Author Topic: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers  (Read 1194391 times)

Online TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4367
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3289
  • Likes Given: 636
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #740 on: 09/22/2019 05:10 am »
Some folks do NOT believe that "reducing the number of CLV-based logistical launches" is desirable ... in fact, flying multiple flights, quite often is better from a safety, redundancy and long term cost perspective (and other reasons).

* Multiple resupply flights provides opportunities for multiple players.   This redundancy assure mission success as demonstrated by the successful cargo contracts to the ISS which gracefully recovered from a couple of failures.

* Commercial providers, with appropriate fixed price contracts, are at least one order of magnitude cheaper per pound.   So it follows that having to throw 20% or 30% more mass is not a problem.   Minimizing mass is the WRONG variable to optimize.   Minimizing costs (development and operational) while designing away single points of failure are the right variables to optimize.

* Scalability.   SLS can't scale up.    The only way to have more than another flags and foot prints moon presence going forward is to utilize the large and increasing capacity available via commercial rockets.

* Sustainability.   If Jim B means something serious behind this rhetoric, then the moon efforts need to have a significant cadence, and be cheap enough to fund a diverse set of follow on missions.

To be clear, the refueling flights are never SLS, unless it's a very weird co-manifesting configuration.  You can argue about one FHE vs. two of almost anything else, but two flights are not only roughly $200M more expensive, they also have more complexity and therefore mission risk.

Note that you don't have to worry about refueling logistics if everything's expendable, but that makes things even more expensive. 

At some point, somebody has to care about cost or this simply isn't going to happen.  I'm skeptical enough that it can happen with SLS anywhere in the picture.  Having SLS and failing to optimize the refueling/logistics is just adding insult to injury.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #741 on: 09/29/2019 07:33 pm »
I think using the cryo upper stage of a FH-class (or SS-class) fully reusable vehicle at least for cycling stuff to the Gateway and back directly to Earth trades out better than LEO refueling of a storable in-space-only tug, but that does depend on how hard it is to refurbish a heatshield after a lunar reentry.

Agreed on both points, but the best thing would be to leave it to the market, to the degree that politics allow. Buy lander propellant in LEO and NRHO, let market players sort out how to get it there. If there is steady demand, then commerical players can get funding for the development of transfer vehicles of all kinds between LEO and NRHO, whether they use ordinary rocket engines using cryogens, arcjets, ion propulsion or whatever.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #742 on: 09/29/2019 07:47 pm »
Ehhhhh... We know how to transfer small amounts of storables with a crew attending the transfer.  Autonomous transfer of tens of tonnes of storables does require some new tech.  I don't think it's impossible by any means, but it's yet another task on the PERT chart.  We don't need more of those.

Are you familiar with the details of how the propellant transfer at the ISS works? It's really very straightforward. Propellant and nitrogen pressurant are kept separate, with bladders on the visiting vehicle, and with bellows on the ISS itself. Instead of venting the ullage gas to space, the ISS has redundant compressors that recompress it. I'm not sure why they did this, as it adds complexity to the ISS, but I suspect it is to save volume and up-mass on the relatively small Progress resupply vehicle.

The only thing that doesn't scale well is the bladders and bellows, but they aren't needed if you use milli-g settling. You might even do zero-g transfer with passive propellant transfer devices, but I'm not sure about this. Orbital Express demonstrated the latter, but only for small quantities and I'm not sure if that scales, although it might. But milli-g settling will definitely scale. The simplest solution for the pressurant in the receiving tank would involve ullage compression or closed-loop transfer (both demonstrated on Orbital Express), or simply venting to space. Separate compressors would be possible, but not necessary, and either a pump or a high pressure pressurant tank could be used. Both were demonstrated by Orbital Express, which had a pump derived from the Shuttle APU.

Dipprey, N., & Rotenberger, S. (2003). Orbital Express Propellant Resupply Servicing. 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit. doi:10.2514/6.2003-4898

Service Life Extension of the ISS Propulsion System Elements

The AR&D used is much more complicated than the propellant transfer itself, and is probably comparable to development of RS-72, with which you have no problem.

