Author Topic: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?  (Read 33476 times)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #20 on: 05/24/2023 03:22 am »
NERVA engine and reactor was 18t for 55klbs thrust. Should be able to shave few tons off that with todays technology. Also have note we are talk V1.0 flight NTR compared to its flight proven Hydrolox competitor RL10 which has had decades to reduce its mass.
At a guess 20-25t for NTR, tanks and cryrocooler.

Methalox vehicle drymass would be in 5-7t range. Does need extra insulation for passive cooling.

Hydrolox drymass is likely be 7-10t due to cryocooler and extra insulation.

For all these vehicle mass of tanks can be reduced as they shouldn't be exposed to high G with lot fuel on board. Fully loaded they are 150t with 25t thrust so 1/6 G. Burnout will be lot higher but can be kept <1G by throttling engines back. By comparison upper stages need to be lot stronger as they are exposed to lot higher Gs and aerodynamic forces.
« Last Edit: 05/24/2023 03:23 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39280
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25270
  • Likes Given: 12122
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #21 on: 05/24/2023 03:28 am »
If you look at the specs NASA/DARPA were asking for for the NTP demonstrator, the Isp was lower and the T/W ratio much lower than NERVA. I would not expect the first NTP vehicle to get specs even as good as NERVA, as essentially it'll have to be tested in space, not on the ground, so they'll have to sandbag the heck out of it.

Not a chance NTP is on the critical path for the cislunar transporter, if it is related at all.
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 TrevorMonty

Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #22 on: 05/24/2023 03:46 am »
When used as tanker in CISLunar space return trip vehicle only needs to save enough fuel to transport dry mass.  NTR still has significant payload advantage. Here are results for 4km/s delivery trip plus 4km/s return.

ISP  Drymass,  fuel delivered.
900 25t, 56.2t
460 10t, 37.5
380 7t, 30.8

Build cost of chemical is lot cheaper compared to NTR which also needs it reactor refuelled or replaced every so often at $$$.

Where NTR really comes into its own is high DV outer solar system missions. For CIS lunar and Mars chemical should workout cheaper.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39280
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25270
  • Likes Given: 12122
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #23 on: 05/24/2023 03:55 am »
When used as tanker in CISLunar space return trip vehicle only needs to save enough fuel to transport dry mass.  NTR still has significant payload advantage. Here are results for 4km/s delivery trip plus 4km/s return.

ISP  Drymass,  fuel delivered.
900 25t, 56.2t
460 10t, 37.5
380 7t, 30.8

Build cost of chemical is lot cheaper compared to NTR which also needs it reactor refuelled or replaced every so often at $$$.

Where NTR really comes into its own is high DV outer solar system missions. For CIS lunar and Mars chemical should workout cheaper.
Keep in mind that the DARPA DRACO project doesn't even shoot for 900s Isp. The requirement is 700s Isp. And the T/W ratio is even worse.

I think it's quite possible NTR via the DARPA project would have *lower* performance than optimized hydrolox.
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 clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12055
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7351
  • Likes Given: 3755
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #24 on: 05/24/2023 01:35 pm »
I would assume NTR with LOx is a LANTRN setup...

It's LANTR, not LANTRN (no final "N") LOX-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket (LANTR)
I have ALWAYS been a huge fan of this technology :)
THIS is how we should be doing this.
https://space.nss.org/lunar-base-studies-1994-lantr-and-lunox/

Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #25 on: 05/24/2023 03:44 pm »
How would the nuclear fuel be launched and deployed? I recall when Cassini was being launched the massive protests against the plutonium, even though the RTGs were rated to survive an LV explosion, but I imagine there would be a lot more radioactive mass being launched to support the nuclear rocket.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
  • Liked: 2521
  • Likes Given: 2220
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #26 on: 05/24/2023 04:46 pm »
How would the nuclear fuel be launched and deployed? I recall when Cassini was being launched the massive protests against the plutonium, even though the RTGs were rated to survive an LV explosion, but I imagine there would be a lot more radioactive mass being launched to support the nuclear rocket.

