Author Topic: Should Crew Dragon have ability to use SuperDracos for landing emergency?  (Read 57568 times)

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
I guess weíre going down the rabbit hole of ever decreasing likelihood and inefficient mitigation measures to address the final minute risks, itís a NASA thing.

Exactly. Compare today's NASA to 1960's NASA. The difference is extreme.


Every other capsule has only got parachutes for landing (soyuz touchdown solids excluded)
The Soyuz solids are only there to soften the blow. They are not critical for a safe landing. If they fail the crew still walks away from the capsule in one piece.

Nasa is paying for the ride so if they want the SDs shut down for EDL thatís ok.

That's not quite what was going on. NASA didn't order SpaceX to disable the SDs for EDL. What they basiscally said was this: "OK Elon, looks like those SDs can do the job. Now here's our list of requirements before we sign off on them". And then NASA stepped aside to reveal a Mount Everest sized pile of requirements.

Understandably, SpaceX dropped the SDs for landing there and then.
Emphasis mine.  The Soyuz retro rockets are for comfort measures only?  Interesting.
Paul

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12102
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18211
  • Likes Given: 12188
I guess weíre going down the rabbit hole of ever decreasing likelihood and inefficient mitigation measures to address the final minute risks, itís a NASA thing.

Exactly. Compare today's NASA to 1960's NASA. The difference is extreme.


Every other capsule has only got parachutes for landing (soyuz touchdown solids excluded)
The Soyuz solids are only there to soften the blow. They are not critical for a safe landing. If they fail the crew still walks away from the capsule in one piece.

Nasa is paying for the ride so if they want the SDs shut down for EDL thatís ok.

That's not quite what was going on. NASA didn't order SpaceX to disable the SDs for EDL. What they basiscally said was this: "OK Elon, looks like those SDs can do the job. Now here's our list of requirements before we sign off on them". And then NASA stepped aside to reveal a Mount Everest sized pile of requirements.

Understandably, SpaceX dropped the SDs for landing there and then.
Emphasis mine.  The Soyuz retro rockets are for comfort measures only?  Interesting.

Not comfort. For making the difference between walking away unbruised (with retro rockets firing) and bruised (retro rockets not firing). With the retro rockets NOT firing the crew walks away feeling like they have just driven into a brick wall.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2019 06:03 pm by woods170 »

Offline CJ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Liked: 1282
  • Likes Given: 540
IMHO, another way of framing the OPs question is, what are the risks involved in having the SD's armed and ready to activate (vs. rendered inoperable) in case of a parachute deployment failure? The hardware and prop is already along for the ride, so that issue is moot. My current assumption is that the only real risk factor is inadvertent activation during an otherwise nominal landing.

The question then becomes (IMHO) does the risk factor imparted to a nominal mission exceed the chances of a fatal-level parachute failure (such as a non-deploy of the drogue)? Parachute failures do occur, in both manned and unmanned spacecraft. (Soyuz lost a crew that way, and the Stardust comet probe made a nice hole in the Bonneville salt flats, to name two). So, it can happen.
 
If the risks of activation in a nominal scenario exceed the risk of LOC/LOV due to parachute failure, obviously the propulsive backup system should not be active. If, as appears quite likely, the risks of nominal activation are low enough (or can be made so) that overall survival odds increase, of course the system should be active if it's simple and easy to enable. In that scenario, blocking it for bureaucratic reasons would meet the legal threshold for criminal reckless endangerment IMHO. 

Assuming the current Dragon 2 retains the physical ability to propulsively land and the software to do so exists, even if the system is unproven to a degree that it's judged to have a 75% chance of killing the crew, it would still be very worthwhile provided that the risk to nominal missions is low enough to provide an overall increase in survival odds. (in a total parachute failure scenario sans a propulsive landing backup system, the odds of death are 100%, so in that case reducing it to a 75% chance of death would still be very worthwhile.) 

Activation of the SDs during an otherwise nominal landing appears to be the biggest risk factor. Could this be sufficiently mitigated by requiring crew consent to engage?     


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15431
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8616
  • Likes Given: 1362
I would rather see Dragon 2 coming down to land with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant.  That may be why they have to have four parachutes.

 - Ed Kyle

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12055
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7351
  • Likes Given: 3755
I would rather see Dragon 2 coming down to land with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant.  That may be why they have to have four parachutes.