And it's not true that the process needs crew attention. On the ISS it can be monitored (and presumably controlled) in detail from the ground, but it is fully automated, and has been for at least several years. Similarly, Orbital Express could be controlled and monitored in detail from the ground, but after the individual steps had been validated, fully automated transfer was demonstrated.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2019 11:06 pm by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1925
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #743 on: 09/30/2019 08:22 pm »
Its out:

Appendix 8 Human Landing System
Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=d5460a204ab23cc0035c088dcc580d17

Paging InternetFTW....

EDIT:
Proposals due November 30

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1178764903370371078
« Last Edit: 09/30/2019 08:39 pm by GWH »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #744 on: 10/01/2019 12:16 am »
I noticed that NASA forgot to remove the viewing restrictions on Attachment_F-Requirements HLS-IRD-004 HLS to MS IRD. There may be a third restricted document as well since I have not checked them all.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #745 on: 10/01/2019 12:20 am »
Refuelling is no longer a requirement for the 2024 landing but sustainability is wanted for 2026. The lander needs the ability to dock directly with the Orion.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #746 on: 10/01/2019 12:34 am »
Refuelling is no longer a requirement for the 2024 landing but sustainability is wanted for 2026. The lander needs the ability to dock directly with the Orion.

That isn't my interpretation. They can propose either gateway docking or orion docking.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1925
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #747 on: 10/01/2019 12:59 am »
Quote
After reviewing the comments, NASA removed requirements that industry perceived as potential barriers to speed while preserving all the agency’s human safety measures. For example, industry stated that delivery of a high number of formal technical reports would require a company to spend considerable resources and incur undue schedule risk. Taking this into consideration, NASA has designed a less formal insight model that will be used for accessing critical contractor data while minimizing administrative overhead. As a result, NASA reduced the number of required contract deliverables from 116 to 37.

“Reports still are valuable and necessary, but to compromise and ease the bulk of the reporting burden on industry, we are asking for access to the companies’ systems to monitor progress throughout development,” said Nantel Suzuki, the Human Landing System program executive at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “To maximize our chances of successfully returning to the Moon by 2024, we also are making NASA’s engineering workforce available to contractors and asking proposers to submit a collaboration plan.”

When called to accelerate its return to the Moon, NASA said it would meet this ambitious goal by “any means necessary.” The agency’s preferred approach to a lunar landing is for the crew in the Orion spacecraft and the uncrewed human landing system to launch separately and meet in lunar orbit at the Gateway, which is critical to long-term exploration of the Moon. NASA wants to explore all options to achieve the 2024 mission and remains open to alternative, innovative approaches.

Another shift centered around how to best achieve sustainability on the Moon by 2028. In addition to greater performance, such as global lunar surface access and higher payload mass capacity, NASA originally required the Human Landing System to be refuelable as a means to ensure a more sustainable exploration architecture. Multiple companies had concerns about this requirement, and NASA agreed to remove it so that industry has greater flexibility to address the more fundamental attribute of sustainability, which is long-term affordability.

“They were absolutely right,” said Lisa Watson-Morgan, the Human Landing System program manager at NASA’s Marshall Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “We are operating on a timeline that requires us to be flexible to encourage innovation and alternate approaches. We still welcome the option to refuel the landing system, but we removed it as a requirement.”

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 865
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 2193
  • Likes Given: 996
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #748 on: 10/01/2019 01:00 am »
A relevant portion of the ConOps document citing Gateway being used by the lander being optional for 2024 (but required by 2026).

Quote
The goal is to use the Gateway for the Human Landing System as soon as possible and the Gateway will be ready to support the 2024 HLS mission. Proposals that do not use the Gateway must demonstrate substantial technical depth, including impacts on the Artemis III mission, as well as show how the system would evolve to support Gateway operations by 2026. For those proposals that do not choose to use the Gateway for the 2024 mission, the Gateway will continue to be available to provide functions such as serving as a communications relay in NRHO. The Gateway will be required for the sustained missions starting in 2026.