Other nukes have been launched since Cassini with little or no protest. The Mars rovers and New Horizons for instance.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #27 on: 05/24/2023 05:07 pm »
How would the nuclear fuel be launched and deployed? I recall when Cassini was being launched the massive protests against the plutonium, even though the RTGs were rated to survive an LV explosion, but I imagine there would be a lot more radioactive mass being launched to support the nuclear rocket.

Other nukes have been launched since Cassini with little or no protest. The Mars rovers and New Horizons for instance.

There were vocal concerns / protests for all those launches. Much smaller than the protest for Cassini, but the concern is still there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/health/plutonium-on-mission-to-pluto-worries-antinuke-activists.html

https://fair.org/home/applause-for-perseverance-ignores-plutonium-bullet-we-dodged/
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12055
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7351
  • Likes Given: 3755
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #28 on: 05/24/2023 05:22 pm »
How would the nuclear fuel be launched and deployed? I recall when Cassini was being launched the massive protests against the plutonium, even though the RTGs were rated to survive an LV explosion, but I imagine there would be a lot more radioactive mass being launched to support the nuclear rocket.

Other nukes have been launched since Cassini with little or no protest. The Mars rovers and New Horizons for instance.

There were vocal concerns / protests for all those launches. Much smaller than the protest for Cassini, but the concern is still there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/health/plutonium-on-mission-to-pluto-worries-antinuke-activists.html

https://fair.org/home/applause-for-perseverance-ignores-plutonium-bullet-we-dodged/

There will *always* be crazies to protest something, anything. Very little happens these days without someone protesting. Hell I've even seen videos of protesters claiming that Elon Musk was making too many holes in the sky letting our air leak out!  ::)  That's how informed they are. They have a right to protest, so as long as they don't physically get in the way, just ignore them.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Greg Hullender

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Seattle
    • Rocket Stack Rank
  • Liked: 444
  • Likes Given: 340
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #29 on: 05/24/2023 05:34 pm »
How would the nuclear fuel be launched and deployed? I recall when Cassini was being launched the massive protests against the plutonium, even though the RTGs were rated to survive an LV explosion, but I imagine there would be a lot more radioactive mass being launched to support the nuclear rocket.

Other nukes have been launched since Cassini with little or no protest. The Mars rovers and New Horizons for instance.

There were vocal concerns / protests for all those launches. Much smaller than the protest for Cassini, but the concern is still there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/health/plutonium-on-mission-to-pluto-worries-antinuke-activists.html

https://fair.org/home/applause-for-perseverance-ignores-plutonium-bullet-we-dodged/

There will *always* be crazies to protest something, anything. Very little happens these days without someone protesting. Hell I've even seen videos of protesters claiming that Elon Musk was making too many holes in the sky letting our air leak out!  ::)  That's how informed they are. They have a right to protest, so as long as they don't physically get in the way, just ignore them.
I think the Cassini protests caused a lot of people to reevaluate how safe plutonium is. Surprisingly, the conclusion is that it's not all that dangerous. Ralph Nader stirred a lot of people up over it, and then kept lying about it for his own purposes, but when he never got any support from credible sources, I think most of the energy went out of the movement. It's hard to get favorable press coverage when you won't respond to questions like, "What do you say about the fact that scientists say you're wrong?"

When NASA attempts a launch with an actual reactor, then we'll see what people say. But I suspect protests of it won't get much coverage.
« Last Edit: 05/24/2023 05:44 pm by Greg Hullender »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6184
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9446
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #30 on: 05/24/2023 05:41 pm »
The thread seems to have been completely derailed by random discussion of NTRs, when the 'Cislunar Transporter' has already been directly and explicitly confirmed as a Hydrolox vehicle:
In regards to storage and FUTURE capabilities (ie not for HLS) Blue's press release sums up the storage capabilities:

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/nasa-selects-blue-origin-for-mission-to-moon/

