Author Topic: SLS EM-1 & -2 launch dates realign; EM-3 gains notional mission outline  (Read 54089 times)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
I suspect that the SLS will be used to build the Moon base and deliver its in situ resource utilization (ISRU) machinery.

There are a lot of missions the SLS could be used to support, but so far none of them, including a Moon base, have been authorized and funded.

The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded. That would be a challenge for getting it built, tested, and made ready for flight by 2024, which some have speculated would be the first operational SLS flight where NASA's SLS safe launch tempo is no-less-than once every 12 months.

Over the next 2-3 years rovers and other probes will be landed on the Moon. The press and public are likely to ask "When will America show the world that it is great again by putting men on the Moon?". Any such mission will need Congress to appropriate large sums of money. NASA can afford to produce mission proposals for the President and Congress containing time and cost estimates.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
"The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded."

Haven't they said repeatedly that its being funded now under the NextStep and ARM allocation or are we just forgetting that again.


Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
"The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded."

Haven't they said repeatedly that its being funded now under the NextStep and ARM allocation or are we just forgetting that again.

My understanding is the funding is listed under Advanced Exploration Systems and Space Technology in nasa appropriations. Presumably, Space technology is buying the electric propulsion system components and the laser communication system and AES are buying the satellite bus(i.e. chemical propulsion, RF communication). Comsats have production lines already established, and functionality is not crew safety critical as Orion will be there regardless. I wouldn't really worry about the PPE. It is basically rounding error on NASA's budget. The hab module is something we haven't really done in a long while though.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
"The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded."

Haven't they said repeatedly that its being funded now under the NextStep and ARM allocation or are we just forgetting that again.

From a SpaceNews article on the ISS extension:

Quote
Lightfoot cautioned that the Deep Space Gateway remained just a concept at this time, without the former endorsement of the project by the administration or Congress.

And the key phrase I used (and underlined above) is "fully funded". Yes, they are cobbling together stuff from other existing programs to see what would be usable, but so far the President and Congress have not agreed that the DSG is a real effort the U.S. wants to undertake.

It also doesn't mean that they won't, and maybe this is something that the reconstituted National Space Council will take up early on, but as of today EM-3 is truly notional.

Also, there is no mention in our NSF article about the Europa mission and when that might launch. Maybe NASA will fill in that missing information when they officially release the revised SLS schedule, but the way it looks like based on the NSF info is that there would be no SLS hardware available for the Europa mission until after a nominal EM-3 flight, which would put it out around 2025.
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 A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
"The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) hardware is penciled in for the EM-3 flight, but the DSG is not fully funded in the FY2018 budget that is getting ready to be voted on, meaning FY2019 is the earliest the DSG could be funded."

Haven't they said repeatedly that its being funded now under the NextStep and ARM allocation or are we just forgetting that again.



This is what NASA's 2018 Budget request says in Advanced Exploration Systems (AES), page EXP-60

"In August 2016, NASA selected five proposals under the NextSTEP-2 BAA to develop prototype cislunar habitats. The estimated period of performance begins in FY 2017 and extends until FY 2018. NASA intends to integrate functional habitation systems into ground prototype habitats for testing in 2018. Throughout the NextSTEP-2 performance phase, NASA will provide Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and systems as well as NASA personnel expertise to each industry partner. During this phase, NASA will lead the effort to develop standards and common interfaces, and will develop an internal reference architecture to support the next acquisition phase. The intended outcome of activities is a diverse set of complete, long duration deep space architecture designs (including standards, common interfaces, and testing approaches) from the awarded contractors, and development and test of full-size ground prototypes. The acquisition phase will begin after all milestones have been met under the NextSTEP-2 contracts, and will be informed by ongoing discussions with international partners."


From page EXP-55
AES Budget Request ($ millions)
FY 2018 $210.0
FY 2019 $380.0
FY 2020 $475.1

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2604
  • Likes Given: 531
If SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...
Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things.  STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly.  By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. 

Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget.  That sounds like a bargain to me. 

 - Ed Kyle   

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43641.0

The entire global LV business is $5.5 billion/year... That we're spending $4 billion/year just to develop SLS/Orion is a titanic waste of money.

Even $1.5-2 billion a year is equal to 1/4 to 1/3 of the global LV business by $, for about one launch per year.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline UltraViolet9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 19
Doesn't anybody even care about crew safety... anymore?

I've asked the same thing with SLS/Orion carrying a projected LOC of 1-in-75 for a simple lunar flyby.  That's slightly worse than the projected LOC of 1-in-90 for STS at program end, and barely different from the demonstrated LOC of 1-in-67 for STS over its lifetime.

Morally, it is hard to justify flying astronauts on a system that is projected to take their lives at a somewhat higher rate than its predecessor system.

Politically, it is hard to continue developing a program with flight crew safety figures that are worse or no better than its predecessor program, which was terminated for reasons of flight crew safety.

And programmatically, real human space exploration missions will carry higher-risk elements than ETO launch, a quick lunar flyby, and EDL back at Earth.  It is hard to see how such missions can have reasonable chances of success when what should be the lowest-risk segments of these missions will be exposed to such high probabilities of loss.

Doesn't anybody even care about... fiscal responsibility anymore?

Before affordability, basic questions about executability should be asked.

With a launch cadence only one-half to one-quarter that of Apollo 11-17, can SLS support a human lunar program that is an advance over Apollo?

With a launch cadence of one every year or two, can SLS support a human Mars program when NASA's own Mars DRMs call for a couple handfuls of heavy lift launches, each 30 days apart?

If the answer to both is "no", then what are we doing?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18196
  • Likes Given: 12158

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43641.0

The entire global LV business is $5.5 billion/year... That we're spending $4 billion/year just to develop SLS/Orion is a titanic waste of money.

Even $1.5-2 billion a year is equal to 1/4 to 1/3 of the global LV business by $, for about one launch per year.
The SLS/Orion budget would be for SLS *and* Orion - launch plus payload, so obviously launch would not cost $1.5-2 billion per year.  It would cost half as much or less, for the equivalent mass capability of roughly 6-8 big expendable launch vehicles or 12-14 medium size launchers. 

Since 2007 inclusive, only ten launches out of the 853 total launches worldwide have gone beyond Earth orbit.  Those payloads weighed a combined 20.3 tonnes.  SLS 1B could do half-again as much mass beyond Earth orbit in one launch, and probably for less money than those 10 launches.

 - Ed Kyle
Could do, but will not do as no such payload exists and will not exist given the path NASA has chosen for developing a deep space outpost.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2017 05:59 am by woods170 »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Actually if you look at the NASA budget the agency has lost around $6 Billion (2014 dollars) since 1991. Major human spaceflight programs like the space shuttle and Constellation may come and go but they are replaced with programs like SLS/Orion. Just look at what happened in 2010. There is no guarantee that if SLS/Orion were canceled their funds would go to your preferred space project. That isn't "fear mongering." That's a fact.

What you proved is just we need another human spaceflight program to replace SLS/Orion once the latter is gone, it doesn't prove anything beyond that. There's no reason this new program couldn't be partially supported by commercial contracts and commercial space companies.

Look at ISS, it's doing fine even though a significant part of its budget goes to commercial contracts (hell it even sends hundreds of millions to Russia of all the places). It doesn't need a big launcher or having to please a particular senator in order to gather support in congress, it even survived the assassination attempt by a NASA administrator. And now they're talking about extending it even further, I haven't seen anyone in congress says no to this idea.

Commercial Crew is another example. The only resistance to it comes from old space supporters in congress, once their objection is removed, the full congress has no trouble fully funding it.

And what happened in 2010 just means you need to plan the transition carefully, preferably years in advance, which is exactly why what comes after SLS/Orion should be contemplated today. Because while I realize their position is pretty safe for now, I think there's a big chance they would become increasingly unsupportable in the next 10 years.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Doesn't anybody even care about crew safety... anymore?

I've asked the same thing with SLS/Orion carrying a projected LOC of 1-in-75 for a simple lunar flyby.  That's slightly worse than the projected LOC of 1-in-90 for STS at program end, and barely different from the demonstrated LOC of 1-in-67 for STS over its lifetime.

Morally, it is hard to justify flying astronauts on a system that is projected to take their lives at a somewhat higher rate than its predecessor system.

