worse.  As in overhead costs?  I know the plan was for it to have been cheaper to mainain between flights than the Shuttle, but When the Shuttle was developed, I think it was projected to only need like a team of 100 techs, a few weeks to have it ready for launch again.  But it ended up being thousands of techs and months for a best case turn around.
Seems VentureStar would have been even more complex, than the most complex piece of machinery in the world was already, the shuttle.  YOu had a much larger surface area exposed to damage in LEO, and a much larger surface exposed to the extremes of reentry.  Seems those things would in reality necessitate a LOT more on ground process than originally thought (just as the Shuttle did), and wouldn't surprise me if significantly more than the Shuttle.

I think possibly for a replacement Shuttle, maybe combining Venturestar with the Old McDonnald-Douglas concept.  Then your orbiter could be much smaller, but all of your components could be reused.  Could even get clever with it, and have that stack take off from a runway like Venturestar was planned to, rather than like a rocket like the MD concept.  The carrier craft could be designed to add enough lift to the stack to get it off the runway, but it could have more traditional shape and construction LH2 tanks, rather than whatever new stuff Venturestar required.  Basically, just a big LH2/LOX tank with wings and landing gear.
The carrier craft would have higher-thrust engines like RS-68's to get the stack going from the ground.  THe Orbiter would have something more like J2S, or RL-60's.  It would have enough onboard propellant storage to get from the limit of the carrier craft to orbit.  But that'd be far less than Venturestar would need.  So it wouldn't have such a massive area needed to be covered with TPS.  So a two stage system could still be fully reusable, but wouldn't need so many new technologies and could use many more conventional technologies.
Just seems like trying to get all that into a SSTO reusable spaceplane required so many new technologies, that it would have pretty costly to develop, and probably would have had a lot more processing time between flights than they originally thought (like Shuttle).

A "Shuttle 2" could have used lighter materials, and more simple lifting body shape that required a smaller TPS, and could have used a metallic TPS. (get rid if those big wings if you can).  Although 2 stage, it still could be fully reusable and take off from a runway.  You could have acheived some of the goals of Venturestar, but it could have been cheaper, more conventional.  Just wouldn't be as sexy as full SSTO.
;-)

Offline spacecane

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Liked: 0
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #35 on: 04/26/2012 12:30 PM »
How important was being able to return payloads?  I would think it would make more sense to have internal fuel tanks (in a series staged design so that you need much less fuel in the orbiter) and external payload.  Then the expendable part of the design would just be a payload fairing.  Picture the payload attached to the belly (like the ET is only much smaller).  Then a payload fairing over it for ascent that can be jettisoned when high enough.

There would be a robot arm stowed that could reach around the bottom for deployment. 

If there was really a need to return payload you could bring up a reentry pod as a payload that would basically be an ablative heat shield and parachute with some thrusters for reentry.  The shuttle could grab the satellite, put it in the reentry pod and then the payload would enter and splash down somewhere.

The orbiter itself could have a small payload bay like a pickup truck bed.

Seems to me that it would be more cost effective to expend simple cheap payload fairings than complicated and expensive fuel tanks.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5593
  • Liked: 230
  • Spokane, WA
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #36 on: 04/26/2012 04:01 PM »
How important was being able to return payloads?  I would think it would make more sense to have internal fuel tanks (in a series staged design so that you need much less fuel in the orbiter) and external payload.  Then the expendable part of the design would just be a payload fairing.  Picture the payload attached to the belly (like the ET is only much smaller).  Then a payload fairing over it for ascent that can be jettisoned when high enough.

There would be a robot arm stowed that could reach around the bottom for deployment. 

If there was really a need to return payload you could bring up a reentry pod as a payload that would basically be an ablative heat shield and parachute with some thrusters for reentry.  The shuttle could grab the satellite, put it in the reentry pod and then the payload would enter and splash down somewhere.

The orbiter itself could have a small payload bay like a pickup truck bed.

Seems to me that it would be more cost effective to expend simple cheap payload fairings than complicated and expensive fuel tanks.

Interesting concept. 

I really think the large downmass and down volume capability of the Shuttles were never realized during STS.  NOt sure why.  either over estimated at the program's conception, or flight rates just never materialized enough to have programs that could really utilize it.  Some downmass is good, I know they are looking forward to Dragon's downmass capability.  So a shuttle with a small payload bay for [relatively] small downmass capability would probably be very useful.  Not sure how important the full shuttle payload bay turned out to be for bringing down satillites and such though.

Offline saturnapollo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Liked: 12
  • Edinburgh, UK
    • Space Models Photography
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #37 on: 04/26/2012 04:31 PM »
Although somewhat fictional, this was what I had in mind for a next generation shuttle. Definitely have to get away from the side mounted orbiter so I thought one mounted at the apex would allow for some sort of escape.

And again probably do not need a huge payload bay.

Keith

http://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega1g%20-%20small.jpg
http://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega3l%20SMALL.jpg
http://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega12h%20SMALL.jpg

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7085
  • Liked: 5
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #38 on: 04/26/2012 04:49 PM »
How important was being able to return payloads?  I would think it would make more sense to have internal fuel tanks (in a series staged design so that you need much less fuel in the orbiter) and external payload.  Then the expendable part of the design would just be a payload fairing.  Picture the payload attached to the belly (like the ET is only much smaller).  Then a payload fairing over it for ascent that can be jettisoned when high enough.

There would be a robot arm stowed that could reach around the bottom for deployment. 

If there was really a need to return payload you could bring up a reentry pod as a payload that would basically be an ablative heat shield and parachute with some thrusters for reentry.  The shuttle could grab the satellite, put it in the reentry pod and then the payload would enter and splash down somewhere.

The orbiter itself could have a small payload bay like a pickup truck bed.

Seems to me that it would be more cost effective to expend simple cheap payload fairings than complicated and expensive fuel tanks.
Shuttle II used a payload pod, but on its back:

https://sites.google.com/site/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/lrcsts2b.gif
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 jtrame

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Liked: 22
  • W4FJT
  • Knoxville, TN
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #39 on: 04/26/2012 05:59 PM »
Although somewhat fictional, this was what I had in mind for a next generation shuttle. Definitely have to get away from the side mounted orbiter so I thought one mounted at the apex would allow for some sort of escape.

And again probably do not need a huge payload bay.

Keith

http://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega1g%20-%20small.jpg
http://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega3l%20SMALL.jpg
http://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega12h%20SMALL.jpg

Nice. 

Tags: