Author Topic: Elon Musk IAC Mars Speech - Sept. 27, 2016 - DISCUSSION THREAD  (Read 441646 times)

Offline MP99

A quick Raptor Comparison.



I'm sure Elon said that T:W of Raptor was better than Merlin, so not sure if you can derive a "less than" for Raptor weight? Complicated by whether to apply it to SL or Vac version(s).

cheers, Martin

Offline MP99

For me, the real question is how will SpaceX use these technologies (Raptor and carbon fiber tanks) to improve its current business (GTO and LEO satellites of reasonable size that don't require a 10,500 tonne rocket)?

 - Ed Kyle

Don't think that's the plan. He alluded to using the ITS SC to orbit/service payloads and ISS and other NASA needs.

Holy...

     With that kind of payload, he could launch a whole new ISS in one launch!

Isn't the whole issue with SLS that there isn't any payloads to put on it because its too big?  The ITS is many times bigger, outside of shuttling people to Mars, who would use it?

OK, forget completely the mass/bulk of a SC. You build what you need, as big/heavy irrespective, focusing more on systems engineering/test/qualification. He's got a few dozen boosters and perhaps a few thousand ITS SC that sit idle for half the time, and a repurposed like a trucking system to kick them out the door on appropriate orbit and return (likely automated).

The time saved in rapid prototyping means years less time in design and fabrication, and less special purpose HW just to "hand in glove" fit need. So SC systems become more common and less special purpose, and so volume and reuse start to matter in meeting mission requirements on budget.

"Crazy Elon's Massive Launch Services, his prices are insane ..."

Get the picture?

I guess that the SCs won't have much downtime between returning from Mars and refurbing for the next opposition. (I'm assuming that early missions will need a fair bit of maintenance.)

But new-build SCs could do the "milk run" to the Moon before the window opens up for their first Mars run - and Elon was talking about building a lot of spacecraft.

cheers, Martin

Offline IainMcClatchie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 411
I think the launch mount that catches the booster when it lands is active.  Each mount point will have fast 3 axis arm with 5-10 meters of motion that will reach out and grab the stage during a window perhaps half a second long, guided by cameras running at hundreds of frames per second.  The servos on this thing are going to be awesome, capable of generating hundreds of tons of force.  Maybe hydraulics fed by a big compressed air bottle.  The slow motion video afterwards is going to be just epic.

I flat out don't believe that this thing will land on an unprepared surface without shot-peening its engines to death.

Offline MP99

Astonished.

You get to ask ONE question to EM, the day of his LIFE speech on Mars.

and what's your pick? toilets?

#speechless.

ECLSS. Success of it absolutely critical to the survival of the crew, and mass/reliability of it absolutely critical to the cost of the project.

But the question was worded incredibly badly.

cheers, Martin

Offline MP99

Someone else already mentioned the question of insulation up-thread. That was my big question, too. I keep wondering how you can build a vessel that uses subcooled propellants and expect to keep them subcooled all the way to Mars? That would seem to require not only good insulation, but active cooling as well.

I would think subcooling is only needed to escape the Earth's gravity. You don't need it in space or on Mars.

Elon said that the sub-cooling makes design of the engine easier, EG removes worries re cavitation in the pumps, etc. Even if the engine still works with boiling point prop, that suggests a reduction of thrust / Isp.

Jon Goff has said in the past that LOX can freeze in interplanetary space with a simple sunshield. ITS will have an issue with heat bleeding from the crew compartment, but there's enough "cold" out there to make this relatively easy to handle. I've previously pointed out that the Raptors have regenerative cooling ducts which would be perfect for circulating prop and radiating away heat (but only if the spacecraft is OK to point the engine compartment away from the Sun - which may not be OK for other reasons. Maybe the centre engines would be shaded enough to make that work at larger Sun angles.)

[Edit: the video showed solar panels that would work if the crew compartment was pointing at the Sun, and the engine compartment away, which makes sense if you consider the extra power that would otherwise be required for cryocooling. So above looks possible.]



ISTM that sub-cooling on Mars surface will be harder, but then they'll need substantial cryocooling hardware, anyway.

cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 09/28/2016 05:48 am by MP99 »

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 0
I still feel excited and skeptical at the same time.


- I expected the integrated second stage + transfer vehicle to be a cylindrical lifting body.

- Need to improve cost for a trip to Mars by 5,000,000% (30:15). Compare that with Kankoh-maru, another ambitious proposal that was a Japanese LEO tourism SSTO which was planned to bring prices down to $20,000 with a market of 1,000,000 passengers per year (a factor of 100,000% compared to the $20+ million one might pay to get into LEO today). (Might TSTO have made things more efficient?)

- Very large windows might be a structural weakness (or contribute a significant amount to dry mass)

- Vertical integration, with a crane, on the pad! What is a VAB even for, then? He also mentions the booster and spacecraft being constructed in the Gulf States (1:27:34), so there will be water transport. Also, absolute precision required for RTLS landing.

-  If a "Mars Colonial Fleet" (44:03) needs to be gathered in LEO, ITS tankers acting as depots might be necessary in between the 2-year launch windows to Mars, so a crewed ITS can refuel soon after launching and the ECLSS can be prioritized for the transfer and not the loitering. (also note the reference to "Battlestar Galactica," which used to be used derisively for the expendable, expensive 90-Day Report architecture)

- The deployment of cargo such as rovers for water mining an issue. How big would those rovers need to be, anyway? There's an unpressurized cargo area, but there don't seem to be any cargo bay doors. The payload would be at the very top, as well (was expecting it to be below the tanks, like this). A crane would be needed, but how does the crane get to the surface in the first place?

- 300 (reusable) to 550 (expendable) tonnes to LEO, Sea Dragon-class! But how will acoustics be managed during launch?
(also, does 300 include the dry mass of BFS [150 t] itself?)

- I wish he would have gone into more detail about how the in-situ water extraction systems would work.

- Ship and booster testing is supposed to begin in 2018-2019, Mars flights in late 2022 (1:14:30). A huge technological leap from Red Dragon to Heart of Gold in less than 5 years. Not sure if they will meet this on time, but it'll be very impressive if they do. At least they already have 12 meter tanks, so there's that.

- "Planet-hopping" with ISRU facilities everywhere (1:23:58) will be used to get to the outer planets (e.g. Mars to Jupiter). But what about all that radiation? Much worse than a Earth -> Mars trip.

- (1:48:34) When talking about interstellar travel, "very tricky" is an understatement. And so is "going from a Wright Flyer to a 747."

- Most of the Q&A was dumb but one thing that could be taken away was that Musk doesn't want SpaceX to be a monopoly on interplanetary transport (1:54:25).

Similar to my sentiments, the booster is largely what I expected only larger and given the performance numbers claimed for Raptor and an all carbon composite body it looks do able.

The spacecraft though is a lot more dubious, first all the human factors of it's interior and egress on to the surface of mars just seem to be ignored, likewise with cargo handling.  I estimate the cargo hold volume at 680 cubic meters which is not remotely enough to carry 300 mt of cargo let alone the 450 with speculated on orbit transfers.  SpaceX is setting itself up to be badly volume constrained as it is now with Dragon capsule.

Likewise the manufacturing of propellant on mars is just hand-waved by showing us a chemical formula, this vehicle would require the collection of 1000 tons of water to return to Earth and that is a huge undertaking, it would require heavy mining or drilling equipment if they intend to get it from ice.

My over all impression is that Musk fell into the trap of his own airplane analogy thinking that this is just a long airplane ride and the vehicle will land at a space port where a causeway arm will swing out take the passengers off the same way they got on.  Their is none of the utilitarian aspect of say a military transport plane like C5 Galaxy or C130 Hercules with it's roll-on-roll-off capabilities, this feels like a 747 which is not what pioneering is done with.  The design presented is the kind of thing that's appropriate after the pioneering is done and their are million people and all the logistical support one could ask for on the surface.

