Mobilizing Space Activists/Professionals

KosmicHero · Apr 21, 2008

What can people do to really advance the state of space affairs? Many of the space advocacy and space professional groups collect membership dues, publish period magazines, educate the public, and encourage their members to ‘write letters to their congressmen’.  While remaining current and political activism are important aspects of space activism, I feel (and I hope many more feel the same) that there needs to be another way to become ‘actuated’.  I am a space engineer and I love working in this field, but what can professionals do in addition to their work to feel actuated about space and make contributions?  What about semi-professionals?  Amateurs?Also, there are significant disagreement between the different groups.  How can the resources and capabilities between these groups be used for maximum effect?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>

qso1 · Apr 21, 2008

Wish I knew the answer to that one. But you might consider writing magazine articles for such periodicals as Discover or Scientific American in which your article focuses on the activism part. The current activist orgs are good but they seem to mostly be composed of folks who preach to the choir, and most of the members really are not that active.Having an article in a magazine would put your cause right out front IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

KosmicHero · Apr 21, 2008

Writing is a good idea but I also want to know what I can recommend to others.  Maybe I should have inserted this in the 'space education' thread but the best way for people to care about space exploration and development is to be educated about space ... and the best for people to get educated about space is to care about and be interested in space (quite the catch-22).  So maybe I should ask it like this: "how can the masses get involved on the level that will perhaps cause a bit of a ground swell/grassroots movement?"  If enough people are interested in space and are knowledgable about space, we won't need mass form letter mailings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>

qso1 · Apr 22, 2008

IMO, the people who really want to be educated about space will do the homework as I did. I researched it extensivelly between aged 12-20. I did so on my own utilizing existing NASA publications and whatever other media I could find info in...long before the internet.NASA is often criticized for not having a good PR effort. I think that criticism is misplaced.I would first narrow the target down. Space exploration in general is largely favored by the public. Human Space Flight (HSF) is seen by a pretty large percentage of the public and politicians as an extravagant waste, regardless of how well our economy is doing.HSF is the activity that could well end if we don't find a way to garner continued support and budgets for. The other problem is, most people do not find spaceflight of the real variety very interesting. Its only when events that capture public imagination occur, that you see a temporary surge of interest. Events such as the moon/mars landings.To get the masses involved enough to cause a ground swell is going to require a champion of the cause, a leader who has the charisma to captivate folks. Think Carl Sagan amped up. But NASA is so far off the public scope now that it might not be possible, even with a charismatic leader...to bring HSF back from the precipice its on now.I wrote a book years ago that I have yet to find a way to publish. This book has a section that addresses what I think is the biggest obstacle to HSF. That obstacle being the perception that HSF is a waste. But I'm an unknown and probably not very charismatic. I had to hope what I had to say might help change things but I don't and probably never will have the ability to fund publication in the way I need to.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

Edawg420 · Apr 22, 2008

If your avergae joe knew the mineral wealth of the solar system we wouldnt be having this conversation.But then again you only have to look at the youtube comments on the apollo 11 landing to figure out thats going to be f#ing hard.

qso1 · Apr 22, 2008

Its probably going to have to be private enterprise that exploits mineral wealth in the solar system. Being that its a government agency, NASA is ill suited for that task. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

keermalec · May 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Its probably going to have to be private enterprise that exploits mineral wealth in the solar system. Being that its a government agency, NASA is ill suited for that task. Posted by qso1</DIV> qso, I believe we're in the prehistory of human spaceflight. We can send people into space and make them land and live on an other planet but at prohibitive cost, and with no real (as yet) economic drive. For this reason sending humans to another planet IS currently a waste, investment-wise. However, keeping humans in LEO and constantly refining our technologies for doing so will ultimately, I believe, not only lower the cost of sending humans to another planet but also make space investments economically attractive.Take for example, the mining of oxygen on the moon. So many hurdles exist between now and a successful, profit-driven operation that most companies today would simply find it more profitable to mine say, iron in Mongolia. If NASA goes to the Moon, developes the technology and demonstrates the viability of mining oxygen there, it could later on license out the technology (as it licensed out transhab technology to Robert Bigelow) to a private company who would become a private partner in lunar development. Having even a single profit-driven operation in space would create demand for secondary ventures, such as power production, communication networks, building materials, food production etc on the Moon, and then... we're on the rollercoaster to a permanent human presence in space.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy </div>

