Author Topic: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures  (Read 60443 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #80 on: 04/30/2006 06:15 am »
The Crawlers were originally designed to be able to carry 18 million pounds.   In practice they actually transported the Mobile Launcher, LUT tower and Saturn-V massing at most about 12.6 million pounds during the Apollo program.

The Shuttle MLP today actually masses more like 9.25 million pounds.

The Shuttle Stack masses 2.75 million pounds, when empty of payload and liquid propellant, making about 12 million pounds during rollout.

A standard 2x5 CaLV (new RS-68 version), including 125mT payload, will mass about 3.95 million pounds without the liquid propellants on board., making for about 13.2m lb.

The "Heavy" 4x5 CaLV, including 210mt payload, will mass about 6.95 million pounds, for a rollout mass of 16.2m lb.

So, the Crawlers should be able to handle the mass without problems, and there's sufficient headroom to allow for a new umbilical tower on the MLP massing ~1.8m lb too.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #81 on: 04/30/2006 06:16 am »
Duplicated message. Oops.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #82 on: 04/30/2006 09:59 am »
Hello,

Slightly related with a few past discussion points and just as a side note, this is what I have been preparing for whenever I release a next version of my NASA VSE SC Orbiter add-on: a common (heavily modified / new) MLP + launch pad for all CLV and Heavy Lifter variants. This is still a very early WIP screenshot, a few 3D parts will be reworked or added, there are missing textures, etc. For now just testing pad integration and preparing all for a smooth match between all the required launcher variants that I have here.

I'm not saying that this will happen in real life, same for the 4xSRB booster but, on an ideal world, it would be great that something like these launchers could really become serious workhorses (next 50 years or so) for an aggressive space exploration initiative and, as we see from Russian examples, it seems wise to adopt some modular concepts (in the launchers themselves and in all what surrounds them) regarding medium and heavy launcher interaction and possible upgrades, right from the design phase. I know, we do not live in an ideal world and this would require more money in the start of the program... But, at least in virtual world, I can dream a little more :)

António
my pics @ flickr

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #83 on: 04/30/2006 12:57 pm »
There is a down side to a super heavy launcher, all the eggs are in one basket.  1 failure and not only do you loose the EDS, or the LSAM or a signficant piece of a lunar base, you loose it all.  With the increase in engine count (without engine out) and staging events the reliability goes down.  

With smaller mass launches you do add the headache of orbital rendezvous, but each launcher is more reliable.  You build in the to the proces backups so that if a launch failure occurs you keep going.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #84 on: 04/30/2006 03:05 pm »
The multiple launch does have its drawbacks, for one, your taking several launches to do what a Heavy CaLV can do in one shot. And think about the Mars missions later on. It is going to take multiple launches of a CaLV to prepare for that. Can you imagine the number of smaller launches it will take?

The Shuttle and ISS have proven that the multiple small launch idea is not the way to go, as it drags things out much longer, increasing the chance for problems to occur. A CaLV could have launched the components of the ISS in much fewer launches, and we would have a complete station by this point.

In both plans, backups will be needed. If you are launching 3 pieces of a base on the CaLV and you lose everything, you will have to replace it all. However, with the multiple launch plan, you don't know which launch could fail. Launch one might fail, therefore you would need a backup Piece 1, but 2 or 3 could fail as well.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #85 on: 04/30/2006 03:17 pm »
Quote
Avron - 26/4/2006  10:45 AM

Quote
Jim - 26/4/2006  9:08 AM

Quote
FransonUK - 26/4/2006  8:21 AMSorry if this sounds dumb, but surely 4x4 seg is cheaper than 2x5seg?
Can't really answer that.4x4 might have more VAB and MLP mods 4x4 might have a more expensive ET.2x5 has more development costs (but then can be offset if the Stick uses it)

Jim... wanna have a guess at the cost of the 4x4?  if the VAB is a no-no.. stack at the pad?

They stacked Gemini spacecraft at the pad.
Stacking at the pad is possibly a very good idea, possibly for the CaLV, but even better for the CLV. In another thread one of the people against the CLV stated that it could not get taller (no third stage could be added), however, if we add everything that won't fit through the VAB doors at the pad, we could possibly add a Third stage to the CLV and make the CaLV taller. Simcosmos had a three stage version of the CLV in one of the SRBLauncher SC add ons.

