Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 669163 times)

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
the Republicans that count, the ones in direct control of NASA, want government controlled rockets and HSF to continue. 

Just to clarify, there are too many, not saying you are one but they are "out there", that want to draw overly-simplistic lines.

Republicans are not anti-commercial and pro-government anymore than all democrats are anti-government and pro-commercial. 

With SLS, NASA has the potential oppurtunity to develop an HLV based on existing and known technology to be a component in beyond LEO work and exploration.  There is no "commercial" HLV in this lift class.

Since that does not exist, and the market does not support it, NASA builds it. 

This should not be seen as anti-commercial.  It is a capability the government provides when a commercial alternative does not exist.  This is no different than any other point in history nor is it unique to NASA. 

Should Orion and SLS ever exist, they will serve as a back-up to commercial crew and cargo to the ISS, etc.  Not the other way around.  Orion and SLS for LEO/ISS should commercial fail or not live up to expectations is a strategically smart thing to do.

Yet none of this will likely happen with a CR.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jnc

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
  • Yorktown, Virginia
    • Home page
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
3) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  After the election, the new Congress gets together and develops a compromise with the most likely outcome that money is siphoned from the 'long shot' commercial option, tech development and robotic exploration so as to mitigate the effects of the delay on the Orion/SLS system.  IMHO, this is the most likely outcome;

4) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  Post-election, the horse-trading runs on for a long time because entrenched elements in the House want Ares-I or nothing.  Meanwhile the shuttle infrastructure goes away and NASA continues to cancel CxP elements "in preparation for the upcoming transition".  Congress demands a halt to this, NASA, citing obscure legal obligations, ignores them.  Once the compromise is reached, whatever it is, it is suddenly realised that there are no longer the tools to carry it out. ... We may very possibly see the counter being zeroed and NASA being told to start from square one, possibly on a kerolox-core HLV.  Once again, the budget is utterly insufficient for NASA's grandiose plans and NASA demonstrates its typical inability to understand this.  Commercial crew crawls along with minimal or non-existant federal funding and reaches flying state in the 2020s, if at all.

Excellent analysis. My only quibble would be to rate your last possibility as equally likely with the one before.

Noel
"America Needs - Space to Grow"

(old bumper sticker)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Hate to tell you, but if Ares I is continued that is HSF for the next 30 years.  No Ares V, no commercial launchers, just Ares I/Orion to LEO. Just look that the F-22 and V-22 program, despite a huge movement to cancel the programs in the early stages they still continued due to special interests, and even after all the subsequent delays and overruns they did enter production.  That is what will happen to the HSF program if there is a CR.

The hole in your argument is that the Ares I is not ready to launch.  The Augustine Commission predicted the first crewed launch of the Ares I would be in  2017-2019 (under last years budget).  That is longer than Project Apollo.

Currently Ares I is being supported by its own R&D money plus Shuttle operations money.  When the last Shuttle lands the operations money goes away followed by the contractors' jobs.  A pork programme that creates unemployment is a lot less popular in Congress.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The fact that Ares 1 is not ready is not a hole in his arguement.  It is his point and it is correct. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15710
  • Liked: 6000
  • Likes Given: 2643
Ares I is way behind schedule and is having major performance difficulties. Sooner or later it will become obvious to everybody that Ares I cannot compete with EELV and Orion cannot compete with Dragon for ISS support. And Ares I cannot support exploration without Ares V, and probably not even with Ares V without propellant transfer in light of its performance problems. It is one doomed rocket.

The simple problem is that the Powers That Be don't accept that it is doomed and won't accept it.  Many of them believe that it is vital and the only thing that can do the job and have argued with the strongest rhetoric that it is a minimum necessity.  Letting it go now is tantamount to admitting that they are wrong, something that they would never do.