 - Ed Kyle

Exactly. It is the mass of a full load of propellant that required the 4th parachute.
In the beginning, when Crew Dragon was first introduced, Mr. Musk stated that the Super Draco propellant would be totally consumed during a nominal mission. It would be used for either a launch abort with parachute recovery into the ocean or for a nominal powered EDL to a land location. Either way Crew Dragon would touch down with empty propellant tanks. Abort to parachute landing was always intended to be with empty propellant tanks. Dragon was designed to complete its return, either by parachute or propulsively, with empty propellant tanks.

NASA's inability to move forward with propulsive landing without horrendous, and in my opinion, mountains of unnecessary paperwork is what directly led to parachute landings with full propellant tanks. Having grown up in the days of "the Right Stuff", and actually participating in it myself in my day job, I can only say that my sorrow at today's NASA's utter lack of intestinal fortitude and technical foresight is beyond anyone's capability to measure.

It is also why, again in my opinion, Mr. Musk wants nothing to do with NASA as Starship moves forward in its development, testing and deployment. He would actually like to see it become operational in his lifetime and NASA involvement would likely preclude that. The only involvement that I foresee for Starship is a docking hatch that allows docking to ISS or other NASA spacecraft. Beyond that - nothing.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2019 10:50 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline CJ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Liked: 1282
  • Likes Given: 540
I would rather see Dragon 2 coming down to land with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant.  That may be why they have to have four parachutes.

 - Ed Kyle

IMHO, that adds risk (an unneeded burn of the SDs). A small risk, but a risk. The question is, is the risk it adds greater than the risk reduction of omitting one parachute? I have utterly no clue how to examine that.

Regarding a SD burn prior to entry, one way to do it so as not to change the reentry profile (making it too steep would not be good) would be an inclination change burn with the SDs after the de-orbit burn with the Dracos. That way, there would be no impact on entry angle or velocity.

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6472
  • Liked: 4581
  • Likes Given: 5175
I would rather see Dragon 2 coming down to land with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant.  That may be why they have to have four parachutes.

 - Ed Kyle

IMHO, that adds risk (an unneeded burn of the SDs). A small risk, but a risk. The question is, is the risk it adds greater than the risk reduction of omitting one parachute? I have utterly no clue how to examine that.

Regarding a SD burn prior to entry, one way to do it so as not to change the reentry profile (making it too steep would not be good) would be an inclination change burn with the SDs after the de-orbit burn with the Dracos. That way, there would be no impact on entry angle or velocity.

This is almost a comical debate.
Ed's preference, however shared but irrelevant, is not to have the hypergolic fuel near the astronauts after descent.  Duh.
CJ is stating that a specific way of dumping the fuel increases risk.

Half the value of the Soviet side, the part that will remain after Starliner and Dragon 2 are operational, is bringing up fuel and boosting the ISS.   
So with Dragon 2, NASA has tons of excess fuel and big engines to burn it on orbit, but rather than figuring out how to use it, they march straight ahead, blinders on, and bring it back to Earth under 4 parachutes, which despite being "established technology" they admit only SpaceX has figured out how to really model.
(Please don't state the obvious about the direction of thrust.  That's not an insurmountable issue.)

what clongton said

edit: But that's not to the subject of this thread.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2019 11:54 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12102
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18211
  • Likes Given: 12188
I would rather see Dragon 2 coming down to land with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant.  That may be why they have to have four parachutes.

 - Ed Kyle

They are also going up to space "wrapped in lots of (hopefully) unnecessary hypergolic propellant". And you don't have a problem with that?

What about the Apollo crews that went down to the surface of the Moon in a flimsy lunar lander loaded with tons and tons of hypergolic propellant? You got a problem with that too?
How about the cosmonauts in Zvezda? The entire aft end of that module is surrounded with propellant tanks loaded with hypergolic propellant. I don't hear you complaining about that.
I find your comment rather bizarre.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2019 07:11 pm by woods170 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15431
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8616
  • Likes Given: 1362
I would rather see Dragon 2 coming down to land with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant.  That may be why they have to have four parachutes.

 - Ed Kyle

They are also going up to space "wrapped in lots of (hopefully) unnecessary hypergolic propellant". And you don't have a problem with that?