The only problem with this is, that if a problem develops, then you have to destack and then bring the entire thing back to the VAB. However, this was not a show stopper during Gemini, so I don't see why it would be now.


Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #86 on: 04/30/2006 04:31 pm »
I don't think STS/ISS disprove the orbital assembly approach.  I think, if anything, the STS/ISS is an excellent example that tying missions (ISS construction in this case) to a single one-of-a-kind launcher is a bad idea.  Which is incidentally what's going to happen with the CaLV.   Protons, Atlases, Deltas, Sea launches, Ariannes, etc... would have finished the station a long time ago, and then some.  ... if the *architecture* allowed for it.

We'll have to do orbital/lunar/martian assembly, that's a given.  We simply cannot deploy capable structures/spacecraft with single launch.  The question is "What chunks are optimal?"  5mt, 15, 25, 70, 100, 120... etc?  Where is the objective metric?  Why shouldn't we wait for a 1000 tonne launcher?  On the other hand, why is a 15mt launcher not enough?  We'll do the assembly either way, except we have the smaller launchers now, but will have to wait for HLVs.  Note that even the current HLV based ESAS plan has abandoned the single launch Apollo style and switched to 2 launches with assembly.  Perhaps the smallest single launch weight is the smallest 'rescue' mission to the Moon?  The 'safe' amount of assembly/docking operations?  I don't know, how did the shipping, construction, etc... companies arrived at their optimal capacities?  I don't have a 'pet plan', and I thought the ESAS was pretty good, all I care about are mission capabilities, just some questions that spring to mind.


Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #87 on: 04/30/2006 05:10 pm »
I agree with you about the ISS, the components were designed to fit only the Shuttle. The CEV on the other hand can fit other launchers. NASA is going to go with their own launchers, the SDLVs, it is wishful thinking to hope for the EELVs to become the primary launch vehicles. At some point you have to narrow it down to one or two vehicles. There are not enough funds to manrate every single EELV.
I've heard it elsewhere that "manrating" is a joke. Well either way NASA is going to go through this costly process, even though it doesn't guaruntee a manrated EELV is any safer than an "unmanrated" one. You can rule out launching the CEV on Proton, Ariane, or Soyuz, it just won't happen. Spaceflight is still about national pride, and congress will not allow NASA to go to the Moon using someone else's rocket. So that basically leaves us with Atlas and Delta.
I support the SDLVs because I am a fan of the Shuttle and I like the appearance of the SDLVs. The "Stick" is really just cool looking. However, that is not a reason to say that it is the best choice. I am happy with whatever NASA thinks it best, which right now is the SDLV. If for some reason they switch to EELVs, I'll silently mourn the loss of the SDLV and support the EELVs.
At some point we hav eto give up the wishful thinking, as we can go on forever with, "I wish they did this, this would have worked better..." The history of spaceflight has shown that the best design doesn't always win, and no matter what we do politics and money will always play a role in the final selection. For NASA, the best political choice is the SDLV. The Shuttle is their baby, and they want it to live on in another form. ESAS was done by NASA so of course they are going to pull for the home team. If Lockheed controlled ESAS, we would have seen Atlas as the final selection. Boeing would have chosen the Delta IV as the best choice. There is no perfect design. The EELVs have their problems as do the SDLVs.
As Kraisee is showing in this thread is that our concern shouldn't be about EELV vs. SDLV, but getting the best out of the SDLVs. Unless something new comes out in the next few weeks, it appears the SDLV has won the battle. Now let's make sure they are designed in a way that doesn't box them in to one configuration like designing for 2 X 5 segment boosters will. We need the capability of a 4 X 5 segment booster version of the CaLV.

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #88 on: 04/30/2006 05:44 pm »
I. Heavy vs Medium / SDLV vs EELV, etc

This is most probably a kind of philosophical discussion (heavy vs medium and derivates and all what is between).
Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages.


