Starship is Go...

SpaceNut · 2021-03-03 20:24:08

I missed it.... you seen one exploding at the pad you have seen them all.

One issue for the current profile is for use in a coast to coast as the return to earth from orbit, moon or mars are quite a bit different.

Starship SN10 successfully lands before RUD’ing on the pad

https://youtu.be/XOQkk3ojNfM?t=36975

apparently those spindally legs did not hold up....

Engines did perform better as the deep throttle of each seemed smooth without the hatsh bell ring seen before. The aft fire seems to indicate a need as fire erupted even after landing contact engine shut off.

GW Johnson · 2021-03-03 20:45:08

SN10 had a good flight. The engine shutdowns and belly flop went well. I saw no fires in the engine bay during the ascent or the belly-flop descent. The 3-engine flip worked fine, and then they shut two engines down.

As near as I can tell, everything went OK through the 3-engine flip to tail first. When they shut down 2 engines to land on just one, something went wrong. I could see a large fire in the engine bay at the rear of the vehicle, which tells me there was a large methane leak. Prime suspect would be the engine bay fire damaging stuff in the engine bay.

It must have hit a tad too hard for one of the landing legs (4? 6? I don't know how many.) It was sitting there out-of-plumb for a few minutes, initially with a persistent small fire on the side away from the one it was leaning toward. That fire seemed to go out, I'm not sure whether the water deluge stream put it out or not.

It suddenly experienced a massive explosion in the engine bay while standing there out-of-plumb. That blew the aft structures off, sending the rest tumbling skyward. The engine bay and aft fins were gone. I don't know for sure, but I suspect the methane leak that caused the engine bay fire persisted, and exploded later, after the landing.

I think all that plumbing and wiring around those engines would be more reliable if they wrapped it in fiberglass with an outer layer of shiny metal foil. The way those engines vent upon shutdown will always briefly fill that engine bay with fire. Fire damages plumbing, and especially wiring.

They still have a very long way to go with landing legs for this design. Especially when there will be no concrete pad to land on.

GW

SpaceNut · 2021-03-03 22:04:58

BB1edgLR.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f

Oldfart1939 · 2021-03-03 23:12:47

They are still at the toe of the landing learning curve; this was progress, but until they do something about the legs, incidents like this will continue. The landing struck me as being a bit hard, and the engine bay fire from Methane could have been aggravated by the impact and effect on the plumbing.
The positives were the engine relights, and the flap control systems working perfectly. An upright (out of plumb) landing was the frosting on the cake.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-03-04 10:54:46)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-03-04 10:45:22

Unfortunately, the ability to post-flight examine the Raptor engines went up in a ball of flames. I guess there was still significant amount of Methane left in the fuel tanks?

The issue with the rinkydink landing legs needs to be addressed pretty soon. I'm in favor of Falcon-style folding legs with a much wider "footprint," as well as more ground clearance.

I agree with GW about having some fiberglass insulation and foil to protect the vulnerable engine plumbing. Maybe they don't care if they lose a prototype, but this last incident shows there's still a way to go with the Raptor engines reliability.

GW Johnson · 2021-03-04 12:30:50

A refinement to what I said in post 952 above ---

The small fire visible after landing went out outside, but I suspect was still burning inside the engine bay, out of sight, and out of reach of the water stream. That would be the methane leak. That stuff is almost as easy to ignite as hydrogen, and being lighter-than-air, the vapors would fill the engine bay.

Don't kid yourself about spilled liquid cryogens, they are always boiling violently at Earthly conditions. There will be lots of vapors above the liquid pool.

With a fire in the vicinity of the thrust puck, remember that the thrust puck is the bottom of a liquid oxygen tank. Fires tend to make holes in sheet metal rather easily. Spill liquid oxygen onto a pool of fuel, any fuel, and if there is any source of ignition (such as a fire, or even just smoldering damaged items), you always get a very violent explosion.

