Author Topic: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 465744 times)

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #360 on: 09/20/2018 11:00 pm »
Elon Musk is free to do what Bezos is doing in the money department. He could sell $1 billion a year in Tesla stock and fund SpaceX. Certainly, the rate of return of a dollar in SpaceX far exceeded the rate of return in Tesla over the last year or two.
If Musk liquidates a billion from Tesla it would crater the stock price by panicking stockholders.  Musk also needs to keep controlling interest.

That ship has sailed. Musk's 33.7 million shares out of a total float of 169.8 million shares represents just 19.8% ownership. On the other hand, Musk's somewhat extravagant 20 million share compensation package could bump that up quite a bit.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2018 11:01 pm by ncb1397 »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11928
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #361 on: 09/20/2018 11:39 pm »
So, if I am a trillionaire, but I spent $10,000,000 a year on my rocket development company, said company should be far ahead of SpaceX? It doesn't work that way.

No it doesn't, and I never implied or stated that was the situation.

Quote
Anyways, Blue Origin only had access to SpaceX-like levels of money starting ~24 months ago.

Not true. Jeff Bezos made the Forbes 400 list in 1998 with a net worth of $1.6B, and he started Blue Origin two years later in 2000.

Elon Musk only got $22M from the sale of Zip2, and $180M (after taxes) from the sale of PayPal (after investing $12M of his own money). And we all know he almost went broke juggling both SpaceX and Tesla, so early on Musk could not personally support SpaceX to the degree Jeff Bezos could support Blue Origin.

Elon Musk has always been far less wealthy than Jeff Bezos during their rocket company years.

Quote
It isn't apparently clear if New Glenn leap frogs Falcon Heavy, Falcon 9 Block 1-5 and Falcon 1  - if the 45 t figure is with first stage re-use, it certainly does leap frog all of them. So, people are making judgements when no judgements can be made - yet.

The judgement being made is that SpaceX has been operational for a decade, and despite not having the wealth of Jeff Bezos they were the first to make orbital-capable reusable rockets possible. And I think most of us assume that Blue Origin has some pretty smart people, so it's unclear why Blue Origin has not made the same level of progress that SpaceX has.

Quote
It really all depends on New Glenn development and BFR/BFS development.

Literally apples and oranges, since they have different use cases. Important for both, but not the same at all.

Quote
Elon Musk is free to do what Bezos is doing in the money department. He could sell $1 billion a year in Tesla stock and fund SpaceX. Certainly, the rate of return of a dollar in SpaceX far exceeded the rate of return in Tesla over the last year or two.

The ROI for SpaceX is unknown investment-wise since there hasn't been an equity event yet (i.e. IPO or sale). You can't know an ROI until there is an equity event.

As for selling Tesla stock, Musk clearly wants Tesla to succeed, and he apparently feels he needs as much stock in the company as possible to maintain control so that he can make it succeed. Which means he doesn't have a lot of free cash.

But Musk really doesn't need to invest in SpaceX right now, since the goal is not for one person to push humanity out into space, but humanity itself. And having a customer invest "materially significant" amounts of money in the BFR is a good sign.

As for Blue Origin, we're all cheering for them, but especially cheering for them to go faster...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #362 on: 09/21/2018 12:08 am »
The judgement being made is that SpaceX has been operational for a decade, and despite not having the wealth of Jeff Bezos they were the first to make orbital-capable reusable rockets possible.

Sorry, but this isn't true at all. The first partially-reusable orbital rocket was the space shuttle built by Rockwell International. I think you are searching for the word VTVL. That would be a true statement.

Quote
Elon Musk only got $22M from the sale of Zip2, and $180M (after taxes) from the sale of PayPal (after investing $12M of his own money). And we all know he almost went broke juggling both SpaceX and Tesla, so early on Musk could not personally support SpaceX to the degree Jeff Bezos could support Blue Origin.

Jeff Bezos kept his money in Amazon. Smart move because a billion dollars in Amazon in 2000 is worth $30 billion today. Again, the amount of investment from 2000-2014 that Blue Origin received from Bezos was around $500 million, about the same as NASA alone put into SpaceX with COTS. He didn't take on additional investors, meaning he owns 100% of the company now vs 54% ownership of Musk in SpaceX.

