Starship is Go...

SpaceNut · 2021-11-01 17:21:04

https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/science.html

The mare regions have low reflectance because they contain relatively high amounts of iron oxide (FeO). Some mare basalts contain unusually high amounts of titanium oxide (TiO2) in addition to iron oxide, making for even lower reflectance. TiO2 also shifts the color of the mare from red to blue.

Walls of Lunar Crater May Hold Patchy Ice, LRO Radar Finds

Thin films of water and hydroxyl have been detected across the lunar surface using several space-borne near-infrared spectrometers. Additionally, orbital neutron measurements indicate elevated levels of near‐surface hydrogen in the polar regions; if in the form of water, this hydrogen would represent an average ice concentration of about 1.5% by weight in the polar regions.

GW Johnson · 2021-11-14 15:56:30

I have not heard a thing yet about the permit-to-fly status out of Boca Chica. I'm guessing FAA/EPA is still screwing around bureaucratically. I hope Musk hasn't pissed one or both agencies off with his tweets a while back. This has been unexpectedly slow.

GW

SpaceNut · 2021-11-14 17:19:23

It has to do with the area that the launch site is in for safety and road closures. It might be cheaper to make a new road to detour others around the area.

louis · 2021-11-14 17:30:17

Or expectedly slow if, like me, you identified the Biden administration as being opposed to space exploration. The Far Left Dems have always opposed space exploration as a diversion from fighting poverty on Earth. It was a big message that came out of Chicago in the late 60s in opposition to Apollo and you can bet the Chicago street agitator Obama ran with that message and of course he is now a directing hand in this administration.

However, I do think Musk is a very clever operator and realised all that...so to some extent he was I feel rushing things technically to get the admin going in the hope that after the bureaucratic delays he really will be able to launch. In other words "Bring on the admin hassle now, while I prepare for real launch capability." I think that might explain the degree of confrontationality we've seen in recent months.

We have to remember that for a floundering administration, a space triumph is tempting, albeit a non-NASA one. It will tough for them to swallow but they may be prepared to let Musk go ahead if they feel they can trumpet it as a "Biden success".

GW Johnson wrote:

I have not heard a thing yet about the permit-to-fly status out of Boca Chica. I'm guessing FAA/EPA is still screwing around bureaucratically. I hope Musk hasn't pissed one or both agencies off with his tweets a while back. This has been unexpectedly slow.
GW

SpaceNut · 2021-11-14 18:05:26

The claim for social programs is not a new thing and its across both parties wondering where the billions are going when it could help so many. The bills pending are being stopped that would allow for the focus to shift to doing more with space but its up to the businesses to drive it not politics.

louis · 2021-11-14 19:10:38

It's been almost entirely a Dem theme. As I say it goes back to the 1960s and was particularly associated with the Chicago radicals of the 1960s who opposed the Apollo programme. Obama took up the baton of Chicago radicalism, being based there himself, attending an anti-American church for 20 years and putting forward all the usual Far Left Dem policies. I've never heard anything from him that suggests he is enthused by Space X. To be fair, I don't think Trump is a great space fan either - he's got a very narrow view of what life's about. But the Far Left Dems have a strong principle opposition to space exploration.

SpaceNut wrote:

The claim for social programs is not a new thing and its across both parties wondering where the billions are going when it could help so many. The bills pending are being stopped that would allow for the focus to shift to doing more with space but its up to the businesses to drive it not politics.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-14 19:24:28

Well Nixon killed the Apollo program...

SpaceX shows off epic photo of Starship SN20 engine test

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/11 … starships/

all 6 engines were fired for a few seconds.

GW Johnson · 2021-11-14 21:37:10

Louis:

You are SO full of it!

It was DEMOCRAT John Kennedy that gave NASA the moon mission to do, Louis. And it was REPUBLICAN Richard Nixon that killed Apollo early at Apollo 17. We had already built enough hardware to fly through Apollo-22. Except for Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab, that hardware never flew. It had already been paid for, but it never flew.

