SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

GW Johnson · 2017-03-07 11:42:46

Perusing Bigelow's website, the claims for B330 with its 0.46 m = 18 inch hull thickness are that its radiation protection equals or exceeds that of current ISS modules, and its ballistic (meteor) protection far exceeds that of ISS modules. BEAM as depicted in the photos has a thinner hull. No radiation numbers given, that is one of the objectives of the BEAM experiment at ISS.

The kind of radiation at ISS is some of the slow drizzle of cosmic rays, plus whatever leaks out of the van Allen belts, especially at the South Atlantic Anomaly. I think that stuff resembles solar particle radiation, but nowhere near as intense as during a flare out in space somewhere. Supposedly ISS astronauts get about half the "routine" radiation that astronauts near the moon would get, excepting those intense solar flares.

I think from a "routine" radiation standpoint near the moon, the B330 should work as well as any concepts we have, if not a little better. The solar flare thing is different, that requires a real radiation shelter to hide in for the few hours until the burst passes. NASA's radiation protection site has data indicating that 15-20 cm of water is quite adequate as a shield.

It's just not so much the routine drizzle of GCR, it's the erratic solar flares that are the lethal hazard. In Earth's part of the solar system, GCR doses range from 24 to 60 REM annual accumulation, depending upon the sunspot cycle (active sun pushes GCR to lower levels). NASA's published dose allowables use 50 REM/year max annual dose. It doesn't take much shielding effect to get under 50 REM even in a 60 REM year.

The hard part is that place to hide during a strong solar flare, like the 1972 event between two Apollo missions to the moon. That's a lethal dose in minutes, just like right after a surface atomic blast, in the max fallout zone. Water is heavy, but it's a good shield for that kind of stuff.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-03-07 11:43:57)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-03-07 13:07:30

In my mind, there's really no justification for having a continuously manned space station in orbit around the Moon. The overall health hazard level is just too high for long term occupancy. Unfortunately, the lunar surface isn't much better, but a Bigelow habitat on the surface could be covered with regolith for some shielding against not just Solar flare protons, but also attenuates the GCR background.

Final comment: On to Mars!

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-03-07 16:50:22)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-07 15:18:44

The Moon's surface gets only half the radiation because the Moon itself blocks the other half. On the plus side, if an astronaut is in orbit, he is easier to get back to Earth than if he is on the Moon's surface, and if he is on the Moon's surface there is the possibility of him being stranded on he Moon's surface if the ascent stage doesn't work.

GW Johnson · 2017-03-07 17:36:43

If one is in low orbit about the moon, one gets most of the 50% reduction in radiation flux, because the adjacent moon blocks very nearly the same amount of sky as if you are standing upon it. Thus, for "routine" radiation, the dose in a lunar orbit station should be grossly comparable to what ISS astronauts receive.

The same need for a solar flare shelter exists there in lunar orbit as in deep space. It's less of a problem at ISS, because the Earth's magnetic field diverts much of the blast into the van Allen belts. Only some gets through. From a radiation dose standpoint, that is the real difference between travel only to LEO versus travel anywhere outside of LEO.

Whether a lunar station is something we actually want to build is entirely another question. But radiation is not the item that decides yea or nay. You're either prepared to weather the storm, or you are not (in which case you die, see below).

NASA astronaut exposure allowables (from their own site), which are about twice what Earthly nuclear workers are allowed to absorb: no more than 50 REM accumulated in any one year, no more than 25 REM accumulated in any one month, and a career limit ranging by age and gender from around 300-or-less to a max of 400 (for elderly persons of both genders) total accumulated REM over their entire careers. The criterion was a 3% expected increase in the cancer rate late in life.

It's REM/time average rate, multiplied by the time interval that applies, that is the increment of REM accumulated. In a solar flare at ~5000 REM/hour, you max out very quickly! One rule of thumb is that 500 REM accumulated in a very short interval is fatal within minutes to hours. You die of acute radiation sickness, there is no effective treatment, and it is an ugly death. At 5000 REM/hour, you accumulate that immediately-fatal dose in just about 6 minutes exposure.

Memory fails, but I think I saw that the 1972 flare event peaked in a pulse shape at some number of 10,000's of REM's per hour, for a pulse duration of a small handful of hours. A good rule-of-thumb for the area under the curve in pulses like that is peak rate x duration / 3. That would be an accumulated dose in the neighborhood of 10^4 REM. Fatal before the pulse can pass.

Sorry about the REM. I don't know Seiverts. REM is what was on the NASA site.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-03-07 17:43:15)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-03-07 18:25:41

GW-

It's my position that an orbiting lunar satellite is not anything we really should spend money on... Even a permanent base on the lunar surface is of questionable utility--other than for military purposes or a huge astronomical telescope. The folks who question the sanity of colonizing Mars should have apoplexy when discussing a permanent presence on our own satellite. They think that Mars is worse than Antarctica, but conditions on Mars are benign when compared with the Moon.

SpaceNut · 2017-03-07 18:35:57

The inflateable for a lunar surface habitat that is burried now has to carry the mass of regolith and with each entry and exit, with the air pressure fluctuating such that the regolith will crack and need constant maintenance. If we do need to burry the habitat simply overfill and cover first with a lunar concrete mix which will be re-enforced to carry the weight of regolith on top of it such that internal pressure inside of the inflateable can be reduced once the concrete has set. This would make it more impact resistent as well...

Or you can just dig into the bed rock with a tunneling machine and insrt the inflateable inside it newly created cavern and inflate once it is stabilized for use cover the end with regolith concrete mix to finish it up for long term use..

GW Johnson · 2017-03-07 22:01:09

Oldfart1939:

I dunno whether a lunar orbit station is desirable or not. The likes of a Bigelow may like such a thing for the tourist trade. Whether it is otherwise attractive seems unlikely to me, similar to you. But what do I know?

All I was trying to address was whether or not we let the no-risk-at-all safety-nannies scare us out of doing something because of "routine" radiation (I vote "no", that's not an excuse not to do it). I think microgravity disease is a bigger threat, right up there with death by solar flare. Address those, and there's no reason for anyone not to do this, if it seems attractive otherwise to them.

Spacenut:

What's wrong with erecting a shed roof over a surface inflatable, and piling a meter or so of regolith on top of that shed roof? It'll have to be a stout shed, and that cannot be lightweight. Other than that, all you need is a wrench and small crane to erect the shed, and an electric-powered front-end loader to pile the regolith.

You don't land that much stuff with an Apollo-like lander, but if you have landed an inflatable habitat there, you already have the means to land other large-mass payloads.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-03-07 22:05:39)

SpaceNut · 2017-03-07 22:24:47

yes a shed roof made of heavy materials from earth once assemble would work but thats the problem lunar landers and heavy materials delivered do not mix....

Oldfart1939 · 2017-03-07 22:49:56

If other large-mass payloads can be landed on the Moon, I'd say the roof structure for support of a good quantity of regolith--at LEAST a meter thickness-needs to be made from something besides an inflatable material. the walls--just pile regolith against them but have a structure that's not going to collapse under many tons of rocks and fines. Maybe excavate a crater-like hole in the ground, then push regolith back against it and have a strong polymeric hard roof structure. Bury the whole thing except for the entrance to the airlock. Sort of like the bomb shelters that were popular back in the 1950s? I for one, wouldn't want to live that way, though. I'd go absolutely bonkers during the 14 day lunar night.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-08 07:25:38

Oldfart1939 wrote:

GW-
It's my position that an orbiting lunar satellite is not anything we really should spend money on... Even a permanent base on the lunar surface is of questionable utility--other than for military purposes or a huge astronomical telescope. The folks who question the sanity of colonizing Mars should have apoplexy when discussing a permanent presence on our own satellite. They think that Mars is worse than Antarctica, but conditions on Mars are benign when compared with the Moon.

The Moon is a better place for tourism than Mars. People are much more willing to spend a couple weeks on a vacation to the Moon, that take several years to get to and from Mars. The SpaceX lunar flyby is just the beginning, if SpaceX succeeds and reuses its rocket booster, it can begin selling tickets to the Moon, and for the tourists to have a place to visit, there needs to be a base.