Take the landing for example, the landing gear is quite narrow on a vehicle that will be top heavy, if just one leg compresses the surface more then expected at touch down or the ground suffers subsidence due to subsurface ice melt the vehicle could easily tip over.  Their also seems to be no provision for the intense thrust directed at the unconsolidated regolith and back splashing that would result, all indicative of the assumption of flat concrete landing pads.

Offline AJW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
  • Liked: 1328
  • Likes Given: 136
I'm intrigued with the promise of a new F9 next year.  I would expect a re-designed Falcon to lose the legs and have additional thrusters to ensure landing accuracy.   I would also expect some changes at the base to facilitate a new latching mechanism.

Seems a big step to switch to Methalox, but how better to learn about and improve Raptor than to be flying it regularly.  This has the added benefit that it keeps the engine production line at a single model. Downside is the transition with either supporting different fuels at the launch site, or switching one site over and only launching F9X at that facility.
We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
I think Musk and SX would would like to have a few successful launches of this to Mars and the US public to start asking the question "Why have we spent 10s of $Bn on something that's  nowhere near close to this achievement?" An interesting question in this vein would be would they get ITS the EELV contract list?

It's not just America that would be asking the question. Europe has often had skepticism about aerospace funding, Russians have been attempting to dial back space and leverage off others, and the Chinese are well along in upgrading to HLV/SHLV. Others too. All of these have in some way leverage their respective "arsenal system", which is not ever a frugal or entrepreneurial approach.

So all of these gape agog at the over the top, way beyond acceptable risk that SX/BO push, and are just as afraid that they will fail as they are that they will succeed. Because by its nature, such approaches are frugal as integrated, expecting volume of use,  instead of avoiding integration risks, expecting almost no volume of use, where no need for being frugal is required but expectation of performance must be assured those few times.

If aerospace entrepreneurship succeeds in rewriting the rules here, how does that effect change non-entrepreneurial cultures? Or do they displace them en mass? Because its not like you can flip a switch and magically things change.

I guess that the SCs won't have much downtime between returning from Mars and refurbing for the next opposition. (I'm assuming that early missions will need a fair bit of maintenance.)

The grand launch campaign would start 6 months ahead of launch window, ahead of opposition. It would peak shortly before the window, then you have the 6 months back and forth, then you'd have 9-10 months of downtime, not to mention the growth of the fleet with new ships waiting to be "shaken down" on "milk runs".

Quote
But new-build SCs could do the "milk run" to the Moon before the window opens up for their first Mars run - and Elon was talking about building a lot of spacecraft.

Perhaps following servicing and refit (lets say a week each), you'd have the better part of half of that downtime (say 4 months aggregate per ship) to accomplish week long missions to perhaps the Moon. So that would be 16 missions per ship, or 1,600 for the entire fleet not counting fleet growth.

Perhaps 150 tons to the Moon for each, for an accumulated mass per synod of close to a quarter of a megaton.

Probably for less than the cost of an operational SHLV flown once or twice a year, that might eventually land 10-50 tons per synod.

That's the trade.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3009
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2194
  • Likes Given: 4618
As for landing the ITS booster back on its launch mounts -- what happens if you need to clear the pad (for a variety of reasons) after the last ITS launch of the day?  You just land the booster back at the pad and then wait while you crane it off and back to storage, or wherever it's headed?

I would bet there will be some landing facilities away from the launch pad with the same type of launch mounts that the ITS booster will be expected to land on when they do land it back onto the pad.  First off, I can't imagine they will risk taking out LC-39A after the first few ITS test launches if something goes wrong with the land-it-back-at-the-pad maneuver.  It can't be that difficult or expensive to set up a landing facility or two, well away from the launch pad, with the same launch mount slots that will be installed on 39-A.  I'd truly have to believe SpaceX will test the landing sequence away from the pad before they risk the launch pad itself.

