Author Topic: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth  (Read 40670 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #140 on: 10/15/2021 02:16 pm »
I don’t actually think that microbes from Earth is harmful contamination. Who does it harm? If we’re serious about Mars settlement and even terraforming, then it is potentially *beneficial* contamination.

We shouldn’t let robotic mission specialists get a monopoly on the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty, which I don’t think was ever supposed to preclude permanent sustainable inhabitation (just stupid stuff like spreading radioactive waste in an uncontained fashion, plus active land grabs for national territory, neither of which are required for Mars settlement).

The first people to study Mars shouldn’t be able to essentially annex the entire planet or its subsurface for robotic-study only. The spirit of the Outer Space Treaty is to allow multiple entities from many countries to be able to have access to Mars so one group can’t monopolize its use, and onerous and impractically narrow interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty violates that spirit. Any interpretation of it must honor both scientific research and permanent sustainable inhabitation, in a way that’s affordable enough for regular people, not just specialists.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4394
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3312
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #141 on: 10/21/2021 10:15 pm »
Report offers way to ease Mars mission planetary protection requirements

Quote from: SpaceNews
Future Mars lander missions could adopt less stringent planetary protection requirements by landing in regions of the planet unlikely to allow any terrestrial contamination to propagate, a study concludes.

The study by a National Academies committee, released Oct. 7, recommended that missions that don’t plan to go more than a meter into the surface could land across a wide range of lower latitudes of the planet unlikely to have large amounts of water ice.

“The committee’s findings can lead to making portions of Mars more accessible to both commercial and government endeavors by relaxing planetary protection requirements while remaining careful about access to potential habitable zones,” Amanda Hendrix, senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute and a co-chair of the committee, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, timed to the release of the report.

Do I read this wrong or does it sound like explicitly blocking SpaceX missions? No access to water, except baking it out of minerals at the surface.

I interpret this as a first step to enabling robotic Starship missions, or at least attempting to put in place the PP framework under which they could be conducted.  That's because this report opens the door to some kind of "dirty" Category IV mission.

Under the current Category IVa regulations¹, which apply to robotic missions not searching for life, Starship would have to fulfill the following requirements:

Quote
5.3.1.4 Spacecraft that do not meet orbital lifetime constraints [p(impact for 50 years) < 10E-4] shall limit their total (surface, mated, and encapsulated) bioburden level to ≤ 5 x 10⁵ spores.

and

Quote
5.3.2.1 Category IVa. Lander systems not carrying instruments for the investigations of extant martian life shall be restricted to a surface biological burden level of ≤ 3 x 10⁵ spores, and an average of ≤ 300 spores per square meter.

Even the most naive computation will yield something like 1600m² of surface area for Starship.  So even if SpaceX could get the entire surface down to the 300 spore/m² requirement, it would still have at least 480,000 spores, and that's not counting encapsulated volumes.  So it can meet neither requirement.

But there's no way that Starship can meet the <300 spore/m² requirement, since the fairing that sits in the Texas salt marsh is the same fairing that lands on the surface.  Many spores are vacuum-resistant, and all that's required to avoid sufficient UV irradiation to kill a hardy spore is to stay in a shadow.  Since preserving the prop in the header tanks likely involves maintaining an attitude that puts the nose in continuous shadow, there's no way to achieve the necessary bioburden reduction.

So SpaceX badly needs a relaxation in Category IVa even to conduct EDL flight tests.²  The National Academies paper provides a justification for such a relaxation.

However, this doesn't do anything for water mining.  There, you're governed by the restrictions for Mars "Special Regions," which cover anywhere where water could conceivably become liquid.  If you drill for water, you're going to create a Special Region, especially if you decide to use Rodriguez Well technology to extract water from the ice.

