Author Topic: Impact of asteroid mining for space exploration beyond LEO  (Read 14675 times)

Offline DarkFighter

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I think everyone already knows about upcoming announcement of asteroid mining company with big names behind it (Planetary Resources).
Here are the links in case anyone missed this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/science/space/in-pursuit-of-riches-and-travelers-supplies-in-the-asteroid-belt.html?_r=1
http://www.space.com/15395-asteroid-mining-planetary-resources.html

I believe this is really important news with huge consequences for the future of human space exploration. Personally, I have some doubts that if mining platinum from asteroids can out-compete Earth-based production. But harvesting water from asteroids (to be processed into fuel) is of huge benefit to missions beyond LEO. This can reduce the cost of such missions to the point where they can be executed as frequently as flights to Low Earth Orbit.

Here is an example how mission to Moon might look after in-space refueling capability is achieved. This is Apollo mission profile, for comparison:
http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/5061/beforeb.jpg
(the original picture is not mine, I added notes and deltaV costs)

1)Apollo project required development and utilization of Saturn V, extra heavy lift launch vehicle, therefore the cost of this program was far above all other contemporary manned space programs.

2)Notice that all flight hardware is completely discarded by the end of the mission. Every new launcher and spacecraft has to be constructed from blueprints, over and over again.

Now, here what is possible if fuel harvesting from asteroids is developed:
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/4153/afterzs.jpg
(this picture is my creation...)

The mission profile looks like this:

   a)Crew ascends to LEO transit station using existing spacecraft and launch vehicle. (Soyuz/Dragon)
   b)Crew then transfers into Lunar Transfer Vehicle that is parked ready at LEO transit and refueling station
   c)LTV then brings the astronauts to Moon orbit docking to another transit station there. This station is supplied with fuel from asteroid mining craft. LTV stays parked at LLO.
   d)Human crew goes to Moon surface using Lunar lander SSTO craft and proceeds with mission objectives.
   e)The crew then returns using the same craft back to Low Lunar orbit station, lunar lander is refueled and stored for the next mission.
   f)LTV is refueled as well and crew boards it, executing the Earth return burn.
   g)LTV is returning back to LEO station, using either the engine braking burn or aerobraking/aerocapture. It is then refueled there and ready for the next mission.
   h)Crew returns to Earth surface, using re-entry capsule of the same spacecraft they used to reach LEO.

Requirements:
 -The largest single module of any spacecraft or station is limited to approximately 25 tons. (The upper limit of present space launchers).
 -Lunar transfer vehicle need at least 4000 m/sec deltaV capability (+some contingency value) to execute Lunar injection and lunar orbit insertion burns.
 -Lunar lander SSTO also need at least 4000 n/sec deltaV to execute Moon ascent and descent between refueling.

Benefits:
 -Different approach - instead of executing unconnected missions, reusable infrastructure is being created in space.
 -No need for heavy space launchers, saving the costs and time, all hardware to Low Lunar Orbit can be delivered using 20-40 ton class launchers, also it can be towed over longer time using high-impulse low thrust space tugs. Note that 450-tonn ISS was assembled from approximately 20-tonn blocks. Also Lunar Transfer spacecraft can be launched dry or with partial fuel load after in-space refueling capability is achieved. Lunar transit/refueling station can be towed to destination over longer time using low-thrust high impulse unmanned space tugs.
 -Once all the hardware is in place the only irreversibly expendable resource beyond LEO would be fuel. The amortized cost of future moon missions over long run can become lower compared to Apollo missions.
 -The next exploration stage (beyond Moon) can be built atop the already existing transportation and refueling network, reducing the costs and time to complete it.

Further opportunities and upgrades.
Such a layout can be incrementally improved in many areas, further expanding our capabilities in the space exploration beyond LEO.
 -If SSTO spacecraft to LEO will become feasible, this will eliminate the last expendable space hardware part, further reducing the cost of travel.
 -The immediately visible upgrade for Lunar Transfer Vehicle is to use nuclear thermal propulsion, doubling the specific impulse and therefore    spending less fuel and/or taking more payload. The drawback of this solution is the need for radiation shielding, but we need it anyway in for the travel safety in the long-term.
 -Lunar station can be stocked with additional landers and supplies to ensure fast assistance in case of any problems with people on Moon surface.
 -There can be an outpost on Moon surface as well, proving shelter and improved condition for Moon missions crew, and potentially developed into a larger moon base with fuel mining capabilities as well.
 -Moon is not the only possible destination that is reachable via similar approach. Geostationary orbit (space elevator) and Lagrange points (transit hub, uninterrupted solar power in Sun-Earth L2) can be reached as well using the same design approach. Mars and NEO missions might be possible as well.
 -Creating added value in space by building property, like space hotels and space condominiums mentioned in my other topic. If water can be harvested from asteroids (with less deltaV cost then from Earth) why not other elements and construction materials using largely the same technology?