So your generalizations about Democrats and leftists and anti-space are clearly incorrect! History does NOT bear you out! Nixon was anti-space, but knew he could not kill Apollo, which had a fair amount of public support, and more importantly, strong support from the senators in whose districts the hardware was built. But he could NOT let it ride to completion, either, because the next item on NASA's agenda was the manned mission to Mars (and yes, it was a landing). A man on Mars back then would have utterly captured the public's imagination, making his preferred anti-space politics impossible for his lifetime.

At the time of Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon in Apollo-11, the manned Mars landing was scheduled for the 1983 opposition. By the time Nixon restricted manned spaceflight to LEO in 1972 (what he actually did went FAR BEYOND just killing Apollo), the Mars landing had been pushed back to the 1987 opposition, and the enabling nuclear thermal engine that was baseline for it (NERVA), was just about flight-ready for its first flight test. The final NERVA ground test was in 1973, but everything shut down by 1974, because NASA wasn't going anywhere outside LEO.

It was REPUBLICAN Richard Nixon who did this evil, precisely because he was anti-space. To placate the senators, he gave them the Space Shuttle instead, so that their districts would still have space hardware to build. And no president after Nixon, not Democrat, not Republican, did anything significant to change that restriction to LEO! Which is why we haven't been anywhere else with men ever since. That was HALF A CENTURY ago!

You don't REALLY believe the SLS ("Senate Launch System") actually had anything to do with actually sending men back to the moon, much less going to Mars, did you? Or its Ares predecessor? Those were just corporate welfare projects for "old space" companies in those senator's districts. That is EXACTLY why those programs still have yet to fly, while being 2 decades behind and multiple $billions in the red. And NO president, of EITHER party, has done anything about that utter miscarriage of common sense!

The real truth is a whole lot more complicated, and whole lot more shameful, than anything in your politics. And you already understand what I think of your politics. Politics evidenced by the disinformation conspiracy theories (on multiple issues) that you voice all the time. Whether appropriate, or not. And in THIS thread, THEY ARE NOT APPROPRIATE, LOUIS!!!!

Myself, I am not Republican, nor am I Democrat. I'd just as soon outlaw political parties and force everyone to be an independent, which is what I really am. George Washington was exactly correct: he warned us in his farewell address not to go with political parties. We did anyway, and now we are screwed, because they have extremized their incorrect prioritization of party advantage over the public good (that they SWORE to do!!!!) and won't actually do their jobs anymore. Oathbreakers, the lot of them! The last time this happened to this extreme, we had a civil war, which should NEVER have happened in the first place. Idiocy does have consequences!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-11-14 22:00:07)

Calliban · 2021-11-15 06:05:14

There are other issues at play here, aside from anti-space ideology.

Firstly, (20% importance) a lot of politicians aren't fond of what they see as billionaire joyrides. They don't necessarily appreciate the long-term importance of what Musk is trying to do. They are also suspicious of non-state actors achieving things without their help. Opposition to Musk and SpaceX on this basis, is across the political spectrum. Also, from the Dem side, Musk is a strong believer in technical solutions, driven by the private sector. He isn't interested in big state socialism and takes the piss out of Dem progressives via Twitter. It hasn't earned him many friends in that party, though most of the Dem party are probably ambivalent towards him as his electric vehicle ventures are an important part of the green new deal that they are selling. So he is tolerated, if if many consider him to be an irritant.

Secondly, (80% importance) and more importantly, there are other players in the launch market and Musk has trodden on them. The space programme has always been a very profitable business for the US aerospace sector and Musk's entry into that market has been highly disruptive. He will have cost people like Lockheed Martin and Boeing a fortune in lost revenue. Those players employ a lot of people, are important industries in their locales and their employees are voters. In a competitive market, your success always comes at someone else's expense. Musk has stollen the pork barrel from these people and they aren't going to give it up without a fight. They are powerful and have political friends in the states where they operate. Many of those states are Democrat run. So that is where the political opposition is coming from. Money talks.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-15 06:19:55)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-15 06:15:39

Whether the state is democratic or republican now has little to do with how hard that governor will fight for space jobs for the state.
NH has had both fighting for those jobs in the high tech industries of space and materials that they use. So long as the parts and pieces are not propriety anyone can make them. You just need the equipment and know how to do so.

louis · 2021-11-15 14:08:05

I think those are fair points. They are all part of the collective charge sheet against Musk. Plus he sometimes comes out with comments that Big Governmnet, Big Tech and Big Pharma don't appreciate re Direct Democracy, AI and keeping his operation going through Covid.