This is not an insurmountable obstacle.  But it does require that the ice mining equipment conform to Category IVc bioburden requirements:

Quote
5.3.2.3 Category IVc. For missions which investigate martian special regions (see definition below), even if they do not include life detection experiments, all of the requirements of Category IVa shall apply, along with the following requirement:

a. Case 1. If the landing site is within the special region, the entire landed system shall be restricted to a surface biological burden level of ≤ 30* spores.

b. Case 2. If the special region is accessed though horizontal or vertical mobility, the requirement shall be either the entire landed system is restricted to a surface biological burden level of ≤ 30* spores, OR the subsystems which directly contact the special region must be sterilized to these levels, and a method of preventing their recontamination prior to accessing the special region be provided.

*This figure takes into account the occurrence of hardy organisms with respect to the sterilization modality. This specification assumes attainment of Category IVa surface cleanliness, followed by at least a four order-of-magnitude reduction in viable organisms. Verification of bioburden level is based on pre-sterilization bioburden assessment and knowledge of reduction factor of the sterilization modality.

So a Starship mission that would conform to the regulations and be able to begin to experiment with ISRU would need the following constraints:

1) It would need a location that only had relatively deep ice deposits.

2) It would need a Category IVc-compliant drilling apparatus.

3) It would need some way for the water that was mined to be delivered back to the Starship for processing that avoided contaminating the drilling apparatus.

None of this is easy as, "Whoo hoo! Let's land on Mars and have our dirty robots roll around in the mud!"  But it's doable--as long as the Category IVa bioburden requirements are significantly relaxed.

Note:  Nobody has a clue what human-rated requirement will be.  I imagine that SpaceX will have a seat at the table for formulating those.  One thing at a time, though:  If SpaceX can land Starships and start to experiment with ISRU, they'll dramatically accelerate the diplomacy necessary to settle on human requirements, and hopefully they'll be ready soon enough that human missions won't be delayed.  But the best way to be taken seriously as those requirements are formulated is to demonstrate a willingness not only to follow the existing rules but to refrain from gaming them.


____________________
¹I'm using NID 8020.109A as a reference, which expired in August.  It's supposedly been superseded by NPR 8715.24, which doesn't appear to be in the NODIS library yet.  I suspect that it's wending its way through the bowels of the NASA bureaucracy, soon to be deposited in the library.  No clue if there are substantive changes or not.

²Today, these regulations only have the force of law for missions conducted under NASA's auspices.  In theory, SpaceX could request a launch license for a privately-operated Starship bound for the martian surface and the FAA would have no authority to block it on PP grounds.

In practice, issuing such a license without at least consulting with COSPAR would be a violation of Article IX of the OST.  Whether you believe that the definition of "harmful" includes forward contamination of Mars or not, if the US:

Quote
...has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment.

The odds of all of the COSPAR members giving such a Starship mission to Mars a clean bill of health are essentially zero.

That all PP regulations are under the auspices of NASA rather than the FAA or statutory control is the result of a failure of imagination on the part of Congress, which didn't envision private missions to Mars.  It doesn't obviate the US's obligations under the OST. 

If SpaceX attempts to squirt through the loophole in the regulations, the loophole will be closed. There are too many areas where the US needs international cooperation to tolerate an OST violation by a US-flagged company.  Such a violation would give a lot of parties that we need at the table (e.g. China and Russia) a pretext to drag their feet:  "Why should we negotiate in good faith with a nation that refuses to honor its existing agreements on outer space?"
« Last Edit: 10/21/2021 10:55 pm by TheRadicalModerate »

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 1878
  • Likes Given: 1187
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #142 on: 10/22/2021 10:26 pm »
Thus the scheme, or 'plan' of Pathogen protection, for mars, from humans...is pretty well a moot subject.  Many of us also require 'natural' fibers and cannot handle continual interaction with artificial fibers. Eg, that notably large numbers of people on mars will require cotton undergarments and the like. Require. That synthetics cause great havoc with their body's response to said artificial fibers and materials. There is practically no end to our potential problems that can occur from lack of exposure to varied environmental conditions, with respect to long term goals...

Artificial fibers are also an enormous source of microplastics (on Earth it's second only to tire wear particles), which will contaminate any closed ecological life support system with a steadily-increasing load of microplastic pollution.