Politically, it is hard to continue developing a program with flight crew safety figures that are worse or no better than its predecessor program, which was terminated for reasons of flight crew safety.

And programmatically, real human space exploration missions will carry higher-risk elements than ETO launch, a quick lunar flyby, and EDL back at Earth.  It is hard to see how such missions can have reasonable chances of success when what should be the lowest-risk segments of these missions will be exposed to such high probabilities of loss.

SLS / Orion is a successor to Apollo, not to STS. It's probably much safer than Apollo, so I don't have a problem with that once shown to be operationally sound.

But flying crew on EM-2 without an actual all-up test flight of EUS and Orion is just asking for trouble.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
But flying crew on EM-2 without an actual all-up test flight of EUS and Orion is just asking for trouble.

Yet, according NASA, crewing even EM-1 for a circum-lunar mission is acceptably safe, if one were willing to spend a little more money!

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
On the other hand, previous reporting indicated that Europa Clipper would launch before EM-2, and this seems like it should be required for safety (no crew on first launch of EUS), but it does not appear to be accounted for in this schedule.

I suppose this is necessarily up in the air at the moment, since, as far as I know, the launch vehicle for Europa Clipper has yet to be determined (vague memory says a decision is due a year from now).

But still, you'd think there would might be a placeholder or conditional indication of some sort.

EDIT:  Actually, I guess the launch vehicle has been determined, but for the time being people still have to pretend it hasn't.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2017 04:25 pm by Proponent »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
On the other hand, previous reporting indicated that Europa Clipper would launch before EM-2, and this seems like it should be required for safety (no crew on first launch of EUS), but it does not appear to be accounted for in this schedule.

I suppose this is necessarily up in the air at the moment, since, as far as I know, the launch vehicle for Europa Clipper has yet to be determined (vague memory says a decision is due a year from now).

But still, you'd think there would might be a placeholder or conditional indication of some sort.

It would be very difficult to shoehorn in another build, test and launch of an SLS between EM-1 and EM-2 for a Europa mission, if they didn't already have it in their planning schedule. And they don't appear to have it on their schedule at all according to this latest info.

And a 2025 SLS launch for Europa would interrupt the momentum for the Deep Space Gateway, so either the Europa mission is going to slip further out into the 2nd half of the 2020's, or it will have to use a commercial launcher in order to launch in the 1st half of the 2020's. That's the challenge when you have a launch system that only launches once a year.

We may get a hint of which it will be when the Trump Administration releases it's first not-rushed, full-staffed, budget request early next year for NASA.
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 UltraViolet9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 19
SLS / Orion is a successor to Apollo, not to STS.

It was the ASAP that made the STS comparison in an annual report.  (They also expressed some disappointment that the LOC figures for SLS/Orion were coming in so low.)

And it's the right comparison to make.  The 1-in-75 LOC figure for SLS/Orion is for a lunar flyby.    Apollo 11-17 involved other, riskier mission elements (lunar landing, surface ops, lunar ascent, LOR).  So the closest analog is an STS mission.

Apollo also lacks enough flight history to make statistical comparisons meaningful.

Quote
But flying crew on EM-2 without an actual all-up test flight of EUS and Orion is just asking for trouble.

Agreed.

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 171
And what happened in 2010 just means you need to plan the transition carefully, preferably years in advance, which is exactly why what comes after SLS/Orion should be contemplated today.

This is the difficult part, right here.  As a spectator, it seems that this is where the process has failed for the last 30 years.  Politically, there hasn't been a case for the budget needed to operate one system, while properly funding the development of the successor.  Apollo was cancelled early, before STS was ready.  STS was cancelled well before its successor was ready.  I fervently hope this can change.
Recovering astronomer

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
And what happened in 2010 just means you need to plan the transition carefully, preferably years in advance, which is exactly why what comes after SLS/Orion should be contemplated today.

This is the difficult part, right here.  As a spectator, it seems that this is where the process has failed for the last 30 years.  Politically, there hasn't been a case for the budget needed to operate one system, while properly funding the development of the successor.  Apollo was cancelled early, before STS was ready.  STS was cancelled well before its successor was ready.  I fervently hope this can change.

