Starship is Go...

SpaceNut · 2021-06-16 18:18:26

SpaceX threatened with arrests as local authorities in Texas warn it may have committed a crime by using private security guards to block public roads

SpaceX's security staff may have broken Texas laws against obstructing public roads and impersonating a public official - Class B misdemeanor and third-degree felony violations, respectively - Cameron County District Attorney Luis Saenz wrote in a letter to SpaceX, according to Mireles.
Saenz warned SpaceX that future violations could result in individual SpaceX employees or contractors being arrested as well as the company facing criminal prosecution, according to the letter.

Another issue is getting by the FAA for the proposed flight to orbit on the first launch of the BFR booster.

louis · 2021-06-16 19:31:38

Missing July is neither here not there. Getting into orbit by say October would be incredible and signal great things ahead. Space X have the money and the wherewithal to really accelerate things once they get a launch right.

SpaceNut wrote:

Space X likely to miss July date for Mars rocket testhttps://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAL4SZk.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f
The company intends to launch Starship atop the Super Heavy rocket booster from its South Texas facilities before the booster separates and comes back in for a splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico about eight minutes later. Super Heavy booster could have nearly 30, giving the rocket more than 16 million pounds of thrust.
The upper Starship spacecraft will continue through orbit, burning its engines for roughly nine minutes. About an hour and a half after that, it would dive back into the Earth's atmosphere and make a splashdown in the Pacific, about 60 miles from the Hawaiian island of Kauai. Starship spacecraft is expected to contain six rocket engines
Details for calculating engine and mass performance for sure...

louis · 2021-06-18 15:16:40

Felix's latest...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK9EB48_2Go

Includes reference to Musk's latest tweet indicating SN16 might be used in a hypersonic speed test.

SpaceNut · 2021-06-19 16:18:18

The associate administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defended SpaceX during a congressional hearing on Wednesday, even though the company launched a Starship SN8 prototype in December without authorization.

louis · 2021-06-19 17:28:17

Long time since we heard from Martian Colonist.

This is a good recap of events since the start of the Starship programme and an overview of the programme include key future developments - plus lunar colonistation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLaUM2XbyJc

SpaceNut · 2021-06-20 20:14:48

https://spacenews.com/house-hearing-reh … on-issues/

commercial space transportation lies in the jurisdiction of the House Science Committee.

louis · 2021-06-21 05:33:54

Pretty much confirms my oft stated opinion that the Far Left Dems hate Musk and Space X and will do everything they can to halt the Mars Mission.

SpaceNut wrote:

https://spacenews.com/house-hearing-reh … on-issues/
commercial space transportation lies in the jurisdiction of the House Science Committee.

kbd512 · 2021-06-21 10:56:50

Louis,

1. SpaceX signed a piece of paper that says something like, "SpaceX agrees not to test their gigantic experimental rocket near someone's home, because we understand that that would be dangerous if it crashes and explodes." FAA's response was basically, "Bad boy, slap your own wrist.", and then allowed them to continue testing as if nothing happened, after moving beyond the verifiable fact that they violated their own agreement with FAA.

2. ULA's response was that SpaceX is a mature rocket company that understands the rules, knows how to comply with them, and should be held responsible if they don't comply with the rules. This is, of course, very self-serving, but that's because they recognize that SpaceX will quickly surpass their capabilities with full reusability, if they're allowed to continue development.

3. The Democrats involved likely received money from ULA, and since they're supposed to represent the interests of their constituents, they held a hearing in ULA's favor. And yes, Elon Musk also committed the unforgivable sin of questioning far left orthodoxy / radicalism by critiquing their policy failures, and by moving Starship construction from Democrat-run California to Republican-run Texas. He didn't do that to upset Democrats, but their inept policies kept interfering with his right to conduct commercial activities, thus his decision to move.

The end result of the impact to SpaceX operations wasn't so much as a blip on the radar screen, so I'm not sure why you're so upset over this. It's standard government interference with private enterprise, which comes from both political parties but especially from the Democrats because they see more government as the answer to all of life's problems, and why so many Californians leave to go to Arizona and Texas.

Pretty much nobody in the Republican Party cares about messing with SpaceX or Elon Musk, because they're completely disinterested in interjecting more federal government into every aspect of American life. They'll be thrilled if SpaceX succeeds where others have failed, but won't be upset no matter what happens. They like the fact that an entrepreneur might usher in a new era in space travel, and probably lobbied SpaceX to move to Texas so they can score political brownie points with their base if he succeeds, as most think he will.

If Democrats held the exact same dim view of interjecting more federal government into the lives of the working man / woman that the Republicans do, then it's highly improbable that SpaceX would've moved to Texas. Some of us think answers have to come from those with the problems, not some third party like the federal government that can't manage to pass a yearly budget, despite the fact that that is one of the only things that Congress is mandated to do.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-06-21 11:54:18

kdb512--
your above commentary again brings the issue of "why no 'thumbs up' icon available."
I'm giving your comments 5 thumbs up.

kbd512 · 2021-06-21 14:29:04

Oldfart1939,

I'd like nothing better than to divorce political campaign contributions (legalized bribery) from its ill-effects upon private enterprise, so that government interference doesn't preclude the development of better space transportation technology, energy technology, medical technology, etc.

The federal government's domain should be strictly limited to national defense, clearly defining / prosecuting / punishing criminal acts (to wit, assault, theft, and fraud- no other domains of laws are required, this ultimately covers everything that cannot be tolerated by a free society), regulation of commerce without picking winners and losers (no corporate welfare, nobody is too big to fail at business), basic scientific research to retire risk from technological development so that private enterprise can then focus all of their resources on efficient application of engineering solutions using the knowledge stemming from that basic research (corporations don't have unlimited funding to devote to research, and therefore should focus on engineering the most economical and efficient solution after the fundamentals of a new technology are clearly understood), and promoting (not providing) the general welfare of all the people of the United States through regulation of food and beverages / medical practices / pharmaceuticals / pollution / monetary practices (and even with all of that regulation, Uncle Sam should be your last resort for handling of life's problems, not your first).

If our federal government could focus their efforts on a set of core competencies (whilst deliberately declining to involve itself in domains unfamiliar to its members), and commit themselves to truly becoming competent at managing those fundamental aspects of human existence (food / water / shelter / protection from invaders and criminals), then life would miraculously become much better for everyone the moment people truly understand that they're utterly responsible for themselves and their own welfare, because that is the definition of being an adult.

There can be no privileges granted without personal responsibility. Everyone should be allowed to fail, no matter how painful, because failure teaches lessons that can't otherwise be learned. Charity towards your fellow Americans should be encouraged and praised, not compelled by an all-powerful state. A child who learns the meaning of "hot" without first being burned is about as common as unicorns are. It's very unfortunate that the child was burned, but the child never forgets the lesson afterwards and, most importantly, no further guidance from the parents is required on that issue. In short, third party governance has its limits, and then some self-governance is required, because that is what a free society requires in order to remain free.

louis · 2021-06-21 14:44:33

I am not saying Space X are above criticism. It's been a worry to me how they have interacted with the local community. It seems like spraying money over the problems has worked so far.

However, it also seems like they have taken no steps to deal with the carbon emissions issue. If I were Space X I would be using artificially manufactured methane even if it cost another $100 million. Just being able to say "Our methane is green" would be a huge win for them and get the Green fanatics off their backs.

Given the Dems concerned represent Oregon and Washington I suspect they are pretty much on the Left of the Party rather than being influenced by ULA payments.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
1. SpaceX signed a piece of paper that says something like, "SpaceX agrees not to test their gigantic experimental rocket near someone's home, because we understand that that would be dangerous if it crashes and explodes." FAA's response was basically, "Bad boy, slap your own wrist.", and then allowed them to continue testing as if nothing happened, after moving beyond the verifiable fact that they violated their own agreement with FAA.
2. ULA's response was that SpaceX is a mature rocket company that understands the rules, knows how to comply with them, and should be held responsible if they don't comply with the rules. This is, of course, very self-serving, but that's because they recognize that SpaceX will quickly surpass their capabilities with full reusability, if they're allowed to continue development.
3. The Democrats involved likely received money from ULA, and since they're supposed to represent the interests of their constituents, they held a hearing in ULA's favor. And yes, Elon Musk also committed the unforgivable sin of questioning far left orthodoxy / radicalism by critiquing their policy failures, and by moving Starship construction from Democrat-run California to Republican-run Texas. He didn't do that to upset Democrats, but their inept policies kept interfering with his right to conduct commercial activities, thus his decision to move.
The end result of the impact to SpaceX operations wasn't so much as a blip on the radar screen, so I'm not sure why you're so upset over this. It's standard government interference with private enterprise, which comes from both political parties but especially from the Democrats because they see more government as the answer to all of life's problems, and why so many Californians leave to go to Arizona and Texas.
Pretty much nobody in the Republican Party cares about messing with SpaceX or Elon Musk, because they're completely disinterested in interjecting more federal government into every aspect of American life. They'll be thrilled if SpaceX succeeds where others have failed, but won't be upset no matter what happens. They like the fact that an entrepreneur might usher in a new era in space travel, and probably lobbied SpaceX to move to Texas so they can score political brownie points with their base if he succeeds, as most think he will.
If Democrats held the exact same dim view of interjecting more federal government into the lives of the working man / woman that the Republicans do, then it's highly improbable that SpaceX would've moved to Texas. Some of us think answers have to come from those with the problems, not some third party like the federal government that can't manage to pass a yearly budget, despite the fact that that is one of the only things that Congress is mandated to do.

