Tumlinson (self-admitted) Rant

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Swampcat

Guest
Methane Rocket Fuel: A Lot of Hot Gas and Nowhere to Blow"<br /><br />Selected quotes [all emphases mine]...<br /><br /><font color="orange">"I don’t know if you noticed—between fashion reports from red carpets of Hollywood awards shows or the return of new Battlestar Galactica episodes—but NASA is thinking about dropping methane-type propellants from its requirements for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) program in favor of harder to handle, yet more dangerous hypergolic propellants like those used in the shuttle and other <i><b>old-school systems</b></i>."<br /><br />"Due to internal and external pressures from old timers and those who think they’re supporting our space program in Congress (but are actually hurting it), NASA is trying to make sure that there is no gap between the shuttle’s 2010 retirement and the arrival of its '<b><i>Crude Exploitation Vehicle</i></b>'.<br /><br />"Their [NASA's] goal, if one can tease it out from their actions, is to look really busy doing really important things, while spending our money propping up certain major companies and political constituencies. They may have themselves fooled into thinking they are going somewhere, but with few exceptions, they are building a system that will lead us nowhere. This will be done at the greatest possible cost to the taxpayers and return the highest possible profit to the entrenched aerospace cabal that created the concepts in the first place."</font><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"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."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
Isn't it possible that methane-fueled rocket engines can be added when needed? Suppose XCOR (or some other company) spends their own money to develop such an engine? Isn't that better than having the government do it?<br /><br />And what is this negative attitude toward "old-school systems?" They worked. They're available. Just because it's "old-school" doesn't mean it's bad. Heck, <b><i>I'm</i></b> "old-school." OK, maybe bad comparison, but still, bleeding edge technology has it's faults too.<br /><br />Mr. Tumlinson may be right about NASA's primary purpose having been to feed the "entrenched aerospace cabal," though I wouldn't use those words. But that was then. What about now? Does Mr. Griffin sound like the kind of person that wants to keep that kind of relationship going without opening things up to new players? I don't think so. It seems to me that he has been making all kinds of moves with the intent of helping private enterprise (and by this I mean other than BoeLockMart and Company) get a foot in the door. Right now, BoeLockMart and Company are the only ones with proven capability to do what NASA has been directed to do. It only makes sense to start planning to use their expertise. My guess is that that will change over time <b><i>if</i></b> Mr. Griffin is given the time to implement the kinds of chances he has alluded to.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"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."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
<i>And what is this negative attitude toward "old-school systems?" They worked. They're available. Just because it's "old-school" doesn't mean it's bad. Heck, I'm "old-school." OK, maybe bad comparison, but still, bleeding edge technology has it's faults too.</i><br /><br />If we always favored "old school" over trying new things, we'd still be living in caves. Investing in new technology and taking risks is how we advance.<br /><br />And in the case of hydrazine as an RCS propellant, it is highly toxic and just recently someone reported here that many engineers are dealing with liver damage because of it. The sooner we get rid of the stuff, the better!
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"If we always favored 'old school' over trying new things, we'd still be living in caves. Investing in new technology and taking risks is how we advance."</font><br /><br />That's true, but we don't stop using fire simply because it's "old-school." I'm all for investing in new technology and using it at the appropriate time, but let's let XCOR (or another private company) do the investing. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"And in the case of hydrazine as an RCS propellant, it is highly toxic and just recently someone reported here that many engineers are dealing with liver damage because of it. The sooner we get rid of the stuff, the better!"</font><br /><br />I agree. I hear it's nasty stuff. The point I was trying to make is that the hypergolic-fueled engines are basically COTS whereas methane-fueled engines are still future-tech. When they are no longer future-tech (and I wish XCOR all the best) we replace the hypergolic engines with methane engines. That seems like a reasonable approach to me. And it's one less thing NASA has to use our tax dollars to develop.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"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."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
I stopped reading the article when I got to the line: "...methane is also a smelly gas expelled by well-fed animals..."<br /><br />Anyone too dumb to know that methane is odorless is too dumb for me to waste my time on! <br /><br />Besides who said they have stopped working on the technology? All NASA has said is that they are not going to insist on it for the initial CEV service module. The CEV system is modular. The original Apollo extended plans included different service modules for different missions. there is no reason this technology can not be included in an uprated CEV.
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
<i> I'm all for investing in new technology and using it at the appropriate time, but let's let XCOR (or another private company) do the investing.</i><br /><br />See, that seems ass backwards to me. Private industry should be paying for R&D to develop new technology, while NASA simply exploits existing technology and acts simply as an operator? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
NASA has 2 mandates: 1. exploration and 2. research and development. NASA has not stopped research in to innovative, high-tech, programs. They are still researching nuclear propulsion, scram jets, advanced aerodynamic shapes, ion drives, etc. Even "far out" concepts like antigravity and faster than light propulsion get looked into enough to determine if there is anything worth pursuing. However for NASA's exploration programs--where there are well defined, concrete goals to be met--a more conservative approach is used. Unmanned exploration has more room for innovative approaches, but even successes like Spirit and Odyssey were preceded by very modest baby steps like Pathfinder. Manned exploration has to be even more conservative because not only is there a goal to be met (landing on the moon for example) lives have to be protected. During Apollo private contractors working with NASA jokingly referred to Von Braun's team designing the Saturn rocket as "the boiler works" because the design was so conservative compared to to high tech rockets like the Atlas (with balloon tank construction) and Titan (with storable propellants). But Apollo wasn't about designing revolutionary rocket boosters (although we did get practical LOX/H2 engines from it) it was about going to the moon and back. It is all a mater of priority. <br /><br />In many respects the problem with the space shuttle was one of trying to push the envelope on a vehicle that was intended to be an everyday workhorse. We should have built one shuttle as and "X" vehicle and flown it for several years to work out the bugs while continuing to use expendable launch vehicles as workhorses. Instead the shuttle was declared an operational vehicle after only a few test flights and all of the US' eggs were put into its basket. The design was locked in and it became too expensive to make major changes.<br /><br />Data from NASA's R&D goes out to private companies and after becoming "tried & true" in industry filters
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"See, that seems ass backwards to me. Private industry should be paying for R&D to develop new technology, while NASA simply exploits existing technology and acts simply as an operator? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around."</font><br /><br />I agree that NASA should be involved in developing new technology and I suppose one could look at this as being backwards <i>if one were inclined to do that</i>, but here we have a technology that XCOR is developing irregardless of what NASA's intentions are. I say let XCOR do the R&D and reap the profits. What's wrong with a little American Free Enterprise as opposed to government BAU? OTOH, if XCOR should fail, NASA can still develop methane-fueled engines at a later date when more is known about the ISRU situation and/or more money is available. IOW, use what you have now until you need the new thing. What's wrong with that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"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."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
M