[...]

The HLS program assumes that the HLS Integrated Lander will be delivered to the Lunar vicinity separate from the crew and that the crew will be delivered using the Orion spacecraft. Per the general guidelines outlined above, for the Initial Capability missions the HLS Integrated Lander may use the Gateway to facilitate lunar mission operations, including crew access from Orion, or it may dock directly to Orion for crew access.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2019 01:03 am by theinternetftw »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #749 on: 10/01/2019 02:42 am »
Refuelling is no longer a requirement for the 2024 landing but sustainability is wanted for 2026. The lander needs the ability to dock directly with the Orion.

That isn't my interpretation. They can propose either gateway docking or orion docking.

Fortunately the Orion, HLS and Gateway will all use IDSS compatible docking ports.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 865
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 2193
  • Likes Given: 996
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #750 on: 10/01/2019 03:17 am »
From the ConOps Document:

Assumptions for Initial Mission Capability in 2024
* Two astronauts land on the Lunar South Pole
* Crew transfer into the HLS either by docking directly to Orion or through the Gateway.
* Hardware reuse is not required
* In the event Gateway is used for 2024, two crew members will stay behind in gateway, while two will descend to the surface.

Assumptions for Sustainable Missions
* Four crew land on the Lunar Surface
* Pre-deployed surface assets are available
* The Gateway will be used to facilitate crew and cargo transfers to HLS
* Some or all of the HLS is reusable, depending on sustainability analysis to be performed
* Refueling element enables reuse of elements if required for sustainability and to address disposal of elements for multiple missions.

* HLS is assumed to be launched by commercial launch vehicles.

* The total crew time in space, from Orion launch to landing, is expected to fall within 25-34 days
* The initial missions should not exceed 6.5 days of surface stay. Sustained missions may be of longer surface stay duration.

* Docking/Berthing mission rules have not been written for HLS. For autonomous berthing, free-flyer capture technology would be required.  This does not currently exist and would have to be developed to enable fully autonomous berthing at the Gateway.

* The crew must begin their pre-breathe operations prior to departing for the lunar surface, with a total of 36 hours of pre-breathe required prior to the first EVA. Prior to crew ingress of the HLS, the integrated inhabited space’s pressure is reduced to 10.2 psi for a predetermined period of time. Once the hatch is closed, the HLS cabin pressure will be reduced to 8.2 psi. The period between final crew ingress and touchdown on the surface is expected to be more than a day.

* A nominal transit of 12 hours from NRHO to a 100 km circular LLO is anticipated. A loiter in LLO up to three revolutions will likely be needed either for crew preparation for descent and/or navigation state updates to reduce error after the LOI burn.

* HLS landing capabilities are expected to include automated landing, as well as the capability for the crew to land the vehicle.

* In the event of a problem during descent that requires an aborted landing, the HLS will safely return the crew to the Gateway. This is the only option, as neither the Gateway nor Orion systems have an LLO rescue capability.

* The surface abort option is for the HLS to return the crew to the Gateway. A surface abort may require the crew to shelter in place until the Gateway is in the correct orbital position for an ascent.

* The lander can have a separate airlock or do a full cabin depress.

* xEMUs are cited as being the surface suit and will also be worn during ascent and descent.
* If necessary the xEMU PLSSs may be left on the surface, but keeping them is preferred.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1219
  • Likes Given: 3534
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #751 on: 10/01/2019 03:17 am »
The relevant passages on usage of the SLS in proposals:
Quote from: Appendix H
The commercial launch vehicle approach does not prevent or preclude offerors from negotiating with the Space Launch System (SLS) and Exploration Ground Systems prime contractors directly (Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, United Launch Alliance, and Jacobs) to provide an SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution for the Artemis launch mission(s) in which NASA is not the integrator or provider. Any proposal to purchase such a launch solution must not interfere with current government plans for SLS development, production, and operations that are required for the successful execution of the 2024 and subsequent lunar lander missions.

[...]