spacelifejunkie · May 12, 2008

In the short term, it's amazing what a good Hollywood movie will do to excite the minds of youngsters.  Can you imagine a high quality version of some good, hard sci fi?  How about a Red Mars/Green Mars/Blue Mars trilogy?  You could even make a trilogy out of each one since those stories are so thick.  My point is that the public and our youth must connect to the human side of a sci fi story not just techno mumbo jumbo and cool CGI and Kim Stanley Robinson's books are a great example.In the long term, capitalism must be the primary driver in space.  Tourism, research, prizes and the like over the course of 25 years will have enormous impact.  Take computers for instance.  Remember in the early 1980's, only "nerds" had computers.  What were they good for anyway?  The entrepeneurs let us know real quick.Specifically, keep doing what you are doing.  The last 5-8 years has been as exciting in space technology as any time I can remember.  Startups are everywhere.  Contests are everywhere.   Conferences are growing.  Bigelow, Musk, Rutan and others are chipping away.  We'll bootstrap our way to the moon and Mars.  SLJ

JonClarke · May 13, 2008

The divisions amongst space activists and interest groups.  Some want to go to Mars, others to the Moon, or to develop space elevators, or reusable rockets.  Some want to close NASA and think that private enterprise can do anything and everything.  There are those who espouse international cooperation and those who loath it.  Some want to mine asteroids.  Most want to push their own agenda and to hell with everybody else.All this fratricidal bickering is self defeating.  The space lobby needs to realise that a win for one, regardless of which natuinality, sector, or project, is a win for everyone.  So let's support CNSA, CSA, ESA, JAXA, NASA, Rutan, SpaceX, Starchaser, ESA, RSA, Virgin Galactic, and all the rest.  there is room for everyone. The only place I draw the line is space weaponisation.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

spacelifejunkie · May 13, 2008

I hate to say it Jon, but I think the weaponization of space is inevitable.  When in human history have explorers traveled and the military did not follow?  Let's hope for a path of least resistance. There can be an upside to an active military role in space.  It can push technology and capability very fast.  But, it can also lead to disaster.  So far humankind has been lucky and wise most of the time.  Our continued existance gives me faith that we can tackle future issues like the militarization of space.  Simply "drawing the line" with no military to protect vital American or even world interest will work as long as someone else doesn't decide to take for themselves.And, to stay on KosmicHero's point, the military has played a vital role in the current state of aerospace today.  Encouraging the military to develop jets and rockets during the first half of the 20th century has put us in the position we are in today.  Now, you can also argue that we did it at enormous risk and that we did not follow through effectively by encourgaging the same level of success at the economic level.   SLJ

KosmicHero · May 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I hate to say it Jon, but I think the weaponization of space is inevitable.  When in human history have explorers traveled and the military did not follow?  Let's hope for a path of least resistance. There can be an upside to an active military role in space.  It can push technology and capability very fast.  But, it can also lead to disaster.  So far humankind has been lucky and wise most of the time.  Our continued existance gives me faith that we can tackle future issues like the militarization of space.  Simply "drawing the line" with no military to protect vital American or even world interest will work as long as someone else doesn't decide to take for themselves.And, to stay on KosmicHero's point, the military has played a vital role in the current state of aerospace today.  Encouraging the military to develop jets and rockets during the first half of the 20th century has put us in the position we are in today.  Now, you can also argue that we did it at enormous risk and that we did not follow through effectively by encourgaging the same level of success at the economic level.   SLJ Posted by spacelifejunkie</DIV>In addition to the development of technology, the military has been the surrogate mother for space.  As has been mentioned before, the US military (and the intelligence community is included in this, I think) spends more on space than NASA and the DOE combined.  These people employ the engineers and scientists and dreamers that enable private industry, NASA, etc to make space happen.  Weaponization ... is inevitable.  I do agree though that a win for anyone BUT weaponization is good for everyone else.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>

DrRocket · May 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In addition to the development of technology, the military has been the surrogate mother for space.  As has been mentioned before, the US military (and the intelligence community is included in this, I think) spends more on space than NASA and the DOE combined.  These people employ the engineers and scientists and dreamers that enable private industry, NASA, etc to make space happen. ....  Posted by KosmicHero</DIV>Absolutely.  Were it not for military interests there would not have been a Titan IV B, and it was Titan IVB that put up the Cassini mission.At one time the IVB development seemed to be threatened with cancellation.  But it was necessary for an important payload and because of that the development proceeded to an eventual success. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

keermalec · May 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Absolutely.  Were it not for military interests there would not have been a Titan IV B, and it was Titan IVB that put up the Cassini mission.At one time the IVB development seemed to be threatened with cancellation.  But it was necessary for an important payload and because of that the development proceeded to an eventual success. Posted by DrRocket</DIV> Also agree. Let us not forget that rocket technology was initially developed for throwing stuff at the enemy's head. Keeping a payload intact in space and more specifically during re-entry was a problem that missile scientists had to solve. This knowledge was then used to put men in space.I believe the natural developement of space activities follows the relationship:Military --> Research --> Private Entreprise Military and research activities will never disappear from space but hopefully, with time, private enterprise will come to control the greater share. This is to be hoped for as private enterprise potentially has much more means than any government agency, including national defense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy </div>

qso1 · May 14, 2008

qso, I believe we're in the prehistory of human spaceflight. We can send people into space and make them land and live on an other planet but at prohibitive cost, and with no real (as yet) economic drive. For this reason sending humans to another planet IS currently a waste, investment-wise.Depends on the investor. It is a waste for private enterprise at this time. But for Joe taxpayer, for probably 1.5X the amount we currently annually spend on NASA. That would be a bargain compared to the amount of taxpayer funds that are wasted on government misadventures such as Iraq or deficit spending. However, keeping humans in LEO and constantly refining our technologies for doing so will ultimately, I believe, not only lower the cost of sending humans to another planet but also make space investments economically attractive.Take for example, the mining of oxygen on the moon. So many hurdles exist between now and a successful, profit-driven operation that most companies today would simply find it more profitable to mine say, iron in Mongolia.This is an area ripe for private sector development once they overcome the high cost of access to low orbit. If NASA goes to the Moon, developes the technology and demonstrates the viability of mining oxygen there, it could later on license out the technology (as it licensed out transhab technology to Robert Bigelow) to a private company who would become a private partner in lunar development.Thats true. But NASA IMO is just about out of the human space flight business. I'm not convinced were ever going back to the moon via NASA, and won't be convinced untill I see what 2009 brings. After the new President swears in and his Administration gets down to actual governing. Having even a single profit-driven operation in space would create demand for secondary ventures, such as power production, communication networks, building materials, food production etc on the Moon, and then... we're on the rollercoaster to a permanent human presence in space. Posted by keermalecThats why space tourism is so vitally important now. Space tourism = that hopefully profit driven operation while private sector = the development of low cost access to enable space tourism to thrive.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

neuvik · May 15, 2008

I think it would be safe to say that the larger industries and corporations have not really looked at space exploration and explotation because the "profits" are not upfront.   It will take years to decades to see returns, even though they will definatly be spectacular and will creat greater wealth; just over a period of time.    I know R&D departments of major corporations have given it a thought, but it is always crushed in the brain storming sessions for those reasons.    Unless some major propulsion system is developed the status quo will remain for some time.   Although a very seriouse lack of mineral would probably also cause a corporate intervention, but again it would have to be very seriouse.    Corporations are not all that deft, Mitsubishi has had great sucsess with R&D programs based on current problems.  They have just entered the HVAC market in the states and are poised to knock out every indigenous HVAC manufacturer with their new system.  Using highly efficient and computerized systems they have just leaped over the market.    Although this doesnt pertain to space, I'm just using it as an example of the tenacity of corporations when they know they can make a quick buck.   I am all for start ups, I think it is a wounderful idea, but they have to almost completly rely on themselves for financing, which is the real killer.   Give engineers money and they will conquer the cosmos.      As for educating people, you literaly have to get the youth immersed in it, the younger the better.  The professionals know the need for space research, I'm sure everyone here at SDC has written a letter to their congressional representative expressing the need for it.  The average family does not really care, and its only spoken of during events where life is lost, or a school assignment.   I don't know about most of you, but my grade school actually had an observatory and planterium adjacent to it.   I picked up a love for the sciences and space exploration there; but few others did.    I remember it so vivedly too, everyone hated the place, they never payed attention, slept during the planetarium lessons, and always complained.   For current events in class, everyone brought in news article on sports or supermodels; only like three of us brought in articles pertaining to space or sciences.    For educating the current generations 13 to 27, you will have to make a reality television show, and you will need at the minimum three celeberaties, at least one homosexual, or two girls after one guy to provied drama.    Hopefully during the mind nubmingly horrid experience joe sixpack will learn some things from the scientists/engineers/astronauts, provided they are given any camera time where idiots are not in their way. <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="headword">

keermalec · May 16, 2008

Another setback of the space industry is that a large part of the world does not feel concerned by it, as they have little or no part to play in the games of the larger nations. Maybe a purchasing model closer to ESA's distribution of contracts around european countries, but this time focussed on the world at large, would give space industries an image more inline with job and wealth-creation, thus altering the idea that spending in space is a waste. Of course this would imply that the money also come from the world at large: a pooling of resources so to speak. Maybe a UN International Space Agency? More efficient than the UN of course ;-) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy </div>

JonClarke · May 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I hate to say it Jon, but I think the weaponization of space is inevitable.  When in human history have explorers traveled and the military did not follow?  Let's hope for a path of least resistance. Posted by spacelifejunkie</DIV>I don't.  There is nothing to be gained from large scale use of space weapons, and everything to lose. Space weaponisation is therefore self limiting.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

neuvik · May 16, 2008

What if we just use non nuclear forms of space weaponization.   Those tungsten rod shoot satilites that were proposed three years ago is a great idea.   Its basically point contact, deep penatrating, perfect for the war on terror or drugs.  Although I'm suporrtive of that DARPA molten cannon, or the just a large orbital solar array that when not generating radio waves to produce electricity for terrestrial utilities; it can focus a beam of light onto a target, or something to that effect.   War can bring peace if its bloody enough, extremly unfortunate yes, but honestly talking just does not work. World War II for example, now the form axis and allies are such the best of friends.       But on topic really if a private space company whishes to make the big bucks, military contracts are the way to go.  Da Vinci style, but works of art, beauty and peace will ensue in time.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck </div>

keermalec · May 17, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>World War II for example, now the form axis and allies are such the best of friends.       But on topic really if a private space company whishes to make the big bucks, military contracts are the way to go.  Da Vinci style, but works of art, beauty and peace will ensue in time.    Posted by neuvik</DIV> If the axis had won the war, former enemies today would also still be friends ;-) Simply because those who wouldn't have wanted to be friends wouldn't be here any more, such is war.Weapons in space are great if you're sure to be on the stronger, winning side. But what if you aren't? Or what if you were, but no longer are? The idea behind banning waepons from space is to enhance security for all.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy </div>

spacelifejunkie · May 19, 2008

"The idea behind banning waepons from space is to enhance security for all."Keeping weapons out of the hands of evil people in space will work just as well as keeping weapons out of the hands of evil people on earth.  Banning them will only keep the law abiding nations of the world defenseless.  I'd love to see formal treaties put together by responsible nations that forbid weapons systems in space.  But, as long as there is a wrench on board a spacecraft, there is opportunity for a war to break out.  The weaponization of space is inevitable.  The goal should be minimizing the risk of space war by mutual economic opportunity here on earth and then eventually space as well.  Banning weapons to prevent war is a weakness that will get exploited, thus making war more likely.Trying to stay on topic...2012 will be a great year for New Space.  Hopefully, we'll see the first privately funded, manned spacecraft going to ISS or a Bigelow Station.  By the end of the decade, Bigelow should be close to Moon and Mars plans for his inflatables.  Maybe SpaceX will build the rockets.  An off-world, manned economy that turns a profit and continues to grow will be all the inspiration the world needs to focus on space. SLJ

keermalec · May 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What can people do to really advance the state of space affairs? Many of the space advocacy and space professional groups collect membership dues, publish period magazines, educate the public, and encourage their members to ‘write letters to their congressmen’.  While remaining current and political activism are important aspects of space activism, I feel (and I hope many more feel the same) that there needs to be another way to become ‘actuated’.  I am a space engineer and I love working in this field, but what can professionals do in addition to their work to feel actuated about space and make contributions?  What about semi-professionals?  Amateurs?Also, there are significant disagreement between the different groups.  How can the resources and capabilities between these groups be used for maximum effect?  Posted by KosmicHero</DIV> Yes, let's stay on topic. Probably what is insufficient about the way space activists go about supporting manned space ventures is their focus on public institutions and therefore, taxpayers' money. Manned space must go the way of free enterprise if it is to take off in any significant manner, but how can space activists support free enterprise? Buying a T-shirt from Armadillo is one way, but pushing the idea to its logical conclusion could produce a "Space Association" which actually invests the money of its associates in space.Let's see, a 100'000-member association, where each member invests 1000 USD could theoretically produce a 100 million USD spacecraft. Now this spacecraft should be revenue-generating for the company to grow. Would any of you here invest 1000 USD in such a company? And what sort of revenue-generating function could such a spacecraft have? Atmosphere gatherer? Lunar oxygen mining?   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy </div>

