Author Topic: DARPA Launch Challenge  (Read 17877 times)

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3373
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #40 on: 01/16/2019 11:23 pm »
...
I didn't know there were even 18 candidates, let alone 18 would survive initial selection.  :o

This suggests
a) The number of ELV/RLV startups is a lot bigger than I thought (can anyone here name 18 US based LV startups of any type?)
b) The bar for entry is pretty low.
...
Well, part a is almost certainly true, I had trouble believing it myself when I saw the data I link to below. I gave up keeping track, so I couldn't list them myself, but other people have gone through the effort:

There is this post that links a 2018 survey of small launch vehicles, which lists 20 "operational or under development" U.S. launcher developers (21 counting Rocket Lab). More count as "watch." Notably, Relativity is excluded from the survey due to having a planned launch capacity larger than the scope of the survey.
Tweet from C. G. Niederstrasser:
Quote
Did you know that @SmallSat makes their conference proceedings available online for *free*? 
#smallsat
Copies of my #SmallLVSurvey paper can be found at:
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2018/TPS09-2018/

Also, relavant, ringsider posted his list of expectations for current U.S. companies, which has a list of 30, obviously with different criteria.

Even with these numbers of possibilities, I am surprised that 18 managed to pre-qualify, so maybe the bar was low, we will see how many qualify in the next step.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9905
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2313
  • Likes Given: 12825
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #41 on: 01/17/2019 06:41 am »
U.S. companies, which has a list of 30, obviously with different criteria.

Even with these numbers of possibilities, I am surprised that 18 managed to pre-qualify, so maybe the bar was low, we will see how many qualify in the next step.
I find it very hard to believe some of those are beyond the powerpoint stage at present.

OTOH setting a low(ish) bar and letting them in could let them raise more funds because now there is a serious (for a small startup) cash prize on the table, and getting looked at by part of the DoD which might lead to a piece of the very substantial NSS funding pie.

Just shy of 3 decades on from Pegasus it will be interesting to see if anyone can come up with a cheaper development plan than "Buy an old airliner and slap a rocket made up of some Hercules solid stages with wings on".

This might be the time that any companies that have designs but no actual engines might consider buying in their engines from one of the (small) number of companies (Masten and I think that South Korean Kerolox outfit?) who make them for sale.

One little nugget from the past. Near the end of WWII, when the Allies had air supremacy over the skies of Europe, the Germans managed to launch 9 V2 rockets in 1 week.

A lot of this is not about the hardware. It's about the process.
What do you need to turn a flat pad of concrete into a launch site?
How much insight to the payload do you need beforehand to do a Coupled Loads Analysis (these typically take 2-3 iterations to design a payload that won't be destroyed in the launch and whose mechanical characteristics won't destroy the rocket). Or can you just get by with a dial that says "Stiff, Semi-stiff, Floppy"?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #42 on: 01/17/2019 06:09 pm »
I don't think Rocket Labs are involved in this competition. They already have full manifest so don't need extra business. There is also an element of risk, trying to do back to back launches in short time frame. This is recipe for a launch failure which would set them back months and destroy their current successful launch performance.




Online toren

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Idaho, USA
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 1082
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #43 on: 01/17/2019 06:28 pm »
I own a T-shirt from the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge, the first time autonomous vehicles were set loose on streets with each other and manned vehicles.  (I was credentialed as a journalist to cover it for a friend who was editor of a defense magazine.)  I just pulled that shirt out to check and there are 35 teams listed on the back.  Everything from military vehicle companies to three buddies in a garage.  Most of those showed up with a vehicle, no more than half made it through initial qualifying runs.  AFAIK, the only ones still existing are the university departments, everything else folded or was incorporated piecemeal into other companies and products.  Which is fine, because the project was about demonstration of feasibility and helping to jump start the domain.

This is a long winded way of saying that this DARPA project is probably in the same 'let a thousand flowers bloom' phase as the autonomous challenge in 2007.  The capital cost of a flying orbital air frame is rather more than that for sensors, CPUs, software and a second hand car, so we'll get through that stage earlier.  I'd expect culling along milestones like credible simulations, functioning static fired engines, assembled airframe, etc. that will have the weeding out effect.  Meanwhile, they will effectively map out the territory - the real technology, financial, and feasibility tradeoff space - for the benefit of the program officers.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9905
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2313
  • Likes Given: 12825
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #44 on: 01/20/2019 12:44 pm »
This is a long winded way of saying that this DARPA project is probably in the same 'let a thousand flowers bloom' phase as the autonomous challenge in 2007.  The capital cost of a flying orbital air frame is rather more than that for sensors, CPUs, software and a second hand car, so we'll get through that stage earlier.  I'd expect culling along milestones like credible simulations, functioning static fired engines, assembled airframe, etc. that will have the weeding out effect.  Meanwhile, they will effectively map out the territory - the real technology, financial, and feasibility tradeoff space - for the benefit of the program officers.
That sounds likely. My instinct is a lot of this is in the process rather than the actual hardware used to implement.