RGClark · 2017-03-08 08:32:26

This *might* be doable with a single Falcon 9 v1.2 and Dragon V2, no Falcon Heavy required:

According to the SpaceX site, the F9 v1.2, http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 can get 8,300 kg, 18,300 lb, to geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostatio … sfer_orbit.

GTO is an intermediate orbit to GEO frequently used for communications satellites.

It takes about 2,500 delta-v to get to GTO and about 3,100 m/s delta-v to reach the Moon, translunar injection, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translunar_injection. So you would need about 600 m/s additional delta-v to get to the Moon.

The Dragon V2 is said to carry 1,390 kg of propellant for its Superdraco thrusters. The Isp of the Superdracos, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDraco) is only 240s at sea level. But with just a nozzle extension we can get the vacuum Isp to the 320 s range.

Then the delta-v possible for a 6,400 metric ton dry mass Dragon V2 would be:

320*9.81ln(1 + 1,390/(6400)) = 616.9 m/s.

This is just barely enough. But rocket engineers always like to carry some extra fuel on flights. Also that calculation doesn't even include the weight of the astronauts.
We could store some extra fuel in the trunk of the Dragon. If we had 1,600 kg total propellant in the Dragon and trunk then we could get a delta-v of

320*9.81ln(1 + 1,600/(6400 +200)) = 681 m/s.

This would allow 200 kg more for the astronauts and supplies.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2017-03-08 08:33:26)

SpaceNut · 2017-03-08 19:05:54

GW Johnson post 34, 40 and 43 have simular additional numbers of fuel required for a lunar flyby for a crew of 2 possibly 3 depending on consumables and other mass statements.

All we are waiting on is a man rated capsule test to be done to call it certified for use.

GW Johnson · 2017-03-09 10:28:47

My numbers for propellant loads and Isp are a little different from what Bob is using. I got them off an earlier incarnation of Spacex's website. Can't find them there anymore. But I posted the lot over at "exrocketman", with an indication of the pedigree.

I did estimate the split of dry weight among capsule and trunk. It's different for cargo vs crew Dragon. I estimated yet a different dry weight for the capsule of Red Dragon, and paired it with a cargo Dragon trunk for electric power. For now, I'm using the same dry weight for both trunks, in spite of the design differences.

There's not enough "oomph" in a Dragon with a propellant supply in its trunk to get into and back out of lunar orbit, and preserve a budget for attitude control during reentry. It takes 0.8 km/s to get into lunar orbit from the transfer trajectory, and another 0.8 km/s to get back out onto a return trajectory. The trunk is only rated for 3000 kg and some of that has to be tankage and plumbing mass.

I've got some discussions of such a modification posted in the Apollo-11 redux thread, as well as over at "exrocketman". You need enough "oomph" in the booster rocket stages to get you all the way into lunar orbit, if you expect a crew Dragon to get home safely and reliably, even with 2800 kg propellant in its trunk. My numbers show that even with 850 kg of astronauts, suits, supplies, etc.

In this context, "safely and reliably" means a budget left for attitude control, and another large budget left for the powered landing on Earth. That leaves the ocean landing with chutes as a backup, in case other troubles deplete you propellant budgets more than you planned, such as booster stage failure to put you into lunar orbit.

If that lunar orbit entry stage failure happens, your options are do the free return abort, or use your Earth landing budget to enter lunar orbit, knowing you still have enough to leave lunar orbit, and to cover entry attitude control.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-03-09 10:40:59)

SpaceNut · 2017-06-24 10:40:55

Mum has been the word on Space x Dragon V2 launch on the heavy to which even the unmanned demo could be used for this.

SpaceNut · 2018-02-09 19:50:27

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I suspect the FH launch reignited a lot of interest in space and rocketry. Probably will sell quite a few FH launches for the company and ultimately justify getting FH human rated. I'd love to see the circumlunar tourist flight before SLS ever flies.

Seems like this is looking more promising with a 2 rocket per mission...

louis · 2018-03-03 06:50:33

Have people seen this - which includes I think excerpts from a Press conference after the BFR launch. "All hands on deck for the crew dragon"...I guess Musk sees the potential for an important revenue stream from lunar tourism (more so than ISS human transport I think) which will help fund Mars colonisation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CGOlWJOZgM

Last edited by louis (2018-03-03 16:47:03)

Void · 2018-03-03 12:06:55

I am glad that SpaceX updates their thinking from time to time.