Was there budget to both operate Apollo and develop Shuttle? I doubt it. Just like there was no budget for developing CxP during Shuttle.

Ideally NASA should not be operating one giant launch system (giant as in its budget footprint), the budget should be spent on smaller projects that hopefully have some synergy.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
If SLS (and Orion) wasnt hogging so much money people wouldnt object to SLS as much...
Orion and SLS development together are costing perhaps $4 billion per year as I understand things.  STS cost that much per year during some periods just to fly.  By the way, Orion is costing more than SLS to develop, according to GAO. 

Once developed, NASA plans for an annual budget of something like $1.5 to $2.0 billion, nearly half of the STS budget.  That sounds like a bargain to me. 

$1.5 to $2.0 billion a year to provide nothing that is actually needed that couldn't have been done much more cheaply in other ways is no bargain.

One SLS Block 1B launch is the equivalent of 13 Falcon 9 launches (recoverable first stage mode) in deep space capability.  That is $800 million plus right there just for the launches, assuming the number on the SpaceX web site holds.  To that, add the payloads, which would likely cost at least as much, and the complexity, which would have its own cost.

 - Ed Kyle
Ah yes. I was waiting for that argument to rear it's ugly head.

Tell me Ed: what 40 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to the Moon? Answer: none
What 33 metric Ton, single-piece payload is being developed by NASA to be flown to Mars? Answer: none.

Two points why your post is poor in quality:
1. Falcon Heavy is not intented for launching (pieces of) a deep space architecture. Thus, the comparison tot SLS block 1B is apples-to-oranges.
2. SLS will launch, at best, pieces of a deep space architecture in co-manifest mode. Because no single item of the developing deep space architecture warrants the need of SLS Block 1B capacity, on it's own. Simply put: a less powerful launcher could do the job just as well and have the virtue of having to fly more often to get the job done. Thus preventing the huge financial waste of having a standing army for a launcher that, on average, flies only once a year.

Good points, Ed.  But you always have to keep yourself, in this kind of discussion (as you admirably do) from just adding up payload mass for a large construction and then adding up the number of smaller launcher launches that can put that tonnage into LEO, or wherever you want to put it.

For example, the Apollo TLI stage was about 320,000 pounds, placed by a single launch into a very low Earth orbit of about 90 statute miles circular, on later missions.  You could have put up that many tons of mass in something like 40 Atlas launches, or 20 Titan II launches, or six to eight Saturn IB launches.  So, by that logic, the Saturn V was a useless waste of money.

But... each individually launched payload needs its own structure, its own avionics, its own maneuvering and attitude control system... so your one-launch TLI stage weighs 320,000 pounds, but 40 individually-launched piecework payloads will weigh on the order of half a million pounds.  And can't be placed in an unstable parking orbit, because it will take weeks, if not months, to assemble them all into the piecework variant of an Apollo TLI stage, so your initial energy requirements, just to get to LEO to assemble, go up.

Just comparing tonnage is like making deep space exploration into Lego elements.  It woefully fails to account for an enormous host of other factors that come into play when you piece-meal an exploration stage into being from tens to hundreds of individually-launched payloads.

Indeed, SpaceX is taking the approach of planning large payloads with the fewest number of launches feasible in order to accomplish their plans.  I am a strong proponent of SLS, but I am not a strong proponent of the idea of heading off into the Solar System in a kludged-up structure of Bigelow inflatables and Cygnus closets as your exploration craft.  SLS will at least allow for putting together larger pieces into good-sized spacecraft, rather than attaching a whole lot of tin cans, each barely able (if at all) of providing one person's minimal personal space requirements.

I, for one, am not sanguine about the possibility of launching a Tokyo tube hotel towards Mars and pretending that the crew will be sane when they get there... :(  So, you're going to need at least FH-and-bigger launchers to get large enough structures up to assemble.  Yes, there is no funding to *build* such a large-structure DSH at the moment, but Marshall's DSH plans are for a structure as large in diameter as the SLS.  They, rather like me, seem to believe that you need something more than Cygnus closets for your equipment and living spaces.  And their hab design requires SLS to launch; it would not possibly be achievable with 13 F9 launches -- structurally, if not tonnage-wise.