Quote
Under this contract, Blue Origin and its National Team partners will develop and fly both a lunar lander that can make a precision landing anywhere on the Moon’s surface and a cislunar transporter.
These vehicles are powered by LOX-LH2. The high-specific impulse of LOX-LH2 provides a dramatic advantage for high-energy deep space missions. Nevertheless, lower performing but more easily storable propellants (such as hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide as used on the Apollo lunar landers) have been favored for these missions because of the problematic boil-off of LOX-LH2 during their long mission timelines. Through this contract, we will move the state of the art forward by making high-performance LOX-LH2 a storable propellant combination. Under SLD, we will develop and fly solar-powered 20-degree Kelvin cryocoolers and the other technologies required to prevent LOX-LH2 boil-off. Future missions beyond the Moon, and enabling capabilities such as high-performance nuclear thermal propulsion, will benefit greatly from storable LH2. Blue Origin’s architecture also prepares for that future day when lunar ice can be used to manufacture LOX and LH2 propellants on the Moon.
Best to take NTR discussion to one of the many existing threads on the matter.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #31 on: 05/24/2023 06:12 pm »

Is it more efficient to refuel a transporter in LEO than HEO.?

 Ignoring fact that LEO has lot more reflective heat making keeping fuel cooler more difficult.

Comes down to which is more efficient at transporting fuel between LEO and HEO, RLV heavy US or transporter which is optimized for space. Both tanker and RLV are using same fuel as typically a hydrolox US will be used to deliver fuel to hydrolox transporter.




Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39280
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25270
  • Likes Given: 12122
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #32 on: 05/24/2023 06:17 pm »
It’s best to do it at both ends…
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 DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #33 on: 05/24/2023 09:38 pm »
How would the nuclear fuel be launched and deployed? I recall when Cassini was being launched the massive protests against the plutonium, even though the RTGs were rated to survive an LV explosion, but I imagine there would be a lot more radioactive mass being launched to support the nuclear rocket.

According to this they will be using HALEU, and not  plutonium…

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2023-01-24

What is HALEU? HALEU is uranium that has been enriched so that the concentration of the fissile isotope U-235 is between 5 and 20 percent of the mass of the fuel. This is higher than the 3 to 5 percent U-235 concentration, or “assay,” of Low-Enriched Uranium that fuels the existing fleet of light water reactors.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-high-assay-low-enriched-uranium-haleu

The fuel in the reactor will not be enriched to bomb grade as it was with the SNAP10a reactor, which was the last real reactor launched into space, almost 60 years ago!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A

PS: I would like to someone change the discussion back to what exactly Lockheed Martin Will be building as the initial cislunar transporter [CT] in the short-term. The questions I have for us to consider:
1. What would be the dimensions of this CT?
2. As the primary mission of CT Will be to transport fuel from LEO to Lunar orbit:
a. What would be the mass of hydrogen that it will need to transport for HLS operations?
b. What would be the mass of oxygen that it will need to transport for HLS operations?
c. What do we think would be the launch cadence to and from LEO to the Moon and back?
3. I am positing that Blue will use Orbital Reef so outgoing cargo [ie fuel etc] can be consolidated in orbit while the CT is off on a transport mission to the Moon, what adaptations would they need on Orbital Reef so it can perform this task?

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4875
  • Liked: 2787
  • Likes Given: 1099
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #34 on: 05/24/2023 09:53 pm »
PS: I would like to someone change the discussion back to what exactly Lockheed Martin Will be building as the initial cislunar transporter [CT] in the short-term. The questions I have for us to consider:
1. What would be the dimensions of this CT?
2. As the primary mission of CT Will be to transport fuel from LEO to Lunar orbit:
a. What would be the mass of hydrogen that it will need to transport for HLS operations?
b. What would be the mass of oxygen that it will need to transport for HLS operations?
c. What do we think would be the launch cadence to and from LEO to the Moon and back?
3. I am positing that Blue will use Orbital Reef so outgoing cargo [ie fuel etc] can be consolidated in orbit while the CT is off on a transport mission to the Moon, what adaptations would they need on Orbital Reef so it can perform this task?