Several good reasons for the Moon are apparent:

1) Something that I expected to happen eventually has happened:
http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/28/nasa-slam … s-7348464/
Quote:

But Nasa has taken a dig at Elon Musk for sending a Tesla Roadster into the heavens during the test of the world’s most powerful rocket. Lisa Pratt, Nasa’s planetary protection officer, is normally concerned with thinking about how to protect Earth from threats like asteroids and aliens. Now she’s called for ‘reasonable protocols and processes’ to be put in place to govern private space missions like Musk’s recent launch of a Falcon Heavy rocket carrying a Tesla sports cars. ‘What we do, and what ESA is doing, in some cases are requirements that would be virtually impossible for a commercial mission to meet,’ she said,

Perhaps somewhat reasonable, but if the roadster is a hazard even though odds are it will not hit the Earth, Mars, or the Sun for millions of years, then what about other space objects that are not sterilized and are perhaps containing lubricants, and other substances which just might allow microbes to survive?

With such a rigid mandate, then the only "Legal" orbits would be those which do not reach out to Mars. That leaves the Moon and NEO's. And even then they could claim that space junk left in a orbit short of the Mars orbit might eventually drift into a higher orbit somehow. So then that leaves the Moon.

Palomar 7 introduced us to ""Marcie Bianco" who did a burn on Elon Musk from a feminist stance.
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8078

And then none other than Vladimir Putin threatens Florida, and Elon Musk

A pattern of socialist/fascist thinking? Maybe.

As I have said previously, I expected them to use the planetary protection card, as soon as it seemed possible that humans could reach Mars and perhaps Ceres. And now they have. And in a massively restrictive way.

The speculated reason for their behaviors is that people like these view other humans as potential property. Control them and you also control their property. In the case of NASA it becomes very suspicious that some factions of the organization have never supported human activities on Mars. They just want their employment, and to do un-crewed probes. And in some cases to hold the human race in bondage.

2) Being able to do test runs to the Moon while delivering materials for revenue only makes sense.

3) Having a small number of persons on the Moon would give a data point of human physical and psychological reaction. This could be used to make a curve with other data. Other data would comprise normal human health on Earth, Zero Gee data, and I suggested elsewhere using a Handler Robot modified to more resemble a rickshaw, in order to test humans legs at least with lowered weight loads here on Earth.

Having such a curve would give some better notions of how humans might react to the Martian .38 gravity, and would suggest how much synthetic gravity we might want to engineer for in space orbits habitats.

4) Moon water, not just in dark polar craters:
https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/26/moon-water-poles/
Quote:

Water could be extracted all over the Moon, not just at its poles
Researchers believe they're seeing hydroxyl, though, which would take some extra processing.

The study of cleaned-up spectrometry data suggests water is present all over the Moon, but unfortunately, it doesn't make a lunar base any more viable. The researchers believe the majority of what they're seeing is probably hydroxyl (OH), not actual water molecules (H2O). In order to make use of the hydroxyl, you'd have to mine, extract and process it -- not nearly as simple as stumbling across a big deposit of ice, then.

Even so if Hydroxyl is there it does suggest a greater value of the Moon.

......

So, in summary, while the socialist/fascists play their games and try to impede human progress in space, and especially North American commercial space, the Moon offers practice, potential revenues, and perhaps a worthy world all of its own.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-03-03 12:36:13)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-03-03 13:31:04

There used to be a good saying: "Lead, follow, or get the Hell out of the way." NASA bureaucrat have only taken various actions to impede SpaceX. If they keep up this sh#t, Elon should buy his own country in the Caribbean and move his launch facilities there. When SpaceX had elegant and concrete plans to retro-propulsively land the Dragon 2 on dry land instead of ocean splashdown--NASA nixed the idea as "not invented here," and "that's not the way NASA does things."

I for one, thought the launch of a Tesla roadster was marvelous PR for space in general.