The way I see it, the scenarios are like this:

1) The House blinks and a Senate-like bill is passed (just on the very edge of being possible).  Result - SLS starts this year; It isn't really DIRECT but has DIRECT-like elements.  Fine-tuning might tighten its timeline and reduce its costs;

2) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  The incoming right-wing Congress demands massive budget cuts and all HSF work is put on indefinate hiatus.  The timelines for CST-100 and Dragon soar out to the right as all government subsidies fade away (because any kind of government funding is anti-free enterprise and therefore anathema to the right-wing mind);

3) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  After the election, the new Congress gets together and develops a compromise with the most likely outcome that money is siphoned from the 'long shot' commercial option, tech development and robotic exploration so as to mitigate the effects of the delay on the Orion/SLS system.  IMHO, this is the most likely outcome;

4) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  Post-election, the horse-trading runs on for a long time because entrenched elements in the House want Ares-I or nothing.  Meanwhile the shuttle infrastructure goes away and NASA continues to cancel CxP elements "in preparation for the upcoming transition".  Congress demands a halt to this, NASA, citing obscure legal obligations, ignores them.  Once the compromise is reached, whatever it is, it is suddenly realised that there are no longer the tools to carry it out.  The political barriers to utilisation of any commercial system remain high.  We may very possibly see the counter being zeroed and NASA being told to start from square one, possibly on a kerolox-core HLV.  Once again, the budget is utterly insufficient for NASA's grandiose plans and NASA demonstrates its typical inability to understand this.  Commercial crew crawls along with minimal or non-existant federal funding and reaches flying state in the 2020s, if at all.

A continuing resolution is likely for reasons other than NASA. It has happenned in the last few years. So it wouldn't be a surprise. The only question is whether the authorizing bill is passed before the continuing resolution. If it isn't, it becomes more complicated. But there is middle ground solutions: one would be to rescind the obligation to not cancel Constellation which was introduced in the FY2010 appropriation bill. This would allow NASA more leeway which would allow it to modify Constellation.

In other words, I don't think that a continuing resolution necessarely means that Constellation must be continued without modifications. This is only the case because of the language introduced in the FY 2010 appropriation bill. But that language can be changed in the FY 2011 continuing resolution. If Congress changes this language, NASA can change parts of Constellation and essentially adopt the flexible path with a SD-HLV (which is essentially a modified version of Constellation anyways). I would be surprised if a solution by Congress isn't found. If they leave this as an open item before the election, they will be seen as dropping the ball. They can't blame the President on this and they know it. 
« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 05:46 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7200
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
You fail to understand the likely outcome.  NASA will not be out of the launch business. To ensure that NASA will not be out of the launch business, commercial crew and possibly tech development will be strangled at birth to ensure that some breed of SLS comes into existence.

Those are not essential and they can't kill Dragon. Also remember that NASA will be getting out of the launch business very, very soon, for at least a couple of years, while ULA, SpaceX and Orbital won't.

Once again, you miss the point.  It isn't about 'killing' anything.  It is about starving it of funding to the point that its development takes as much as a decade and thus it enters service after the de-orbit of ISS.  Without that 'anchor customer', Commercial Crew will be hard-pressed to make much headway.

Don't forget that getting NASA back into the launch business is a political priority for reasons of national prestige (making the case for SLS paradoxically stronger in a right-wing Congress). It will probably be such a high priority that funding will be diverted from other programs to that end.

Quote
Quote
Understand, Martjin, that they won't give up.  Giving up means that they were wrong and that is the one thing that they will never, ever accept.

Who are "they"? How much influence will they have in a new Congress?

They are the power-brokers (most notably figures like Senator Shelby) in Congress and also the lobbyists for OldSpace.  They are so heavily-entrenched that they are essentially immune to removal until they choose to retire.  The lobbyists want their companies to get the guaranteed giga-bucks of SLS, not the dribble of milestone awards of commercial development.

Quote
How much influence will they have once much of the Shuttle workforce and supply chain is dismantled?

Still more than ULA; The politicians apparently are hard-pressed to remember that they even exist.  ULA does not seem to be in a hurry to remind them either, given their silence in the post-Augustine phase.

Quote
Quote
The most that we can hope for right now is an Orion/SLS being adopted swiftly in a bill that allows for the development of commercial crew and the infrastructure related to commercial BEO in parallel to the SLS program.