mattblack

Guest
Not going with Lox/Methane is going to bite them on the a55 in few years. It is a mistake. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
<i>Not going with Lox/Methane is going to bite them on the a55 in few years. It is a mistake. </i><br /><br />The entire plan to use an antiquated Apollo capsule design and obsolete, expensive, and dangerous STS launch vehicle hardware is a mistake. If NASA follows through on this, we will waste billions of taxpayer dollars on a system that is obsolete before it even gets built.
 
M

mattblack

Guest
Careful: or this could become a self-fulfilling prophecy! Look; what you don't seem to understand is that they are NOT going into museums, dusting off old unused Apollo CSMs and using them to make new blueprints to duplicate them!! These will be NEW spaceships bigger, made from modern materials and new technologies. Only the SHAPE is much the same (Boeing 707 -- Airbus A-340 yada, yada). How many times can me and others say these things before you understand?!<br /><br />Do you want new, lifting body or spaceplane-shaped interplanetary spacecraft? Ships made of pure carbon fiber or diamond or some new Star Trek-derived titanium alloys? Nuclear-pulse jet or gaseous core nuclear rocket engines?<br /><br />Exotic re-usable spacetugs with Lagrange-point refuelling depots?<br /><br />Well: where are they? Hhmmm? No? <br /><br />ESAS is going to cost in excess of $104 billion dollars. How much do you think the above juicy, sexy space-fantasy stuff will cost?<br /><br />$150 billion? $200 billion? MORE??!! Better get your checkbook out, Bro!!<br /><br />For the record: I wanted the CEV to be a blunt-biconic vehicle made of the most advanced materials and powered by LOX/Methane engines. Launch vehicle? A side-mounted Shuttle-derived HLV capable of lifting 90 tons with barely-changed launchpad infrastructure TO SAVE MONEY.<br /><br />I never wanted a lifting body or spaceplane CEV because thermal protection systems and control authority over such a vehicle at speeds over 40,000kph is speculative at best. Apollo CM shape and concept is lock, stock and barrel a well-known quantity. <br /><br />In the late 1990s, I wrote to senior Nasa Engineers at Dryden Flight Research Center (I wont drop names at this point) and I asked them about these very things: lifting bodies and spaceplanes at lunar-return velocities for a science fiction novel I never completed. Their answers were interesting and turned me back to capsules.<br /><br /> />>The entire plan to use an antiquated Apollo capsule design [ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
Apparently I'm not alone in my opinion.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/cev.htm<br /><br /><i>The selection of an Apollo-type configuration for the re-entry vehicle represented a step back sixty years. The original Apollo design, a NASA in-house concept, was inferior to contractor alternatives. The Soviets selected the Soyuz configuration (identical to the losing General Electric Apollo design) and had a configuration still in production fifty years later - and likely to continue to the middle of the 21st Century in the Chinese Shenzhou. Apollo, by comparison, remained in production only five years. In 2005, Northrop-Grumman again proposed a Soyuz-type design. <br /><br />Other alternatives for Apollo were a variety of ballistic, lifting-body and winged configurations, any of which would have provided a fine basis for a manned spacecraft that could be recovered with horizontal landings. At least the excuse given in 1961 - that there was no time to pursue development of a winged vehicle and still make the end-of-the-decade lunar landing deadline - may have had some validity. But this made less sense in 2005, when Lockheed proposed a winged design based on forty years of intervening lifting body research and shuttle hypersonic flight experience. <br /><br />Incredibly, NASA made the same mistake again, fifty years later. The same approach was used. First, proposals from industry were solicited. In both the Apollo and CEV cases these were imaginative, innovative, and incorporated all of the lessons of hundreds of millions of dollars of advanced research funded not just by NASA, but also by industry and the US Air Force. Superior contractor designs using the Soyuz-type separate orbital module or a winged spaceplane approach were made in both cases. In both cases the contractors were thanked, and NASA then proceeded with its own in-house government design. This was then suitably tweaked until</i>
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
OK, lets paint some stripes on the CEV and bolt on some spoilers from an auto accessories catalog to keep the cry babies happy.<br /><br />People the CEV shape IS a lifting body that lands with parachutes and airbags -- just like lockheed proposed. The only difference? It is much lighter, has a smaller better protected heat shield and it has a shape that has been flight tested in trips to and from the moon.
 