I don't know why I have to continue to explain that the resources a company had access to is not the net worth of the founder(s). It is as absurd as saying because Alphabet had a profit $9.8 billion in the first 3 months of 2018 and they are an investor in SpaceX, SpaceX has access to way more money than Blue Origin. If they plow that $9.8 billion into SpaceX, they have access to it. If they don't, they don't.
« Last Edit: 09/21/2018 12:12 am by ncb1397 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #363 on: 09/21/2018 06:55 am »
Is there anyway to tell from the permits if they may actually fly people on the next flight?

Not from the FCC permits, but yesterday Bezos said "we'll be putting people in space this coming year"

Boring. He said the exact same thing last year.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #364 on: 09/21/2018 07:00 am »
Personally I couldn't work at a company where you pour your efforts into projects that get a cursory review by a supervisor but otherwise go no-where, but some people are fine with it.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline b0objunior

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #365 on: 09/21/2018 01:42 pm »
Personally I couldn't work at a company where you pour your efforts into projects that get a cursory review by a supervisor but otherwise go no-where, but some people are fine with it.
What are you talking about?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #366 on: 09/21/2018 02:31 pm »
SpaceX's mission is to fly people and cargo to Orbit. It has done cargo and will early next year, do crew. Same with ULA and Starliner.

Blue Origin's mission is to do sub orbital and cargo. It is 18 years in business and has done neither. There's slow and then there's Blue Origin.


no one has flown anyone yet...


They didn't get fat government money. Between 2000-2014, they had an average of $35 million per year. SpaceX gets $133 million every time they launch NASA cargo once.

Money is not the reason for Blue's rate of progress.

Are you saying they could be building New Glenn on $35 million a year? No, they couldn't, and if they started back in 2000, Bezos wouldn't own any Amazon stock. He was only worth a couple billion back then. Now, if they started back in 2000, do you think New Glenn would be flying by now? I'd give that pretty good odds. They could hire the best rocket scientists in the world. It was only a matter of money.

Blue has sufficient funding to proceed at the rate Bezos wants them to proceed. If he wanted them to go faster he would give them more money. Thus they aren't funding constrained. They are constrained by the timeline and vision imposed by their leadership.

Bezos is just as serious about the Gradatim as he is about the Ferocitor.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #367 on: 09/21/2018 02:46 pm »

but to be clear RIGHT NOW there are only two real business cases concerning humans in space or near space that seem to be actually "maybe" valid.

the first is what Blue and Branson are pursuing and that is people in sub orbital flights.  I dont know if its valid...but both seem on the verge of giving it a try. 

the second is the pursuit of federal contracts for humans in space.  both Boeing and SpaceX seem to be going at that with all the vigor that their companies can muster...



(From the capsule thread)

Ahem...  I know a company that just sold a trip around the moon...

When that ship comes back (after having flown the trip empty a few times) - how long before the next billionaire rents that party bus?

That's a viable business plan.  And it is truly in-orbit space, not "3 minutes over the karman line" space...

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down


-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11928
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #368 on: 09/21/2018 03:06 pm »
The judgement being made is that SpaceX has been operational for a decade, and despite not having the wealth of Jeff Bezos they were the first to make orbital-capable reusable rockets possible.

Sorry, but this isn't true at all. The first partially-reusable orbital rocket was the space shuttle built by Rockwell International. I think you are searching for the word VTVL. That would be a true statement.

I chose my wording carefully. The Shuttle Orbiter was not a rocket, it was the payload, and the SRM's were only refurbish-able, not reusable.

Also, the comparison was between Blue Origin and SpaceX, with Blue Origin being the older company. So assuming that both had access to the same level of talent, it's obvious that Jeff Bezos has chosen a much slower pace for Blue Origin. And that could be because his goals for the future were not as refined back in 2000 - maybe he only wanted to focus on sub-orbital back then because everyone was saying reusable orbital rockets were impossible.

Quote
Quote
Elon Musk only got $22M from the sale of Zip2, and $180M (after taxes) from the sale of PayPal (after investing $12M of his own money). And we all know he almost went broke juggling both SpaceX and Tesla, so early on Musk could not personally support SpaceX to the degree Jeff Bezos could support Blue Origin.