Swampcat · May 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Would any of you here invest 1000 USD in such a company? Posted by keermalec</DIV> $1k is a bit steep for me, but I'd match my contribution to NASA...what, fifteen cents a day? Heck, I'd double that.And I'd buy a shirt <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

DrRocket · May 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, let's stay on topic. Probably what is insufficient about the way space activists go about supporting manned space ventures is their focus on public institutions and therefore, taxpayers' money. Manned space must go the way of free enterprise if it is to take off in any significant manner, but how can space activists support free enterprise? Buying a T-shirt from Armadillo is one way, but pushing the idea to its logical conclusion could produce a "Space Association" which actually invests the money of its associates in space.Let's see, a 100'000-member association, where each member invests 1000 USD could theoretically produce a 100 million USD spacecraft. Now this spacecraft should be revenue-generating for the company to grow. Would any of you here invest 1000 USD in such a company? And what sort of revenue-generating function could such a spacecraft have? Atmosphere gatherer? Lunar oxygen mining?   Posted by keermalec</DIV>$100 million will not come close to the development costs for a launch vehicle. It would not even cover the launch of a major vehicle. So, no I would not invest a nickel in a company that was that poorly capitalized.  Similarly, I would not invest a nickel until I saw a sound business plan for  obtaining revenue from that investment.  Given the high cost of putting a pound into orbit (or beyond) whatever  the revenue-generating producct mght turn out to be it will have to be very light (like information) or very valuable (like information).If you really want to energize private industry to go into space, you need a sound economic reason for going there.  It worked for telecommunications satellites.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

neuvik · May 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you really want to energize private industry to go into space, you need a sound economic reason for going there.  It worked for telecommunications satellites.  Posted by DrRocket</DIV>You'd think the data Clementine received (not to mention the mineral components from the specimens brought back during the Apollo missions) that large mining firms and corporations would back private space explotation companies. http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/June00/lunarMaria.html Look at that....more Titanium than you can shake a stick at!       Start building up a moon base, once it can produce Titanium start assembling capital class ships, stick VASMIR on it and boom, were off to conquer the solar system.   Heres Clementines experiments: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/clemendata.html           <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck </div>

j05h · May 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You'd think the data Clementine received (not to mention the mineral components from the specimens brought back during the Apollo missions) that large mining firms and corporations would back private space explotation companies. http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/June00/lunarMaria.html Look at that....more Titanium than you can shake a stick at!       Start building up a moon base, once it can produce Titanium start assembling capital class ships, stick VASMIR on it and boom, were off to conquer the solar system.   Heres Clementines experiments: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/clemendata.html           Posted by neuvik</DIV>Minerals are not the thing that has so far driven space development. Likely profitable space industries, especially in the near- to mid-term, will come from unexpected directions. Look at how quickly space tourism has taken off. Data has been the greatest income generator in space. For human settlement, access to volatiles and energy will be the limiting factors, not the few tons of material that make up a ship/habitat. From a space activism standpoint, the biggest decision you have to make is whether to actively put your energy into either supporting a private effort or lobbying (or being a bystander). Very few have the resources to do both. By support, i don't mean taking sides in the endless, purile "public vs private" debate, but in what you actually put labor into. If you choose the public-policy side, you should consider doing things like March Storm. If you choose private, either find a company to help or start your own. There is plenty of room for everyone and a lot of work to do.  Josh  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

Mobilizing Space Activists/Professionals

KosmicHero

Guest

qso1

Guest

KosmicHero

Guest

qso1

Guest

Edawg420

Guest

qso1

Guest

keermalec

Guest

spacelifejunkie

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

spacelifejunkie

Guest

KosmicHero

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

keermalec

Guest

qso1

Guest

neuvik

Guest

keermalec

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

neuvik

Guest

keermalec

Guest

spacelifejunkie

Guest

keermalec

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

neuvik

Guest

j05h

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page