Calliban wrote:

There are other issues at play here, aside from anti-space ideology.
Firstly, (20% importance) a lot of politicians aren't fond of what they see as billionaire joyrides. They don't necessarily appreciate the long-term importance of what Musk is trying to do. They are also suspicious of non-state actors achieving things without their help. Opposition to Musk and SpaceX on this basis, is across the political spectrum. Also, from the Dem side, Musk is a strong believer in technical solutions, driven by the private sector. He isn't interested in big state socialism and takes the piss out of Dem progressives via Twitter. It hasn't earned him many friends in that party, though most of the Dem party are probably ambivalent towards him as his electric vehicle ventures are an important part of the green new deal that they are selling. So he is tolerated, if if many consider him to be an irritant.
Secondly, (80% importance) and more importantly, there are other players in the launch market and Musk has trodden on them. The space programme has always been a very profitable business for the US aerospace sector and Musk's entry into that market has been highly disruptive. He will have cost people like Lockheed Martin and Boeing a fortune in lost revenue. Those players employ a lot of people, are important industries in their locales and their employees are voters. In a competitive market, your success always comes at someone else's expense. Musk has stollen the pork barrel from these people and they aren't going to give it up without a fight. They are powerful and have political friends in the states where they operate. Many of those states are Democrat run. So that is where the political opposition is coming from. Money talks.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-17 20:44:56

Elon Musk says SpaceX will ‘hopefully’ launch first orbital Starship flight in January

Musk noted that he wasn’t sure if Starship would successfully reach orbit on the first try, but emphasized that he is “confident” that the rocket will get to space in 2022.
“We intend to have a high flight rate next year,” Musk said.
SpaceX aims to launch as many as a dozen Starship test flights next year, he said, to complete the “test flight program” and move to launching “real payloads in 2023.” He stressed that creating a mass production line for Starship is crucial to the program’s long-term goals, noting that the current “biggest constraint” on rocket manufacturing is how fast the company can build the Raptor engines needed for Starship.
“I think, in order for life to become multiplanetary, we’ll need maybe 1,000 ships or something like that,” Musk said.
SpaceX has a $2.9 billion contract from NASA to develop Starship for delivering astronauts to the moon’s surface, Musk said the company is “not assuming any international collaboration” or external funding for the rocket program.

GW Johnson · 2021-11-17 22:04:22

From the AIAA "Daily Launch" email newsletter for 11-17-21 (first solid estimate we have seen):

FAA Sets December 31 For Completion Of Space X Environmental Review

The Daily Mail (UK) (11/16) reports that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “has set December 31 for when it plans to conclude its environmental assessment into SpaceX’s launch program.” SpaceX “could soon prepare to send its first Starship rocket into orbit as early as the first-quarter 2022 – a mission that has been on pause since the review began this summer.”

"Assessment concluded" is not the same thing as "launch approved". We will see what REALLY happens by end of December.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2021-11-20 17:17:31

Here's an interesting White Paper analysis of the fate of used Starships...

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

louis · 2021-11-21 07:06:16

The authors don't really address anything we haven't discussed here. Seems we are back to the figure of 100 tons per Starship for cargo (although the way its phrased in the video is a bit ambiguous). Well I will be sticking with that figure for the time being.

I of course object to the nonsense in the video about solar power being "useless in a dust storm" and the failure to note that if you are producing methane and oxygen, you obviously have stored power available to operate methox electricity generators (so not at all clear why you would go to the trouble of also using Kilopower units - if they ever do become available. But of course we have dealt with all these issues in great detail here.

Space X I feel are in a bit of a dilemma.They probably want to plan the mission themselves, using their trademark innovative flair, but on the other hand they are and will be dependent on NASA/JPL for satellite info on Mars and for communication between the two planets.

Regarding using the Starship tanks as habs, to my mind that will be the wrong approach. Adapting them - installing air locks and so on - will be a demanding technical task and will require a lot of labour/EVAs (doesn't sound the sort of work that robots could easily handle. Why make life difficult for yourself? For the first few missions it makes much more sense to import ready-made inflatable habs of the Bigelow type that don't require any complex assembly. Later on, robotic construction e.g. extruded cement or concrete will be a better option.