What about the Apollo crews that went down to the surface of the Moon in a flimsy lunar lander loaded with tons and tons of hypergolic propellant? You got a problem with that too?
How about the cosmonauts in Zvezda? The entire aft end of that module is surrounded with propellant tanks loaded with hypergolic propellant. I don't hear you complaining about that.
I find your comment rather bizarre.

Boeing has found a way to return its crew without its escape propellant still aboard.  Apollo did it.  Soyuz does it.  Shenzhou too.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12102
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18211
  • Likes Given: 12188
I would rather see Dragon 2 coming down to land with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant.  That may be why they have to have four parachutes.

 - Ed Kyle

They are also going up to space "wrapped in lots of (hopefully) unnecessary hypergolic propellant". And you don't have a problem with that?

What about the Apollo crews that went down to the surface of the Moon in a flimsy lunar lander loaded with tons and tons of hypergolic propellant? You got a problem with that too?
How about the cosmonauts in Zvezda? The entire aft end of that module is surrounded with propellant tanks loaded with hypergolic propellant. I don't hear you complaining about that.
I find your comment rather bizarre.

Boeing has found a way to return its crew without its escape propellant still aboard.  Apollo did it.  Soyuz does it.  Shenzhou too.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

That's not the point. You specifically mentioned this:

..with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant..

My question is: why do you consider returning to Earth with hypergolic propellant in close proximity to the crew anymore (or less) desirable than having the crew in close proximity of hypergolic propellants during launch, on-orbit operations or landing on the Moon?

Merely pointing out that prior spacecraft did it differently does not adequately explain your earlier post. You must have a reason. But you haven't provided the reason.

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
I would rather see Dragon 2 coming down to land with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant.  That may be why they have to have four parachutes.

 - Ed Kyle

They are also going up to space "wrapped in lots of (hopefully) unnecessary hypergolic propellant". And you don't have a problem with that?

What about the Apollo crews that went down to the surface of the Moon in a flimsy lunar lander loaded with tons and tons of hypergolic propellant? You got a problem with that too?
How about the cosmonauts in Zvezda? The entire aft end of that module is surrounded with propellant tanks loaded with hypergolic propellant. I don't hear you complaining about that.
I find your comment rather bizarre.

Boeing has found a way to return its crew without its escape propellant still aboard.  Apollo did it.  Soyuz does it.  Shenzhou too.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

That's not the point. You specifically mentioned this:

..with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant..

My question is: why do you consider returning to Earth with hypergolic propellant in close proximity to the crew anymore (or less) desirable than having the crew in close proximity of hypergolic propellants during launch, on-orbit operations or landing on the Moon?

Merely pointing out that prior spacecraft did it differently does not adequately explain your earlier post. You must have a reason. But you haven't provided the reason.

Because
1) On launch, you are going up to space, and in the space you are going to be in a craft which has a pressure vessel with a life support system protecting the crew from any hazaroous gases which come out from the engines.

But when going down, you are going to want to come out from your craft, without a space suit and life support system. And then the hazarous gases around the craft are dangerous.

2) When going up, the craft is not going supposed to have a very-high-g crash event, only gradual increase of g-forces from the engines. When going down, there may be a very high-g event during touchdown. There is considerably higher risk of propellant tank failure at touchdown(which is a very-high-g crash event) than at any point of liftoff.

3) This was about unnecessary hypergolics. THe hypergolics are not unnecessary when going up, because they are needed for maneuvering in space.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2019 08:51 pm by hkultala »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12102
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18211
  • Likes Given: 12188
I would rather see Dragon 2 coming down to land with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant.  That may be why they have to have four parachutes.

 - Ed Kyle

They are also going up to space "wrapped in lots of (hopefully) unnecessary hypergolic propellant". And you don't have a problem with that?

What about the Apollo crews that went down to the surface of the Moon in a flimsy lunar lander loaded with tons and tons of hypergolic propellant? You got a problem with that too?
How about the cosmonauts in Zvezda? The entire aft end of that module is surrounded with propellant tanks loaded with hypergolic propellant. I don't hear you complaining about that.
I find your comment rather bizarre.

Boeing has found a way to return its crew without its escape propellant still aboard.  Apollo did it.  Soyuz does it.  Shenzhou too.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

That's not the point. You specifically mentioned this:

..with its crew *not* wrapped in lots of unnecessary hypergolic propellant..

