Falcon Heavy, but then what?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-15 12:25:33

After reading a few of the posts resurrected by SpaceNut, contrasted with the speculative new topic posted regarding Mars in 100 years, we really need to assess where we are in the quest for the Red Planet!

SpaceX and Elon Musk have been making some strides towards getting there vis-à-vis a Falcon Heavy mediated Red Dragon flight; my crystal ball is pretty murky beyond about 2020 in regards to truly concrete proposals. IMHO, there really needs to be another steppingstone between Falcon Heavy and the proposed Interplanetary Transport System.

On the Spaceflight 101 website, there is a link to some of the concept proposals published a few years ago by SpaceX, which included a proposed Falcon X, which was ~ 5 meters diameter--a really suitable central core for a Mars Direct spacecraft architecture. This should--nay--must be the intermediate step for getting humans to Mars within the next 8-10 years. A Falcon X Semi Heavy could be constructed by using existing Falcon 9 previously flown rockets as boosters. Using an approach such as this, we might actually get a 6 to 10 person crew flown to Mars before the usual delays in building the "BFR."

It really seems fanciful to speculate about Mars 100 years in the future before we've been there, and progress has been glacially slow in just getting to Mars.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-06-18 11:39:49)

kbd512 · 2017-06-15 13:04:26

Speculating on what will or won't happen in 100 years time is literally talking out your rear end. You can be sure that anyone who claims otherwise is lying to you. We're all supposed to be living like the Jetsons nowadays if you've read any prognostications from decades past. That still hasn't happened.

Rockets like Falcon Heavy are the largest rockets that we can affordably construct using currently available technology. We've built bigger rockets in the past and we're building bigger rockets right now. None of those bigger rockets have ever been even remotely affordable. Ten years from now, who knows. Maybe ITS will be on the small side, as Elon Musk has suggested. He doesn't know, either. Personal belief is not a substitute for objective reality and never has been. Until we can simply "think" something and cause it to happen, that will always be the case.

Even if ITS was sitting on the pad at the Cape, there are no presently no reliable long duration life support systems available. No matter how big and powerful the rocket you have happens to be, long duration space travel is still a no-go without artificial gravity and long duration life support or the impulse engines from Star Trek, which is what EMDrive represents in the real world, assuming it works as well as testing has indicated thus far.

The life support equipment on ISS more or less fails like clockwork and gets replaced with spares. There is presently insufficient propulsion capability to transport those kinds of spares to Mars, so this life support reliability is unacceptable for Mars missions. If either impulse drive or reliable long duration life support existed, then we can go anytime we want to using the other technologies we presently have.

Between reliable long duration life support and impulse drive, the life support technologies are closest to objective reality and some of them have already flown in space aboard ISS and will fly again in space aboard Orion. If NASA and Congress had any sense, they'd order the agency throw $100M at the impulse engine problem just to see if it scales up and still works.

If EMDrive only works as well as lab tests have shown thus far, it means there's no such thing as a "launch window" and you can get to Mars in one week to one month, maximum, no matter what the orbital alignments of the planets happen to be. It means the only propellant required for space flight is the propellant required to attain orbital velocity. It means whether or not a particular system is as reliable or efficient as we'd like it to be, there are no deleterious effects on the mission as long as sufficient spares are brought along.

If we have solutions to the life support, gravity, and propulsion problems, then sending humans to Mars is a trivial endeavor. If not, which is presently the case, then speculating on the future is a waste of time.

SpaceNut · 2017-06-15 13:08:25

Yes something needs to happen as the in between step as the Falcon Heavy is just able to pull off the lunar flyby to which it will take a slightly larger ship or other LEO sub assembly to make a lunar mission possible and as well that same LEO sub assembly for even a mars flyby as even Musk other than the proposed Red Dragon use for mars have no real man capable landing vehicle.
The Size and scale of what is the ITV is without a doubt a BFR to which getting it off from earth is proplematic....

Antius · 2017-06-15 14:27:00

Some questions that have often intrigued me:

(1) Just how big could we build a liquid fuelled rocket? Could we build a 1000te to LEO launcher? How about 5000te? These things must be subject to economy of scale?

(2) Since turbo-pumps are not generally reusable, could we build a multi-engine rocket using a single turbo-pump? That is to say, a single large pump serving multiple combustion chambers?

(3) Space-x have developed a reusable lower stage. Why not contain the upper stage in a payload bay within the lower stage? That removes the need for explosive bolts, thermal protection and the need to design the upper stage to resist atmospheric drag.

Last edited by Antius (2017-06-15 14:33:58)

RobertDyck · 2017-06-15 15:14:46

Russia has developed engines that share a turbo pump. The RD-170 is called a single engine with 4 chambers, but it's really 4 engines that share a single turbo-pump. I read a paper from a Russian rocket company that competes with the company that produces it. They claimed it's really 4 engines, not 1. Whatever you call it, it's been done.

In the 1970s a German rocket company built a rocket using extreme low-cost technology. They used diesel fuel instead of RP-1, nitric acid instead of N2O4, they used pipe segments for fuel tanks, chemical valves for fuel valves, actuators for the valves were motors for Volkswagen windshield wipers, and commercial-off-the-shelf electronics. The needed some place to launch it, made an agreement with Zaire (now called Democratic Republic of the Congo) who provided land in exchange for launching satellites to spy on their neighbours. Internal politics in that country did not turn out well for the German rocket company. They were called OTRAG, an acronym in German.

But one design feature they used was to nest stages instead of stacking them. The 'upper stage" was in the centre, "lower stage" was wrapped around it. For staging, when the "upper stage" ignited its engines the "lower stage" fell away. They alternated propellant tanks: fuel, oxidizer, fuel, oxidizer. Engines were located so they "straddled" one fuel and one oxidizer tank. Is that what you're talking about?

RobS · 2017-06-15 15:20:09

I think people need to trust Musk and his engineering team more. They built the Falcon 9 from scratch in about 8 years. If they think they can scale up their approach to build the booster, spaceship, and tanker for their Mars mission, I see no engineering reason for us amateurs to assume they can't. The Raptor engine first fired last September; they already have 9 months experience testing it. It's the size of a Merlin, has three times the thrust, and uses methane/oxygen. None has exploded yet. So do you doubt they can build them? The carbon fiber frame for the booster has been in development for the same period of time; you've probably seen pictures of the gigantic tank. But lets say carbon fiber won't work; do you doubt they can build the booster out of aluminum-lithium alloy, just like Falcon 9? It'll be a bit heavier and maybe it'll put 250 tonnes into LEO at a time instead of 330, with reuse. Will that kill Musk's plan? No. This summer we will see 27 engines of a Falcon Heavy firing at once. Do you doubt they can double that number to almost 42? How many Merlin engines have they already launched; 9 times what, 17 launches now, or about 150 engines, and none have blown up or even had to be shut down. So, can they launch 42 at once? Sure.

Would I have imagined such an enormous leap in scale to the booster, space ship, and tanker that Musk has designed? No. I would never have been that bold. I would have stuck to a much more conventional approach to sending crews to Mars. I think the problem here is that people are not used to thinking the way Musk has been thinking. He isn't going to waste money building something to put 4 or 6 astronauts on Mars, as we have been thinking all along. He's designing to build the city he wants to build there and skipping the intermediate step. That's why you all are upset. I can understand it, and I'm not changing my Mars novel, but I'm also trusting Elon, because he knows more about the engineering problems and has the money to do something about them.

kbd512 · 2017-06-15 15:51:56

Antius,

1. If you launch from the ocean, you can fly a truly enormous rocket. Nova, a 15m diameter Saturn V with 8 F-1 engines, is the maximum size rocket that the cape was designed to accommodate from an infrastructure and community planning standpoint. If the rocket produces more than 11Mlbf, and ITS greatly exceeds that level of thrust, then you'll have to launch from somewhere else or pay for destruction of surrounding private property due to the sound pressure waves emitted from rocket engines that produce more thrust. That is why ITS will never launch from the Cape unless surrounding residential properties are purchased, moved, or upgraded with windows that won't be shattered by the sound pressure waves produced by a launch.

2. A single turbo pump can provide propellants to multiple nozzles, which is exactly how the Russians do it because they never learned how to counteract thrust instability in higher thrust engines, but then the turbo pump becomes a single point of failure. There's no way to "shut off" an engine that malfunctions because the turbo pump is connect to all the engines or so many engines that there is no engine-out capability.

3. What you're proposing would weigh more, cost more, and be less reliable than simply mounting the second stage atop the booster. The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rocket design is likely as simple and reliable as they can be. If SpaceX developed a full-flow staged combustion LOX/RP-1 engine for the upper stage and combined that with composite tanks to offset the higher mass, since Merlin Vac is already a unique production item, that'd probably be the best we can hope for in terms of performance. Naturally, that'd add to the cost of the rocket, but maybe the little boost in performance FFSC provides would be enough to maintain current levels of performance with full reusability.

Advancements in the area of in-space propulsion like fusion drive (Dr. Slough) or EMDrive (Dr. Shawyer) would eliminate any desirable characteristics that spaceships like the one atop ITS could provide. It'd be best from a cost, complexity, and mass standpoint to just deliver everything to low orbit, then have systems with functionally unlimited specific impulse take over from there. The fusion drive is 5100s using Lithium metal and the impulse drive is only electrical input power and ultimate system durability limited. Both systems have few moving components, mostly being based upon applications of electrical power to produce thrust, with plasma jet power being used in the case of the fusion rocket and microwave power being used in the case of the EMDrive.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-15 16:13:09

Uhhh...if anyone hasn't noticed, the "wraparound" booster concept has been with us for a while when the Space Shuttle first flew using the 2 enormous SRBs strapped on to the main fuel tank? The concept remains in the Delta IV Heavy, and forges ahead with the Falcon Heavy liquid fueled strap-on boosters! Note the Soyuz boosters, as well. Development continues on the SLS using boosters.

"What are you gonna' believe? Your own eyes, or what I tell you?" quote Groucho Marx.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-06-15 16:14:49)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-15 16:23:52

RobS-

I too have lots of "faith" in Elon Musk, but he is also limited by physical principles. I really can't see him risking the enormous capital expenditure on the BFR without at least a proof of concept scale-up. SpaceX has obviously spent some time on the Falcon X, even though not much has been revealed at this point. Even zillionaires have limits of allowable risk. I'm guessing that a single interplanetary transport vehicle as costing maybe $3-5 Billion to build.

kbd512 · 2017-06-15 16:37:07

RobS,

I think I can speak for everyone here when I say that I would love to see ITS fly. In fact, I wish Congress would quit funding Orion and SLS so we can pour that money into a true super heavy lift launch vehicle like ITS. I think we'd have a true SHLLV by the time SLS flies its first crew if we did that today. SpaceX engineers have already demonstrated the drive and talent required to get jobs done, mostly on-time and within budget. At the very least, they certainly try much harder than their competitors to advance the state-of-the-art and that is what pushes technology forward.

I've already outlined the engineering problems with actually launching ITS. The pad has to support the crushing weight of ITS and civilians need to be relocated or buildings and vehicles with glass windows need substantial structural reinforcement to preclude damage.

We still need NASA to provide certain essential items like life support and advanced in-space propulsion. NASA is like the civilian version of DARPA. The US military, DARPA, and NASA are the reasons behind most of the Star Trek level technology human civilization enjoys today. SpaceX used well-understood technologies and created an economical way to use them. That is their contribution to space flight thus far.

Antius · 2017-06-15 16:47:55

kbd512 wrote:

Antius,
1. If you launch from the ocean, you can fly a truly enormous rocket. Nova, a 15m diameter Saturn V with 8 F-1 engines, is the maximum size rocket that the cape was designed to accommodate from an infrastructure and community planning standpoint. If the rocket produces more than 11Mlbf, and ITS greatly exceeds that level of thrust, then you'll have to launch from somewhere else or pay for destruction of surrounding private property due to the sound pressure waves emitted from rocket engines that produce more thrust. That is why ITS will never launch from the Cape unless surrounding residential properties are purchased, moved, or upgraded with windows that won't be shattered by the sound pressure waves produced by a launch.
2. A single turbo pump can provide propellants to multiple nozzles, which is exactly how the Russians do it because they never learned how to counteract thrust instability in higher thrust engines, but then the turbo pump becomes a single point of failure. There's no way to "shut off" an engine that malfunctions because the turbo pump is connect to all the engines or so many engines that there is no engine-out capability.
3. What you're proposing would weigh more, cost more, and be less reliable than simply mounting the second stage atop the booster. The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rocket design is likely as simple and reliable as they can be. If SpaceX developed a full-flow staged combustion LOX/RP-1 engine for the upper stage and combined that with composite tanks to offset the higher mass, since Merlin Vac is already a unique production item, that'd probably be the best we can hope for in terms of performance. Naturally, that'd add to the cost of the rocket, but maybe the little boost in performance FFSC provides would be enough to maintain current levels of performance with full reusability.
Advancements in the area of in-space propulsion like fusion drive (Dr. Slough) or EMDrive (Dr. Shawyer) would eliminate any desirable characteristics that spaceships like the one atop ITS could provide. It'd be best from a cost, complexity, and mass standpoint to just deliver everything to low orbit, then have systems with functionally unlimited specific impulse take over from there. The fusion drive is 5100s using Lithium metal and the impulse drive is only electrical input power and ultimate system durability limited. Both systems have few moving components, mostly being based upon applications of electrical power to produce thrust, with plasma jet power being used in the case of the fusion rocket and microwave power being used in the case of the EMDrive.

I see. There are no magic bullets it would seem.

Ocean launch of very large rockets has always seemed like a good idea to me. The old sea dragon idea of building rockets in dry dock and floating them to launch site. Increasing scale is usually a good way of bringing unit costs down, although total cost still increases.

One way of reducing launch vehicle performance requirements within the scope of existing or near term technology would be a skyhook. The upper stage would only need to accelerate the payload to some fraction of orbital velocity. The hook catches the payload and momentum is exchanged. Solar electric propulsion can then be used to raise the orbit of the counter weight back to its original position and the process begins again. This is by its nature a long-term investment, as the tether and counterweight have at least 30 times the mass of the payload being lifted.

If solar electric propulsion can be used as the propulsion system for transfer vehicles between LEO and LMO, then regolith from the Martian moons could be used as reaction mass.

Last edited by Antius (2017-06-15 16:55:20)

Terraformer · 2017-06-15 17:00:30

I actually want to go the other way, and focus on cheaply launching small, 1-2 tonne payloads to orbit. Nothing of particularly high value, just food, water, propellent etc, so it doesn't matter much if one in ten launches crashes into the sea. Combine this with an orbital depot to collect and store the resources in, and we could do a lot with the Falcon Heavy.

If we could get such resources in orbit for <$200/kg, then 1000 tonnes would cost us less than $200 million. A couple of Falcon Heavy launches could put a two part interplanetary vessel into orbit, where it can be fuelled up and be kitted out. That would let us mount a very capable Mars mission, one which could establish a base on the first go (after spending the first half of it scouting locations, shortlisted from previous robotic exploratory missions, from orbit, of course). Would Congress turn down the opportunity to lease a Mars base for, say, $2 billion a year? Especially once it's clear the option will be available to other governments?

Another thing I'd put in orbit would be a lot of mylar and framing, to create the dry dock which GW suggested.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-15 17:42:32

Yes, it would be nice to have some of the advanced propulsion systems to shorten the transit time to Mars, but if we are going to get there in any of our lifetimes, it will be done with chemical propulsion.

What WILL be required is in-orbit assembly of the go-to-Mars vehicle. I see the ITS as being too big and unwieldy at the present time, and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. Falcon Heavy can put 63 tonnes into LEO, which really isn't enough for a Mars mission's needs. Using the old industrial "rule of 3's" we would get maybe an intermediate vehicle with 3x the capability of Falcon Heavy

SpaceNut · 2017-06-15 19:25:02

Well Space x still playing with a core diameter of a 3.7m is not going to get any real mass to orbit even when coupling several cores together. Nor is playing with the SLS fueled with LH2/ Lox as its not saving anything....

Building engines that are possible to make a difference and not using them but putting them on the shelf seems to be a common theme to all of the players capable of space launch....

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-15 21:37:34

The Falcon X core was stated at 5 meters diameter. This is sufficient to possibly fly a 6-7 meter diameter spacecraft to LEO, or flying a second stage of equivalent diameter to an assembly position as the Trans Mars Injection booster.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-06-16 09:29:01)

SpaceNut · 2017-06-17 21:40:24

Here is the BFR or ITV as SpaceX's Mars colony plan: How Elon Musk plans to build a million-person city

Musk's commentary, titled "Making Humanity a Multi-Planetary Species," is available for free on New Space's website through July 5. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/1 … .29009.emu

Raptor engine, still in development, which Musk said will be about three times stronger than the Merlin engines that power the company's Falcon 9 rocket.
The booster, with its 42 Raptors, will be the most powerful rocket in history, by far. It will be capable of launching 300 metric tons (330 tons) to low Earth orbit (LEO), or 550 metric tons (600 tons) in an expendable variant, Musk said. For comparison, NASA's famous Saturn V moon rocket, the current record holder, could loft "just" 135 metric tons (150 tons).

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-18 08:16:45

Unfortunately, SpaceNut, there really seems to be little more than an announcement and the big carbon fiber tank since last September. We've seen Falcon Heavy slip several times, but the latest announcement is for a first flight either this August or September. I'll become somewhat more enthused after that actually happens. The real "key" flight will be the Red Dragon mission now scheduled in 2020.

SpaceNut · 2017-06-18 08:55:12

From what I remember "Red Dragon" is a modified human to orbit capsule to which we are currently left in a Nasa Boeing created delay loop....

I know that it takes roughly 6 years from concept to actual flight but when we have hardware tested and not going into production it does make you really wonder.

Forget the Carbon fuel tanks and start building the next large Falcon 5 meter diameter ship. Better yet skip it and go to the 10 m diameter instead.

ITV http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplu … .29009.emu pg 8 first stage values:

Length 77.5 m
Diameter 12 m
Dry Mass 275 t
Propellant Mass 6,700 t
Raptor Engines 42
Sea Level Thrust 128 MN
Vacuum Thrust 138 MN
Booster accelerates ship to staging velocity, traveling 8,650 km/h (5,375 mph) at separation
Booster returns to landing site, using 7% of total booster prop load for boostback burn and landing
Grid fins guide rocket back through atmosphere to precision landing

If the stage holds true to the other reuseable 3/4 of the fuel is used to get it to near orbit while the second stage must finish the process. The remaining 1/4 of fuel is use to retro propulsion the stage to a landing site.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-18 09:43:06

Checking out the Spaceflight101 information, there was another concept discussed several years ago, called the Falcon XX. Call me an ultraconservative designer, but I really believe in evolutionary designs, and not radical revolutionary ones. Even if only a handful of Falcon Xs were to be built, they would provide some Proof of Concept to the underlying design philosophies. I'm of the opinion that the Interplanetary Transport Vehicle is a "rocket too far." The Falcon X could provide a great test bed for the new Raptor engines and still accomplish something useful. I would conceive the Falcon X using 7 of the Raptor engines for it's first stage. Two Falcon 9 strap-on vehicles as boosters?

louis · 2017-06-18 16:30:09

For me the pre-BFR solution involves (a) pre-landing (b) splitting the mission (I favour 2 x 3 people for Mission One) and (c) orbital assembly.

It's all about breaking down the problem into bite-size pieces.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

After reading a few of the posts resurrected by SpaceNut, contrasted with the speculative new topic posted regarding Mars in 100 years, we really need to assess where we are in the quest for the Red Planet!
SpaceX and Elon Musk have been making some strides towards getting there vis-à-vis a Falcon Heavy mediated Red Dragon flight; my crystal ball is pretty murky beyond about 2020 in regards to truly concrete proposals. IMHO, there really needs to be another steppingstone between Falcon Heavy and the proposed Interplanetary Transport System.
On the Spaceflight 101 website, there is a link to some of the concept proposals published a few years ago by SpaceX, which included a proposed Falcon X, which was ~ 5 meters diameter--a really suitable central core for a Mars Direct spacecraft architecture. This should--nay--must be the intermediate step for getting humans to Mars within the next 8-10 years. A Falcon X Semi Heavy could be constructed by using existing Falcon 9 previously flown rockets as boosters. Using an approach such as this, we might actually get a 6 to 10 person crew flown to Mars before the usual delays in building the "BFR."
It really seems fanciful to speculate about Mars 100 years in the future before we've been there, and progress has been glacially slow in just getting to Mars.

SpaceNut · 2017-06-18 17:23:57

Falcon X is a two-stage launch vehicle standing more than 75 meters tall with a core diameter of approximately 6 meters. Which would have had the merlin 2 engine. To which a triple barrel version seems to have aslo been put on the shelf. This would have been a more capable moon mission vehicle rather than a barely able to do a flyby Falcon 9 heavy. It also would have lead the way for a bigger capsule and service module for a manned mission.

Falcon XX rocket or MCT, the Mars Colonial Transporter, could launch 140 metric tons into orbit powered with the methane-fueled engine called Raptor rather than the Merlin 2 engine design LOX/RP-1 which would have been more powerful than the F-1 engine used on the Saturn V rocket. Falcon XX is a single core launch vehicle with a diameter of 10 meters and an estimated length of about 100 meters and sport 6 of these engines.

louis · 2017-06-18 17:48:36

Orbital assembly: as long as you have the ability to ship fuel, habs, landers and rockets into orbit, you can easily make it to Mars.

SpaceNut wrote:

Falcon X is a two-stage launch vehicle standing more than 75 meters tall with a core diameter of approximately 6 meters. Which would have had the merlin 2 engine. To which a triple barrel version seems to have aslo been put on the shelf. This would have been a more capable moon mission vehicle rather than a barely able to do a flyby Falcon 9 heavy. It also would have lead the way for a bigger capsule and service module for a manned mission.
http://spaceflight101.com/wp-content/up … 35x512.jpg
Falcon XX rocket or MCT, the Mars Colonial Transporter, could launch 140 metric tons into orbit powered with the methane-fueled engine called Raptor rather than the Merlin 2 engine design LOX/RP-1 which would have been more powerful than the F-1 engine used on the Saturn V rocket. Falcon XX is a single core launch vehicle with a diameter of 10 meters and an estimated length of about 100 meters and sport 6 of these engines.
http://spaceflight101.com/wp-content/up … 12x287.jpg
http://spaceflight101.com/wp-content/up … r-2010.jpg

SpaceNut · 2017-06-21 15:07:56

No orbital just refueling to give it a chance to push that much payload to mars and back.

Fifteen Spacex Raptor Engines, Five engines per core on a three core rocket could launch 536 tons of payload

Cesaryxpob · 2017-09-24 02:47:44

I cant see the new shout .. but I havent logged out and back in yet .. but have refreshed looking for it ... still .. bet you set it for only the UK folks again HEHEHE ..

SpaceNut · 2017-09-24 16:44:47

Even when we have paper for a design its still more than a year cycle from first piece until a finished and tested functional launch vehicles.

All of course the efforts to send payloads of up to 100 metric tons to Mars.

The orginal thought was to go with the Merlin 2

But with the methane fuel of choice and a different engine we might be possible of achieving the goal.

Details on the vehicle’s upper stage were not given, however, SpaceX was working on a 667-Kilonewton LOX/LH2 version of the Raptor engine at the time for use on upper stages making it a likely candidate.

Falcon X could deliver payloads of up to 38 metric tons into Low Earth Orbit.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-06-15 12:25:33

Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#2 2017-06-15 13:04:26

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#3 2017-06-15 13:08:25

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#4 2017-06-15 14:27:00

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#5 2017-06-15 15:14:46

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#6 2017-06-15 15:20:09

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#7 2017-06-15 15:51:56

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#8 2017-06-15 16:13:09

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#9 2017-06-15 16:23:52

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#10 2017-06-15 16:37:07

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#11 2017-06-15 16:47:55

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#12 2017-06-15 17:00:30

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#13 2017-06-15 17:42:32

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#14 2017-06-15 19:25:02

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#15 2017-06-15 21:37:34

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#16 2017-06-17 21:40:24

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#17 2017-06-18 08:16:45

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#18 2017-06-18 08:55:12

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#19 2017-06-18 09:43:06

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#20 2017-06-18 16:30:09

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#21 2017-06-18 17:23:57

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#22 2017-06-18 17:48:36

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#23 2017-06-21 15:07:56

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#24 2017-09-24 02:47:44

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

#25 2017-09-24 16:44:47

Re: Falcon Heavy, but then what?

Board footer