Steel from disused Starships should be smelted down and used to fashion a wide range of tools and other items. Of course we will want to keep some of the early human passenger Starships as monuments and tourist attractions on Mars.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Here's an interesting White Paper analysis of the fate of used Starships...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFXOJpZeJXM

Calliban · 2021-11-21 08:14:27

I can remember an interesting discussion on the provision of habitable volume on Mars that recommended the use of ETFE membranes anchored to the surface using high strength cables. Zubrin suggested something similar. A 50m diameter polymer dome could be decked out with internal decks, some 3m apart, suspended from the inside of the dome and stabilised by an internal brick column. This would be relatively easy to build, but would provide no additional protection against cosmic radiation.

Another option is to heap regolith over frames assembled within a crater or other depression. This seems like the smartest option to me for bulk habitable volume. It provides pressurised volume, that is protected from cosmic radiation and Martian nighttime freezing temperatures, with the minimal amount of engineering. Fine regolith can be compressed into hard tiles that line the top of the frames, filling gaps between them. This is followed by several inches of loose filtered regolith and then mixed fines a flat stones. Untreated regolith can then be bulldozed over the top of the structure. The inside is coated in paint, to seal any small leaks. On Mars, a layer of regolith some 5m thick will counteract internal pressure of 0.5bar.

Internal walls can be built from mud brick or using stones, with Martian regolith compressed in place as mortar and then painted to produce a smooth surface. Ceilings can be constructed from mud brick vaults, with compressed regolith infill to produce flat floors. With 5m of regolith above the structure, internal electrical equipment and body heat will provide sufficient heating to keep the volume at comfortable temperatures after an initial thermal soaking time.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-21 08:54:12)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-21 10:25:51

The use of tanks are not new the issue is hauling all the stuff you need to put into those altered tanks comes as a separate penalty to payloads that you would not normally have these items counted in.

Even a multi layered dome needs to be repairable between its layers whether its from natural cause for damage or from other causes.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-11-21 11:58:02

louis wrote:

I of course object to the nonsense in the video about solar power being "useless in a dust storm" and the failure to note that if you are producing methane and oxygen, you obviously have stored power available to operate methox electricity generators (so not at all clear why you would go to the trouble of also using Kilopower units - if they ever do become available. But of course we have dealt with all these issues in great detail here.

Oldfart1939 wrote:
Here's an interesting White Paper analysis of the fate of used Starships...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFXOJpZeJXM

Louis--the only person convinced about the total dependency on Solar power here, is you. I'm not opposed to some use of Solar but initially, the use of Nuclear is imperative. We've had never ending discussions about this. Nuclear has one overriding factor in it's favor: transportability and set-up time and labor with no massive project to emplace it before getting the power required for survival of the crewed base. Your dependence on Robotics is simply not happening, because no one has even started building even the simplest ones you envision.
I applaud your enthusiasm, but it's disconnected from reality. You are arguing with professionals like GW; I myself am a Ph.D. Physical Chemist with extensive background in Thermodynamics. I don't know the backgrounds of others here but there are some additional "heavy hitters" in this group.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-21 12:33:19

Packing for Mars

Starship white paper

The whitepaper marks the first time that SpaceX (or those familiar with the company’s plans) has properly fleshed out the basics of its first crewed and uncrewed Starship missions to Mars and confirms a great deal of well-informed speculation. Namely, SpaceX appears to intend to pack even the very first Mars-bound ships with supplies. But even if they don’t bring much, the first Martian immigrants – launched in batches of “10-20 people” alongside “100+ metric tons” (~220,000+ lb) of cargo – will reuse all surviving Starships as pre-emplaced habitats, storage tanks, and raw material feedstock. Early cargo will focus on power, water, and propellant production, as well as shelters, radiation shielding, and the construction of prepared landing pads.
Unsurprisngly, early residents will likely make the Starships that carry them to Mars their first homes on the surface of the Red Planet, taking advantage of an ~1100m³ (~39,000ft³) pressurized volume already outfitted to keep dozens of people alive and healthy in deep space for months at a time.

louis · 2021-11-21 17:42:40

Robotic construction machines do already exist and it is moving into the commercial world.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHSYEH133HA

You can construct a building in under 24 hours.