Note the conventional wisdom pre DC-X was LH2 was the worst for fast turnaround re-launch. The team did 2 launches within 26 hours (and said they could have done them on the same day if the range had not closed on time for the night). A similar test for SSME was cancelled as they ran out of time on other tests (showing it could throttle down to 16%, operating over 4.5-6.5 MR etc). They were looking to re-fire it within 24hrs and a lot of it was about purging out the water generated by combustion.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Notaris

  • Member
  • Posts: 68
  • Europe
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #45 on: 01/21/2019 12:17 pm »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1085532584342360069
Quote
Todd Master, DARPA: 18 teams in the DARPA Launch Challenge made it through pre-qualification step. Plan to select those that qualified for the competition by late February/early March. Goal of holding the first round of the competition late this year.

Interesting!

Looking at Revision 5 of the Darpa Launch Challenge Guide Lines , this means that these 18 companies have passed step 1 (prequalify) and step 2 (submit a Launch Challenge Application). However, the likely first real filter will be step 3: To have FAA-AST accept a launch license application (thus not yet granting a launch licence, which gives contestants some more room to breath!), which is due by February 1, 2019.

I am curious to see how many contestants will remain after February 1st, but would not be surprised if this is a single digit number!

According to the linked document, "DARPA plans to announce successful teams no later than March 2, 2019."

P.S. I only discovered now that, likely in Revision 3 of the Guidelines, the eligibility was reduced from previously (rather) unlimited participation to "United States-based teams" only. Thus the correct assumption that the 18 teams are all US-based.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2019 12:18 pm by Notaris »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9905
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2313
  • Likes Given: 12825
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #46 on: 01/23/2019 06:19 am »
I am curious to see how many contestants will remain after February 1st, but would not be surprised if this is a single digit number!

According to the linked document, "DARPA plans to announce successful teams no later than March 2, 2019."

P.S. I only discovered now that, likely in Revision 3 of the Guidelines, the eligibility was reduced from previously (rather) unlimited participation to "United States-based teams" only. Thus the correct assumption that the 18 teams are all US-based.
Now on a global scale I could see 18 teams (just about) but I'm still frankly astonished there are 18 teams in the US.

I'm pretty sure some of these aren't much beyond a powerpoint  in someone's home office.  :(

But I agree getting to FAA acceptance will be a major hurdle. It's a real stress test of the business. It seems like something XCOR would have had a crack at if they were still in business. 

[EDIT I'd just realized something.

"Phantom Express" AKA DARPA Experimental Spaceplane XS-1 is still active.

Better operations are a major component of reducing launch costs, so having this programmes funds available would be an incentive for the Boeing effort to move a bit faster. AFAIK first test flight is now expected 2021.

I'd expect the Phantom Express to be on the list and the short list. It would be very interesting if it didn't win, or be one of several candidates to get more substantial funding. ]
« Last Edit: 01/23/2019 07:02 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
  • Liked: 408
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #47 on: 02/01/2019 06:02 pm »
 I've been able to find four companies which say they've entered the prize, two of which have definitely passed the pre-qualification step. One is BlackSky from Australia who will have been disqualified by the rules change. The others are:

Cubecab;
https://twitter.com/cubecab/status/1068555328415920129
Quote
@cubecab
Giving thanks for teamwork: our DARPA Launch Challenge application is in, just in time! Next step: apply for a launch license from the FAA.
https://twitter.com/cubecab/status/1091401648046370816
Quote
@cubecab
FAA launch license app submitted last night, just before DLC deadline. Now to wait. Considering giving Space Access talk about app.
Given the size of their vehicle, they must have just scraped over the minimum size requirement. Dedicated launch for 3U cubesats, storable propellants, launch from an F-104.

Earth to Sky;
https://earthtosky.com/
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181101005791/en/Earth-Sky-Announces-Participation-DARPA-Launch-Challenge
Quote
HUNTSVILLE, Ala.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, Earth to Sky formally announced their participation in the DARPA Launch Challenge.

“Earth to Sky was formed in Huntsville, Alabama in 2008 as an aerospace engineering services company. Currently, we provide subject matter expertise in rocket systems to federal government agencies such as MDA and NASA, but we have a 25-year pedigree of commercial launch vehicles,” said Chris Barker, President at Earth to Sky.

Services Differentiator

Earth to Sky currently offers a series of low cost, small launch vehicles branded Sleek Eagle. We have entered the DARPA Launch Challenge with our small vehicle configuration capable of lofting over 800 kg to Low Earth Orbit.

“We have a unique business model that allows any customer the ‘right to drive’,” said Mr. Barker “The ‘right to drive’ is a product offering that allows any payload position to determine the mission destination and secure its commitment.”