Agree. NTR et. al. are not in scope for CIS Lunar Transporter.
1. What would be the dimensions of this CT?
Unknown at present, but can probably be derived from propellant mass requirements for each HLS mission.
2. As the primary mission of CT Will be to transport fuel from LEO to Lunar orbit:
a. What would be the mass of hydrogen that it will need to transport for HLS operations?
See #1.
b. What would be the mass of oxygen that it will need to transport for HLS operations?
See #1. Plus maybe a bit extra Ox for ECLSS
c. What do we think would be the launch cadence to and from LEO to the Moon and back?
Similar cadence as HLS missions.
3. I am positing that Blue will use Orbital Reef so outgoing cargo [ie fuel etc] can be consolidated in orbit while the CT is off on a transport mission to the Moon, what adaptations would they need on Orbital Reef so it can perform this task?
Bad assumption and a digression. Maybe Orbital Reef has a play at some point in the future, but not for HLS. Take that discussion elsewhere please.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #35 on: 05/24/2023 10:29 pm »
Blue lander needs around 45t of fuel to do round trip from gateway.
Going need 3x NG tanker launches to full tanker in LEO. The cryocooler will add extra mass but allows for longer lower DV trip to gateway. Also needs enough fuel for return trip to LEO.

NB transfer point may not be LEO, SpaceX is using HEO for SS. Higher the orbit less fuel RLV can deliver. On plus side DV to Gateway is lower also cryocooler is working in cooler enviroment. There is lot of reflective heat from Earth in LEO.

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4483
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3351
  • Likes Given: 641
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #36 on: 05/24/2023 10:39 pm »
The HLS is said to have a dry mass of 16 tonnes and a wet mass of greater than or equal to 45 tonnes.  It will arrive in NRHO in the "dry" state but not completely or it would have no station keeping ability.  As you say it will launch on New Glenn. 

New Glenn cannot inject the HLS into even a TLI let alone get it to NRHO since it can only lift 13 tonnes to GTO.  The culprit is the massive 7m diameter second stage with a dry mass of 23 tonnes if you back work the drop in payload from 45 tonnes to LEO to 13 tonnes to GTO.  The BE-3U has a relatively low Isp of around 405s due to it being an expander bleed system that dumps the turbine propellant overboard.

Do you have good numbers on the NG S2 size?  Mine are extremely stale and of questionable provenance.  The best ones I've found are from ZachF's post back in 2021.:

Isp = 445s (considerably more optimistic than yours)
O:F = 4.65:1
Dry Mass = 16.7t
Prop Mass = 175t

That would make ε = dry/(dry+prop) = 8.7%, which is a plausible number.  If these are right, this is a much bigger stage than I thought.

Quote
Instead the HLS can launch fully fueled to LEO and then get itself to NRHO since it has a higher Isp of the BE-7 of around 450s as a closed cycle expander and has a lower dry mass than NG S2.  I make it that it arrives with about 3.5 tonnes of propellant but in any case enough for an extended loiter in NRHO. 

Yes, there should be no problem sending the Blue Moon to NRHO from LEO under its own power, as long as it can be launched with enough hydrolox to make its wet mass 45t.

The big question is how big the BM tanks are.  Here are some possibilities:

Worst case: NRHO-LS(equatorial)-NRHO on its own:  prop = 46.4t, wet mass = 62.4t.
It does NRHO-LS(polar)-NRHO all on its own: prop = 41.8t, wet mass = 57.8t.
It has a reusable TE to take it to LLO: prop = 32.8t, wet mass = 48.8t.
It has a TE crasher to take it to sub-LLO: prop = 29.0t, wet mass = 45.0t.

All of these are consistent with Coulouris's "wet mass is north of 45t" statement.

I've attached my calculations for these four scenarios below, which include the Cislunar Transports required to service them.  Not exactly user-friendly, but you should get the gist.

Quote
The transfer vehicle then launches on New Glenn with say 12 tonnes dry mass and 33 tonnes of propellant.  It gets refueled by a tanker with 45 tonnes of propellant that can just be a slightly stretched NG S2 with refueling probe.  This then allows the transfer vehicle to get to NRHO and transfer 29 tonnes of propellant to the HLS.  This leaves the HLS short by about 1 km/s of the delta V to get to the Lunar surface and back.  The transfer stage stays docked to the HLS to do the initial parts of the landing burn and is then discarded and crashes into the Moon well past the landing site while the HLS completes the rest of the mission. 

The advantage is that only three New Glenn launches are required in total for the first mission and two launches for each subsequent mission.  The disadvantage is that the transfer vehicle is expended on each mission. 

I think this sounds like a fine plan, especially since the NG S2 is currently an expendable stage anyway.  Might as well crash it on the Moon as crash it in the ocean. 