Just some thoughts... :)
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
And what happened in 2010 just means you need to plan the transition carefully, preferably years in advance, which is exactly why what comes after SLS/Orion should be contemplated today.

This is the difficult part, right here.  As a spectator, it seems that this is where the process has failed for the last 30 years.  Politically, there hasn't been a case for the budget needed to operate one system, while properly funding the development of the successor.  Apollo was cancelled early, before STS was ready.  STS was cancelled well before its successor was ready.  I fervently hope this can change.

Was there budget to both operate Apollo and develop Shuttle? I doubt it. Just like there was no budget for developing CxP during Shuttle.

Ideally NASA should not be operating one giant launch system (giant as in its budget footprint), the budget should be spent on smaller projects that hopefully have some synergy.

Ideally, NASA shouldn't be operating any launch system.
Or building same...
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 171
And what happened in 2010 just means you need to plan the transition carefully, preferably years in advance, which is exactly why what comes after SLS/Orion should be contemplated today.

This is the difficult part, right here.  As a spectator, it seems that this is where the process has failed for the last 30 years.  Politically, there hasn't been a case for the budget needed to operate one system, while properly funding the development of the successor.  Apollo was cancelled early, before STS was ready.  STS was cancelled well before its successor was ready.  I fervently hope this can change.

Was there budget to both operate Apollo and develop Shuttle? I doubt it. Just like there was no budget for developing CxP during Shuttle.

Ideally NASA should not be operating one giant launch system (giant as in its budget footprint), the budget should be spent on smaller projects that hopefully have some synergy.

No, there wasn't enough money, but one could argue the lack of funding was the result of no suitably compelling case being made.

If we keep having to do everything in serial, with ~5-10 year gaps, that's not an operations paradigm that leads to sustained space exploration efforts. You can propose any combination of commercial-led ventures, fine; but that's a different paradigm than Apollo/STS/SLS.  History since the late 1960's suggests long gaps in exploration capability are a feature of the way those three programs were conceived, authorized, and (for Apollo and STS) closed out.  It's a high-level problem.
Recovering astronomer

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Just comparing tonnage is like making deep space exploration into Lego elements.  It woefully fails to account for an enormous host of other factors that come into play when you piece-meal an exploration stage into being from tens to hundreds of individually-launched payloads.

Keep in mind that the Deep Space Gateway (DSG) is planned to be built out of "Lego elements", and regardless how big a launcher is available, our needs in space will always require multiple launches - even SpaceX is planning to need multiple launches to get their spaceships into orbit and fueled enough to leave for their destinations.

So no single rocket is capable of lifting any substantial HSF mission.

Quote
I am a strong proponent of SLS, but I am not a strong proponent of the idea of heading off into the Solar System in a kludged-up structure of Bigelow inflatables and Cygnus closets as your exploration craft.

So far everything you advocate for ignores cost, which is what the Bigelow inflatables and Cygnus "closets" are meant to address. We've spent 17 years living in space inside such "kludges", so regardless of how they look they can do the job that is required.

Quote
SLS will at least allow for putting together larger pieces into good-sized spacecraft, rather than attaching a whole lot of tin cans, each barely able (if at all) of providing one person's minimal personal space requirements.

Your assumption, again, ignores cost, so while it could be technically feasible to do what you outline, it may not be economically feasible.

Quote
Yes, there is no funding to *build* such a large-structure DSH at the moment, but Marshall's DSH plans are for a structure as large in diameter as the SLS.

Upsizing something that is potentially unaffordable doesn't not automatically make it more affordable. Until NASA releases the operational cost estimates for both the SLS and the Orion Congress won't have enough information to decide if they want to fund the Deep Space Gateway - not just for the hardware, but for years of operation too.

Quote
And their hab design requires SLS to launch; it would not possibly be achievable with 13 F9 launches -- structurally, if not tonnage-wise.

NASA has no choice in the matter - they HAVE to use the SLS. If NASA sent out an RFQ that allowed for any transportation system and hardware to be used to satisfy a stated goal, you would see plenty of proposals that did not include the SLS or the Orion. And certainly the 450mT ISS proves that large complex structures can be built out of modules massing 15mT and less.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags: artemis 3 SLS Artemis 1 
 

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