I have never advocated total dependence on solar power. I advocate solar plus methox. We will of course arrive on Mars with some methane and oxygen still in the tanks which can be drained off and used to power methox generators if necessary. But the video maker was totally wrong in suggesting that dust storms prevent PV systems from working. In a dust storm, while you might have a few days of very low insolation, typically it's 40% or more of normal.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

louis wrote:
I of course object to the nonsense in the video about solar power being "useless in a dust storm" and the failure to note that if you are producing methane and oxygen, you obviously have stored power available to operate methox electricity generators (so not at all clear why you would go to the trouble of also using Kilopower units - if they ever do become available. But of course we have dealt with all these issues in great detail here.

Oldfart1939 wrote:
Here's an interesting White Paper analysis of the fate of used Starships...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFXOJpZeJXM
Louis--the only person convinced about the total dependency on Solar power here, is you. I'm not opposed to some use of Solar but initially, the use of Nuclear is imperative. We've had never ending discussions about this. Nuclear has one overriding factor in it's favor: transportability and set-up time and labor with no massive project to emplace it before getting the power required for survival of the crewed base. Your dependence on Robotics is simply not happening, because no one has even started building even the simplest ones you envision.
I applaud your enthusiasm, but it's disconnected from reality. You are arguing with professionals like GW; I myself am a Ph.D. Physical Chemist with extensive background in Thermodynamics. I don't know the backgrounds of others here but there are some additional "heavy hitters" in this group.

Last edited by louis (2021-11-21 17:45:20)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-22 20:31:14

A fast transit of the 90 day will cause the ship to enter in a velocity (16km/s arriving at Mars) that retro propulsion can not slow the ship enough to land on mars.
Fast starship flight to Mars with a full tank

That means to slow the ship its got to have less mass onboard for the engines to work.

louis · 2021-11-23 06:44:54

We need to remember that the wind force on Mars never gets above something like the equivalent of 8 MPH on Earth. There is also no driving rain and no snow drifts to contend with. I can't see any danger of a hab massing a couple of tonnes perhaps being moved by the Mars wind.

Something like the Bigelow inflatable units seem the best approach to me. A small one was tested in space I recall but the company seems to have gone pretty quiet having laid off all staff at the beginning of the Covid pandemic (a good excuse? were they going bust?). Anyway this link gives some idea re radiation protection (scroll down):

https://www.bigelowaerospace.com/pages/our-technology/

I think if a Bigelow style hab was supplemented by a steel frame over the hab which could carry a thick layer of regolith above and also be fitted with side containers that could be filled with regolith that would provide a lot of radiation protection for Mission One pioneers.

The interior could be fitted with "video display windows" taking a feed from outside to give the residents a sense of the outside vista in different directions, and the natural passing from light to darkness.

Calliban wrote:

I can remember an interesting discussion on the provision of habitable volume on Mars that recommended the use of ETFE membranes anchored to the surface using high strength cables. Zubrin suggested something similar. A 50m diameter polymer dome could be decked out with internal decks, some 3m apart, suspended from the inside of the dome and stabilised by an internal brick column. This would be relatively easy to build, but would provide no additional protection against cosmic radiation.
Another option is to heap regolith over frames assembled within a crater or other depression. This seems like the smartest option to me for bulk habitable volume. It provides pressurised volume, that is protected from cosmic radiation and Martian nighttime freezing temperatures, with the minimal amount of engineering. Fine regolith can be compressed into hard tiles that line the top of the frames, filling gaps between them. This is followed by several inches of loose filtered regolith and then mixed fines a flat stones. Untreated regolith can then be bulldozed over the top of the structure. The inside is coated in paint, to seal any small leaks. On Mars, a layer of regolith some 5m thick will counteract internal pressure of 0.5bar.
Internal walls can be built from mud brick or using stones, with Martian regolith compressed in place as mortar and then painted to produce a smooth surface. Ceilings can be constructed from mud brick vaults, with compressed regolith infill to produce flat floors. With 5m of regolith above the structure, internal electrical equipment and body heat will provide sufficient heating to keep the volume at comfortable temperatures after an initial thermal soaking time.