Product Availability

Currently, the small satellite market is underserved in availability of affordable launch vehicle options. “We are poised to unlock this backlog by providing unprecedented flexibility in access to space,” said Mr. Barker.

As a US launch site based option, the Sleek Eagle family will be an FAA licensed launch vehicle allowing US government missions ready access for launching small satellites.

We will be opening manifest positions in early 2020 following the DARPA Launch Challenge.
Very little information given about the rocket, other than payload and price targets (1,200kg to LEO for $14 million) and renders of a slender, triple-core vehicle. There's no further statement about the challenge after this article, so I don't know if they passed pre-qualification.

 Pythom;
https://pythom.com/ps/Its-a-Go-Pythom-approved-for-the-next-step-of-Darpa-Launch-Challenge-2018-12-19-60948
Quote

It’s been a battle. Following months of intense technical development,  challenging meetings, and a nailbiting waiting game, Saturday morning we got the email. “Your Application to the DARPA Launch Challenge has been approved."

No doubt, our proposal has some really exciting parts. But lately, we have watched our fellow challengers get millions of dollars in funding and populate their boardrooms with important names. Would we stand a chance?

Growing up in communist Czechoslovakia and then socialist Sweden, once in a while I’d see people on TV grinning from ear to ear while exclaiming, “only in America.” I moved here and, well, look at us now.

We are not home free yet. The last step of the qualification phase is acceptance by FAA, which has a rigorous technical review process for flight safety. That's our fun over the holidays. At least we have lots of snow in the mountains for quick skiing escapes. And then, of course, we’ll have to build and fly the rockets.

Only two private companies have managed thus far to send a rocket with payload to orbit. SpaceX, which is history now, and Rocketlab, valued at +1 billion dollars already before their first launch.

Make no mistake - Mars is still number one. DARPA only just became a major step to make it happen. 
Their vehicle is a two-stage, ground-launched hypergolically fueled vehicle that can put 100kg to LEO. I don't know if they look entirely serious, their team seems to mostly be made up of polar explorers (?!) and they've only shown off some small 3D prints.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2019 06:12 pm by Kryten »

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9344
  • US
  • Liked: 11913
  • Likes Given: 5277
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #48 on: 02/01/2019 08:13 pm »
I've been able to find four companies which say they've entered the prize, two of which have definitely passed the pre-qualification step. One is BlackSky from Australia who will have been disqualified by the rules change...

I'm sure there are ways around that, like getting a U.S. partner or even moving HQ to the U.S. like Rocket Lab did.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9905
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2313
  • Likes Given: 12825
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #49 on: 02/02/2019 09:16 am »
Very little information given about the rocket, other than payload and price targets (1,200kg to LEO for $14 million) and renders of a slender, triple-core vehicle. There's no further statement about the challenge after this article, so I don't know if they passed pre-qualification.
Weird. The payload target is well within the mass of a lot of single core designs of the past 4 decades and as we know from both Delta IV H and the FH development efforts it's a lot harder than it looks.
That would suggest either a) Very low performance propellants b)Severe limits on diameter of stage they can make
Quote from: Kryten
Pythom;
https://pythom.com/ps/Its-a-Go-Pythom-approved-for-the-next-step-of-Darpa-Launch-Challenge-2018-12-19-60948

 Their vehicle is a two-stage, ground-launched hypergolically fueled vehicle that can put 100kg to LEO. I don't know if they look entirely serious, their team seems to mostly be made up of polar explorers (?!) and they've only shown off some small 3D prints.
"Hypergols" in this context have to mean HTP for the oxidizer. No one would seriously be talking NTO/UDMH on this scale.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2019 09:54 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9905
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2313
  • Likes Given: 12825
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #50 on: 02/16/2019 10:14 am »
I've been able to find four companies which say they've entered the prize, two of which have definitely passed the pre-qualification step. One is BlackSky from Australia who will have been disqualified by the rules change. The others are:
If one were a paranoid sort you could imagine that this had been partly done to populate the DoD list of "Persons of Interest" with serious rocket design and mfg skills, and hence potential future WMD suppliers.

Given the phrasing of the competition I didn't think for one moment any outfit that was not mostly inside the US would have a chance.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline ChamberPressure

Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #51 on: 02/16/2019 10:46 pm »
Pythom;
https://pythom.com/ps/Its-a-Go-Pythom-approved-for-the-next-step-of-Darpa-Launch-Challenge-2018-12-19-60948

 Their vehicle is a two-stage, ground-launched hypergolically fueled vehicle that can put 100kg to LEO. I don't know if they look entirely serious, their team seems to mostly be made up of polar explorers (?!) and they've only shown off some small 3D prints.
"Hypergols" in this context have to mean HTP for the oxidizer. No one would seriously be talking NTO/UDMH on this scale.