Jeff Bezos kept his money in Amazon.

Good for him, but there were other methods he could have used to accelerate the pace of Blue Origin. We have to remember he is smart business person.

But he didn't, which leads many to the possible conclusions that:

A. His "vision" did not come into focus until more recently
B. His goals are not as urgent as what Elon Musk's are
C. For whatever reason Blue Origin just has a slower pace than SpaceX

None of those are bad reasons, especially because he has no real competition to worry about. As long as Blue Origin is accomplishing what Jeff Bezos wants then they are a success - and we on the outside don't know what those goals are.

Quote
It is as absurd as saying because Alphabet had a profit $9.8 billion in the first 3 months of 2018 and they are an investor in SpaceX, SpaceX has access to way more money than Blue Origin. If they plow that $9.8 billion into SpaceX, they have access to it. If they don't, they don't.

There is a difference between being an owner with net worth of $166B being the only source of funding for his private company, and being a public company that is investing $1B in another company with the hope it pays off for it's shareholders down the road.

Jeff Bezos, at this point in his net worth, could easily invest $2-3B per year in Blue Origin without affecting his net worth much, or decreasing his ownership stake in Amazon significantly.

Which is why the progress Blue Origin is making is, to a substantial degree, based on how fast Jeff Bezos wants them to go, and right now he is fine with the pace. That he is fine in following behind what SpaceX is doing, with no visible plan to try and catch up to, and overtake SpaceX.

And if you flip that perspective around, he is also putting Blue Origin on a path to be only the second launch provider to offer reusable orbital launchers, and that puts Blue Origin in a VERY enviable place. And I am cheering them on!
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #369 on: 09/21/2018 03:15 pm »


I chose my wording carefully. The Shuttle Orbiter was not a rocket, it was the payload, and the SRM's were only refurbish-able, not reusable.

the orbiter carried the rocket engines and the SRM's were as reusable as solids can be.

I dont see your point

I would add this, I believe that boeing is going to buy his engine :)
« Last Edit: 09/21/2018 03:34 pm by TripleSeven »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11928
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #370 on: 09/21/2018 06:22 pm »
I dont see your point

I'm not surprised.

Quote
I would add this, I believe that boeing is going to buy his engine :)

A random statement with no explanation does not move any conversations forward.

For instance, explain why Boeing, which has a joint venture that may already be planning to buy the Blue Origin BE-4 engine, would want to buy a Blue Origin engine directly?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #371 on: 09/21/2018 08:42 pm »
Jeff Bezos, at this point in his net worth, could easily invest $2-3B per year in Blue Origin without affecting his net worth much, or decreasing his ownership stake in Amazon significantly.

Which is why the progress Blue Origin is making is, to a substantial degree, based on how fast Jeff Bezos wants them to go, and right now he is fine with the pace. That he is fine in following behind what SpaceX is doing, with no visible plan to try and catch up to, and overtake SpaceX.

He recently announced that another two billion go into social projects. No idea of that is one time or regular.

We'll see how the Blue origin spending pattern changes now that factory and pad are online soon(™ Tory Bruno).
More people working for Blue increases baseline cost nicely. Building and testing big rockets sounds like an easy way to burn money.
Other than rockets the question is in the other projects. We know from old parking lot pictures that they had quite a bit of presumably Moon stuff laid out. But was that something soon or rather about finding out how big a Moon architecture has to be? (Getting an idea how to size NG, NA and landers?)

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #372 on: 09/21/2018 09:16 pm »

I chose my wording carefully. The Shuttle Orbiter was not a rocket, it was the payload, and the SRM's were only refurbish-able, not reusable.

See attached picture. Does that get you to orbit?

There are a few things working against your interpretation
1.)The Shuttle hypergolic rocket engines were capable of about 900 m/s when LEO spacecraft typically only need a few hundred m/s. That is about 1/10th of LEO delta v.
2.)The Shuttle OMS where both tank and engine were integrated did insertion into LEO. It is suborbital otherwise.
3.)The hydrolox booster engines were recovered, which is no different than ULA "SMART" reusability. That scheme counts as partial rocket reusability. The only difference is the method of recovery.
4.)Under your definition of re-usability used for SpaceX, the Shuttle SRBs are re-usable. SpaceX hasn't achieved re-use with no maintanence.
5.)Only the complete system (the SRB, the ET, and the orbiter) have the features of an orbital rocket. Without the orbiter it is a one stage sub-orbital vehicle and has no payload fairing or equivalent feature for holding a satellite.