Challenges and open questions
 -The most important one is the need for sufficient motivation for going to Moon or beyond LEO in general, either from public or private sector. Without this no space exploration project can succeed.
 -The next largest challenge is achieving in-space refueling capability.    The harvesters/miners need to return more fuel then they will expend themselves during the journey, requiring advanced propulsion technology and finding the suitable targets for mining. While there are some asteroids are water-bearing and some are relatively easily reachable from Earth, finding those ones that satisfy both conditions is a harder task.
 -The amount of propellant that will be expended by manned missions described above is large (tens to hundreds of tons), thus requiring large and/or numerous harvesters.
 -Travel time even to nearest NEOs is long (>1 year), requiring multiple harvesters in carefully arranged schedule to support frequent flow of manned missions.
 -Actual mining problem. How to scrape matter of low-gravity bodies? How exactly fuel is going to be produced? Should miners just bring raw water-bearing minerals to LEO or LLO for further extraction and processing or should they extract hydrogen and oxygen immediately and bring back only processed propellants? (Just a crazy idea - on a return leg of journey back to LEO harvester may use heat from aerobraking to process raw matter as heating it will liberate water.)
 -While refueling/transit station design for LEO can be used at LLO for short Apollo-like missions, extended duration stay at Moon orbit will
require heavy radiation shielding. Same goes for Lunar Transfer Vehicle.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
After established asteroid mining human exploration of the solar system will look very different to prior suggestions. There will be abundant propellant, consumables and radiation shielding material available on orbit.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
"Water is perhaps the most valuable resource in space," said Planetary Resources co-founder Eric Anderson.

It seems in near term and per lb, water is the most valuable resource in space.
Or you start with water mining, but in longer term what will be most valuable resource. Still water, or something else?

Btw, what is most valuable resource on earth?
In terms government it seems tax payers are pretty significant "resource" harvested yearly:)
But other than that and say talking about such conventional resources as gold, coal, oil, grain or crops, timber, dammed water, electrical energy, steel, etc.
What is the most valuable resource on earth?
I would guess it's electrical energy [however it's generated]. If in country which uses a lot hydro power, then dammed water gets you the electrical power.

Anyhow in space you also need electrical power. If going mine water to make rocket fuel, you going to need electricity.

Suppose rocket fuel [LH&LOX] sells for $2000 per kg.
I would suppose if LH&LOX cost $2000, then one is buying water for around $500 [per kg rocket fuel made] and around $200 for the electrical power [per 1 kg of rocket fuel]. But you going to need electrical power for other things, like for power needed to mine and process the water. One could use fuel cell [chemical energy] for vehicles [I assume you recover and reuse the water- so it's battery one is recharging].

The price of the electricity will largely be due to cost transporting solar panels or some other infrastructure from Earth. And price of water will depend upon how much water you can get and how demand there is for rocket fuel. The price of water could vary from say $1000 to $10 per kg
depending largely on the demand for rocket fuel, but electrical power is somewhat dependent upon price to launch from Earth surface to LEO- until such time one could  make some kind of electrical powerplant from space resources.
So mining water in space will be connected upon demand of rocket fuel and high demand of rocket fuel would lead to other mining or activity that also needs electrical power.

So harvesting solar energy [or some other way to make {e.g. transmitted from earth} electricity] will be equal or be close second to water as resource. And at some point seems likely to become the most significant resource in space.
Needed in space to make rocket fuel, all kinds of other operations, and eventually shipped to Earth [which has globally, a market of trillions of dollars] .
« Last Edit: 04/26/2012 11:12 am by Chris Bergin »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
It seems in near term and per lb, water is the most valuable resource in space.

Right now and in the near term it's still the number of functioning transponders on GEO satellites - as their product actually has paying customers.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
It seems in near term and per lb, water is the most valuable resource in space.