The trick here, if my suspicions are correct, is to get a more reliable cutoff for the fuel and oxidizer lines to a Raptor that has been shut down. I suspect the engine bay fire this time (and seen on SN-8 and SN-9) was caused by leaking methane burning with air in the engine bay. Methane is a high risk for leaks and fires, like hydrogen. Not as bad as hydrogen, but worse than just about anything else.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-03-04 12:33:48)

kbd512 · 2021-03-04 15:42:19

All of the commentary here is a quaint way of stating that SpaceX needs to do some additional design work on the propellant tanks and feed systems, engine heat shielding, and landing legs prior to squandering any more money by "iterating" through every possible design failure. The basic vehicle design doesn't work, even though the engines appear to work quite well, which is why SN10 met the same fate as SNs 1 through 9. Go through a proper critical design review at least once, tweak a known-good basic design after that design has proven minimally flight-capable, and then build many. If you intend to re-use the vehicle, then landing is a critical phase of flight. Far too little attention has been given to a realistic rough field landing capability. Whether the vehicle comes in a little harder than nominal or not, it must remain upright, but it's still not doing that. It's not as if they don't know these things, it's that they think they can somehow skirt around the tremendous effort poured into their Falcon series of rockets by "backyard engineering" Starship using what they already know about other successful rocket designs. Engineering clearly doesn't work that way. And no, I'm not saying no effort at all was made during the design process, just that whatever effort was devoted to good design is clearly insufficient. "It's sheet steel and natural gas, how hard can it possibly be?" Well... Each successive landing failure is demonstrating exactly how hard sticking the landing can be. There's a reason why no other operational aircraft land on their tail- it's a crazy-hard thing to reliably accomplish on a flat steel-reinforced concrete surface.

louis · 2021-03-04 15:56:04

I agree about the legs...stability is going to be a big issue going forward, so why not address the landing legs issue now?

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Unfortunately, the ability to post-flight examine the Raptor engines went up in a ball of flames. I guess there was still significant amount of Methane left in the fuel tanks?
The issue with the rinkydink landing legs needs to be addressed pretty soon. I'm in favor of Falcon-style folding legs with a much wider "footprint," as well as more ground clearance.
I agree with GW about having some fiberglass insulation and foil to protect the vulnerable engine plumbing. Maybe they don't care if they lose a prototype, but this last incident shows there's still a way to go with the Raptor engines reliability.

louis · 2021-03-04 15:58:53

One question:

Why don't space facilities smother the rocket with fire suppressant foam as used in airliner crashes by fire services? Wouldn't that be more effective? One suspects that it might be because it won't look "cool". "Cool" is a major design concern in rocketry.

Grypd · 2021-03-04 16:59:32

It could really be unburnt gasses left in the engine area that are then when in sea pressure levels then can catch fire. There are many reasons for the fire but any fire left to carry on will burn into something important.

All I really hope for is that they get rid off all these issues to the point that they will not be an issue for crewed missions

kbd512 · 2021-03-04 17:35:34

Louis,

The use of plain water has nothing whatsoever to do with "looking cool". You may be obsessed with "looking cool", but engineers probably aren't. AFFF (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam) is used on liquid petroleum fires, such as kerosene fires. As someone who's actually sprayed AFFF on an actual DFM (Diesel Fuel Marine) fire, I have a pretty good appreciation for what it can and can't do. It wouldn't do anything at all to prevent a gas like Methane from escaping from beneath the AFFF, which is intended to act as a vapor seal between vaporized and liquid kerosene or fuel oil distillates.

Edit:

AFFF is also pretty useless for fighting gasoline-fueled fires, which is why it doesn't get used on those, either. If the rocket in question was loaded with RP-1, then SpaceX should have some kind of AFFF system installed in the landing area. Since they're actually using Methane, having AFFF is pointless. The water can cool hot metal components and interrupt combustion from direct contact, but the surface film that AFFF creates over fuel oils can't prevent volatile gases like Methane from vaporizing and continuing to combust. The rule of thumb is AFFF for kerosene, diesel, or bunker fuel. AFFF would also work on a coal / wood / plastic fueled fire, but water is every bit as effective there, so again, there's no point to doing that.

Last edited by kbd512 (2021-03-04 18:57:11)

SpaceNut · 2021-03-04 18:21:56

We talked about the Six-legged freaks - can the Starship land on those legs?

As for the cause of the fire which is from leaks, that would seem to be a workmanship issue rather than design I would hope as its getting better with each build....

louis · 2021-03-04 19:02:34

Thanks for the clarification - makes sense!