J

john_316

Guest
HOWEVER: sacrificing the LOX/Methane capability of the CEV main propulsion and RCS, just to save a >few millions< will come back and haunt them because of the loss of delta-v, weight and non-toxic ground handling issues. This might play right into the hands of vt_hokie's criticism to the point where they might as well just start building new Apollo CSM's from the old blueprints, albeit with new, lighter materials and computers. <br /><br /><br />Matt:<br /><br /><br />I honeslty dont think the CEV will ever land on Mars thus not requiring a LOX/Methane engine. I can see that proposal going on the actual Mars Lander when that design come up in about 15 years.<br /><br />That engine design should be designed and built in a lab or university or (hint hint**) privately funded research project not mentioning any names Burt....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />
 
M

mattblack

Guest
Well, what I meant was that for lunar missions of six months duration, hypergolics of that kind of quantities can be storable. It's doable, yes. But on a Mars mission, where the CEV will likely be manned on-and-off for a period of up to 2.5 years, I worry about the degradation of the propellants themselves and the corrosion on seals, valves and propellant lines over a flight lasting more than two years. Not only is LOX/Methane(CH4) strongly touted as being storable for extreme periods in good condition, but after Lox/LH2, Lox/Methane is one of the best isp/volume/weight combinations you can get. And I'm sure that it was originally intended that the Mars Ascent Vehicle's and the CEV's engines would share a commonality of design, such as P & W RL-10 derivatives. Lox/Methane is NOT essential for LEO missions, NOT essential for lunar missions, not even essential for Mars missions: But it is strongly preferred for Martian In-Situ Resource propellant manufacturing. Otherwise, too little cargo will be landed and ascended on any manned Mars lander. Hypergolics are between 15-to-20 percent less efficient than Lox/Methane and heavier to boot. I don't know how much heavier on a kilo-for-kilo basis, but I know the stuff is heavier. Still, it's denser than Lox/CH4 and therefore it's fuel tanks should be physically smaller. If Hypergolics are used for the CEV and the LSAM Ascent Stage, I would fervently hope Nasa and it's contractors shoot for the best isp and thrust rating they can. And, with modern composites and Aluminium/Lithium alloys, that the lightest and most innovative structures possible are pursued.<br /><br />Keeping Lox/Methane viable for long missions: challenging, but quite doable by engineering consensus.<br /><br />Keeping hypergolics "fresh" for long missions: difficult.<br /><br />Keeping Liquid Hydrogen from "boiling away" in nuisance quantities over long missions: VERY difficult.<br /><br />Actually, my main concern is NOT losing Lox/Methane for Block 1 CEV, but <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
I think the best thing going for the CEV right now is its modularity. If the powers that be decide that getting to the moon quickly is the priority we can go with hypergolics for now and plan for the CH4/LOX SM for future missions. Yes it means more development cost, but Apollo already did most of the R&D for restartable hypergolic engines and going with a 5 segment SRB and J2-x engines (both of which the HLLV would have used anyway) for both the CLV and the HLLV will also save on development costs. <br /><br />I'm not crazy about hypergolics, they are expensive and difficult to handle. Hardly the characteristics you want for routine space travel. The shuttle used hypergolic for it RCS and remember ow the hazmat crews always had to rush to the landing site and dispel any fumes before the astronauts could leave the craft? <br /><br />I recently came across a story that NASA was thinking of going with LOX/ethanol as a fuel for the service module. I know they planned to use it on the command module's RCS but I didn't know it was being considered for propulsion.
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
yes I forgot about the OMS. I had RCS on my mind.<br /><br />I was referring to the service module MAIN PROPULSION not the CM attitude control. Is that rumor true that NASA is looking into LOX/ethanol for this? Is it powerful enough? It is certainly cheap, easy to handle and storable. Will commonality with the CM RCS be useful?
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Is that rumor true that NASA is looking into LOX/ethanol for this?"</font><br /><br />New propulsion engine tested with non-toxic fuels<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"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."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"In the late 1990s, I wrote to senior Nasa Engineers at Dryden Flight Research Center (I wont drop names at this point) and I asked them about these very things: lifting bodies and spaceplanes at lunar-return velocities for a science fiction novel I never completed. Their answers were interesting ..."<br /><br />Details please.
 