NASA has shown that merino wool shirts last the longest before they need washing (the primary source of garment wear), and merino wool is popular for ultra-light traveling for the same reason — it basically never stinks. Growing cotton and setting up garment manufacturing isn't easy or cheap, so I expect textiles to be imported and repaired for some time.

So in addition to all the aspects of protecting the Mars environment, we might also consider measures to protect the enclosed Earth-like environment from contamination (both from Mars and from our own technological systems). This extends even to matters as seemingly 'simple' as clothing/upholstery.
« Last Edit: 10/22/2021 10:35 pm by Twark_Main »
"The search for a universal design which suits all sites, people, and situations is obviously impossible. What is possible is well designed examples of the application of universal principles." ~~ David Holmgren

Offline rfdesigner

  • Member
  • Posts: 51
  • Radio Electronics R&D Engineer
  • insignificant little blue green planet, small unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable western spiral arm. ZZ9 PluralZ Alpha
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #143 on: 03/11/2024 11:59 am »
There has been a discussion where people are maybe getting a little ahead of themselves regarding the possibility of a Starship Mars flyby in the '24 window.

This got me to thinking about the contamination issue, and I wondered where we are on this.

This thread and the posters in it, especially TheRadicalModerate have a better handle on this than me, this is an old thread.. but the most recent I could find..

has anything changed in the intervening time on interplanetary biological contamination due to Starship?

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2180
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #144 on: 03/11/2024 03:47 pm »
has anything changed in the intervening time on interplanetary biological contamination due to Starship?

No. PPO and SpaceX are still politely pretending the other doesn't exist.

Offline MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 625
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #145 on: 03/11/2024 08:37 pm »
Regarding Starship meeting the cat IV requirements for spores per m2.

Would it work to have UV projectors mounted on the depot that de-con the ship during the refueling process ?  After un-docking the ship performs a slow BBQ roll or three in the intense UV before departing for Mars.

Offline rfdesigner

  • Member
  • Posts: 51
  • Radio Electronics R&D Engineer
  • insignificant little blue green planet, small unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable western spiral arm. ZZ9 PluralZ Alpha
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #146 on: 03/11/2024 09:16 pm »
Regarding Starship meeting the cat IV requirements for spores per m2.

Would it work to have UV projectors mounted on the depot that de-con the ship during the refueling process ?  After un-docking the ship performs a slow BBQ roll or three in the intense UV before departing for Mars.

The issue is the crevices (like between and under each mechanically fixed tile).

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #147 on: 03/12/2024 01:32 am »
Regarding Starship meeting the cat IV requirements for spores per m2.

Would it work to have UV projectors mounted on the depot that de-con the ship during the refueling process ?  After un-docking the ship performs a slow BBQ roll or three in the intense UV before departing for Mars.

The issue is the crevices (like between and under each mechanically fixed tile).
Solutions exist for this. Sterilize it with gas or heat (or both) and then cover it with a banana peel and pull it off while it launches.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline rfdesigner

  • Member
  • Posts: 51
  • Radio Electronics R&D Engineer
  • insignificant little blue green planet, small unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable western spiral arm. ZZ9 PluralZ Alpha
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #148 on: 03/12/2024 06:46 am »
Regarding Starship meeting the cat IV requirements for spores per m2.

Would it work to have UV projectors mounted on the depot that de-con the ship during the refueling process ?  After un-docking the ship performs a slow BBQ roll or three in the intense UV before departing for Mars.

The issue is the crevices (like between and under each mechanically fixed tile).
Solutions exist for this. Sterilize it with gas or heat (or both) and then cover it with a banana peel and pull it off while it launches.

Solutions do not exist for this..  the problem is scale.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #149 on: 03/12/2024 11:00 am »
Regarding Starship meeting the cat IV requirements for spores per m2.

Would it work to have UV projectors mounted on the depot that de-con the ship during the refueling process ?  After un-docking the ship performs a slow BBQ roll or three in the intense UV before departing for Mars.

The issue is the crevices (like between and under each mechanically fixed tile).
Solutions exist for this. Sterilize it with gas or heat (or both) and then cover it with a banana peel and pull it off while it launches.