However, it doesn't appear to be what they're doing.  Coulouris explicitly stated that the Cislunar Transport was a LockMart product/service, to be launched on a New Glenn. 

I suppose this doesn't rule out the possibility of it being some add-on kit to the NG S2, but it seems really unlikely.  If LockMart wants to build this, they're gonna want to use it for a variety of missions, and they're gonna want to launch it on a VC4 in addition to NG.  Given their position in the military payload biz, I'd expect them to want full control over this thing, with plans to use it for on-orbit servicing.  It would also allow them to bid on parts of DRACO, if that actually happens. That's likely a pretty good business model.

Quote
Looking at the case where the architecture is extended so that the transfer vehicle returns to LEO to be refueled the propellant requirement increases to 170 tonnes in LEO with a proportional increase in dry mass to around 20 tonnes.  Now it takes a total of five launches for the HLS and transfer vehicle plus three refueling flights for the first mission and three refueling flights for each subsequent mission.  As each flight requires a massive expendable S2 and fairing the cost structure actually favours expending the transfer vehicle.

You can do better than that if you're willing to aerobrake from TEI back into LEO.  If your vehicle can handle the heat pulse generated by a 20m/s aerobrake pass, getting from TEI to LEO takes less than 80days, which is more than adequate for their purposes.  From NRHO to some kind of reverse BLT (I think that should be a real thing), probably isn't more than 250m/s.  From LLO, I suspect it's better just to use regular TEI numbers (about 1030m/s, I think).

Update:  Fixed a problem in the reusable TE case.
« Last Edit: 05/25/2023 03:18 am by TheRadicalModerate »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #37 on: 05/24/2023 11:41 pm »
Drymass of 10% for TE is very high. F9 US is 5% and it needs to handle lot higher forces ie launch Gs, aerodynamic, and mass of payload plus fairing.
TE will be launched in fairing and can be empty to reduces forces. Once in orbit the only forces it has to deal with is thrust from 1-2 RL10s or BE7s. Tanks should be ultra light weight. Cryocooler and its solar panels will be thing that adds extra mass. NB solar panels actually do double duty as sun shades.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39280
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25270
  • Likes Given: 12122
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #38 on: 05/24/2023 11:57 pm »
Drymass of 10% for TE is very high. F9 US is 5% and it needs to handle lot higher forces ie launch Gs, aerodynamic, and mass of payload plus fairing.
TE will be launched in fairing and can be empty to reduces forces. Once in orbit the only forces it has to deal with is thrust from 1-2 RL10s or BE7s. Tanks should be ultra light weight. Cryocooler and its solar panels will be thing that adds extra mass. NB solar panels actually do double duty as sun shades.
Nope, 10% dry mass is actually very good for a hydrolox stage. The forces of launch are actually fairly small compared to the internal pressure forces. dual-engine centaur has about 11% dry mass, and it's an extremely mass efficient balloon tank. Hydrolox has a very low bulk density compared to kerolox, especially subcooled kerolox like Falcon 9. less than half. So you'd expect the dry mass to be twice as much as a kerolox one. (And keep in mind Merlin has the best T/W ratio of any rocket engine ever...)

10% is actually uber-optimistic as a mass fraction for a hydrolox upper stage, especially if it has a docking port or additional insulation or active cryocooler or is reusable or has 6 axis control or whatever. 15-20% is more likely.
« Last Edit: 05/24/2023 11:59 pm 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 TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4483
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3351
  • Likes Given: 641
Re: CIS Lunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #39 on: 05/26/2023 04:55 am »
I think it's pretty important to be able to do the fueling of the Blue Moon with only one CT flight:  LEO - BLT - NRHO - RPOD - reverseBLT - LEOaerobrake.  My rationale is that you want to minimize RPOD and refueling risks to the crew-rated hardware as much as possible.

But the price of doing this is that you need a fairly exotic payload structure in the New Glenn fairing to have LOX and LH2 tanks that can hold the ~116t of prop that are needed.

If LockMart (again assuming a ULA purchase) just stretched a Centaur V from 54t of prop to 64t, you could do a refueling for an equatorial mission in two trips.  I think that only requires about a 1.3m stretch.  But it's two trips.

Tags:
 

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