kbd512 · 2021-06-21 15:35:44

Louis,

Good then, because SpaceX received a critique from our FAA for failing to abide by the terms of their agreement with the FAA. The rest of this is just standard Congressional "waste the tax payer's time and money on things we never intend to do anything about, because we get paid regardless" type nonsense. It's like steroid use in baseball. If the league cares at all, then they'll give the boot to players who test positive. How or why that ever rose to the point of requiring a Congressional inquiry is beyond both basic logic as to what issues are deserving of federal time and the scope of our federal government.

Synthesizing Methane here on Earth would be a pointless waste of materials and energy at current natural gas prices. Natural gas is the cleanest and cheapest mass produced fuel available. That's good enough, and much better than any government work.

You think legalized bribery doesn't affect the political decisions of politicians here in America? What planet have you been living on?

RobertDyck · 2021-06-21 16:29:46

louis wrote:

I am not saying Space X are above criticism. ... However, it also seems like they have taken no steps to deal with the carbon emissions issue. If I were Space X I would be using artificially manufactured methane even if it cost another $100 million. Just being able to say "Our methane is green" would be a huge win for them and get the Green fanatics off their backs.

Snake oil! I'm sorry, I believe in the environment. But I have researched the issue. Have talked to actual real scientists. Yes, super-greenhouse gasses need to be regulated. And they are. But carbon emissions? That's based on the fantasy from the 1990s that rapid global warming was caused by carbon. That completely ignores the global cooling from 1855 to the summer of 1970. And ignores the natural global warming that occurred before the industrial revolution of 1855. Ignores the fact rapid global warming ended with the end of 1998. If you plot the pace of global warming from 1550 to 1855 and assume it would have continued at the same pace if humans hadn't screwed with the climate, then the temperature at the end of 1998 was exactly what it should have been at that time. Oh! That's when rapid global warming did stop! Coincidence? I think not! Global warming was such a slow pace that during the first decade of the 2000s, environmental scientists debated whether there's any global warming at all. Turns out there is a tiny bit, a tiny little bit above the pace of nature, but it's tiny! This means the rapid global warming from the summer of 1970 to the end of 1998 was the planet recovering back to it's natural temperature.

Did I mention the stratosphere? They devised instruments to measure the stratosphere in detail, measured form 1990. Temperature of the stratosphere dropped in perfect sync with soot from coal burning. When Mount Penitubo erupted, and again during that Icelandic volcano, temperature of the stratosphere spiked up, but then dropped when volcanic ash settled. Concentration of soot dropped as well. Volcanic ash flushed the soot out, and the temperature dropped accordingly. This was Mother Nature cleaning up our mess. The last of the soot was finally gone in the summer of 2010.

Surface temperature over land dropped due to shade from soot. The soot caused global heating of the stratosphere, global cooling on the surface over land, but we also had global warming on the surface over ocean. Highly unlikely, highly unbalanced. It wasn't due to nature, it was pollution. Governments in all industrial nations passed legislation in 1970 that was effective and enforce, to control pollution from coal burning. That's why global cooling reversed to global warming. There's practically no industry over oceans, so very little soot causing shade over oceans. And there's a deep ocean current that takes 1,000 years to circle the globe just once. That current is pushing the Earth's climate back to Mother Nature's schedule.