Which is why the progress Blue Origin is making is, to a substantial degree, based on how fast Jeff Bezos wants them to go, and right now he is fine with the pace. That he is fine in following behind what SpaceX is doing, with no visible plan to try and catch up to, and overtake SpaceX.

If New Glenn flys and lands before BFR/BFS, they have caught up and most likely overtook SpaceX as far as rockets go. How long does that last in that scenario? Who knows.
« Last Edit: 09/21/2018 09:28 pm by ncb1397 »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11928
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #373 on: 09/21/2018 09:57 pm »

I chose my wording carefully. The Shuttle Orbiter was not a rocket, it was the payload, and the SRM's were only refurbish-able, not reusable.

4.)Under your definition of re-usability used for SpaceX, the Shuttle SRBs are re-usable. SpaceX hasn't achieved re-use with no maintanence.

SpaceX is flying the reusable version of the Falcon 9. They are still validating their design and ops, so they are not operating it in a fully reusable mode, but it is the reusable version.

Quote
5.)Only the complete system (the SRB, the ET, and the orbiter) have the features of an orbital rocket. Without the orbiter it is a one stage sub-orbital vehicle and has no payload fairing or equivalent feature for holding a satellite.

You spend a lot of time arguing about tiny details that have no bearing on the topic at hand. The Shuttle Transportation System was not a reusable launch system - parts were refurbish-able, and parts were expendable. It's not a model for the future...

Quote
Which is why the progress Blue Origin is making is, to a substantial degree, based on how fast Jeff Bezos wants them to go, and right now he is fine with the pace. That he is fine in following behind what SpaceX is doing, with no visible plan to try and catch up to, and overtake SpaceX.

If New Glenn flys and lands before BFR/BFS, they have caught up and most likely overtook SpaceX as far as rockets go. How long does that last in that scenario? Who knows.

New Glenn is planned to be as reusable as Falcon Heavy (i.e. 1st stage reusable, but 2nd stage expendable) but carries less to space. And Falcon Heavy is operational today. So at most New Glenn gets them close to what Falcon Heavy is doing, but BFR/BFS will be a giant leap beyond New Glenn.

As I've said before though, Blue Origin and SpaceX don't really compete against each other, so there is no race between them. Both are building their own transportation systems for their own needs, and as a bonus the commercial and U.S. Government markets can use their capabilities too.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #374 on: 09/21/2018 10:22 pm »

New Glenn is planned to be as reusable as Falcon Heavy (i.e. 1st stage reusable, but 2nd stage expendable) but carries less to space.


Does it?

New Glenn LEO: 45 t
New Glenn GTO: 13 t
New Glenn payload fairing: 7 meters

Falcon Heavy LEO partial re-use: 30 t
Falcon Heavy GTO partial re-use: 8 t
Falcon Heavy payload fairing: 5.2 m

Falcon Heavy LEO expendable core booster: 57.4 t
Falcon Heavy GTO expendable core booster: ?

Falcon Heavy LEO expendable: 63.8 t
Falcon Heavy GTO expendable: 26.7 t

So, your statement about New Glenn carrying less than Falcon Heavy is contingent on Blue's quoted numbers being with an expendable first and second stage. But given the size of New Glenn which is a known quantity, it is practically assumed and common wisdom that the quoted numbers are not the expendable numbers. Size wise(see picture) it is somewhere between Saturn V and Falcon Heavy in scale. Expendable, we are probably looking at ~80t to LEO. More importantly, New Glenn is being designed in terms of both rocket performance and payload fairing volume to accommodate 2 normal sized GEO comsats which Falcon never has done (they have accomodated a few smaller dual all electric payloads). Also, Falcon Heavy doesn't have the capability to realistically utalize its ~60 t LEO capability. The payload fairing is almost full with 6 t payloads. That is more of just a theoretical number.

edit: after crunching some numbers, I am going to have to say that it is probably more in the 65-70 t to LEO range (the two stage version).
« Last Edit: 09/21/2018 11:16 pm by ncb1397 »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11928
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #375 on: 09/21/2018 11:39 pm »
New Glenn is planned to be as reusable as Falcon Heavy (i.e. 1st stage reusable, but 2nd stage expendable) but carries less to space.