My question is: why do you consider returning to Earth with hypergolic propellant in close proximity to the crew anymore (or less) desirable than having the crew in close proximity of hypergolic propellants during launch, on-orbit operations or landing on the Moon?

Merely pointing out that prior spacecraft did it differently does not adequately explain your earlier post. You must have a reason. But you haven't provided the reason.

Because
1) On launch, you are going up to space, and in the space you are going to be in a craft which has a pressure vessel with a life support system protecting the crew from any hazaroous gases which come out from the engines.
But when going down, you are going to want to come out from your craft, without a space suit and life support system. And then the hazarous gases around the craft are dangerous.
Emphasis mine.

One of the requirements set by NASA is that the CCP providers have to quarantee that on a nominal landing NO dangerous gases and or vapours are coming from the spacecraft.
In other words: on a nominal landing all the hypergolics must be contained by the seals, valves, etc. Exactly like how they are contained by seals and valves during spacecraft processing, roll-out to launchpad, on-pad processing, crew entry, close-out and launch.


2) When going up, the craft is not going supposed to have a very-high-g crash event, only gradual increase of g-forces from the engines. When going down, there may be a very high-g event during touchdown. There is considerably higher risk of propellant tank failure at touchdown(which is a very-high-g crash event) than at any point of liftoff.
Crew Dragon has been designed such that any high-g event during touchdown, capable of breaching the propellant tanks or seals or valves, has already killed the crew due to high-g effects.
That was pretty much proven during the static fire test failure. A very high-g event (an explosion) ejected the propellant tanks from the spacecraft wreckage. Several of them (the ones not directly breached by the explosion itself) remained fully intact and contained their propellant load. This in turn became a headache for SpaceX and USAF because they had to figure out how to safely unload those tanks in-situ.


3) This was about unnecessary hypergolics. THe hypergolics are not unnecessary when going up, because they are needed for maneuvering in space.
Had you bothered to read Ed's original post more carefully you would have understood that Ed only mentions "unnecessary" hypergolics on landing.




Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15431
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8616
  • Likes Given: 1362
My question is: why do you consider returning to Earth with hypergolic propellant in close proximity to the crew anymore (or less) desirable than having the crew in close proximity of hypergolic propellants during launch, on-orbit operations or landing on the Moon?

Merely pointing out that prior spacecraft did it differently does not adequately explain your earlier post. You must have a reason. But you haven't provided the reason.
First, which is riskier, Dragon 2 descending with substantial abort propellant or Starliner without?
 
Second, and more important in my mind, is the increased landing mass due to the unused propellant - propellant that has no purpose after the first few minutes of flight.  It is a waste to orbit this mass - and to return it to Earth unused.  The extra mass means less useful payload mass to orbit, and it makes the landing more complicated and risky than it need be.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 10/08/2019 03:50 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline dondar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 299
  • Likes Given: 260
My question is: why do you consider returning to Earth with hypergolic propellant in close proximity to the crew anymore (or less) desirable than having the crew in close proximity of hypergolic propellants during launch, on-orbit operations or landing on the Moon?

Merely pointing out that prior spacecraft did it differently does not adequately explain your earlier post. You must have a reason. But you haven't provided the reason.
First, which is riskier, Dragon 2 descending with substantial abort propellant or Starliner without?
 
Second, and more important in my mind, is the increased landing mass due to the unused propellant - propellant that has no purpose after the first few minutes of flight.  It is a waste to orbit this mass - and to return it to Earth unused.  The extra mass means less useful payload mass to orbit, and it makes the landing more complicated and risky than it need be.

 - Ed Kyle
what do you know about Starliner design actually???

Boeing abort engines are bundled together with orbital engines in the service module which they eject during landing trajectory.
P.S. I find quite ironical to see SpaceX discarding Dragons which were conceived with re-usability in mind, and Boeing boasting about re-usability of yet another conversion of the classical 2part capsule design....

Offline whitelancer64

Boeing has found a way to return its crew without its escape propellant still aboard.  Apollo did it.  Soyuz does it.  Shenzhou too.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

So you would propose that SpaceX put everything on hold and radically redesign their capsule so that the LAS is jettisonable at some point before reentry.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline kessdawg

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 1556
Boeing has found a way to return its crew without its escape propellant still aboard.  Apollo did it.  Soyuz does it.  Shenzhou too.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

So you would propose that SpaceX put everything on hold and radically redesign their capsule so that the LAS is jettisonable at some point before reentry.