louis · 2021-11-23 08:35:09

Latest from Marcus House:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIv1I7nsYrc

According to MH, Elon Musk still thinks the first orbital flight will take place Jan/Feb 2022 at the latest... would make a 2024 launch to Mars very tight I think.

louis · 2021-11-26 20:00:41

Good video (if not the robot voice) on Tesla-Space X and why the Biden Administration hate them (doesn't have a unionised workforce). You can ignore the first 80% of it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgNXCFKtZ0Q

We have to remember that the Biden Administration is a Vendetta Government. Not recognising the UAW will be enough to put Musk on the vendetta list.

GW Johnson · 2021-12-01 13:00:46

Something we haven't heard about before has started becoming public. This from today's AIAA email newsletter "Daily Launch":

Elon Musk Says Starship Engine Crisis Risks Bankrupting SpaceX
Bloomberg (11/30) reports that SpaceX CEO Elon Musk “on Tuesday said that a potential bankruptcy at the company in the event of a severe global recession would be ‘unlikely,’ but not impossible.”

CNBC (11/30) reports that Musk “is angry with the lack of progress SpaceX has made in developing the Raptor engines that power its Starship rocket.” Musk said, “We face genuine risk of bankruptcy if we cannot achieve a Starship flight rate of at least once every two weeks next year.”

Fortune (11/30) reports that Musk wrote in response to the Raptor production crisis, “I was going to take this weekend off, as my first weekend off in a long time, but instead, I will be on the Raptor line all night and through the weekend.”

The Hill (11/30) reports that the news about the Raptor engine “comes just over a week after two senior level employees at SpaceX, including one who was taken off the development of the Raptor engine, resigned from the company.”

Space News (12/1, Subscription Publication) reports that Musk wrote in a November 26 email, “Unfortunately, the Raptor production crisis is much worse than it seemed a few weeks ago. As we have dug into the issues following exiting prior senior management, they have unfortunately turned out to be far more severe than was reported.” Musk’s comments could refer to the “recent departure of Will Heltsley, vice president of propulsion at SpaceX. Heltsley, who had been at SpaceX since 2009 and in the role of vice president of propulsion since 2018, left amid problems scaling up production of Raptor.”

GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1551 2021-11-01 17:21:04

Re: Starship is Go...

#1552 2021-11-14 15:56:30

Re: Starship is Go...

#1553 2021-11-14 17:19:23

Re: Starship is Go...

#1554 2021-11-14 17:30:17

Re: Starship is Go...

#1555 2021-11-14 18:05:26

Re: Starship is Go...

#1556 2021-11-14 19:10:38

Re: Starship is Go...

#1557 2021-11-14 19:24:28

Re: Starship is Go...

#1558 2021-11-14 21:37:10

Re: Starship is Go...

#1559 2021-11-15 06:05:14

Re: Starship is Go...

#1560 2021-11-15 06:15:39

Re: Starship is Go...

#1561 2021-11-15 14:08:05

Re: Starship is Go...

#1562 2021-11-17 20:44:56

Re: Starship is Go...

#1563 2021-11-17 22:04:22

Re: Starship is Go...

#1564 2021-11-20 17:17:31

Re: Starship is Go...

#1565 2021-11-21 07:06:16

Re: Starship is Go...

#1566 2021-11-21 08:14:27

Re: Starship is Go...

#1567 2021-11-21 10:25:51

Re: Starship is Go...

#1568 2021-11-21 11:58:02

Re: Starship is Go...

#1569 2021-11-21 12:33:19

Re: Starship is Go...

#1570 2021-11-21 17:42:40

Re: Starship is Go...

#1571 2021-11-22 20:31:14

Re: Starship is Go...

#1572 2021-11-23 06:44:54

Re: Starship is Go...

#1573 2021-11-23 08:35:09

Re: Starship is Go...

#1574 2021-11-26 20:00:41

Re: Starship is Go...

#1575 2021-12-01 13:00:46

Re: Starship is Go...

Board footer