Right now and in the near term it's still the number of functioning transponders on GEO satellites - as their product actually has paying customers.

Satellite market is certainly important.

"With regards to the worldwide satellite industry revenues, in the period 2002 to 2005 those remained at the 35–36 billion USD level. In that, majority of revenue was generated by the ground equipment sector, with the least amount by the launch sector. Space-related services are estimated at about 100 billion USD. The industry and related sectors employ about 120,000 people in the OECD countries, while the space industry of Russia employs around 250,000 people. Capital stocks estimated the worth of 937 satellites in Earth's orbit in 2005 at around 170 to 230 USD billion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_industry

As resource it's somewhat difficult to quantify. It's similar to real estate- it's location as high ground makes it valuable. A critical aspect is having the space launch to get the satellites to their location and they commonly getting their electrical power from solar panels. [Would be quite a different business if they had to get their electrical power only from batteries or nuclear reactors.]

Also Space Tourism and/or future sub-orbital rides could be difficult to quantify in terms of the value of resources.

One could look at as markets. One also look yearly dollar spent both in private and public sector. At some point we should get private exploration of space, but up this point in time the dollar amount has been almost exclusively been public dollars spent.
It interesting with regard to Planetary Resources that their attention has to be first on exploration. I am not sure how much money [if any] will spent by Planetary Resources for this exploration, but it seems like this type of exploration should be one of things which NASA should be focused on.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2012 09:08 am by gbaikie »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
When this was discussed on unmannedspaceflight.com, someone posted a table that showed that chondrites were just about as good as all but the best iron-nickel asteroids. So why are they assuming only iron-nickel asteroids are worth considering? That would change the numbers enormously...


Why are chondrites so "good"?

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Because they contain a little bit of everything we need.  Carbon, hydrogen, iron, magnesium, oxygen, aluminum, etc.  There is gold, platinum, and iridium there too, as well as trace amounts of boron and rare earths (although the latter are far more abundant in the Earth's crust).

Between chondritic asteroids and comets, a space-based industry could potentially be completely self-sustaining, requiring few or no inputs from Earth, once it's established.

This kind of asteroid mining would be very energy-intensive, however, and I don't see it becoming profitable and sustainable until we've developed a concentratable energy source such as fusion that can operate at a distance from the Sun.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline rockinghorse

This kind of asteroid mining would be very energy-intensive, however, and I don't see it becoming profitable and sustainable until we've developed a concentratable energy source such as fusion that can operate at a distance from the Sun.

There are millions of asteroids between Venus and Mercury, so it is definitely not necessary to go for asteroid hunt into colder parts of solar system. I think that all near term asteroid mining is done on high lunar orbit and solar power gives plenty of energy there.

The biggest threat for commercial asteroid mining is reusability of rockets. This can potentially push the launch cost so low that it does not pay to invest on orbital rocket fuel factories.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Nuclear power (fission as well as near-term fusion) is heavier than equivalent solar power (at same level of newly-invested R&D) until you get to the asteroid belt, and perhaps not even until you get to Jupiter (since solar power has such a huge jump on nuclear).

(unless you're on a planet with an atmosphere)
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 Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
The problem with PGMs as I see it, is that the ores aren't that particularly rich. I mean, what are we really looking at for an iron-nickel asteroid: probably on the order of 50 ppm average?
This has been discussed above i believe, and IIRC the two active sites in South Africa and Russia where most of worlds PGMs come from are in the range of 0.5 ppm or so. So, two orders of magnitude.
However, i dont think the issue is not of the quality of the best ores available on earth. I think the issue is where these are and who exactly has access to them. Also, robots in space will probably not cause riots and price fluctuations ..

BTW, there is a relatively recent and apparently pretty comprehensive book on the subject ( and an earlier one by the same editor about lunar resources )

So ... why is that terrestrial ore bodies that result from asteroid impact have such a different concentration of metals  from analogous bodies in space?
« Last Edit: 12/18/2013 11:48 pm by Danderman »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Impact of asteroid mining for space exploration beyond LEO
« Reply #10 on: 12/19/2013 12:04 am »
So ... why is that terrestrial ore bodies that result from asteroid impact have such a different concentration of metals  from analogous bodies in space?

If it just crashed yesterday, the only difference would be volatile boiloff from entering the atmosphere, etc, but that's typically not the case :)

Geological processes act on the impacted material over a long period of time.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: Impact of asteroid mining for space exploration beyond LEO
« Reply #11 on: 12/19/2013 04:41 am »
Nuclear power (fission as well as near-term fusion) is heavier than equivalent solar power (at same level of newly-invested R&D) until you get to the asteroid belt, and perhaps not even until you get to Jupiter (since solar power has such a huge jump on nuclear).

(unless you're on a planet with an atmosphere)

It's the asteroid belt and beyond that I'm talking about, I think that's where the money is.  Even though solar power can be used that far for research and monitoring, it simply will not have the energy density required for real industrial operations.  If we're going to do actual extraction, synthesis, manufacturing and construction on a large scale, and we'll have to do that in order to become an interplanetary species, then there's simply no substitute for fusion.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Impact of asteroid mining for space exploration beyond LEO
« Reply #12 on: 12/19/2013 05:45 am »
The whole opening post talking about how refueling makes BLEO space exploration much cheaper is just as true if you have refueling provided by cheaper RLVs (or heck, cheap ELVs, if you could mass-produce them). In fact, much of the benefit could be had with just using EELVs and refueling. The basic tenet is still correct: we don't need a Saturn V-class vehicle.

But anyway, space mining would be really nice to have. But interestingly, the global market for platinum-group metals is only ~$20 billion/year, which is less than 10% of the currently $300 billion annually space industry. Even still, it's got enormous growth potential, so even though I don't think PGM mining by itself would dramatically expand the space market, the fact that you're expanding the space market to well beyond the usual GSO-and-down sphere is quite significant. It would be dramatically transformative in a way that can't be predicted... That statement is contingent on the idea that a significant portion of the PGM annual production will happen in space (FAR from the most likely outcome, at least for the first few decades).
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 rockinghorse

It's the asteroid belt and beyond that I'm talking about, I think that's where the money is.

That is untrue. There has already been discovered 848 over one km sized objects that are located near Earth orbit (that have closest approach to Sun less than 1.3 AU). And there are smaller near Earth asteroids millions if not billions. I would assume that you have not heard on near Earth objects before. Therefore I would like to recommend for you the basic reading Donald Yeomans book: Near-Earth Objects.

There is absolutely no commercial relevance to go into Asteroid belt and beyond, because the necessary asteroid mining can be done using Near Earth objects.

Also Laser propulsion comes before nuclear propulsion, because it is technologically more feasible.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2013 09:49 am by rockinghorse »

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: Impact of asteroid mining for space exploration beyond LEO
« Reply #14 on: 12/19/2013 03:43 pm »
You're assuming that the benefit of mining asteroids is for the importing of the ore to Earth.  It will never be economical to do that.  Earth actually has plenty of mineral wealth accessible for far less trouble than any asteroid mission.

Mining asteroids is only economical for populations that are already in space.  Importing the stuff to Earth only defeats the purpose and undermines whatever advantages you get.  The best you'd be able to do is trade in advanced manufactured products that you'd be able to manufacture only in space -- fancy widgets.  Raw materials will never be profitable for import to Earth.

But the water-rich small bodies are the ones that will sustain a population that is already living out there.  Chondritic asteroids, and IMO comets are the resources that will drive our economic expansion throughout the solar system, and allow us to even move beyond it.  You can't exploit those on solar power.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Impact of asteroid mining for space exploration beyond LEO
« Reply #15 on: 12/19/2013 03:50 pm »
You're assuming that the benefit of mining asteroids is for the importing of the ore to Earth.  It will never be economical to do that.
Never is a really long time.

Quote
Earth actually has plenty of mineral wealth accessible for far less trouble than any asteroid mission.
Yeah, i have 99% of worlds reserves of unobtainium buried right under my house, but im not going to let anyone dig here. The point being, is that the fact that in theory, Earth has a wealth of resources matters very little if the interested parties cannot dig them up for various reasons.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Impact of asteroid mining for space exploration beyond LEO
« Reply #16 on: 12/19/2013 05:27 pm »
You're assuming that the benefit of mining asteroids is for the importing of the ore to Earth.  It will never be economical to do that.
Never is a really long time.

Quote
Earth actually has plenty of mineral wealth accessible for far less trouble than any asteroid mission.
Yeah, i have 99% of worlds reserves of unobtainium buried right under my house, but im not going to let anyone dig here. The point being, is that the fact that in theory, Earth has a wealth of resources matters very little if the interested parties cannot dig them up for various reasons.

Generally I would agree with llanitedave. It is not even about digging up remaining resources. Life itself has survived billions of years just recycling the same materials without needing to mine more. Whatever you are trying to achieve, from power storage to computing, life has probably demonstrated it can be done with existing materials.

However wouldn't it be ironic if a chinese embargo on rare earths actually did drive asteroid mining. Even if it makes no economic sense perhaps it makes some sort of "military balance of powers" sense. Im sure we can build a perfectly functional technological society without additional materials, but in a competitive situation it may be simply unacceptable to be even 1% less effective than your competition. We could be driven to space mining because the elements already exist on earth.. :)

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Impact of asteroid mining for space exploration beyond LEO
« Reply #17 on: 12/19/2013 05:38 pm »
However wouldn't it be ironic if a chinese embargo on rare earths actually did drive asteroid mining. Even if it makes no economic sense perhaps it makes some sort of "military balance of powers" sense.
Rare earths is unlikely, but any other trade constraint or embargo could end up a driving factor. See the "PGM OPEC" references that i posted, for example.

Note that WTO is not happy with Chinese but there are means to drag out the appeals processes etc and meanwhile some economies are at disadvantage.

EDIT : i think its worth quoting Dennis Wingo here a bit again:
Quote
It is stating the obvious to observe that there is no shortage of metal in the Earth’s crust, only of known ore. Unfortunately, ore is becoming increasingly more difficult to define with any certainty. For many metals, what is now considered ore is trending to lower grade and it is becoming more deeply situated. Moreover, as the declining discovery rate over recent decades has shown, it is becoming more difficult to discover an ore body now than it was 30 – 50 years ago.

Compounding the problem for mining companies and their explorers, this is all happening at a time when the demands for many mineral commodities are at all-time highs, and increasing. Without doubt, the world’s exploration teams will require a significantly improved future discovery performance if the present inventories of mineral-commodity ore reserves are not to be seriously depleted as the demand for mineral resources escalates over the coming decades…

I wonder how many times in these off-earth mining discussion that obvious has been stated, without really thinking things through

Quote
What is clear is that increasing cost, scarcity, and political trends point to a time when it may be less expensive to mine resources in space than the Earth. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when, and how.

Exactly. The question is how much do you invest in it and how soon. A few "space mining" companies are investing now, obviously in the big resources picture their investments are tiny.

« Last Edit: 12/19/2013 05:45 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Impact of asteroid mining for space exploration beyond LEO
« Reply #18 on: 12/19/2013 08:22 pm »
(edited to add quote)
Quote
What is clear is that increasing cost, scarcity, and political trends point to a time when it may be less expensive to mine resources in space than the Earth. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when, and how.

That doesn't deal with my "but life has done technological marvels for billions of years" point though. It is entirely possible to only use the sorts of elements that can be pulled out of your immediate surroundings, as life does, and still do all the same basic things.

Yes, mining on earth will probably face diminishing returns, but there are alternatives to these materials whose only flaw is that they are some percentage below the absolute best choice. If you can make a battery 10% better with one material, you will probably make 100% of your batteries out of it until there is absolutely no alternative. But the alternatives are ok, even if we use up every rare element and are restricted only to the elements that life recycles.

It is not just about stepping a few % backwards either. We will probably be able to make far better power storage devices than with the batteries we use today. Maybe they will be closer to capacitors or fat burning fuel cells or tiny windup contraptions with carbon nanotube springs or something, but there are a lot of options.

Also the elements are not actually destroyed at an atomic level. Maybe in a thousand years we will be leaching them out of seawater by some biological means, simultaneously cleaning the oceans of dangerous things like mercury. It might even not be a good idea to change the balance of these rare materials on earth by importing from space because if you are not recycling them, they must be building up in the environment.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2013 08:43 pm by KelvinZero »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Impact of asteroid mining for space exploration beyond LEO
« Reply #19 on: 12/19/2013 08:42 pm »
But the alternatives are ok, even if we use up every rare element and are restricted only to the elements that life recycles.
Why are you content with ok alternatives though ? You understand that the constant search for alternatives in face of scarce resources in some ways slows down our progress ( in another way it obviously contributes to research )

Maybe, ( this is an illustration, dont take it as serious argument ) if He-3 was abundant on earth we would not be burning gas or coal this century ?

Having more resources gives you more options - its that simple.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2013 08:46 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Tags:
 

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