According to their website, it looks like they're going with WFNA and furfuryl alcohol.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9905
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2313
  • Likes Given: 12825
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #52 on: 02/20/2019 03:57 pm »
Pythom;
https://pythom.com/ps/Its-a-Go-Pythom-approved-for-the-next-step-of-Darpa-Launch-Challenge-2018-12-19-60948

 Their vehicle is a two-stage, ground-launched hypergolically fueled vehicle that can put 100kg to LEO. I don't know if they look entirely serious, their team seems to mostly be made up of polar explorers (?!) and they've only shown off some small 3D prints.
"Hypergols" in this context have to mean HTP for the oxidizer. No one would seriously be talking NTO/UDMH on this scale.

According to their website, it looks like they're going with WFNA and furfuryl alcohol.
Interesting. This is the stuff Copenhagen Suborbitals have been working with and it looks like Orbex might be using it too.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #53 on: 02/20/2019 11:00 pm »
Interesting. This is the stuff Copenhagen Suborbitals have been working with and it looks like Orbex might be using it too.

Copenhagen played with it a while ago, but I'm pretty sure that are using LOX/alcohol now, and Orbex is using LOX/propane. Interorbital is using WFNA, but they are burning it with turpentine instead of furfuryl alcohol.
I tried it at home

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9905
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2313
  • Likes Given: 12825
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #54 on: 02/21/2019 06:04 am »
Interesting. This is the stuff Copenhagen Suborbitals have been working with and it looks like Orbex might be using it too.

Copenhagen played with it a while ago, but I'm pretty sure that are using LOX/alcohol now, and Orbex is using LOX/propane. Interorbital is using WFNA, but they are burning it with turpentine instead of furfuryl alcohol.
Good point. I had wondered if the benefits of dispensing with an ignition system were outweighed by the trouble of a separate US propellant combination. It seems not.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
  • Liked: 408
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #55 on: 03/01/2019 03:44 pm »
https://twitter.com/cubecab/status/1101519140009926657
Quote
@cubecab
Dropping our entry to the DARPA Launch Challenge: we launch 5 kg, DLC insists on minimum 10 kg. In talks re: helping another DLC entrant.

Offline Davidthefat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Rockets are life.
  • Greater Los Angeles Area, California
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #56 on: 03/01/2019 04:06 pm »
https://twitter.com/cubecab/status/1101519140009926657
Quote
@cubecab
Dropping our entry to the DARPA Launch Challenge: we launch 5 kg, DLC insists on minimum 10 kg. In talks re: helping another DLC entrant.

Given even 3U satellites are now beyond the 5kg range, I wonder if their strategy is sound.

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
  • Liked: 408
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #57 on: 04/10/2019 08:50 pm »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1116069741389467648
Quote
@jeff_foust
Todd Master of DARPA is giving an update on DARPA Launch Challenge at #35SS. First part of the competition will be in Jan/Feb 2020 at a site announced with about 30 days notice from a list of predetermined sites.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1116070906516791296
Quote
@jeff_foust
Master: three teams have qualified for the DARPA Launch Challenge: Vector, Virgin Orbit, and a company in stealth mode (maybe “Stealth Space Company”) #35SS

Offline jamesh9000

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #58 on: 04/10/2019 10:40 pm »
This seems... optimistic.

One thing that doesn't seem to get discussed very often with rocket development is that after any new vehicle flies for the first time (or even during the first half a dozen times), there seems to be quite a long period of sorting out the various unexpected mechanical issues that cropped up during the flight. This happened with Falcon 9, Electron, Ariane 5 and much further back, with the old school Saturn V, Deltas and Atlases (and many more rocket families besides). I can't think of any rocket that just started flying with a high cadence and didn't have issues that necessitated some more complex re-engineering than initially anticipated. Maybe others can think of examples?

Anyway, the point is that even if these companies manage to send up a successful test flight in 2019 (which I think is less than even odds for all of them), the chances that everything goes perfectly and they can immediately send up rockets at a high launch cadence, at one per month is pretty much zero. If it didn't happen for any other rocket company, why should it happen for these ones?

To be clear, I'm not saying none of these companies will eventually attain the ability to launch two rockets in one month, but in less than a year? I'd be really surprised.

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
  • Liked: 408
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: DARPA Launch Challenge
« Reply #59 on: 04/11/2019 09:34 am »
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1116213125295026176
Quote
@pbdes
More Peter B. de Selding Retweeted DARPA
Each team, including one that, curiously, is not named, gets $400k now, $2M on first orbital launch delivering payload, and $8-$10M for successful second launch.
Also, in response to a question about the third competitor;
https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/1116164083273744384
Quote
@jamesncantrell
It's Astra out of Alameda CA
« Last Edit: 04/11/2019 09:35 am by Kryten »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1