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
The use of plain water has nothing whatsoever to do with "looking cool". You may be obsessed with "looking cool", but engineers probably aren't. AFFF (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam) is used on liquid petroleum fires, such as kerosene fires. As someone who's actually sprayed AFFF on an actual DFM (Diesel Fuel Marine) fire, I have a pretty good appreciation for what it can and can't do. It wouldn't do anything at all to prevent a gas like Methane from escaping from beneath the AFFF, which is intended to act as a vapor seal between vaporized and liquid kerosene or fuel oil distillates.
Edit:
AFFF is also pretty useless for fighting gasoline-fueled fires, which is why it doesn't get used on those, either. If the rocket in question was loaded with RP-1, then SpaceX should have some kind of AFFF system installed in the landing area. Since they're actually using Methane, having AFFF is pointless. The water can cool hot metal components and interrupt combustion from direct contact, but the surface film that AFFF creates over fuel oils can't prevent volatile gases like Methane from vaporizing and continuing to combust. The rule of thumb is AFFF for kerosene, diesel, or bunker fuel. AFFF would also work on a coal / wood / plastic fueled fire, but water is every bit as effective there, so again, there's no point to doing that.

louis · 2021-03-06 08:20:23

SpaceXcentric's latest video - includes a segment from Lab Padre showing the failed deployment of all legs - a few didn't lock. Might also explain why they couldn't quench the fire as the Starship body was in contact with the ground - no space to get at the engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxFrS5nL_80

SpaceNut · 2021-03-06 09:50:31

The illustrates the need for a concrete pad as well since rocks that are in the field of landing can not be predicted to not damage the engines and with the surface not level it makes the problem even greater. This problem is not just for mars but for a version that is for the moon as well since there is the regolith sink depth that will need to be accounted for....

louis · 2021-03-06 14:19:49

I think you are underestimating the extent to which NASA can (a) identify hard level rock surfaces (to a depth of many metres) and (b) identify rocks on the surface using computerised analysis of repeat photos (different orbits) of the same area. IIRC correctly they can resolve down to about 60cms.

Remember as well that Space X are sending cargo ships first so when they land they can make v. detailed images of the landing area, selecting the best for the human landers. With automated rovers on board, they can even clear away rocks.

Anyway, all this can be tested on Earth first, and the Moon later. I think a lunar landing will be more difficult than a Mars landing.

SpaceNut wrote:

The illustrates the need for a concrete pad as well since rocks that are in the field of landing can not be predicted to not damage the engines and with the surface not level it makes the problem even greater. This problem is not just for mars but for a version that is for the moon as well since there is the regolith sink depth that will need to be accounted for....

GW Johnson · 2021-03-06 14:48:38

As best I understand it, when Spacex shuts down a Raptor, they stop one propellant flow first, and thus quench the chamber fire by its lack, with the other propellant still running. I don't know which one is first, but I'd guess methane first, then oxygen. Then they shut it off, too. The engine expels the cooler gas to fully depressurize, just at lowered velocity. These expelled gases mix with the air in the engine bay for a short time. Not zero, but short.

If my guess about how Raptors shut down is correct, the engine bay is enriched in oxygen for that time. Any fuel leakage would be very flammable and extremely easy to ignite. Or any solid material in the bay that was smoldering for any other reason, would brighten up and burn faster for a time.

I would not think they would shut off the oxygen first, because that would fill the bay immediately with methane fuel. That guarantees a huge fire as air percolates back in. Any source of ignition, even just hot parts, can set off the conflagration. Methane is almost as notorious as hydrogen about easy ignition. (It's also almost as notorious as hydrogen about being easy-to-leak.)

What I saw with SN-10 was "good" until they completed the flip back to vertical. When they shut down two of the engines, there was a very large fire visible, streaming out of the bay, continuously all the way to the ground, as it descended on the one engine. That means there was a rather significant leakage flow of methane into the bay, feeding the large fire. I think this fire was big enough to do significant damage to plumbing and wiring. It would also heat up the thin sheet metal that is the "thrust puck", but which is also the main oxygen tank.

When it got near the pad, there was too much dust and smoke for me to see anything until the cloud cleared after the landing. Then it was quite clear the ship was standing roughly 5 degrees out of plumb. Which in turn means there was something wrong with some, but not all, the landing legs. All those on one side were "short" in some way.

I find that landing leg trouble unsurprising, to say the least. I don't know how they are operated, but either plumbing or electricity (or both) are used. Doesn't matter which, it was exposed to a big fire in the bay for a significant time, and fire is hell on wiring or plumbing. Odds are the bay fire caused the leg malfunction.

I did see it standing there with a small fire showing on the higher side of the base of the tilted ship. It burned like that for a while, until sometime after they shot a water stream into the vicinity of the ship. If there was still a fire burning in the bay, that was not visible from outside. I think there was still an ongoing fire in the bay, that it was leaking methane burning with air in the bay, and that it finished burning a hole in the thrust puck/oxygen tank.