Solutions do not exist for  i justthis..  the problem is scale.
skill issue. I just showed how it could scale. Such things scale to the size of entire launch vehicle boosters. Sorry about your concern trolling though.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2024 11:05 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 1878
  • Likes Given: 1187
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #150 on: 03/12/2024 07:44 pm »
Regarding Starship meeting the cat IV requirements for spores per m2.

Would it work to have UV projectors mounted on the depot that de-con the ship during the refueling process ?  After un-docking the ship performs a slow BBQ roll or three in the intense UV before departing for Mars.

The issue is the crevices (like between and under each mechanically fixed tile).
Solutions exist for this. Sterilize it with gas or heat (or both) and then cover it with a banana peel and pull it off while it launches.

Solutions do not exist for  i justthis..  the problem is scale.
skill issue. I just showed how it could scale. Such things scale to the size of entire launch vehicle boosters.

"The unproven thing will work. Trust me."

Sorry about your concern trolling though.

Bad form, Robotbeat. Let's not stoop to name-calling.

This "concern trolling" is exactly the same issues a NASA planetary protection board would (correctly) raise.
"The search for a universal design which suits all sites, people, and situations is obviously impossible. What is possible is well designed examples of the application of universal principles." ~~ David Holmgren

Offline Emmettvonbrown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 641
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #151 on: 03/13/2024 08:05 am »
I really detest that expression, "concern trolling." Even more when it is misused, or used abusively. It is really a plague.

Offline thespacecow

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • e/acc
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #152 on: 03/16/2024 01:08 pm »
NASA Interim Directive 8715.129 Biological Planetary Protection for Human Missions to Mars is the placeholder for NASA PP policy for human missions to Mars, if you read this you'll see it's mostly just an empty document that says NASA will study this.

More interestingly this NID is supposed to expire in 2021 but has been extended year by year, with the latest extension to 2025, which has an email attached that says "Lisa G’s direction is to extend two years until 2025 and reevaluate extension at that time based on what has or hasn’t evolved relative to urgency in Artemis or MSR. No other concurrences needed now"

So, what does this tell us?

Well for starters, any claim about Starship couldn't do Mars mission because it doesn't satisfy current NASA PP policy is totally invalid, since the current policy does not apply to human Mars missions (and its uncrewed support missions), and NASA knows this.

Also NASA has been putting off formulating a new PP policy for Mars because there's no urgency from Artemis and MSR, which means in order to move this forward, the last thing we need is for SpaceX to follow the current invalid Mars PP policy which will only slowdown the progress of a future human Mars mission. Instead, what we need is for SpaceX to show sufficient progress on Starship to convince NASA that human Mars mission and its support missions are near term and that there is an urgency to update Mars PP policy.

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #153 on: 03/17/2024 12:27 am »
The planning NASA has revealed so far had a small landing ellipse, it might be unpleasant if NASA required them to land in one of them.

The other unpleasant thing is what if none of the contamination zones are in an interesting location?

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 1878
  • Likes Given: 1187
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #154 on: 03/18/2024 09:10 pm »
any claim about Starship couldn't do Mars mission because it doesn't satisfy current NASA PP policy is totally invalid, since the current policy does not apply to human Mars missions (and its uncrewed support missions), and NASA knows this.

"Totally invalid" is only true if you're sloppy with present tense vs. future tense. Manned Starship missions (and the regulations they'll be governed by) is in the future tense, not the present tense.

Presumably the future Manned PP regulations will be based on heritage from the existing Unmanned PP regulations. Therefore a priori we can't guarantee 100% ("totally") that no PP regulations will applicable to manned missions.

The future regulatory environment is currently speculative. That means that epistemologically we can't say it's totally one thing or the other.
"The search for a universal design which suits all sites, people, and situations is obviously impossible. What is possible is well designed examples of the application of universal principles." ~~ David Holmgren

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #155 on: 03/19/2024 01:23 am »
any claim about Starship couldn't do Mars mission because it doesn't satisfy current NASA PP policy is totally invalid, since the current policy does not apply to human Mars missions (and its uncrewed support missions), and NASA knows this.