Also, F9 uses a hoverslam maneuver solely because the landing stage cannot achieve a hover, due to lower throttle limits on the Merlin and the weight of the nearly-empty stage.  Using only a few of those Raptors, throttled to around 30%, wouldn't you be able to achieve a stable hover and relatively slow final landing sequence with the ITS booster?  In other words, with just a few more seconds to clean up your attitudes and orientation, I'd think landing the thing into the launch mounts may not be as difficult as it appears at first glance.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6817
  • California
  • Liked: 8522
  • Likes Given: 5415
This picture still blows me away, hours later.... I made some rough estimates of the tank diameter, using the people. (who also are of unknown height but the taller ones are likely ~6ft). Taking into account the perspective distortion of a wide angle lens, this tank is at least 10m wide:o So since the geometry matches the spacecraft schematic, this could actually be a full size 12m diameter LOX tank for the spacecraft!
« Last Edit: 09/28/2016 05:57 am by Lars-J »

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1944
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4225
  • Likes Given: 2870
Astonished.

You get to ask ONE question to EM, the day of his LIFE speech on Mars.

and what's your pick? toilets?

#speechless.

ECLSS. Success of it absolutely critical to the survival of the crew, and mass/reliability of it absolutely critical to the cost of the project.

But the question was worded incredibly badly.

cheers, Martin

The question - wordet better - would also have deserved a better answer. Toilets are mission critical both on flight and on surface because in space you need to recycle the H2O and on Mars they will need every gram of fertiliser for their greenhouses.

Although maybe Elon was just one step ahead already mentally. After all theres working techncal solutions for all of that, but you need energy to run them or everything breaks down.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6817
  • California
  • Liked: 8522
  • Likes Given: 5415
Take the landing for example, the landing gear is quite narrow on a vehicle that will be top heavy, if just one leg compresses the surface more then expected at touch down or the ground suffers subsidence due to subsurface ice melt the vehicle could easily tip over.  Their also seems to be no provision for the intense thrust directed at the unconsolidated regolith and back splashing that would result, all indicative of the assumption of flat concrete landing pads.

Obviously landing on unprepared surfaces will be risky, and something only done for the first landing at a specific site. The risk is going to mitigated significantly by the very large feet of the legs. Once the first equipment is delivered, semi-prepared pads would presumably be available. 

Your other complaints are just gripes due to a lack of specificity on technical details that were unlikely to be covered at an event of this type. Human factors of disembarking? Do you really think he needed to cover how to use lifts, cranes, or ladders? Or show details on ISRU? C'mon.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2016 06:18 am by Lars-J »

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3002
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2394
  • Likes Given: 888
Quote
I'd say very unlikely. F9 seems as big as it needs to be to capture the market SX want it to. A Raptor engined US might be an option but SX really don't like split supply chains. Now there are 2 engine lines to track instead of one. If they went with a CF US that's 2 stage mfg lines to track, not forgetting the CH4 infrastructure you need solely for the US
It is already known that SX plan to introduce a new upper stage for F9 engined by raptor due to documents released regarding USAF mission requirements for missions on F9 in the next few years.

And yes there are now two engine lines, that is the problem. Merlin has no reason to exist anymore once raptor has some flight reliability behind it. It is more powerful, more efficient (loads more), and roughly the same size. Why continue building an obsolete engine?

SpaceX in the past has always opted to phase out duplicate systems (for example no need for f1 and f9), in favor of better ones once they have better ones. I would be very surprised if they don't move toward a raptor F9 at some point beyond just the upper stage. Doesn't make sense to keep Merlin around, IMO, especially if the timeline for ITS comes true or even partly true.