Falcon/Dragon or EELV/Orion is all we need and we will probably end up with both. Dreamchaser and CST-100 are not crucial. Depots aren't crucial. And you can always try to reintroduce them later. Only SDLV doesn't have that luxury.

I'm sure this is likely in your head.  However, you forget that Orion is being heavily-optimised for Ares-I's extremely flaky performance.  It would cost money to convert it for flight on an EELV, money that simply isn't available after billions are spent on a hopeless drive to get Ares-I flyable that could last half a decade or more.  The same billions that would have been sucked from CCDev, slowing CST-100 and Crewed Dragon down to the point where they do not enter service before the retirement of the ISS.

There might be some post-ISS commercial-only developments in LEO.  However, in this "doomsday" scenario, years and possibly decades would have been lost and the last tatters of political support for any kind of space exploration would have been squandered.  BEO no earlier than 2050 will suddenly be a very real possibility.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 380
Here's a crazy question..

If, by some twist of unholy fate(act of congress), we end up stuck with Ares-1.. and J-2X is not required for whatever SLS is proposed(as seems to be the case currently). 

Wouldn't it make sense to switch Ares-1 back to Air Start SSME?  Air Start SSME has already been proposed for use in some SLS variants(with seperate RL-10/60 dervied EDS)

How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?
« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 07:57 pm by TrueBlueWitt »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7200
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?

As I understand it, an SSME upper stage Ares-I would be hypothetically able to launch a 25t Orion to the ISS with a four-seg core.


[edit]
Whoops! Fixed quote
« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 07:57 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Good summary of current status

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1695/1

Meanwhile, there are efforts in Congress to try and reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills. At a separate space policy forum in Washington on Friday, organized by the University of Nebraska College of Law, Jeff Bingham, a staffer on the Senate Commerce Committee, said there was “preconferencing” underway to try and smooth out the differences between the two bills before the House votes on a bill, but couldn’t discuss the details about the negotiations. Such negotiations might be critical to the eventual passage of any authorization bill, as some fear that if the House passes its own version, there may not be the time or ability to go through a formal conference committee process to work out differences between the final House and Senate versions, even if Congress returns for a “lame duck” session after the November elections.

Bingham said that the Senate’s version, which passed by unanimous consent, was itself crafted as a compromise to deal with differing opinions among senators about NASA’s future direction. “What you end up with, inevitably, is a bill that no one really loves, but that everybody likes and can accept,” he said.

Offline Chris Bergin

To all:

Keep it civil at all times, or lose your post.

If you want to have a shouting match, go to another site, or lose your posts.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 380
How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?

As I understand it, an SSME upper stage Ares-I would be hypothetically able to launch a 25t Orion to the ISS with a four-seg core.


[edit]
Whoops! Fixed quote

That much I knew already..  With the extra thrust of the 5-seg and SSME could you switch to an 8.4m tanked Upper Stage.. that would be common with an intermediate stage for SLS?
« Last Edit: 09/13/2010 08:38 pm by TrueBlueWitt »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7200
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?

As I understand it, an SSME upper stage Ares-I would be hypothetically able to launch a 25t Orion to the ISS with a four-seg core.


[edit]
Whoops! Fixed quote

That much I knew already..  With the extra thrust of the 5-seg and SSME could you switch to an 8.4m tanked Upper Stage.. that would be common with an intermediate stage for SLS?

No, you couldn't.  The 8.4m tank would be too heavy as well as being unstable beyond the ability of engineering to fix.  A longer 5.5m AIUS might be possible though.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2080
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1706
  • Likes Given: 940
And the comparison to V-22 is a good one.  For a while there, V-22 had killed more Marines than any Al-Qaeda attack.  And now, they're afraid to use 'em, because they might get shot down.  And then they'll tell me that I can demonstrate patriotism by purchasing cheap Chinese sh...stuff at the mall.  And what do I know anyhow... [Takes deep breath...]
I had a chance to talk with a V-22 crew last year shortly after they returned from combat.  In the discussion was a helicopter pilot who had flown in Vietnam.  The V-22 crew said that the problems have been for the most part been worked out and love their aircraft.  They said that some of the early problems were training issues on how to fly the aircraft.  They said they could get in and our of an LZ very quickly and it was a very effective aircraft.  So I don't know if the V-22 analogy is quite right.  It is however very expensive.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 454
any cancellation steps the Administration has taken will be reversed in the CR.