On my humble opinion I think that something between and similar to what Old Soviet Union did with Energia / Zenit would be a great way to go:

a) A good medium lifter with capability for upgrades such addition of a 3rd stage… There were also studies for smaller extra boosters and / or extra cores (see Atlas V plans as example… See also what Russians are planning for Angara…)

On a related note, I also have here a few 3D playtime concepts that mix RD171 cores (some could also think in cores having twin RD180) with my SRB launcher's second stage… hummm, if someone is interested in seeing renderings of these please say and I will happily make / post a picture in the Alternatives to The ESAS thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2320&start=1



b) An heavy lifter that uses components (or derived components) of the medium lifter as its boosters, upper stages…

From this perspective, I'm glad to see that NASA is, at least in part, following a similar strategy for the new launchers.

The only thing that is "missing" and that "bothers" me is that, at least until any word in contrary, the CLV's design is static in the sense that it will only be used to launch the CEV when, with a few more of effort and passing over other non-technical constraints, the SRB launcher could become a great and very capable launch vehicle for many other missions as well a much better complementary vehicle to the heavy lifter. This (and possible CaLV performance upgrades, as long as planned from root) would mean a lot more freedom when thinking about LEO assembly of bigger structures and exploration goals!

I know, money, politics, blablablabla play a major role in all these choices… Maybe I'm being a bit naïve but with a little of effort from all parts I believe that VSE would be a perfect opportunity (one in a life time) to make a great and versatile launch system by using:
- 5 segment SRB
- RD180 derived cores
- ET core (with current diameter) and, yes, still the SSME derived and expendable engines (not the RS68)
- improved CLV upper stage + derivate (EDS)
- Centaurs

Where parts of these items could be exchanged to form up specific launcher variants operated by different entities, accordingly with NASA's, military and the private market needs. But, of course, I'm not that naïve… People are running against time and it seems hard to seat all potential parts at the same table to make something like this crazy idea happen :)

So, looking at all options, it seems that NASA's heavy lifter plans are a good choice IF properly supported by one or even two medium (and medium-heavy) launchers. Even if ISS was not extremelly dependent of STS it would have still required lots and lots of launches. Heavy lifter is a fast way to assemble something big. As for the risk of loosing a big payload if the heavy lifter fails: one of the "solutions" - in lack of better word - would be to mass produce that payload and this would lead the discussion to modularity issues and planning / building and integration strategies (perhaps something for another topic).  


II. On-Pad Assembly

Gladiator I think that stacking things on the pad is not quite what NASA might have in mind. Else the pad could end up being a bit cluttered. If possible, the best thing to do is to just leave a big tower in the LC39 pads and a smaller umbilical one in the MLP, and find a way to fully assemble the launcher(s) before moving it to the launchpad, I guess.



III. Related with what I wrote in the first point and about the 3 stage version of my SRB launcher concept Orbiter add-on(s), please let me open a parenthesis here: that particular variant might be (or perhaps not) what I call by "creative liberty".

So, forgetting the performances of the currently available add-on(s) (I’m tweaking those numbers to make all be a little more realistic on a next release), the 3 stage SRB launcher variant might be (or not) a creative liberty due to possible control / load issues, I mean:

a) I do not know what is the maximum load that one SRB can support on its top. I suppose that it would be possible to integrate a ~50t class upper stage (single J-2S+) on top of my "in development" 155t dual engine 2nd stage plus 25t payload (and LES or fairings) because I saw somewhere (early studies) pictures and data about the CLV having a second stage with a mass as high as 200 or even 300t… but I also seem to remember something about load issues, must check.

Perhaps a more feasible concept would be to be a little more conservative in the 3rd stage and add something Centaur related: this would still result on a good launcher for beyond LEO duties.


b) By other hand, that 3 stage version will end being as high as the heavy lifter: not sure about issues related with air flow, control, etc. But it is fun to think that a single launch of my 3 stage "CLV" version (+ a Service Module) could perhaps send ~8 to 10tons into a low Moon's orbit in just one shot. By the way, from what I see here, this heavy SRB launcher would perfectly fit in the VAB doors.