I've thought this for a while now, but I see zero chance of Raptor being used as the upper stage on Falcon 9. Merlin was already oversized for Falcon 9 and this would be increasing the thrust by 3x again making it ridiculously oversized. Additionally, the engine bell for a vacuum Raptor is 14 feet while the Falcon 9 is only 12 feet in diameter. They'd have to crop the engine bell just to make it fit. This is all sorts of awkward design that doesn't make any sense.
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15715
  • N. California
  • Liked: 15870
  • Likes Given: 1443
Quote
I'd say very unlikely. F9 seems as big as it needs to be to capture the market SX want it to. A Raptor engined US might be an option but SX really don't like split supply chains. Now there are 2 engine lines to track instead of one. If they went with a CF US that's 2 stage mfg lines to track, not forgetting the CH4 infrastructure you need solely for the US
It is already known that SX plan to introduce a new upper stage for F9 engined by raptor due to documents released regarding USAF mission requirements for missions on F9 in the next few years.

And yes there are now two engine lines, that is the problem. Merlin has no reason to exist anymore once raptor has some flight reliability behind it. It is more powerful, more efficient (loads more), and roughly the same size. Why continue building an obsolete engine?

SpaceX in the past has always opted to phase out duplicate systems (for example no need for f1 and f9), in favor of better ones once they have better ones. I would be very surprised if they don't move toward a raptor F9 at some point beyond just the upper stage. Doesn't make sense to keep Merlin around, IMO, especially if the timeline for ITS comes true or even partly true.

I've thought this for a while now, but I see zero chance of Raptor being used as the upper stage on Falcon 9. Merlin was already oversized for Falcon 9 and this would be increasing the thrust by 3x again making it ridiculously oversized. Additionally, the engine bell for a vacuum Raptor is 14 feet while the Falcon 9 is only 12 feet in diameter. They'd have to crop the engine bell just to make it fit. This is all sorts of awkward design that doesn't make any sense.

I believe so too, but what this can do is move the staging point closer to shore, reducing reusability penalty...

also, if the goal is to flight-test it, then it doesn't have to be super-efficient.  Just work.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 0

Obviously landing on unprepared surfaces will be risky, and something only done for the first landing at a specific site. The risk is going to mitigated significantly by the very large feet of the legs. Once the first equipment is delivered, semi-prepared pads would presumably be available. 

Your other complaints are just gripes due to a lack of specificity on technical details that were unlikely to be covered at an event of this type. Human factors of disembarking? Do you really think he needed to cover how to use lifts, cranes, or ladders? Or show details on ISRU? C'mon.

What he showed here was exactly what he hinted at before. Your ideas of multi-stage landers, solar powered transfer stages, high orbit TMI, LMO propellant depots were just that, your ideas that he doesn't share. If you think this is technically unfeasible, contact SpaceX and let them know. Or you have economic concerns, do the same. Who knows, you might prevent them from making a massive mistake.  :-X

If I felt they had a plan for these things I wouldn't be half as concerned, the problem is I don't think they have a plan.  Concerns like volume constraints, loading and unloading and tipping over are far from gripes, they are the things that any potential customer would be concerned about and things that are considered in proper design of any transportation system.

As for contacting them, do you really believe that your so important that I spend all my time communicating on this forum, of course I've emailed them my thoughts, have you sent them yours too.  Or is this just a rhetorical question for flippancy purposes?

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
As for landing the ITS booster back on its launch mounts -- what happens if you need to clear the pad (for a variety of reasons) after the last ITS launch of the day?  You just land the booster back at the pad and then wait while you crane it off and back to storage, or wherever it's headed?

Pretty much. The crane used to load the SC onto the booster likely doubles as the means to load the booster onto the launch mount. It's rather interesting that ITS spends most of its time (heh!) vertical, being vertically integrated with ITS SC for launch, while Falcon is integrated horizontally then verticated. Likely both ITS booster/SC are seperately deverticated with a second crane and placed into trundle cradles and trucked to horizontal facilities for vehicle access. As we've seen, this can be done fairly quickly once the legs have been dealt with.