What you would be looking at is no "real" Constellation Program, people still being cut loose.  You would be looking at no Shuttle Program. 

CxP never was a real exploration program.
 It was under funded and they choose a less then ideal architecture that certainly was not the most affordable.

Most other return to the moon proposals such as ELA,LANTR,LUNOX and HLR avioded an Apollo style architecture for a number of very good reasons.

When I saw the mess called ESAS for the first time I knew at best this would be a repetition of Apollo and would not open the the door to exploration of the rest of the solar system.

Constellation might have put another handful of people on the moon but we would not be staying nor going on the Mars.
Over all it could even had delayed things by eating up money for R&D on advanced propulsion,RLVs,advance life support, and fuel depots.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2010 04:55 am by Patchouli »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1120
  • Likes Given: 664
... They said they could get in and our of an LZ very quickly and it was a very effective aircraft.  So I don't know if the V-22 analogy is quite right.  It is however very expensive.

That was my understanding as well, that the V-22 now works pretty well.  Ask your pals if the LZ they were working in was under fire.  My current understanding is that the asset is considered to be too expensive to risk in that situation.  If that's changed, it would mean that they have a much greater confidence in the vehicle than earlier.  Plus that particular analogy had a limited lifetime.

Per:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell-Boeing_V-22_Osprey

The flyaway cost in 2010 was $67M per unit.  For the Blackhawk helicopter, $14M, per:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_UH-60_Black_Hawk

For every two V-22's you could get nine Blackhawks.  I believe that if I were running a battlefield, that I could get more done with nine vehicles than two.  This is not the current thinking however, and I'm not the expert, and I digress a bit.

However, the original point was that some programs are rammed thru the procurement process despite factual and common sense objections to the contrary.  Today's example would be the alternate F-35 engine.  Is this anyway to run an airline? Air Force? Space Program?

... Over all it could even had delayed things by eating up money for R&D on advanced propulsion, RLVs, advance life support, and fuel depots.

True, but I object to the first item on the list.  There should be a temporary moratorium on "advanced propulsion", for example.  My prioritization would spend that money building stuff, not researching stuff.  The R&D money is not well prioritized, and it is delaying mission accomplishment by delaying the fixing of specifications in the ever distant hope and promise of the unclear future.  It's almost like the software industry these days:  "Just wait for the next version... It fixes all those bugs interfering with printing...."
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?

As I understand it, an SSME upper stage Ares-I would be hypothetically able to launch a 25t Orion to the ISS with a four-seg core.


That much I knew already..  With the extra thrust of the 5-seg and SSME could you switch to an 8.4m tanked Upper Stage.. that would be common with an intermediate stage for SLS?

It would be in the 27mT class approximately the same as RS-68A Delta IV Heavy. More importantly it would actually get that performance whereas the Isp of the production J-2X is still to be determined meaning that Ares I probably won't hit its 26mT design performance.

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 380
How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?

As I understand it, an SSME upper stage Ares-I would be hypothetically able to launch a 25t Orion to the ISS with a four-seg core.


That much I knew already..  With the extra thrust of the 5-seg and SSME could you switch to an 8.4m tanked Upper Stage.. that would be common with an intermediate stage for SLS?

It would be in the 27mT class approximately the same as RS-68A Delta IV Heavy. More importantly it would actually get that performance whereas the Isp of the production J-2X is still to be determined meaning that Ares I probably won't hit its 26mT design performance.

Thanks..

I am also dubious J-2X version could hit 26mT or even 24mT for that matter.. 

I would also have thought 5-Seg algong with SSME with it's significantly better ISP and ability to fly with a heavier(more fuel) US, without major gravity losses, would have put it closer to 30mT.. but that was a total SWAG on my end.