António

my pics @ flickr

Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #89 on: 04/30/2006 06:42 pm »
Personally, I think "lots and lots of launches" is a good thing.  Isn't it what we all want?  Bustling activity in LEO, then the Moon, then Mars.  Plus, we get some real assembly training/technologies for those Mars missions.  The question is the granularity and the efficiency of those launches.  I know the ESAS is sort of pre-conditioned against multi-launch (although it can't help but fall back to it), and would like to do everything in one shot if it could...  But, economies of scale, and realities of rocket propulsion, and all that.  I agree it's (the multi-launch) more complex and statistically error prone, but perhaps, it's a hurdle we *just can't avoid* but overcome if we are ever to become space-faring?  And the sooner we do it the better?  Of course, NASA will do as it will, and I'll be content as long as the mission capabilities are preserved, but as a matter of discussion...

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #90 on: 04/30/2006 07:04 pm »
Quote
Kayla - 30/4/2006  8:57 AM

There is a down side to a super heavy launcher, all the eggs are in one basket.  1 failure and not only do you loose the EDS, or the LSAM or a signficant piece of a lunar base, you loose it all.  With the increase in engine count (without engine out) and staging events the reliability goes down.  

With smaller mass launches you do add the headache of orbital rendezvous, but each launcher is more reliable.  You build in the to the proces backups so that if a launch failure occurs you keep going.

Yes, I do agree with that.   More complication does add more things to go wrong.

This design was in response to the incomplete LRA-0 stuff a couple of weeks back, when NASA appeared to be struggling to send enough mass to the moon.   That LRA stuff was incorrect though, so the premise that we needed a more powerful launcher really seems to have evaporated.   The regular CaLV looks sufficient after all.

But if there's a requirement where 125mT is not sufficient, and for some reason we find a requirement to loft about 170mT in a single shot - this concept is a feasible solution which would be based on the same CaLV NASA is already planning to build.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #91 on: 04/30/2006 09:39 pm »
Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  4:47 PM

I think that Kraisee is missing the point.  Why hold exploration hostage to development of new rockets???

You are missing the point. The LACK of new vehicles is holding exploration hostage! The EELV only apologists are holding exploration hostage. 120 tons to orbit atop CALV needs only one launch with engine out. You will have to expend 15 to 18 such RS-68s on five Delta IVs to do what CaLV will do in but one launch. EELV will cost **more** over time. Five CaLVs and you still have your RS-68 engines produced--but you will have 500 tons in orbit in only five launches.

THAT is REAL exploration!

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #92 on: 04/30/2006 11:52 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 30/4/2006  4:39 PM

Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  4:47 PM

I think that Kraisee is missing the point.  Why hold exploration hostage to development of new rockets???

You are missing the point. The LACK of new vehicles is holding exploration hostage! The EELV only apologists are holding exploration hostage. 120 tons to orbit atop CALV needs only one launch with engine out. You will have to expend 15 to 18 such RS-68s on five Delta IVs to do what CaLV will do in but one launch. EELV will cost **more** over time. Five CaLVs and you still have your RS-68 engines produced--but you will have 500 tons in orbit in only five launches.

THAT is REAL exploration!

SDLV plans to spend ~$20B on non-recurring prior to the first lunar mission.  I’d be a hero if I could get NASA to buy 100 Atlas V HLV’s for $20B!  At 5 HLV’s per lunar mission this is 20 lunar missions using HLV’s before SDLV is ready to start launching the first one.  Explain to me how the EELV crowd is holding exploration hostage?

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #93 on: 05/01/2006 12:30 am »
Quote
Kayla - 30/4/2006  6:52 PM

Quote
publiusr - 30/4/2006  4:39 PM

Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  4:47 PM

I think that Kraisee is missing the point.  Why hold exploration hostage to development of new rockets???

You are missing the point. The LACK of new vehicles is holding exploration hostage! The EELV only apologists are holding exploration hostage. 120 tons to orbit atop CALV needs only one launch with engine out. You will have to expend 15 to 18 such RS-68s on five Delta IVs to do what CaLV will do in but one launch. EELV will cost **more** over time. Five CaLVs and you still have your RS-68 engines produced--but you will have 500 tons in orbit in only five launches.

THAT is REAL exploration!