Bridenstine needs to be confirmed as the new Director and bring this sort of garbage to a halt.

SpaceNut · 2018-03-03 15:01:50

While youtube has value its written word that I am counting on along with pictures that show Space X is working on the future. Hopefully we will see that soon.

louis · 2018-03-03 16:51:10

We all know NASA have exported huge numbers of microbes to other celestial bodies (unless you believe that a hair net stops microbes getting into rovers and satellites!).

I think this the "retards" are stirring and are getting ready to try and stop Musk getting to Mars first by foul means not fair.

Void wrote:

I am glad that SpaceX updates their thinking from time to time.
Several good reasons for the Moon are apparent:
1) Something that I expected to happen eventually has happened:
http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/28/nasa-slam … s-7348464/
Quote:
But Nasa has taken a dig at Elon Musk for sending a Tesla Roadster into the heavens during the test of the world’s most powerful rocket. Lisa Pratt, Nasa’s planetary protection officer, is normally concerned with thinking about how to protect Earth from threats like asteroids and aliens. Now she’s called for ‘reasonable protocols and processes’ to be put in place to govern private space missions like Musk’s recent launch of a Falcon Heavy rocket carrying a Tesla sports cars. ‘What we do, and what ESA is doing, in some cases are requirements that would be virtually impossible for a commercial mission to meet,’ she said,
Perhaps somewhat reasonable, but if the roadster is a hazard even though odds are it will not hit the Earth, Mars, or the Sun for millions of years, then what about other space objects that are not sterilized and are perhaps containing lubricants, and other substances which just might allow microbes to survive?
With such a rigid mandate, then the only "Legal" orbits would be those which do not reach out to Mars. That leaves the Moon and NEO's. And even then they could claim that space junk left in a orbit short of the Mars orbit might eventually drift into a higher orbit somehow. So then that leaves the Moon.
Palomar 7 introduced us to ""Marcie Bianco" who did a burn on Elon Musk from a feminist stance.
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8078
And then none other than Vladimir Putin threatens Florida, and Elon Musk
A pattern of socialist/fascist thinking? Maybe.
As I have said previously, I expected them to use the planetary protection card, as soon as it seemed possible that humans could reach Mars and perhaps Ceres. And now they have. And in a massively restrictive way.
The speculated reason for their behaviors is that people like these view other humans as potential property. Control them and you also control their property. In the case of NASA it becomes very suspicious that some factions of the organization have never supported human activities on Mars. They just want their employment, and to do un-crewed probes. And in some cases to hold the human race in bondage.
2) Being able to do test runs to the Moon while delivering materials for revenue only makes sense.
3) Having a small number of persons on the Moon would give a data point of human physical and psychological reaction. This could be used to make a curve with other data. Other data would comprise normal human health on Earth, Zero Gee data, and I suggested elsewhere using a Handler Robot modified to more resemble a rickshaw, in order to test humans legs at least with lowered weight loads here on Earth.
Having such a curve would give some better notions of how humans might react to the Martian .38 gravity, and would suggest how much synthetic gravity we might want to engineer for in space orbits habitats.
4) Moon water, not just in dark polar craters:
https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/26/moon-water-poles/
Quote:
Water could be extracted all over the Moon, not just at its poles
Researchers believe they're seeing hydroxyl, though, which would take some extra processing.

The study of cleaned-up spectrometry data suggests water is present all over the Moon, but unfortunately, it doesn't make a lunar base any more viable. The researchers believe the majority of what they're seeing is probably hydroxyl (OH), not actual water molecules (H2O). In order to make use of the hydroxyl, you'd have to mine, extract and process it -- not nearly as simple as stumbling across a big deposit of ice, then.
Even so if Hydroxyl is there it does suggest a greater value of the Moon.
......
So, in summary, while the socialist/fascists play their games and try to impede human progress in space, and especially North American commercial space, the Moon offers practice, potential revenues, and perhaps a worthy world all of its own.
Done.

louis · 2018-03-03 16:58:07

Yep, they started their launches in a sovereign territory in the Pacific (albeit one effectively controlled by the USA). The Roadster is not going to harm any human or any off-Earth life forms. I agree, this is a huge overeaction driven by envy of Space X's progress on a relatively tiny budget compared with NASA's.

There are definitely forces at work who aim to derail Musk's Mars Mission using bogus fears of bio-contamination.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

There used to be a good saying: "Lead, follow, or get the Hell out of the way." NASA bureaucrat have only taken various actions to impede SpaceX. If they keep up this sh#t, Elon should buy his own country in the Caribbean and move his launch facilities there. When SpaceX had elegant and concrete plans to retro-propulsively land the Dragon 2 on dry land instead of ocean splashdown--NASA nixed the idea as "not invented here," and "that's not the way NASA does things."
I for one, thought the launch of a Tesla roadster was marvelous PR for space in general.
Bridenstine needs to be confirmed as the new Director and bring this sort of garbage to a halt.

elderflower · 2018-03-04 04:03:04

Predictable! Nasa defending its near monopoly.

SpaceNut · 2018-03-04 10:04:51

Well since Nasa is an agency they are in essense a monopoly as are in charge of the keys to space or at least they were. So it is hard for them to change cars, lets others have them to build and use. Space X has proven ot old space that new space needs to be the car manufacturers for what we the people want them for. That they need to build for future uses that do not exist today.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-03-04 16:00:00

Unfortunate that NASA is a Bureaucracy filled with Bureaucrats. And as such each little subsection and department has it's own fief or turf to defend. NASA didn't like the idea of returning astronauts on land using a beautifully designed Falcon 2 using retro rocket propulsion, but complained about the heat shield and the designed landing legs which would have protruded through. "Unsafe," they screamed. "Not the way we do things at NASA," they howled! And as a result, SpaceX abandoned the Red Dragon project(s). "Get the Falcon Heavy man rated before astronauts can fly aboard it," is probably the reason Elon said recently there are no plans to do so. NASA no longer has the vision to "Boldly go where no man has gone before." Instead, they are emulating the EPA as a regressive entity in Space.

The Lunar flyby is definitely within the grasp and reach of SpaceX if NASA does NOT get in the way. Ditto the Mars landings. In that case, the planetary protection argument will undoubtedly rear it's ugly head. Then there will be the problem of cross contamination of the Earth by returning spacecraft. What else can they come up with to inhibit progress? As Robert Zubrin has already observed, pathogens tend to be species specific; i.e. he's never seen a human with Dutch Elm disease.

SpaceNut · 2018-03-04 21:41:23

2nd time to send a reply but this time it was a power outage due to tree limbs.....

Space x could just go ahead with making changes to the Dragon for a manned flight as its already meets the Nasa approval as this will push the non bureaucratic process out of the road block. Change the truck to life support for the initial manned flights with the redesigned Red Dragon for a spash down option for earth return use and legs for the mars, moon landings. This all would send shivers down Nasa's spine....
Space x just needs to lead and step forward to take the reigns leaving Nasa in the dust. Companies like Boeing and Lockheed can also do the same as they have the capital to fund this new direction.
We are at the dream of building it and they will come....price is the factor to pushing the open market.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2017-03-07 11:42:46

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#52 2017-03-07 13:07:30

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#53 2017-03-07 15:18:44

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#54 2017-03-07 17:36:43

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#55 2017-03-07 18:25:41

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#56 2017-03-07 18:35:57

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#57 2017-03-07 22:01:09

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#58 2017-03-07 22:24:47

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#59 2017-03-07 22:49:56

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#60 2017-03-08 07:25:38

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#61 2017-03-08 08:32:26

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#62 2017-03-08 19:05:54

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#63 2017-03-09 10:28:47

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#64 2017-06-24 10:40:55

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#65 2018-02-09 19:50:27

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#66 2018-03-03 06:50:33

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#67 2018-03-03 12:06:55

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#68 2018-03-03 13:31:04

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#69 2018-03-03 15:01:50

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#70 2018-03-03 16:51:10

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#71 2018-03-03 16:58:07

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#72 2018-03-04 04:03:04

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#73 2018-03-04 10:04:51

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#74 2018-03-04 16:00:00

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

#75 2018-03-04 21:41:23

Re: SpaceX 2018 Lunar Flyby

Board footer