When the oxygen hit the methane-air fire in the bay, ka-boom! Which is why the bay walls and aft fins were ripped from the ship, with the explosion pressure wave lifting the entire ship around a hundred meters skyward. That was a fast deflagration by the way, not-at-all a detonation! Those are even more powerful. By far. There would be no recognizable ship left, just small pieces, if that had been a detonation.

They really, really need to get control of leaking methane and the raging engine bay fires it can so easily cause. That's three prototypes fundamentally destroyed by this issue. Could be faulty valves, leaking pipe joints, or even welds cracking. It has long been known (over a century now) that many of those things which perform perfectly well in ground tests, often come apart under real-world stresses in flight. Usually stresses not accounted-for in the design analysis. Usually also causing loss of the craft.

Boeing and P&W are currently suffering from exactly that, with the P&W4000 hollow fan blade cracking problem. And not just on those B-777's that use that engine. It's on some other airplanes, too.

As for the landing leg design, well, I have offered my assessment about that before (and it was not, and still is not, at all good). The first time one of these vehicles makes a forced landing off-site, without that flat reinforced concrete pad, well, the resulting loss of vehicle (and maybe crew) will induce them to do that job better. The longer they put that off, the more expensive it will become.

You won't get to choose what you land upon, in an emergency. It might be a soft sand dune or a bog of soft mud. Or a plowed field. Or a golf course with water hazards. You had best design for this ahead of time. Why? Because nothing is as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a stupid management decision.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-03-06 14:54:04)

louis · 2021-03-06 17:01:32

See above GW - the Lab Padre film in the Spacexcentric video shows that a number of the landing legs didn't deploy, didn't lock into position. Could that be the result of the fire maybe distorting the mechanism?

GW Johnson wrote:

As best I understand it, when Spacex shuts down a Raptor, they stop one propellant flow first, and thus quench the chamber fire by its lack, with the other propellant still running. I don't know which one is first, but I'd guess methane first, then oxygen. Then they shut it off, too. The engine expels the cooler gas to fully depressurize, just at lowered velocity. These expelled gases mix with the air in the engine bay for a short time. Not zero, but short.
If my guess about how Raptors shut down is correct, the engine bay is enriched in oxygen for that time. Any fuel leakage would be very flammable and extremely easy to ignite. Or any solid material in the bay that was smoldering for any other reason, would brighten up and burn faster for a time.
I would not think they would shut off the oxygen first, because that would fill the bay immediately with methane fuel. That guarantees a huge fire as air percolates back in. Any source of ignition, even just hot parts, can set off the conflagration. Methane is almost as notorious as hydrogen about easy ignition. (It's also almost as notorious as hydrogen about being easy-to-leak.)
What I saw with SN-10 was "good" until they completed the flip back to vertical. When they shut down two of the engines, there was a very large fire visible, streaming out of the bay, continuously all the way to the ground, as it descended on the one engine. That means there was a rather significant leakage flow of methane into the bay, feeding the large fire. I think this fire was big enough to do significant damage to plumbing and wiring. It would also heat up the thin sheet metal that is the "thrust puck", but which is also the main oxygen tank.
When it got near the pad, there was too much dust and smoke for me to see anything until the cloud cleared after the landing. Then it was quite clear the ship was standing roughly 5 degrees out of plumb. Which in turn means there was something wrong with some, but not all, the landing legs. All those on one side were "short" in some way.
I find that landing leg trouble unsurprising, to say the least. I don't know how they are operated, but either plumbing or electricity (or both) are used. Doesn't matter which, it was exposed to a big fire in the bay for a significant time, and fire is hell on wiring or plumbing. Odds are the bay fire caused the leg malfunction.
I did see it standing there with a small fire showing on the higher side of the base of the tilted ship. It burned like that for a while, until sometime after they shot a water stream into the vicinity of the ship. If there was still a fire burning in the bay, that was not visible from outside. I think there was still an ongoing fire in the bay, that it was leaking methane burning with air in the bay, and that it finished burning a hole in the thrust puck/oxygen tank.
When the oxygen hit the methane-air fire in the bay, ka-boom! Which is why the bay walls and aft fins were ripped from the ship, with the explosion pressure wave lifting the entire ship around a hundred meters skyward. That was a fast deflagration by the way, not-at-all a detonation! Those are even more powerful. By far. There would be no recognizable ship left, just small pieces, if that had been a detonation.
They really, really need to get control of leaking methane and the raging engine bay fires it can so easily cause. That's three prototypes fundamentally destroyed by this issue. Could be faulty valves, leaking pipe joints, or even welds cracking. It has long been known (over a century now) that many of those things which perform perfectly well in ground tests, often come apart under real-world stresses in flight. Usually stresses not accounted-for in the design analysis. Usually also causing loss of the craft.
Boeing and P&W are currently suffering from exactly that, with the P&W4000 hollow fan blade cracking problem. And not just on those B-777's that use that engine. It's on some other airplanes, too.
As for the landing leg design, well, I have offered my assessment about that before (and it was not, and still is not, at all good). The first time one of these vehicles makes a forced landing off-site, without that flat reinforced concrete pad, well, the resulting loss of vehicle (and maybe crew) will induce them to do that job better. The longer they put that off, the more expensive it will become.
You won't get to choose what you land upon, in an emergency. It might be a soft sand dune or a bog of soft mud. Or a plowed field. Or a golf course with water hazards. You had best design for this ahead of time. Why? Because nothing is as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a stupid management decision.
GW