Additionally, what happens if this new LAS fails to jettison?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8148
  • Liked: 6810
  • Likes Given: 2965
My question is: why do you consider returning to Earth with hypergolic propellant in close proximity to the crew anymore (or less) desirable than having the crew in close proximity of hypergolic propellants during launch, on-orbit operations or landing on the Moon?

Merely pointing out that prior spacecraft did it differently does not adequately explain your earlier post. You must have a reason. But you haven't provided the reason.
First, which is riskier, Dragon 2 descending with substantial abort propellant or Starliner without?
 
Second, and more important in my mind, is the increased landing mass due to the unused propellant - propellant that has no purpose after the first few minutes of flight.  It is a waste to orbit this mass - and to return it to Earth unused.  The extra mass means less useful payload mass to orbit, and it makes the landing more complicated and risky than it need be.

 - Ed Kyle

I don't think that the abort system mass actually reduces useful payload mass to orbit at all. Falcon 9 can easily put Crew Dragon in ISS orbit with booster recovery so the extra mass is no problem on the way up.

I do agree that carrying abort propellants all the way to splashdown is unnecessary and adds risk. I think they should be burned off on orbit. Preferably to reboost ISS, but if that's operationally infeasible then they should just be burned off before deorbiting.

Offline rsdavis9

My question is: why do you consider returning to Earth with hypergolic propellant in close proximity to the crew anymore (or less) desirable than having the crew in close proximity of hypergolic propellants during launch, on-orbit operations or landing on the Moon?

Merely pointing out that prior spacecraft did it differently does not adequately explain your earlier post. You must have a reason. But you haven't provided the reason.
First, which is riskier, Dragon 2 descending with substantial abort propellant or Starliner without?
 
Second, and more important in my mind, is the increased landing mass due to the unused propellant - propellant that has no purpose after the first few minutes of flight.  It is a waste to orbit this mass - and to return it to Earth unused.  The extra mass means less useful payload mass to orbit, and it makes the landing more complicated and risky than it need be.

 - Ed Kyle

I don't think that the abort system mass actually reduces useful payload mass to orbit at all. Falcon 9 can easily put Crew Dragon in ISS orbit with booster recovery so the extra mass is no problem on the way up.

I do agree that carrying abort propellants all the way to splashdown is unnecessary and adds risk. I think they should be burned off on orbit. Preferably to reboost ISS, but if that's operationally infeasible then they should just be burned off before deorbiting.

Is venting them on orbit out of the question. I assume they will all turn to gas.
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline whitelancer64

Boeing has found a way to return its crew without its escape propellant still aboard.  Apollo did it.  Soyuz does it.  Shenzhou too.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

So you would propose that SpaceX put everything on hold and radically redesign their capsule so that the LAS is jettisonable at some point before reentry.

Additionally, what happens if this new LAS fails to jettison?

Presumably the same thing that would happen to Starliner, Apollo, Soyuz, and Shenzhou -- loss of vehicle and crew. Starliner would be able to enter orbit and complete its mission, but I presume it would be unstable when it hit the atmosphere and therefore would tumble, probably break apart. Apollo, Soyuz, and Shenzhou would have been unable to complete their missions or reenter safely, and certainly would not have been able to deploy their parachutes.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline rsdavis9

Boeing has found a way to return its crew without its escape propellant still aboard.  Apollo did it.  Soyuz does it.  Shenzhou too.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

So you would propose that SpaceX put everything on hold and radically redesign their capsule so that the LAS is jettisonable at some point before reentry.

Additionally, what happens if this new LAS fails to jettison?

Presumably the same thing that would happen to Starliner, Apollo, Soyuz, and Shenzhou -- loss of vehicle and crew. Starliner would be able to enter orbit and complete its mission, but I presume it would be unstable when it hit the atmosphere and therefore would tumble, probably break apart. Apollo, Soyuz, and Shenzhou would have been unable to complete their missions or reenter safely, and certainly would not have been able to deploy their parachutes.

additionally the de-orbit burn for the various spacecraft are located where:
1. dragon 2 - in reentering spacecraft
2. Soyuz - in trunk?
3. Apollo - in trunk?
4. Shenzhou - in trunk?

If yes to 2-4. Then after they are committed to reentry (from the burn) they must separate trunk or die.
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Tags:
 

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