Quote
I would bet there will be some landing facilities away from the launch pad with the same type of launch mounts that the ITS booster will be expected to land on when they do land it back onto the pad. ... I'd truly have to believe SpaceX will test the landing sequence away from the pad before they risk the launch pad itself.

Musk mentioned other launch facilities, including Texas. Possibly these may have other capabilities we haven't seen with the 39A visualization, that might be more suitable to support launch campaigns or refit. He's already gotten used to losing vehicles/facilities, cannot imagine that the thought of a "bad day" with ITS hasn't crossed their minds. They are already talking of standing up 39A for Falcon 9 flights while rebuilding 40.

And NASA had plans for "bad days" with Saturn V as well, for that matter even talk about Nova and offshore. Perhaps he starts at 39A for history/crew departure, then moves most of flight cadence through other facilities that are more remote as well.

Quote
Also, F9 uses a hoverslam maneuver solely because the landing stage cannot achieve a hover, due to lower throttle limits on the Merlin and the weight of the nearly-empty stage.  Using only a few of those Raptors, throttled to around 30%, wouldn't you be able to achieve a stable hover and relatively slow final landing sequence with the ITS booster?  In other words, with just a few more seconds to clean up your attitudes and orientation, I'd think landing the thing into the launch mounts may not be as difficult as it appears at first glance.

Note the lack of downrange landing with ITS - clearly the whole approach is meant for rapid cadence relaunch, like the smooth functioning of a revolver on snapping in the next cartridge, irrespective of launch/landing site risks (they're adjacent or back to the launch mount!). Its as if he's taking it for granted that this is an automated payload flinger that cranks things out much like a robotic factory. Very different mindset than current/past practice.
[/quote]

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
Hm... whole fleet but only one or two pads. That means months of loiter time...

Keep in mind the high cadence implied. If daily and a hundred in fleet, two pads could handle it in a few months.

If the top off tanker load also brings crew, your loiter is 50 days, assuming all depart at start of MOI window.
Now add a few days of bad weather per year and a few other delays and you've got months of loiter time, don't you?

That's pretty much what I said.

What if I've severely underestimated his launch rate. What if its many times a day, like aircraft at a airport? Considerably different result - your 50+ days could drop to less than a week.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6817
  • California
  • Liked: 8522
  • Likes Given: 5415
If I felt they had a plan for these things I wouldn't be half as concerned, the problem is I don't think they have a plan.

That is borderline offensive. Just because they didn't spell out every detail, your conclusion is that "they don't have a plan"?!?!   

As for contacting them, do you really believe that your so important that I spend all my time communicating on this forum, of course I've emailed them my thoughts, have you sent them yours too.  Or is this just a rhetorical question for flippancy purposes?

No, merely attempting (and probably failing) to highlight the armchair quarterbacking element of your disagreement with the architecture.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2016 07:06 am by Lars-J »

Offline GregA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 61
What happens if the booster and/ or tanker has an issue are all those colonists left twiddling their collective thumbs in orbit.

Smart move is to reverse the launch order.  The fuel doesn't get quite so impatient as the passengers. ;)

Yes. At the very least the effort is almost identical whether your launch order is:
a) tanker, then ICT (refuel), then tanker (refuel), then tanker (refuel) vs
b) ICT, then tanker (refuel), then tanker (refuel), then tanker (refuel).

But it makes a lot of sense to go further and have full tankers in orbit (refueled by each other) ready for the Mars window, so at the launch window the focus can be on the colonists.

There is a related problem in the fleet. If one ship explodes on launch... you're still "mid mission". Would the remaining rockets all be grounded pending an investigation, or do you keep launching (from other launch sites)?

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1004
  • Likes Given: 342
If I felt they had a plan for these things I wouldn't be half as concerned, the problem is I don't think they have a plan.

Look, here is the plan: a big rocket

The crowd goes wild
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Tags:
 

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