GW Johnson · 2021-03-07 10:30:12

Louis:

Paragraph 6 from post 967:

"I find that landing leg trouble unsurprising, to say the least. I don't know how they are operated, but either plumbing or electricity (or both) are used. Doesn't matter which, it was exposed to a big fire in the bay for a significant time, and fire is hell on wiring or plumbing. Odds are the bay fire caused the leg malfunction."

Yes, fire can distort mechanisms. It usually does. It also destroys controls, which causes failures even when mechanisms remain undistorted. If the fire destroys hydraulic plumbing, or the controls for hydraulics, the mechanisms operated by hydraulics cannot function. Same for electrically-operated stuff: wiring is extremely vulnerable to fire, whether control wiring or the electric motors themselves.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2021-03-07 11:58:06

For anyone ( ? GW Johnson ? ) .... The Falcon 9 first stages don't seem to be having this problem.

Per Google:

Image result for what fuel does falcon 9 first stage use
Falcon 9 is a partially reusable two-stage-to-orbit medium-lift launch vehicle designed and manufactured by SpaceX in the United States. Both the first and second stages are powered by SpaceX Merlin engines, using cryogenic liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) as propellants.

Oh! Kerosene!

Also per Google:

Here’s why SpaceX uses Methane in Starship. | ProVsCons
https://provscons.com/heres-why-spacex- … n-starship
Starship will use Methane (CH4) and Oxygen (O2) as fuel. The Martians can drink water (H2O) produced in this step or use it to make Oxygen and Hydrogen. Astronauts already use these steps to produce Oxygen from water and eliminate Carbon Dioxide at the International Space Station (ISS).

So SpaceX could make it easier for themselves by simply planning to make kerosene to refuel at Mars.

I can "hear" lots of voices saying "This ** is ** rocket science"

Edit#1: Google came back immediately with the benefits of going with methane despite the difficulty ...

5 Facts About the SpaceX Starship That Set It Apart from Other ...www.thomasnet.com › insights › 5-facts-about-the-spac...
Dec 11, 2020 — It's not as easy to handle as kerosene, but it's much more energetic without having the coking problem. As an added bonus, methane can be made on the surface of Mars relatively easily, which kerosene can't. All the above makes methane the ideal choice for a rocket vehicle designed to launch to and from the Red Planet.

There ** is ** another possibility ... flood the compartment with nitrogen or another inert gas

(th)

louis · 2021-03-07 12:02:27

Yes I read that - which was made me think there might well be a connection with the fire, rather than a simple failure in the locking mechanism.

Sounds like they were lucky the whole thing didn't explode in the air.

GW Johnson wrote:

Louis:
Paragraph 6 from post 967:
"I find that landing leg trouble unsurprising, to say the least. I don't know how they are operated, but either plumbing or electricity (or both) are used. Doesn't matter which, it was exposed to a big fire in the bay for a significant time, and fire is hell on wiring or plumbing. Odds are the bay fire caused the leg malfunction."
Yes, fire can distort mechanisms. It usually does. It also destroys controls, which causes failures even when mechanisms remain undistorted. If the fire destroys hydraulic plumbing, or the controls for hydraulics, the mechanisms operated by hydraulics cannot function. Same for electrically-operated stuff: wiring is extremely vulnerable to fire, whether control wiring or the electric motors themselves.
GW

SpaceNut · 2021-03-07 15:29:21

Why vent both fuel and oxidizer at the bottom of the tank since its still hot and it will reignite. if the fuel is vented at the top and only the oxidizer at the bottom no fire as there is distance from heat source mixing of them for a kaboom.
Or you need to water it down to stop its flames from happening.

louis · 2021-03-09 18:31:37

Video from Engineering Today which discusses the landing leg issue for the Starship:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cdGzzwNDz8

The graphic produced by erc doesn't inspire confidence...seems like the whole weight of the Spaceship would be focussed on the narrow end of the leg blades. Can't really see that working well.