I am not arguing that this is a better solution than RS-68A D-IV Heavy..(or anything else for that matter!)  Just that if we do get stuck with it.. let's at least give it half a chance(by using SSME) of lifting a beyond LEO capable Orion with some margin to spare.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11668
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 6330
  • Likes Given: 3098
Your "goals" are misguided.  Whatever you think a CR will do for your "goals" are incorrect.

Many SDLV supporters will agree Ares I would be a disaster for the Shuttle workforce. They seem to agree it would get NASA out of the launch business. That's one of my goals, and a means to higher level goals.

Hate to tell you, but if Ares I is continued that is HSF for the next 30 years.  No Ares V, no commercial launchers, just Ares I/Orion to LEO. Just look that the F-22 and V-22 program, despite a huge movement to cancel the programs in the early stages they still continued due to special interests, and even after all the subsequent delays and overruns they did enter production.  That is what will happen to the HSF program if there is a CR.

That is exactly what we (DIRECT) have been saying for almost 5 years. NASA is only going to get to build ONE new launch vehicle. Congress will say "look, we saved American HSF" and then forget all about it and go build the next bridge to nowhere. If Ares-I limps along until it is actually flying, that will be the end of any new LV development for at least a generation, maybe longer, with no HLV and no CCDev.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2010 03:10 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2080
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1706
  • Likes Given: 940
... They said they could get in and our of an LZ very quickly and it was a very effective aircraft.  So I don't know if the V-22 analogy is quite right.  It is however very expensive.

That was my understanding as well, that the V-22 now works pretty well.  Ask your pals if the LZ they were working in was under fire.  My current understanding is that the asset is considered to be too expensive to risk in that situation.  If that's changed, it would mean that they have a much greater confidence in the vehicle than earlier.  Plus that particular analogy had a limited lifetime.

For every two V-22's you could get nine Blackhawks.  I believe that if I were running a battlefield, that I could get more done with nine vehicles than two.  This is not the current thinking however, and I'm not the expert, and I digress a bit.
V-22s to Blackhawks is in some ways an apples to oranges comparison.  The V-22 has greater range, greater speed and greater payload.  Because of that it can do some missions a Blackhawk cannot.  If that's worth the extra price tag, I can't tell.  I'm not a an expert on the topic.  But in someways it's like comparing the capabilities of an HLV to an EELV.  Do two Jupiter 130s equal nine Atlas Vs or nine Delta IVs?  DoD has a mixed fleet of V-22s and Blackhawks.  This gives them the flexibility to use the vehicle best suited for a mission when both are available.  The development cost are sunk.  Going forward the only costs to consider versus capabilities are operations and upgrades.

P.S. I met the V-22 crew at the EAA show in Oshkosh last year so I will not be able to ask them any further questions.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
V-22s to Blackhawks is in some ways an apples to oranges comparison.  The V-22 has greater range, greater speed and greater payload.  Because of that it can do some missions a Blackhawk cannot.  If that's worth the extra price tag, I can't tell.  I'm not a an expert on the topic.  But in someways it's like comparing the capabilities of an HLV to an EELV.  Do two Jupiter 130s equal nine Atlas Vs or nine Delta IVs?  DoD has a mixed fleet of V-22s and Blackhawks.  This gives them the flexibility to use the vehicle best suited for a mission when both are available.  The development cost are sunk.  Going forward the only costs to consider versus capabilities are operations and upgrades.

P.S. I met the V-22 crew at the EAA show in Oshkosh last year so I will not be able to ask them any further questions.

I'm enjoying this conversation.  It is a microcosm of exactly the un-ending debate going on here.

Some like to compare costs again and again and how many of this or that you can get for one of those.  The hole in the arguement always is not acknowledging that you are also not getting the same capabilities.

If you were, the debate would obviously be over.  If your not, then that may be ok for some applications but the blanket statements that some make are also not always acknowledging the "larger picture".
« Last Edit: 09/14/2010 06:40 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0