The Offeror may propose use of a SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution, in which NASA is not the integrator or provider, for transportation of HLS module(s), components, or integrated systems to trans-lunar injection (TLI). In addition to items (ii) and (iii) above, the Offeror proposing use of an SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution shall provide:
1. Method of integrating Offeror’s proposal with the SLS contractors, including hardware, software, and flight operations
2. Method of acquiring an Engine(s), Upper Stage, Fairing, Payload Adapter and any other component for an SLS-derived commercial cargo configuration
3. A plan of how the Offeror’s proposal use of SLS cargo vehicle solution as transportation will not interfere with any current SLS contracts or NASA’s current government plans for SLS development, production, and operations that are required for the successful execution of the 2024 and subsequent lunar lander missions; as well as any priority NASA has laid out to meet the deep space exploration objectives
4. Total integrated launch vehicle price
I'm quite surprised to learn that NASA wants anyone going this route to negotiate with the SLS contractors directly, and not go through them. It's not at all what I was expecting.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2019 03:18 am by jadebenn »

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1950
  • Likes Given: 1139
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #752 on: 10/01/2019 03:27 am »
The relevant passages on usage of the SLS in proposals:
Quote from: Appendix H
The commercial launch vehicle approach does not prevent or preclude offerors from negotiating with the Space Launch System (SLS) and Exploration Ground Systems prime contractors directly (Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, United Launch Alliance, and Jacobs) to provide an SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution for the Artemis launch mission(s) in which NASA is not the integrator or provider. Any proposal to purchase such a launch solution must not interfere with current government plans for SLS development, production, and operations that are required for the successful execution of the 2024 and subsequent lunar lander missions.

[...]

The Offeror may propose use of a SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution, in which NASA is not the integrator or provider, for transportation of HLS module(s), components, or integrated systems to trans-lunar injection (TLI). In addition to items (ii) and (iii) above, the Offeror proposing use of an SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution shall provide:
1. Method of integrating Offeror’s proposal with the SLS contractors, including hardware, software, and flight operations
2. Method of acquiring an Engine(s), Upper Stage, Fairing, Payload Adapter and any other component for an SLS-derived commercial cargo configuration
3. A plan of how the Offeror’s proposal use of SLS cargo vehicle solution as transportation will not interfere with any current SLS contracts or NASA’s current government plans for SLS development, production, and operations that are required for the successful execution of the 2024 and subsequent lunar lander missions; as well as any priority NASA has laid out to meet the deep space exploration objectives
4. Total integrated launch vehicle price
I'm quite surprised to learn that NASA wants anyone going this route to negotiate with the SLS contractors directly, and not go through them. It's not at all what I was expecting.
I like this move.  SLS would have to compete with commercial providers for these launches.  They may have to come up with ways to reduce launch costs to compete.  I think NASA wants to see what the primes are willing to do if anything to get more launches.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1219
  • Likes Given: 3534
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #753 on: 10/01/2019 03:37 am »
I like this move.  SLS would have to compete with commercial providers for these launches.  They may have to come up with ways to reduce launch costs to compete.  I think NASA wants to see what the primes are willing to do if anything to get more launches.
Something that sticks out to me is the fact that they call it "a SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle." Why aren't they just calling it a cargo SLS? It implies that there'd be something different about the rocket other than the fact it would be purchased by a non-NASA party.

I suppose they may just be signalling that anyone going down this route doesn't need to consider themselves chained to current NASA spec, but it's still an odd choice of phrasing.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9098
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #754 on: 10/01/2019 03:38 am »
Quote
Updated evaluation factors and relative weighting;

Looks like they moved "Total Evaluated Price" from 3rd place to 2nd place, now "Total Evaluated Price" is more important than "Management Approach". Also they added "Approach to Early System Demonstrations" to "Technical Approach".

Both are pretty good ideas.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 865
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 2193
  • Likes Given: 996
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #755 on: 10/01/2019 03:44 am »
HLS up/down mass requirements.  Looks like the plan is to still leave poop on the moon (but maybe take our PLSSs back this time).