[Also interested discussion of NASA price hike.]

louis · 2021-03-09 20:27:26

A good video from Felix of WAI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jbmXOOrp6E

Some interesting insights.

Includes SN11 rollout! Rendering of a lunar Starship - much larger heat shield area.

Musk claims Starship will be safe for human transport by 2023! That's pleasing to hear...fits with Mars landing in 2026.

Packed full of interesting info!

Last edited by louis (2021-03-09 20:37:14)

Void · 2021-03-10 07:03:45

Some thoughts this morning.

I wonder if the leeward side of the "Skirt" could have some vents. Those might just be holes, or with spring or motor operated doors on them. That might reduce the presence of combustible gasses in the skirt. It might also reduce the possibility of hot pure Oxygen. It should also cool the interior of the skirt to some extent.

Also if some mobile vehicle could drive up and squirt a fluid into the skirt, that could help. Steam might be cooler than what is in the skirt after a engine firing. Or you could squirt Nitrogen. Perhaps a hybrid. Burn a fuel in air to get rid of the Oxygen, then add water to convert to steam. Then what was squirted into the skirt would be Oxygen free, but not so hot that it would be likely to damage the interior items of the engine bell.

If this would put that vehicle at risk, then perhaps it could just drive up, drop off a device to do the squirting, and drive away.
So, this would be a post landing purge process. Not needed for landing on Mars or the Moon I expect.

------
I have an item of question about what those vents might do on assent. It is not clear to me what the air pressure inside of the skirt would be on assent. The engines are firing, but what do they do to the skirt pressure. They might act like a Venturi Vacuum Pump. Don't know???

https://homeguides.sfgate.com/how-a-ven … 09316.html

If so, then open vents on the Leeward side may suck in air on the way up. That may help cool the skirt volume to a degree, and it might reduce the vacuum in the skirt, perhaps reducing drag for the vehicle. If I were involved I would want to know what the internal skirt pressure was on assent. So, then I would seek to measure it.

------
Legs:
The leeward legs could be on the outside and not in the skirt. This might leave more room in the skirt for windward legs that would unfold out of it.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-03-10 07:36:39)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#951 2021-03-03 20:24:08

Re: Starship is Go...

#952 2021-03-03 20:45:08

Re: Starship is Go...

#953 2021-03-03 22:04:58

Re: Starship is Go...

#954 2021-03-03 23:12:47

Re: Starship is Go...

#955 2021-03-04 10:45:22

Re: Starship is Go...

#956 2021-03-04 12:30:50

Re: Starship is Go...

#957 2021-03-04 15:42:19

Re: Starship is Go...

#958 2021-03-04 15:56:04

Re: Starship is Go...

#959 2021-03-04 15:58:53

Re: Starship is Go...

#960 2021-03-04 16:59:32

Re: Starship is Go...

#961 2021-03-04 17:35:34

Re: Starship is Go...

#962 2021-03-04 18:21:56

Re: Starship is Go...

#963 2021-03-04 19:02:34

Re: Starship is Go...

#964 2021-03-06 08:20:23

Re: Starship is Go...

#965 2021-03-06 09:50:31

Re: Starship is Go...

#966 2021-03-06 14:19:49

Re: Starship is Go...

#967 2021-03-06 14:48:38

Re: Starship is Go...

#968 2021-03-06 17:01:32

Re: Starship is Go...

#969 2021-03-07 10:30:12

Re: Starship is Go...

#970 2021-03-07 11:58:06

Re: Starship is Go...

#971 2021-03-07 12:02:27

Re: Starship is Go...

#972 2021-03-07 15:29:21

Re: Starship is Go...

#973 2021-03-09 18:31:37

Re: Starship is Go...

#974 2021-03-09 20:27:26

Re: Starship is Go...

#975 2021-03-10 07:03:45

Re: Starship is Go...

Board footer