Hey! I came up with various ways to improve the climate. Houses powered by solar, wind, and geothermal so houses in Canada where it's cold would be 100% energy independent. Sized to be energy independent for worst case weather, the other 51 weeks per year they would sell surplus electricity to the grid. Conversion kit for used cars to convert them to electric. Etc. My issue is Canada has created a carbon tax. This is a heavy tax that harms our economy, and harms average working people. Justification is ideology based on an incorrect view of climate.

So SpaceX shifting to green methane? How is that? Add the same green dye used for St Patrick's Day beer? If this sounds snarky, realize politics in Canada have gotten bad. The government promised their carbon tax would never exceed $50 per tonne of carbon. Now they're talking about $170 per tonne. This is not just driving up gasoline prices, it's driving up home heating. This is Canada, if you don't have heat in the middle of winter, you die. When temperature is between -32°C...-38°C, real temperature not including wind chill, fall asleep outdoors and you die. Home heating isn't a luxury that government can play with, it's life or death!

But I said there's politics. Some people in Quebec want Canada to be controlled by southern Quebec and southern Ontario. The portion of Quebec along the St Lawrence river used to be called Lower Canada. The portion of Ontario along the St Lawrence River and northern shore of Lake Ontario used to be called Upper Canada. Canada was founded when politicians from Lower Canada and Upper Canada went to the Maritimes (Atlantic Provinces) to convince them to join in a new country called Canada. In the 1960s-1980s Quebec had 25% of Canada's population, and Ontario 26%; between them they controlled 51% of seats in Parliament. Some people in Quebec want that to remain. But BC and Alberta have grown. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives were the previous government, their political base was Alberta. So Quebec wants to destroy all industry in Alberta, ensure they cannot be a significant political force in Canada. Alberta has been called Texas with snow: oil and cattle.

Carbon emissions? Pttt! If that's your issue, then realize methane is a lot more "green" than RP1. And certainly a lot more "green" than solid rockets. RP1 is highly refined kerosene, basically highly refined jet fuel. It has a lot more carbon. And solid rocket fuel! That's made with polybutadiene rubber, the same rubber as car tires. Don't you remember the thick smoke trails from Shuttle launches? If you're suggesting an expensive source of methane for Starship, that's going in the wrong direction. Elon wants Starship to be cheap! As in cost effective. It will still cost millions of dollars per launch. And SpaceX hasn't succeeded in a single orbital launch yet. No revenue. They certainly can't afford to waste money on some fairy tale political activist rhetoric.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-06-21 16:49:48

Completely ignored by others on this forum is the book, Merchants of Despair, by none other than Robert Zubrin.

Robert, as usual, cuts through the crap on Global Warming and also on CO2 emissions as related to the "environment." It is shown in detail that the increase in atmospheric CO2 i directly related to the constantly increasing global production of food. Grains in particular. Global Warming? Equals longer growing seasons! Increased global food production for the "teeming masses."

SpaceNut · 2021-06-21 17:45:57

It also means a higher fresh water need to keep crops from drying out unless we employ shade creating systems....

Working on a Thumbs up topic structure....

louis · 2021-06-21 18:46:43

Well I won't take that point by point, I will just say I adhere to the precautionary principle and think we should not be doing stuff to the atmosphere that increases carbon emissions above pre-industrial levels. I just feel that's a good principle. Doesn't mean I think we are about to be deluged by a 10 metre flood of melted ice!

RobertDyck wrote:

louis wrote:
I am not saying Space X are above criticism. ... However, it also seems like they have taken no steps to deal with the carbon emissions issue. If I were Space X I would be using artificially manufactured methane even if it cost another $100 million. Just being able to say "Our methane is green" would be a huge win for them and get the Green fanatics off their backs.
Snake oil! I'm sorry, I believe in the environment. But I have researched the issue. Have talked to actual real scientists. Yes, super-greenhouse gasses need to be regulated. And they are. But carbon emissions? That's based on the fantasy from the 1990s that rapid global warming was caused by carbon. That completely ignores the global cooling from 1855 to the summer of 1970. And ignores the natural global warming that occurred before the industrial revolution of 1855. Ignores the fact rapid global warming ended with the end of 1998. If you plot the pace of global warming from 1550 to 1855 and assume it would have continued at the same pace if humans hadn't screwed with the climate, then the temperature at the end of 1998 was exactly what it should have been at that time. Oh! That's when rapid global warming did stop! Coincidence? I think not! Global warming was such a slow pace that during the first decade of the 2000s, environmental scientists debated whether there's any global warming at all. Turns out there is a tiny bit, a tiny little bit above the pace of nature, but it's tiny! This means the rapid global warming from the summer of 1970 to the end of 1998 was the planet recovering back to it's natural temperature.
Did I mention the stratosphere? They devised instruments to measure the stratosphere in detail, measured form 1990. Temperature of the stratosphere dropped in perfect sync with soot from coal burning. When Mount Penitubo erupted, and again during that Icelandic volcano, temperature of the stratosphere spiked up, but then dropped when volcanic ash settled. Concentration of soot dropped as well. Volcanic ash flushed the soot out, and the temperature dropped accordingly. This was Mother Nature cleaning up our mess. The last of the soot was finally gone in the summer of 2010.
Surface temperature over land dropped due to shade from soot. The soot caused global heating of the stratosphere, global cooling on the surface over land, but we also had global warming on the surface over ocean. Highly unlikely, highly unbalanced. It wasn't due to nature, it was pollution. Governments in all industrial nations passed legislation in 1970 that was effective and enforce, to control pollution from coal burning. That's why global cooling reversed to global warming. There's practically no industry over oceans, so very little soot causing shade over oceans. And there's a deep ocean current that takes 1,000 years to circle the globe just once. That current is pushing the Earth's climate back to Mother Nature's schedule.
Hey! I came up with various ways to improve the climate. Houses powered by solar, wind, and geothermal so houses in Canada where it's cold would be 100% energy independent. Sized to be energy independent for worst case weather, the other 51 weeks per year they would sell surplus electricity to the grid. Conversion kit for used cars to convert them to electric. Etc. My issue is Canada has created a carbon tax. This is a heavy tax that harms our economy, and harms average working people. Justification is ideology based on an incorrect view of climate.
So SpaceX shifting to green methane? How is that? Add the same green dye used for St Patrick's Day beer? If this sounds snarky, realize politics in Canada have gotten bad. The government promised their carbon tax would never exceed $50 per tonne of carbon. Now they're talking about $170 per tonne. This is not just driving up gasoline prices, it's driving up home heating. This is Canada, if you don't have heat in the middle of winter, you die. When temperature is between -32°C...-38°C, real temperature not including wind chill, fall asleep outdoors and you die. Home heating isn't a luxury that government can play with, it's life or death!
But I said there's politics. Some people in Quebec want Canada to be controlled by southern Quebec and southern Ontario. The portion of Quebec along the St Lawrence river used to be called Lower Canada. The portion of Ontario along the St Lawrence River and northern shore of Lake Ontario used to be called Upper Canada. Canada was founded when politicians from Lower Canada and Upper Canada went to the Maritimes (Atlantic Provinces) to convince them to join in a new country called Canada. In the 1960s-1980s Quebec had 25% of Canada's population, and Ontario 26%; between them they controlled 51% of seats in Parliament. Some people in Quebec want that to remain. But BC and Alberta have grown. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives were the previous government, their political base was Alberta. So Quebec wants to destroy all industry in Alberta, ensure they cannot be a significant political force in Canada. Alberta has been called Texas with snow: oil and cattle.
Carbon emissions? Pttt! If that's your issue, then realize methane is a lot more "green" than RP1. And certainly a lot more "green" than solid rockets. RP1 is highly refined kerosene, basically highly refined jet fuel. It has a lot more carbon. And solid rocket fuel! That's made with polybutadiene rubber, the same rubber as car tires. Don't you remember the thick smoke trails from Shuttle launches? If you're suggesting an expensive source of methane for Starship, that's going in the wrong direction. Elon wants Starship to be cheap! As in cost effective. It will still cost millions of dollars per launch. And SpaceX hasn't succeeded in a single orbital launch yet. No revenue. They certainly can't afford to waste money on some fairy tale political activist rhetoric.

louis · 2021-06-22 16:53:12

The latest from Felix:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1hhFLkN8zM

SpaceNut · 2021-06-26 12:25:11

SpaceX plans to launch its first orbital Starship test flight in July

3cdab420-d691-11eb-aaf7-7bfafb3f9754

The current orbital flight plan has a Starship prototype launching from Boca Chica, Texas, and dropping its Super Heavy booster stage into the Gulf of Mexico after roughly three minutes. The spacecraft would enter orbit and make a soft water landing near Hawaii after a total time of about 90 minutes.

Not a full orbit gee....

louis · 2021-06-26 16:30:33

If they can get orbital by the end of the year, I think we are on for humans on Mars by 2026/27.

SpaceNut wrote:

SpaceX plans to launch its first orbital Starship test flight in July
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Yy0yo … fafb3f9754

The current orbital flight plan has a Starship prototype launching from Boca Chica, Texas, and dropping its Super Heavy booster stage into the Gulf of Mexico after roughly three minutes. The spacecraft would enter orbit and make a soft water landing near Hawaii after a total time of about 90 minutes.
Not a full orbit gee....

SpaceNut · 2021-06-26 18:28:43

The ships are not currently outfitted with any life support items let alone a working toilet. Its got a long ways to go before men will be onboard...

louis · 2021-06-27 09:01:15

They've got 5 years to get all that right and they won't be inventing or reinventing the wheel.

SpaceNut wrote:

The ships are not currently outfitted with any life support items let alone a working toilet. Its got a long ways to go before men will be onboard...

SpaceNut · 2021-06-27 09:28:23

Technology is not free and its going to raise the cost of a starship back to what others are selling ride to destinations above the earth.

So Space x will be developing every thing based off from a Dragon which does not compare in scale or volume of size to what we are trying to do let alone duration of use...

Oldfart1939 · 2021-06-27 10:46:13

Here's an interesting video with a possible alternative to early Starship landings on Mars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Htek6Lir7Q

louis · 2021-06-29 17:07:20

Felix's latest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1hnXvzixR4

Good stuff.

louis · 2021-06-29 18:42:30

Phobos and Deimos First is delusional. Adds complexity for no gain. I think Lockheed-Boeing have proposed the same. Musk's naming of his sea platforms Phobos and Deimos is probably intended as a satirical commentary on using Mars's moons.

These P-D schemes offer nothing. The guy's a fool to claim Musk doesn't know how much fuel is required for a Mars landing.

The arguments against direct landing on Mars based on the problems of retro-propulsion in a thin atmosphere are really from another generation. We've already heard in recent days about how the Raptor engines are extremely efficient and getting max power from the fuel.

There are rock platforms on Mars perfectly well suited to landing Starships and we know where the water-ice is only a few metres below the surface. The landing sites will be scouted out - by the cargo ships that arrive first.

As an aside, NASA have already chosen Starship to help create a lunar base.

Fusing regolith to create a "pad" for landing sounds crazy to me. given the mass of a Starship. It will be like landing on a brittle carpet.

Much better to land on natural rock platforms.

I found the video totally unpersuasive. Thank God he's not employed by Space X.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Here's an interesting video with a possible alternative to early Starship landings on Mars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Htek6Lir7Q

Last edited by louis (2021-06-29 18:44:08)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1251 2021-06-16 18:18:26

Re: Starship is Go...

#1252 2021-06-16 19:31:38

Re: Starship is Go...

#1253 2021-06-18 15:16:40

Re: Starship is Go...

#1254 2021-06-19 16:18:18

Re: Starship is Go...

#1255 2021-06-19 17:28:17

Re: Starship is Go...

#1256 2021-06-20 20:14:48

Re: Starship is Go...

#1257 2021-06-21 05:33:54

Re: Starship is Go...

#1258 2021-06-21 10:56:50

Re: Starship is Go...

#1259 2021-06-21 11:54:18

Re: Starship is Go...

#1260 2021-06-21 14:29:04

Re: Starship is Go...

#1261 2021-06-21 14:44:33

Re: Starship is Go...

#1262 2021-06-21 15:35:44

Re: Starship is Go...

#1263 2021-06-21 16:29:46

Re: Starship is Go...

#1264 2021-06-21 16:49:48

Re: Starship is Go...

#1265 2021-06-21 17:45:57

Re: Starship is Go...

#1266 2021-06-21 18:46:43

Re: Starship is Go...

#1267 2021-06-22 16:53:12

Re: Starship is Go...

#1268 2021-06-26 12:25:11

Re: Starship is Go...

#1269 2021-06-26 16:30:33

Re: Starship is Go...

#1270 2021-06-26 18:28:43

Re: Starship is Go...

#1271 2021-06-27 09:01:15

Re: Starship is Go...

#1272 2021-06-27 09:28:23

Re: Starship is Go...

#1273 2021-06-27 10:46:13

Re: Starship is Go...

#1274 2021-06-29 17:07:20

Re: Starship is Go...

#1275 2021-06-29 18:42:30

Re: Starship is Go...

Board footer