SDLV plans to spend ~$20B on non-recurring prior to the first lunar mission.  I’d be a hero if I could get NASA to buy 100 Atlas V HLV’s for $20B!  At 5 HLV’s per lunar mission this is 20 lunar missions using HLV’s before SDLV is ready to start launching the first one.  Explain to me how the EELV crowd is holding exploration hostage?

~$20 billion on non-recurring? How is that itemized, again?
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #94 on: 05/01/2006 12:44 am »
The latest numbers that I’ve heard put the CLV development at $10B (including launch complex and a few demo flights) and the only development cost I’ve ever heard for CaLV is another $10B.

Actually, If I were NASA and placed a buy for 100 EELV HLV’s, my question would be could I have them for $15B or  even $10B. A large bulk buy like that would really put NASA in a bargain position.

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #95 on: 05/01/2006 01:55 am »
Okay, I have had my fun commenting on the short comings of the ESAS.  But unless W wakes up one morning and starts caring about space more than any president since Kennedy the plans aren't going to change.

For better or worse we are all going to end up getting the CLV for the CEV.  So perhaps we should discuss things other than EELV this and SRB that.

Some good comments but rather repeatitive.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #96 on: 05/01/2006 01:56 am »
Ar ethe pads for said EELVs ready for manned flights? Do they have a crew accessway, ya know, so were not hoisting them up there in a cherry-picker. The EELV option doesn't mean we are just going to slap a CEV on top of the thing and boom were ready to go. There are going to be development costs to ready the EELVs. You are dremaing if you don't think NASA is going to spend a couple billion "manrating" these vehicles.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #97 on: 05/01/2006 01:58 am »
Quote
wannamoonbase - 30/4/2006  9:55 PM

Okay, I have had my fun commenting on the short comings of the ESAS.  But unless W wakes up one morning and starts caring about space more than any president since Kennedy the plans aren't going to change.

For better or worse we are all going to end up getting the CLV for the CEV.  So perhaps we should discuss things other than EELV this and SRB that.

Some good comments but rather repeatitive.

Well since he isn't too popular these days, and just about everything he supports ends up in the tank, I hope he just shuts up about the VSE and leaves it to NASA to handle.We all need to just pray that the guy who takes over in '08 doesn't axe the VSE.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #98 on: 05/01/2006 02:01 am »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 30/4/2006  9:56 PMAr ethe pads for said EELVs ready for manned flights? Do they have a crew accessway, ya know, so were not hoisting them up there in a cherry-picker. The EELV option doesn't mean we are just going to slap a CEV on top of the thing and boom were ready to go. There are going to be development costs to ready the EELVs. You are dremaing if you don't think NASA is going to spend a couple billion "manrating" these vehicles.

They were ready to for OSP.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #99 on: 05/01/2006 07:46 am »
Yes, they were.   But they've changed their opinion because they believe they can make something better using Shuttle-derived solutions instead - for whatever reasons.

I have said often that I like the new systems.   But I would still like to see at least one of the EELV's eventually man-rated as a second, completely independant, launch vehicle for launching crews - we can't afford to be stuck without a launcher when the next accident happens.   Not if, when.

Also, I would like to see a replacement liquid powered design for the SRB at some point too.   That's where I think the EELV guys should really be focussing their energy now that they are out of the running for this now.   A direct upgrade for the SRB's will be needed whenever the EPA finally get their teeth into the perchlorate issues, and if LM/Boeing/ULA have an alternative ready in the wings at that point they'll get a real lot of attention from NASA then.

I'd like to see a 3m+ lb booster, designed to burn for about 135 seconds.   Probably fuelled by RP1/LOX, with something like 3 x RS-84's under it, or four RD-180's (assuming legal stuff is okay) or maybe brush off the old F-1A designs and create an X version of it to go with the J-2X!   Just two of those would be needed.   At an average 3m+ lb, it would increase the payload capacity too, which is always advantageous.

The real key would be to design such a booster to be the exact same height as a standard SRB, and fit the same mountings too, so it can basically be swapped straight out.

I think the EELV teams would be perfectly suited to undertake that sort of replacement at some point in the not-so-distant future.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1