M

mattblack

Guest
Former X-15 and lifting body pilot William H. Dana; Chief Engineer of Dryden Research Center and Mr William Schweikhard; Senior Engineer (contracted), Dryden. The several Correspondences were during September and October of 1996. They answered in great detail my questions about lifting bodies making ballistic 40,000kph Earth atmosphere re-entries. Their conclusions: Do-able, but challenging, with not a lot of research done on this subject (mainly because once the Apollo shape was chosen, research efforts were expended on this). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Yes those propellants are under consideration for propulsion on the CEV (CM or SM) (RCS or OMS)."</font><br /><br />That's what was mentioned in the link I posted <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"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."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"They answered in great detail my questions about lifting bodies making ballistic 40,000kph Earth atmosphere re-entries. Their conclusions: Do-able, but challenging, with not a lot of research done on this subject (mainly because once the Apollo shape was chosen, research efforts were expended on this)."<br /><br />Interesting considering Lockheed chose a 1.0 l/d ratio lifting-body shape for their CEV proposal, specifically to deal with the higher than lunar-return velocities of Mars-return (14 km/s vs 11 km/s), and to elimate launch-abort black-zones due to g loading.<br /><br />I know from an interview with Faget that the Eggert half-cone lifting body was in competition with the Faget blunt-cone for the Apollo capsule shape, and not selected because the Faget cone was considered adequate.<br /><br />Do you have any more details to share?
 
M

mattblack

Guest
More details? Oh, plenty. But how much typing do I have time to do? This stuff would run to about 9 solid pages. Also, some of this stuff relates to an unfinished novel I have, which would mean revealing exclusive and marketable 'secrets' to prospective competitors. Not top secret, you understand, I'd just be reluctant to give a competitor writer an edge!! Nonetheless, I might scan and place some of it up here, when I get the chance.<br /><br />I thought the Lockheed/Martin CEV design was interesting, but it made me kind of mad, because there was a perception that some manufacturers just can't let go of spaceplanes, which would scare Congress. And it would have cost a big bundle, with the only differences in the ESAS architecture being a spaceplane CEV, with all it's design challenges and unproven shape and attributes. My favourite CEV would have been a large blunt, biconic, larger than but similar to this picture from Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica CEV pages. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"More details? Oh, plenty. But how much typing do I have time to do?"<br /><br />I want to know what the response was that supports the idea that the Apollo semi-ballistic capsule is better than a modest lifting body for return speeds greater than 11 km/s (greater than lunar-return speeds). I don't see how considering the lack of experience or data for any vehicle shape at speeds equal to Mars return speeds of 14 km/s. <br /><br />"I thought the Lockheed/Martin CEV design was interesting, but it made me kind of mad, because there was a perception that some manufacturers just can't let go of spaceplanes, which would scare Congress."<br /><br />Lockheed-Martin was the only manufacturer that did not propose a semi-ballistic capsule. Why should that scare Congress?<br /><br />"And it would have cost a big bundle, with the only differences in the ESAS architecture being a spaceplane CEV, with all it's design challenges and unproven shape and attributes."<br /><br />Why would it cost any different? CEV development is budgeted at 5 billion dollars regardless of which contractor is selected. Under the original competitive CEV flyoff program, Lockheed's proposal would have had to beat the competition to win the contract. Just like Lockheed beat Boeing for the JSF project. If the Lockheed CEV was rotten it would have lost with no risk to the taxpayer for Lockheed's audacity. Lockheed was the only bidder making a big public play over it's design and proposal, and that sounds like confidence to me.<br /><br />"My favourite CEV would have been a large blunt, biconic, larger than but similar to this picture from Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica CEV pages."<br /><br />The biconic is one of the more modest lifting body shapes, but still a lifting body. <br /><br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts