Apollo 11 REDUX

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-27 07:59:01

Were the Lunar landers reusable? No. They even had a limit on the number of pressurization/depressurization cycles they could perform. That is "overly light and flimsy." There needs to be a middle ground, and these single-use throwaway vehicles simply don't make sense. With the advent of SpaceX's Dragon capsules, they could certainly be modified for lunar landings and return to lunar orbit through increased fuel capacity in the trunk extension. Earlier, we did not have the ISS just sitting there. We did not have the orbital assembly capability of today. Let's utilize the developments of the 21st Century, and not keep returning to 50 year old concepts.

RobertDyck · 2017-06-27 09:56:02

Reuse sounds good. I tried to calculate what it would take, my post is on this forum somewhere. However, the problem is the physics of rocketry. I had hoped for a single stage craft to go from ISS to lunar surface and back. I couldn't do it. Not unless it used a nuclear engine.

Another thing that has me antsy is that Boeing and some individuals in NASA now want to build a second space station. They want to put it at L1, the Lagrange point directly between Earth and the Moon. Their idea is a lunar lander to go from there to the lunar surface and back. Obviously we don't need it. That's just a waste of time and resources. It's corporate welfare for the companies that built modules for ISS. If you want a single stage lunar lander, you could have it return to lunar orbit and just park there, waiting for the next mission to rendezvous with it. Congress has already said "No" to any new space station, so NASA now is calling it a "gateway".

Yes, Elon Musk said one design criteria for Dragon was to land it on Earth, or Mars, or the Moon. But there are problems with landing it on the Moon. It can't lift off, it's one-way to the surface only. There's no way a Dragon capsule could hold enough propellant to both land and lift off. Even with the Moon's lower gravity. Second you don't want to land a heavy capsule designed for Earth atmospheric entry. The parachutes have no purpose what so ever on the Moon. Nor the heat shield, nor the hull. I don't know if the outer hull is made of titanium alloy, Inconel, or René 41. That last is the alloy used for the outer hull of Mercury and Gemini; it's a nickel-chrome alloy almost identical to modern Inconel. Apollo and Dragon, and CST-100 and Orion, all have an aluminum alloy inner pressure hull. Why would you land a craft with a heavy heat resistant outer hull on the Moon?

And Dragon v2 for crew has another problem: its new trunk. Its launch abort system is designed to carry the trunk until it hits apex, then drops the trunk. The new trunk has fins for stabilization, but Mercury and Apollo did not. Apollo's LES was tested with "Little Joe" which did have fins, but that was for test only. If you add propellant tanks to Dragon's trunk, then the Launch Abort System won't work any more. It would be too heavy. For LAS to work, the Dragon capsule must launch abort without the trunk. It can, it's just a matter of flight controls. Modern electronics can definitely do the job, but we have to convince Elon to do so. Furthermore, the Dragon v2 trunk uses curved solar panels around the surface of the trunk. Curved solar cells are more expensive. And with solar cells not tracking the sun, you need more of them. Only the cells on the side in sunlight will generate power, so that means at least double the number of cells. That increases cost. So going back to the Dragon v1 trunk not only enables a mission to the Moon, it saves cost. Can we convince Elon to do this?

Antius · 2017-06-27 10:57:06

The only reasonable justification for returning to the moon that I can foresee is to provide materials for space manufacturing, things like solar power satellites, which I know you are sceptical about. In that case, the station needs to be at L5, not L1. The moon is just too poor in resources to be interesting in any other way.

What is clearly needed for interplanetary transport is a solar/nuclear-electric propulsion system. It makes no sense using Musk's ITS upper stage as an interplanetary transport. It ruins the economics of the launcher due to the 2.5 years that it takes to get to Mars and back. To get aeroplane economics on these launchers they need to be turned around quickly and as you say, a spacecraft must be designed for the task at hand, otherwise it is non-optimised and wastes payload and money. The need for tanker launches into Earth orbit makes the economics even worse.

If an electric transport vehicle is used as part of a Mars transport infrastructure, then regolith from Deimos could be used as reaction mass in a VASIMR engine. The vessel would stop there on the way in to gather propellant for the trip to low Mars orbit and back. It would stop again on the way out for propellant to take it to low Earth orbit and back. That requires a delta-v exceeding 12km/s, not including gravity losses and assuming constant payload.

The economic performance of the vehicle improves as trip time goes down. We want as many trips within a reasonable economic return window as possible (20 years?). That keeps space radiation hazards as low as practicable as well. This requires both high thrust and high delta-v, in other words lots of power to weight. Some space nuclear reactors are on the drawing board with estimated power density of 1KWe/kg. These are either gas or liquid metal cooled reactors coupled directly to an MHD generator. The problem is that no one is seriously developing them beyond concept stage. Something with power density that high is dangerous and hugely expensive to develop. Coupled to a VASIMR with an ISP of 5000, these could achieve accelerations of 0.01m/s2 and could accelerate from LEO to Earth escape in about 4 days, with a total delta-v of over 30km/s with a mass ratio of 2. It is very difficult to achieve that performance using solar power.

Electric propulsion is needed for another reason that is often overlooked. It is not enough for a Mars colony to be able to import goods cheaply from Earth. It needs to be able to export goods to Earth to pay for its imports. This requires that the cost of export is sufficiently low for high value-to-weight manufactured goods to be able to compete on the Earth markets. So the launch vehicle on Mars must also be capable of achieving good transport economics to and from Mars orbit. It cannot be used to fly back to Earth. Ideally, we would want to run both Earth and Mars launchers continuously, accumulating and retrieving payload in their respective orbits. The electric transport vehicle would be scaled up to transport hundreds if not thousands of tonnes of payload per trip between the planets. That way it achieves economy of size and the launchers achieve economy of volume.

Last edited by Antius (2017-06-27 11:06:23)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-27 13:23:28

RobertDyck wrote:

Reuse sounds good. I tried to calculate what it would take, my post is on this forum somewhere. However, the problem is the physics of rocketry. I had hoped for a single stage craft to go from ISS to lunar surface and back. I couldn't do it. Not unless it used a nuclear engine.

Robert-
I tried something similar and concluded the lunar lander and re-ascent from lunar surface could not be single stage--even from ISS. The trunk converted into a Earth departure, Lunar orbit, and Lunar descent/landing would be one stage, but the lunar takeoff and return to Earth would require leaving the lander stage on luna. We could conceive of an interstage for lunar departure?

I pursued this line of thought in order to minimize the constant re-engineering of everything, and focus on the mission requirements. I frankly, have even less interest in returning to the dead surface of our satellite than does Antius.

At some point, Elon will realize that he needs an even better upgrade to the Dragon 2 vehicle in order to accomplish the various tasks at hand. We can only hope...

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-06-27 14:06:17)

RobertDyck · 2017-06-27 13:51:49

I have also argued to keep the lunar craft small and simple. Using technology already developed. Keep engineering development short. Use an existing capsule for the "command module". Most importantly, the "Apollo 11 redux" would only be a crew taxi to reach a Mars Direct habitat on the lunar surface. So we could demonstrate Mars technology on the Moon. Actually do something useful.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-27 14:04:38

RobertDyck wrote:

I have also argued to keep the lunar craft small and simple. Using technology already developed. Keep engineering development short. Use an existing capsule for the "command module". Most importantly, the "Apollo 11 redux" would only be a crew taxi to reach a Mars Direct habitat on the lunar surface. So we could demonstrate Mars technology on the Moon. Actually do something useful.

I'm in total agreement with that mission design philosophy.

GW Johnson · 2017-06-27 14:22:10

I looked at what cargo Dragon could do with its trunk, at what crewed Dragon could do with its trunk, and took a guess at what Red Dragon can do. I think Red is a crew Dragon fitted with cargo racks instead of seats and life support, and with the chutes removed. I guessed it to have a cargo Dragon type of trunk, since launch abort is not needed unmanned.

Both trunks are (or at least were) listed to carry up to 3000 kg stowed unpressurized cargo. That means crew Dragon launch abort could take place on the Super Dracos with up to 3000 kg of "something" in its trunk. I could conceptually put about 2800 kg more propellants in tankage in that trunk with just a tad of plumbing to connect it into the Super Draco/Draco system.

That greatly increases the delta-vee, enough to get out of lunar orbit and still have enough for a propulsive landing at Earth. But not enough to get into and out of lunar orbit without sacrificing that propulsive landing. There's enough "oomph" in the Falcon-Heavy for its second stage to put that crew Dragon right into lunar orbit, as long as boiloff of LOX and freezing of RP-1 isn't a problem for 3 day's ride.

I looked at a separate lander as a two-stage chemical item that would fit atop that same Falcon-Heavy for that same trip to lunar orbit. As a two-way crew vehicle, it could carry more than two men. As a one-way one stage cargo lander, it could deliver several tons to the surface. These would be "from scratch" designs, but the calculations are just bounding calculations. So any combinations of existing stuff that meet the thrusts and weight statements would work.

The only problem I can forsee with this otherwise-very attractive method of recreating the lunar landing transport system is the accumulation of spent Falcon second stages in lunar orbit. Somehow these need to be recovered for some other use.

I documented all this in two posts over at http://exrocketman.blogspot.com; one is "Reverse-Engineered Dragon Data" dated 3-6-17; the other is "Bounding Analysis for Lunar Lander Designs", dated 3-18-17. Use the by-date tool on the left; just hit "march", then hit the title. You can scroll from there, I think.

As for why we would want to go back to the moon, there is astronomy to do, perhaps some useful resources to look for (and maybe not), and it is a brilliantly-safe place to put research stations that look into really "hot" atomic propulsion methods. Isn't that good enough?

Something like this might eventually grow into a "2001 Space Odyssey"-type lunar transportation system. Except I think the Earth-moon ships will go from orbit-to-orbit, and the lunar landers will be separate. We might even end up with a small transfer-type space station in lunar orbit. Bigelow seems to be looking at something like that.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-06-27 14:30:33)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-27 14:32:39

It seems to me that a short but intensely powerful "intermediate" stage such as the Russian "Briz" as a lunar takeoff assist might make everything work. That has the advantage of hypergolic fuel/oxidizer combination, which is also longer term storable than the LOX and LCH4.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-27 14:35:11

GW-

Yes, the moon is a great place for an observatory, but getting it there is the massive problem at hand. I'd prefer seeing the hot nuclear experiments done there as well, but I'd much rather go to Mars.

kbd512 · 2017-06-27 15:28:25

Why can't NASA just use the ISS-derived deep space habitat for transits to and from the moon, Oldfard1939?

The LTV / MTV could be assembled and tested at ISS, flown to the moon using SEP to simulate a Mars transit duration (an ultimate acid test of the radiation protection, far in excess of what the astronauts and mission hardware would experience from an impulsive TMI from LEO; if the radiation from the Van Allen belts is too much, then perhaps an impulsive transfer to L1 could be accomplished using an AJ-10 powered module), and then landings on the moon could take place using Cygnus, MPLM, or Node modules powered by AJ-10's for retro-propulsion. The HEART (Cygnus + HIAD) concept can be tested here at Earth using Falcon Heavy to simulate an interplanetary reentry velocity in the same way the Delta IV-H simulated TEI reentry velocity from the moon.

At the very least we could test all the tech for Mars flyby and orbital missions between the Earth and moon. Getting there and back, no matter where we want to go, is at least half the battle. Landing would be the cherry on top and is not required at this stage of development. Prove a 360 day orbital mission between Earth and the moon first, then proceed with a Mars flyby, then a Mars orbital mission. If there's no damage incurred from the LEO-to-GEO shooting gallery, then the same hardware can be refurbished for the Mars flyby and orbital missions.

RobertDyck · 2017-06-27 15:56:51

If you want to give up on using SLS at all, then here's another scenario.

2 launches of Falcon Heavy. First launch a reusable lunar module, unmanned, to lunar orbit. Single stage, using MMH/N2O4. To withstand multiple pressure/depressure cycles, the pressure hull will have to be aluminum alloy isogrid like the pressure hull of Dragon. You could cover that in blankets of multi-layer insulation, then a single layer of Orthofabric, or like the US science module on ISS, use 0.8 mm aluminum alloy bumper shield. Use a passive NASA Docking System (NDS) which is the new modification of APAS installed on ISS for Orion/Dragon v2/CST-100 Starliner/Dream Chaser. The primary difference between NDS and APAS is the later was designed for a 125 metric tonne space shuttle (full propellant tanks) + 16 tonnes of cargo, while NDS is designed for the new light-weight capsules. Like APAS it's androgynous, but that means an active hatch can dock to an active hatch, or active to passive, but passive cannot dock to passive. I don't see the lunar module docking to another lunar module, or to ISS, so passive is all that's necessary. Dragon will have an active hatch. Design the lunar module to accept propellant, using the same connectors that Russia uses to transfer propellant from Progress to ISS. Europe designed their ATV to use the Russian docking hatch with the same propellant connectors, so it isn't secret/proprietary. Russia uses UDMH/N2O4 but you could easily use the same connectors for MMH/N2O4.

Second launch of Falcon Heavy will deliver Dragon to lunar orbit. Use a Dragon v2 capsule, but Dragon v1 extended trunk, and propellant tanks in the trunk. Propellant transfer lines to the capsule, using SuperDraco thrusters for TEI. However, a separate stage for LOI. This separate stage will be used for both LOI, and as a tanker to refuel the lunar module. So it will use MMH/N2O4. That avoids the question of RP1 freezing during 3 days in space. Falcon Heavy upper stage will crash into the Moon just as S-IVB did for Apollo missions. This second stage will LOI with Dragon. Once Dragon docks to the lunar module, this stage will have to detach, move over to the lunar module, then attack to the bottom of the lunar module. We appear to have that technology, is that reliable? That stage will transfer propellant to the lunar module, refuelling it for another mission. That stage will also de-orbit the lunar module. RGClark called this a "crasher stage". That avoids the problem of accumulating dead hardware in lunar orbit. It also keeps the lunar module relatively small.

Of course I would also argue for a Mars Direct habitat delivered via SLS block 2B. That would be our long-duration lunar base. Gotta keep Mars in there somewhere.

SLS block 1 is rated for 70t to LEO (185km @ 27.5° inclination), while Falcon Heavy is rated for 54t to LEO (same orbit). However, that's only if all Falcon stages are expended. It's less if all 3 first stages are recovered. We don't know it's performance when all stages are recovered, but I'm hoping that it's enough to do this. So the reasons for a new separate stage are (1) concern with RP1 freezing, (2) propellant transfer to lunar module, (3) crashing all stages to avoid accumulating junk, (4) concern about performance with recovered first stages.

::Edit:: The Soviet N1 Block D stage was the one used for LOI and to de-orbit their LK. It used LOX/RP1. That implies LOX boil-off and RP1 freezing are not issues.
Astronautix: N1 Block D

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-06-27 16:00:12)

SpaceNut · 2017-06-27 16:41:07

I also think that a cygnus can and a beam would make a nice lunar lander once its got the correct support system to help it land and return to orbit.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-28 08:16:37

Orbital ATK just doesn't have the necessary booster and upper stages available, though. I'd say that in this particular race, SpaceX is leading the pack significantly.

kbd512 · 2017-06-28 10:34:24

Oldfart1939,

Cygnus doesn't have to use Antares. Cygnus has already been delivered to ISS using Atlas V. There's no reason it can't be flown aboard Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy.

RobertDyck · 2017-06-28 10:56:05

Interesting. In post #136 above, I described a reusable lunar module. And it used Falcon Heavy instead of SLS. Congress might not like it because it doesn't use SLS, but the interesting thing is subsequent missions require only a single Falcon Heavy. Crew launched in Dragon to lunar orbit, rendezvous with the lunar module parked there. The expendable stage would not only have to replenish lunar module propellant, but also oxygen. Lithium hydroxide canisters and food would be carried in Dragon. And ensure the lunar module uses exactly the same LiOH canisters to avoid the Apollo 13 problem. Delivering the LM separately means it can be bigger/heavier, so could be used for Apollo-style missions as well as crew taxi to a Moon base. Again I will argue for a Mars Direct hab delivered via SLS block 2B for the Moon base.

The crucial statistic is the first crew mission would require 2 Falcon Heavies, subsequent missions will require one. What is the cost of 2 Falcon Heavies vs one SLS block 1? And for subsequent missions, a single Falcon Heavy vs SLS block 1?

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-06-28 12:08:42)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-28 11:16:56

Robert-

At least your architecture give the SLS something more worthwhile to do than retrieving a piece of asteroid!

SpaceNut · 2017-06-28 17:32:56

Nice propellant movement Robert and I agree Oldfart1939 that Spacex Dragon is ahead of a cygnus for a lander as its been tried as a function of launch escape testing and the desire to reuse the capsule....

The other reason Cygnus is flexible is that is contained in the standard payload shroud which can ride on all of the launchers.

The old guard is still active in ATK as no contacts no work via its own funds to create. Its not motivated to create unless it has to in order to forefill a contract as it did after the standard cygnus was distroyed and it made the stretched version for launching on the Atlas V to be able to payload catch up....

RobertDyck · 2017-06-28 20:29:27

SpaceNut wrote:

Nice propellant movement Robert

Still, in order to launch Dragon with a service module, and LM, and stage for LOI, and launch the whole stack on a single SLS block 1, you will need extreme mass reduction. That means LCH4/LOX, carbon fibre composite tanks, and the LM pressure hull must be alluminum alloy sheet metal. Basically an aluminum balloon. Notice the Soviet LK had a divot pushed in. That provided a down-looking window, but it also provided structural strength. An aluminum alloy balloon hull will have to be pressurized when docking and landing. And aluminum alloy honeycomb floor for enough strength to stand in it, similar to the Apollo LM.

With SLS block 1, everything is expendable. Only the Dragon capsule is recovered. With Falcon Heavy, the Falcon first stages, Dragon capsule, and the entire LM are recovered/reused. Expendables: Falcon upper stage, LOI stage, and Dragon trunk.

The SLS architecture brings the LM along during transit to the Moon, although the capsule is alone during transit back. Just like Apollo. The Falcon Heavy architecture has the Dragon capsule alone during both transits. Modern technology is far more reliable, and Dragon does not use a hydrogen fuel cell so no danger of the same problem as Apollo 13. And using MMH means no danger of Aerozine-50 separating into UDMH and pure Hydrazine, so "stirring the tanks" is not an issue. But still, that's one less fail-safe.

::Edit:: And LCH4 is supposed to prepare for Mars.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-06-28 20:46:47)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-29 07:11:30

If NASA does "get involved," and is willing to use a $1 Billion throwaway SLS rocket, then Robert's architecture has a lot of merit. I prefer using more substantial modules capable of long-term usage instead of the quickie "Flags and Footprints."

As this point, however, the Moon is again a distraction from a Mars mission. But if NASA can ever rationalize and consolidate some of it's goals by not getting spread out thinner than a gallon of $2 paint, some substantive feats can be accomplished with $19 Billion per year. This means no more Mars Rovers or sample return missions. What WILL be needed by the Mars explorers is a orbiting communications network to allow Mars-Earth communication, and also a Mars GPS network in order to allow precision surface exploration and pinpoint landings. In addition, let's see a mission-specific nuclear reactor and a supporting Solar grid system for such a mission. A permanent Lunar base could be utilized as a test bed for all of these technologies without too much expense (except that it will be NASA using cost-plus accounting?).

kbd512 · 2017-06-29 13:35:35

Oldfart1939,

The moon doesn't have to be a distraction from the Mars mission if it's used as a proving ground for the technologies we want to use on Mars. Going to and from Mars with reliable power, life support, radiation attenuation, and microgravity protection systems is the most challenging aspect of the mission and those are things that don't require a trip to Mars to adequately test.

Once you land on Mars or simply achieve orbit (if you go to Phobos or Deimos), then there are local resources available for any who choose to use them. In deep space, humans are entirely at the mercy of their systems. There is no possibility of rescue, nothing can be staged along the transit route (so far as I know), and making a phone call to Mission Control to receive real-time support to troubleshoot a system casualty is impractical.

The lunar missions are something we can actually do in the near term to support mid to long term deep space exploration goals.

SpaceNut · 2017-06-29 21:34:10

The 70 mT SLS is being looked at for a high powered launcher for probes which a desired cruise time is wanted to get science back sooner. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file … _Space.pdf

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-30 08:00:04

W/r to the SLS system; there's really not anything wrong with the size or performance. It's the slooooow development and construction times, in addition to the horrendous cost and lack of reusability! Additionally, NASA has become extremely risk-adverse. They keep coming up with stupid missions for this capable but currently unavailable vehicle.
Asteroid retrieval (actually a tiny piece of an asteroid). Stupid.
Space station around the Moon? Stupid.
Deep Space Gateway? REALLY STUPID!
I am really tired of NASA blowing all this loot on worthless missions!

GW Johnson · 2017-06-30 09:54:56

We have known since the 1940's that the gateway to interplanetary destinations, even just the moon, is Earth orbit. That is where you build your departure station, and it is about that destination that you interface the highly-different designs for your various types of spacecraft.

That is not to say that a station in lunar orbit might not prove to be a useful item. That would be if the Earth-moon orbit-to-orbit transport design effectively precludes landing, making a dedicated design necessary for the shuttle between lunar orbit and the lunar surface. We just don't know yet, although the Apollo experience suggests that a separate surface shuttle will be necessary. So proposing to spend the money on one now, before we do know, is quite stupid indeed.

We're pretty sure that in the long haul any destination with a substantial delta-vee between its orbit and its surface will require a separate, quite-different vehicle to serve as the orbit-surface transportation. That's the moon as well as Mars, and Mercury too. Too early to know if this will hold for the outer planet moons (that being complicated by the planet's giant gravity wells).

Not true for any of the asteroids, even the really big ones: very shallow gravity wells. Venus = "good approximation to hell" is the weird case that I leave out for now.

What that means is that the orbit-to-orbit transport concept with separate landers from the 1940's really is the right way to do this. Early exploration: the orbit-to-orbit transport is its own local orbital station. Later routine trips: build a local transfer station in local orbit, so that many different vehicle designs can serve in both roles.

That's just basic common sense, backed by specific knowledge of how things actually work. We almost all have that, who are talking on these forums. What grinds my gears is two-fold: (1) NASA's objectives and projects are dictated by Congress, demonstrably lacking in common sense as well as simple competence, and (2) NASA has forgotten its own hard-learned lessons from Apollo, as shown by these idiotic mission proposals of late. Everybody who knew better seems to have died or retired, and was replaced by folks who seem to know little more than the idiots in Congress about what is an intelligent thing to go and do.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-06-30 09:58:35)

Terraformer · 2017-06-30 10:28:30

The place to put a Lunar space station isn't Lunar orbit, it's L1. That also is a useful location to depart and arrive in Terran space from, whether you're using low-thrust electric propulsion (no need to climb out of a gravity well), or chemical propulsion (a gravitational flyby of Terra gets you a lot of delta-V for free - it can enable a 3 month cruise to Mars without excessive mass ratios).

But before we see a station there, I'd like to see a depot in LEO, so we can refuel (and maintain) larger craft. For Lunar exploration, I'm envisioning an orbit-to-orbit craft that would carry a separate lander, perhaps owned by a company that would hire it out to space agencies or for private missions.

But before that, for the first few missions, using a modified Dragon capsule to reach orbit and sending a separate lander seems best. Could we do it in a couple of years?

RobertDyck · 2017-06-30 12:24:03

The place for a space station is LEO, where ISS is located. And we have one: ISS. Medium orbit has radation from Van Allen belts. High orbit takes too much propellant to reach, and outside protection by the magnetosphere. LEO can be reached by a space shuttle such as DreamChaser. Or capsule with a relatively small launch vehicle, such as Dragon/Falcon 9, Soyuz-MS/Soyuz-FG, Cygnus/Antares.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2017-06-27 07:59:01

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#127 2017-06-27 09:56:02

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#128 2017-06-27 10:57:06

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#129 2017-06-27 13:23:28

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#130 2017-06-27 13:51:49

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#131 2017-06-27 14:04:38

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#132 2017-06-27 14:22:10

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#133 2017-06-27 14:32:39

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#134 2017-06-27 14:35:11

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#135 2017-06-27 15:28:25

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#136 2017-06-27 15:56:51

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#137 2017-06-27 16:41:07

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#138 2017-06-28 08:16:37

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#139 2017-06-28 10:34:24

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#140 2017-06-28 10:56:05

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#141 2017-06-28 11:16:56

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#142 2017-06-28 17:32:56

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#143 2017-06-28 20:29:27

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#144 2017-06-29 07:11:30

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#145 2017-06-29 13:35:35

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#146 2017-06-29 21:34:10

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#147 2017-06-30 08:00:04

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#148 2017-06-30 09:54:56

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#149 2017-06-30 10:28:30

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

#150 2017-06-30 12:24:03

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

Board footer