"Totally invalid" is only true if you're sloppy with present tense vs. future tense. Manned Starship missions (and the regulations they'll be governed by) is in the future tense, not the present tense.

Presumably the future Manned PP regulations will be based on heritage from the existing Unmanned PP regulations. Therefore a priori we can't guarantee 100% ("totally") that no PP regulations will applicable to manned missions.

The future regulatory environment is currently speculative. That means that epistemologically we can't say it's totally one thing or the other.

For a crewed Mars surface mission. Any planetary protection guidelines that could endangered the crew will go out the window with contingencies. It is politically impossible to endangered a crew on Mars for planetary protection.

Since the POTUS is the final arbitrator on decisions regarding US manned Mars surface missions with the current regulatory framework. No POTUS will endangered a crew on the Martian surface for planetary protection. The political fallout is too great. One could concluded that, why bother with planetary protection guidelines for manned Mars surface missions if the guidelines will likely not be enforced.

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 1878
  • Likes Given: 1187
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #156 on: 03/19/2024 03:25 am »
Any planetary protection guidelines that could endangered the crew will go out the window with contingencies.

Like what?

Are they going to be hanging out outside after a fire drill like middle school?  ???
"The search for a universal design which suits all sites, people, and situations is obviously impossible. What is possible is well designed examples of the application of universal principles." ~~ David Holmgren

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 1878
  • Likes Given: 1187
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #157 on: 03/19/2024 03:45 am »
IIt is politically impossible to endangered a crew on Mars for planetary protection.
...
No POTUS will endangered a crew on the Martian surface for planetary protection. The political fallout is too great...

Not that I accept your initial premise (see above), but...


Just... lie. Lie for as many decades as necessary until people stop caring. Easy!

What's the issue? This is clearly the lowest-cost option.  ::)

This is also the traditional (ie "flight heritage" :D ) decision regarding politically inconvenient 'incidents.' https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/solving-a-nasa-mystery-why-did-space-shuttle-commanders-lock-the-hatch/



I know I know, "You got your Realpolitik in my Starfleet!!"  Sorry to burst some bubbles about how stuff really works.   8)
"The search for a universal design which suits all sites, people, and situations is obviously impossible. What is possible is well designed examples of the application of universal principles." ~~ David Holmgren

Offline thespacecow

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • e/acc
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #158 on: 03/20/2024 02:24 am »
The planning NASA has revealed so far had a small landing ellipse, it might be unpleasant if NASA required them to land in one of them.

The other unpleasant thing is what if none of the contamination zones are in an interesting location?

I hope PP office would be reasonable and will faithfully execute the findings and recommendations of PPIRB, which include re-classifying much of Martian surface as Category II.

But if they want to play games, there're a number of cards SpaceX can play both inside and outside of NASA, depending on the political environment of the time.

Technically speaking, SpaceX would want precise Starship landing too, since they want to land crewed ship near the cargo ships. And if the initial crewed mission is sponsored by NASA, which I think is likely, then they wouldn't rely on ISRU, so landing in an un-interesting location is not a big deal. Once they have ships and boots on the ground, they can push for change of PP policy using local data.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2024 02:28 am by thespacecow »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth
« Reply #159 on: 03/20/2024 06:07 pm »
The planning NASA has revealed so far had a small landing ellipse, it might be unpleasant if NASA required them to land in one of them.

The other unpleasant thing is what if none of the contamination zones are in an interesting location?
<snip>
Technically speaking, SpaceX would want precise Starship landing too, since they want to land crewed ship near the cargo ships. And if the initial crewed mission is sponsored by NASA, which I think is likely, then they wouldn't rely on ISRU, so landing in an un-interesting location is not a big deal. <snip>

NASA will have to justified endangering a crew with an arbitrary small landing ellipse. The crew will landed outside the landing ellipse if circumstances requires it.

The first crewed Mars surface mission might have NASA passengers, but will be commanded and funded by SpaceX, IMO.

Of course with Starships landing on the Martian surface. The issue of crewed and remote operated vehicles embarked in Starships arises. As in how far can they be operated from the Starship landing sites, since they wouldn't be glorified golf carts?



 

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