Does it?

Close enough. As I stated previously Blue Origin and SpaceX are not competing with each other, so New Glenn is not supposed to be an answer to either Falcon Heavy or BFR/BFS.

Also, by the time New Glenn launches the first time SpaceX will have launched Falcon 9/H reusable dozens of times, so it's going to take Blue Origin a while to get to where they have similar operational experience. And they likely will get there, but if they match the pace of development for New Shepard so far, it may take them a year or two to dial in reusability.

Which would put them in the time zone for SpaceX BFS testing.

That is why I wonder why you think Blue Origin can just launch their New Glenn once and suddenly be considered on par with what SpaceX has been doing for over a decade. Let's use better metrics to measure Blue Origin by...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #376 on: 09/22/2018 04:21 am »
Of course SpaceX and Blue Origin are competing. They competed for CCDev money (partly how BE-3 was funded). They competed for launch pads. They competed for IP rights for droneship landings. They're competing right now for commsats in the F9/FH and New Glenn range, and they're even competing for orbital tourism and lunar landings.

They both have incredibly expansive visions. They're well-matched. Undeniably, SpaceX has been out-competing them (which includes winning government contracts) in spite of Blue Origin having essentially unlimited money, Blue Origin starting first, Blue Origin taking the right approach earlier on (Blue was doing VTVL tests while SpaceX still thought parachutes alone would be good enough). But they're still well-matched because Blue Origin still has access to essentially unlimited money.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2018 04:22 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 Lemurion

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #377 on: 09/22/2018 05:46 am »
New Glenn may offer a performance leap over Falcon Heavy but I don't think it represents a technological leap over Falcon Block 5. It's greatest advantage is that it's offering greater economy of scale which tends to respond well to the rocket equation.

The biggest question I see is how well will Blue Origin translate more funding (if that is indeed how we should be interpreting Jeff Bezos' remarks) into faster development.

As of right now, Blue has a booster engine that can fire at 70% throttle for 114 seconds. It may be able to do better than that, but if so it's not been made public.

For SpaceX, Block 5 is flying, Heavy has flown once, Raptor has been scaled up and is undergoing testing, and the BFS prototype/pre-production ship is under construction with one cylinder section produced.

At this point I'm expecting Blue to produce a bigger and better Falcon 9 in the form of New Glenn slightly after SpaceX flies BFR. I'm really curious to see how they manage the transition to New Glenn as it's going to involve implementing a whole bunch of new processes and operations. As for the actual performance numbers on New Glenn I'm going to want to hold off on making judgments until they fly hardware. Blue's target numbers are great but without any flight history beyond New Shepard we have no way of knowing how aspirational they are.

When it comes to SpaceX we can generally make two assumptions based on past experience: Timelines are likely to slip, and that the hardware is going to increase in performance over a series of iterations. When it comes to Blue the only thing we can really count on is that progress occurs at a very measured pace. We don't know how close the company comes to targets.

Blue may reveal an initial model with lower performance and then refine it beyond-- Blue may also hold off until it can meet those targets even if it means a significant delay. The company just doesn't have a sufficient track record to predict.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #378 on: 09/22/2018 10:14 am »
Watch one of recent JB interviews, he comment that his spending in Blue Origin is only going to increase. He'd like it to be profitable but that not isn't essential as opening space is more of mission for him

Once NG is flying I can see him putting money into payloads and flying missions. When you own a RLV,  a $1B buys a lot of launches and moon landings especially at cost price.

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 33568
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #379 on: 09/22/2018 12:02 pm »
Perhaps JB will soon start funding the dev. of NA. He has got the money to fully fund NA dev. right through to launch even without a single revenue paying launch of anything. NG likely ends up as being a tech. pathfinder for NA.

Tags: Jeff Bezos 
 

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