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #756 on: 10/01/2019 03:47 am »
Boeing was lobbying to be a systems integrator for SLS as telegraphed by Doug Cooke in a recent NASA hearing in front of Congress. They likely want the room to make whatever changes they want as well(this is going to be unmanned for the launch portion so that may lead to some savings - weight or cost). I think it is likely that Boeing will bid a single SLS block 1B launch.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #757 on: 10/01/2019 03:52 am »

Something that sticks out to me is the fact that they call it "a SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle." Why aren't they just calling it a cargo SLS? It implies that there'd be something different about the rocket other than the fact it would be purchased by a non-NASA party.

I suppose they may just be signalling that anyone going down this route doesn't need to consider themselves chained to current NASA spec, but it's still an odd choice of phrasing.

Is the payload interface between the SLS and the Orion officially part of the SLS or the Orion? I assume cargo would need a different interface.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1219
  • Likes Given: 3534
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #758 on: 10/01/2019 03:55 am »
Boeing was lobbying to be a systems integrator for SLS as telegraphed by Doug Cooke in a recent NASA hearing in front of Congress. They likely want the room to make whatever changes they want as well(this is going to be unmanned for the launch portion so that may lead to some savings - weight or cost). I think it is likely that Boeing will bid a single SLS block 1B launch.
I concur that the prime candidate to bid an SLS-launched lander is Boeing. The terms as listed would be quite amenable to them, and they seem to have a strong desire to find more customers for the rocket (something they've been generally unsuccessful in so far).

I'm not going to count-out the possibility that someone else has a bid along those lines, but none of the other competitors would have as much motivation to bid SLS as Boeing does.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2019 03:58 am by jadebenn »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 865
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 2193
  • Likes Given: 996
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #759 on: 10/01/2019 04:53 am »
From the Requirements Docs:

* The HLS shall have a minimum system hardware reliability of 0.975 for an 8 Earth-day sortie mission to the lunar surface including at least two (threshold) and five (goal) Lunar surface EVAs, without corrective repair for the entire sortie.

* Shall support two crew, 8-day sorties (6.5 day surface time) to/from a lunar landing site between 84°S and 90°S with 100m accuracy.

* The HLS shall be capable of maintaining quiescent operations for no less than 60 days (threshold) and 90 days (goal) at Lunar Orbit.  The Crew will not launch until HLS is confirmed operational in Lunar Orbit.

* The HLS shall be capable of delivering scientific payload of 100 kg and returning scientific payload of at least 35 kg (threshold) and 100 kg (goal).

* The HLS shall provide the capability for the crew to manually control the flight path and attitude. Manual control implementation and the supporting tools will be verified in a cockpit environment to ensure they are adequate to support manual control and operations appropriate for the lunar lander.

* The system should maintain the atmospheric temperature within the range of 18 ºC (64.4 ºF) to 27 ºC (80.6 ºF) during all nominal operations.  Average relative humidity (RH) shall be maintained between 25% and 75% over each 24‑hour period during all mission operations.

* Any surface that bare skin will touch will result in a skin temperature of no more than 44 °C (111.2 °F) and no less than 10 ºC (50 °F).

* Sustained Mission: shall be capable of surface ops during 50 hours (threshold) and 191 hours (goal) of continuous darkness.
* Sustained Mission: shall deliver at least 1,595 kg to the lunar surface. Path to this may include a 3-crew option (delivery of 1,205 kg).
* Sustained Mission: shall return at least 1,070 kg to Gateway. Path to this may include a 3-crew option (return of 815 kg).
* Sustained Mission: shall provide a four crew sortie to pre-emplaced infrastructure that will provide some habitability functionality.
* Sustained Mission: shall provide global lunar surface access.
* Sustained Mission: shall be designed for on orbit IVA/EVA maintenance to not exceed 24 man-hours in duration.

* The color red shall be used as a visual indicator for the highest alert level.

* I have not found a mass limit for the HLS.  The Gateway mass requirement is thus: "While docked to the Gateway, the HLS shall provide supplementary attitude control to the integrated stack when the lander exceeds 45mT."

Tags: OPF SS Starship HLS Raptor 
 

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