5 shuttle missions left as I write this. Sigh. I say it is a mistake to take away our manned spaceflight capability. Keep 'em running for a couple more years. I remember all too well the down time between Skylab and the first shuttle mission. We used up all of our Apollo ships and Saturn I boosters, while the Soviets are still making Soyuz! The original plan was for the shuttle to rescue Skylab by boosting it to a higher orbit but the shuttle program was ridiculously behind schedule. Now if we want to put people into space we'll need to hitch a ride with someone. I wonder what the remaining '60s astronauts think of this? I think it sucks!!!
- Status
This discussion belongs with the many other related ones in Space Business and Technology, so I'll move it there, mand merge it with one of those.
I know it's hard to believe, but Shuttle is finally working incredibly well!! STS-129 crushed the previous record for the fewest problem reports. Look at the tiles!
People at the highest levels say the Shuttles will simultaneously "wear out" and become unsafe after five more flights, even though the orbiters aren't even the same age. That's like saying no one should fly the V-22 because four were lost with 30 fatalities. Or that no one should fly an Airbus because one crashed last month. Obviously the risk of loss is not a constant or an average; it always decreases with time as problems are identified and corrected. Are there any astronauts out there who think the Shuttle is too dangerous to fly?
The problems that caused the two losses (only one in the last 20 years!) have been corrected. This claim has no basis in reliability engineering. Obviously there are many aircraft that are older and still in service; with inspections and maintenance most aircraft can be kept in service until you have something better.
Constellation was never designed for ISS support and it is unsuited for that mission. For ISS support Constellation is inferior to Shuttle in payload, crew size, flight rate, and even in cost per seat. The logical strategy would be to drop Constellation and keep flying Shuttle until SpaceX or other carriers designed for the purpose can take over all the required ISS support. Since SpaceX doesn't use the Shuttle infrastructure the two could initially operate in parallel, unlike Constellation.
People at the highest levels say the Shuttles will simultaneously "wear out" and become unsafe after five more flights, even though the orbiters aren't even the same age. That's like saying no one should fly the V-22 because four were lost with 30 fatalities. Or that no one should fly an Airbus because one crashed last month. Obviously the risk of loss is not a constant or an average; it always decreases with time as problems are identified and corrected. Are there any astronauts out there who think the Shuttle is too dangerous to fly?
The problems that caused the two losses (only one in the last 20 years!) have been corrected. This claim has no basis in reliability engineering. Obviously there are many aircraft that are older and still in service; with inspections and maintenance most aircraft can be kept in service until you have something better.
Constellation was never designed for ISS support and it is unsuited for that mission. For ISS support Constellation is inferior to Shuttle in payload, crew size, flight rate, and even in cost per seat. The logical strategy would be to drop Constellation and keep flying Shuttle until SpaceX or other carriers designed for the purpose can take over all the required ISS support. Since SpaceX doesn't use the Shuttle infrastructure the two could initially operate in parallel, unlike Constellation.
vulture4":29zo8dcb said:
That's not correct, no matter how many times you've said that. The trigger is that from the beginning, the STS needs to be recertified at this point to continue flying.
There, you said it again.
[/quote]
MeteorWayne -
I don't disagree with your statement, which I agree is accurate, only with the policy itself. Can you perhaps explain why the CAIB said that "recertification" was needed if the shuttles were flown beyond 2010? Waiting until an arbitrary year in the future to impose a new requirement is as far as I know unknown in aviation. The problems they indicated were minor maintenance issues; the report indicated dissatisfaction that they had not been corrected but did not claim they would ever cause losses. When the FAA issues an airworthiness directive, they may give a brief time before the aircraft has to be grounded, but if an inspection or maintenance is needed, it is needed as soon as possible. There were certainly unrecognized hazards with the shuttle, as with the V-22, but I'm not aware of any that weren't corrected promptly once they were recognized, and there are some on every mission.
I don't disagree with your statement, which I agree is accurate, only with the policy itself. Can you perhaps explain why the CAIB said that "recertification" was needed if the shuttles were flown beyond 2010? Waiting until an arbitrary year in the future to impose a new requirement is as far as I know unknown in aviation. The problems they indicated were minor maintenance issues; the report indicated dissatisfaction that they had not been corrected but did not claim they would ever cause losses. When the FAA issues an airworthiness directive, they may give a brief time before the aircraft has to be grounded, but if an inspection or maintenance is needed, it is needed as soon as possible. There were certainly unrecognized hazards with the shuttle, as with the V-22, but I'm not aware of any that weren't corrected promptly once they were recognized, and there are some on every mission.
Odd as it may sound, I'm looking forward to the moment when the wheels touch down on the last shuttle flight. It will be sad when the US no longer has the capabilities of putting a man into orbit, but as someone who has seen 2 shuttle disasters, I just can't wait for them to be done. I agree that they seem to be performing better than ever, but at the same time, no one saw the Challenger and Columbia disasters coming and it is bound to happen again. And if that happens, well I don't think I would have the heart to support manned space exploration any longer.
Human lives are vital. I have seen far too many people die.
But we lost three crewmembers during Apollo and nearly lost six more, a much worse record than Shuttle, though no one seems to remember. Several astronauts were killed in aircraft crashes and one died in a crash while riding as a passenger in a commercial airliner. Six people died just building the VAB. There have been 30 fatalities in the V-22 program, and it is just an aircraft. When airliners were new there were multiple losses of both the Electra (turboprop) and the Comet (jet) with dozens of passengers because problems such as metal fatigue were poorly understood. Just a few months ago an Airbus was lost, probably due to pitot tube failure. Yet in each case lessons were learned and the problems corrected, and generally the type isn't grounded for more than a few days before airworthiness directives are issued and implemented and the public piles on again, without escape rockets or even parachutes.
An objective examination of the safety record of each of the major launch vehicles and spacecraft shows that reliability is not a constant; in almost every case the risk is high at first but gradually improves as experience is gained.
An exception is Soyuz which has had quality control problems with pyrotechnic bolts, but the Shuttle is already one of the most reliable launch vehicles and it is getting more reliable with each flight, not less.
But we lost three crewmembers during Apollo and nearly lost six more, a much worse record than Shuttle, though no one seems to remember. Several astronauts were killed in aircraft crashes and one died in a crash while riding as a passenger in a commercial airliner. Six people died just building the VAB. There have been 30 fatalities in the V-22 program, and it is just an aircraft. When airliners were new there were multiple losses of both the Electra (turboprop) and the Comet (jet) with dozens of passengers because problems such as metal fatigue were poorly understood. Just a few months ago an Airbus was lost, probably due to pitot tube failure. Yet in each case lessons were learned and the problems corrected, and generally the type isn't grounded for more than a few days before airworthiness directives are issued and implemented and the public piles on again, without escape rockets or even parachutes.
An objective examination of the safety record of each of the major launch vehicles and spacecraft shows that reliability is not a constant; in almost every case the risk is high at first but gradually improves as experience is gained.
An exception is Soyuz which has had quality control problems with pyrotechnic bolts, but the Shuttle is already one of the most reliable launch vehicles and it is getting more reliable with each flight, not less.
The two main problems with continuing the STS are (as I understand them):
1. One orbiter is (over)due for a major overhaul, and the others are getting close.
2. Some parts (like ET's) are no longer in production, and it would be prohibitively expensive to restart production.
Of course, the main problem is the shortsighted decision to close the program in the first place
1. One orbiter is (over)due for a major overhaul, and the others are getting close.
2. Some parts (like ET's) are no longer in production, and it would be prohibitively expensive to restart production.
Of course, the main problem is the shortsighted decision to close the program in the first place
In aviation the same thing is done differently. Wonder why ?strandedonearth":2nzq8gd1 said:
There are at least some still laying around:strandedonearth":2nzq8gd1 said:
More info: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/ ... -launcher/
Partly build tanks: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/ ... ommission/
(ET-139 & ET-140)
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/ ... -manifest/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-135
strandedonearth":2nzq8gd1 said:
How much would this cost now ? How would it hurt other programs ?
I'm not certain what you mean about the maintenance being done differently for aircraft. Major overhauls are done on aircraft all the time, its just that for most aircraft a major depot level overhaul or phase inspection is completed in a few weeks to a couple of months, whereas for the Shuttle it is more time-consuming and expensive. Further, most air fleets are managed so that only a small portion of the fleet is down for this type of maintenance at any given moment. Shuttle used to be managed this way, but after Columbia and Congressional mandate to retire by the end of 2010, such management was no longer required.
Even with pieces lying around, the expense to get workers back, recertify the mand all of their manufacturing processes would be very expensive and wouldn't be worth it unless it was for several flights. Given that NASA has a top line budget constraint, every penny (or Billion dollars) that goes into additional flights has to come from other areas, like space missions (think Hubble, Mars rovers or Cassini all of which are in extended mission funding). Is flying Shuttle so important that other programs should be canned? Or is flying Shuttle so important that politicians can be convinced to increase the top line budget to allow for such a thing. If the top line could be so easily increased then chances are Orion Program would not have suffered so much from chronic underfunding.
The Shuttle has served well, racking up over a hundred launches with 2 failures, which is comparable to many other manned space launchers. However it is time to retire Shuttle and move on to a system that does not eat such a large portion of the space agency budget. The Shuttles can take their places in museums and inspire future Space Pioneers.
Even with pieces lying around, the expense to get workers back, recertify the mand all of their manufacturing processes would be very expensive and wouldn't be worth it unless it was for several flights. Given that NASA has a top line budget constraint, every penny (or Billion dollars) that goes into additional flights has to come from other areas, like space missions (think Hubble, Mars rovers or Cassini all of which are in extended mission funding). Is flying Shuttle so important that other programs should be canned? Or is flying Shuttle so important that politicians can be convinced to increase the top line budget to allow for such a thing. If the top line could be so easily increased then chances are Orion Program would not have suffered so much from chronic underfunding.
The Shuttle has served well, racking up over a hundred launches with 2 failures, which is comparable to many other manned space launchers. However it is time to retire Shuttle and move on to a system that does not eat such a large portion of the space agency budget. The Shuttles can take their places in museums and inspire future Space Pioneers.
Vulture4,
First, while death is sad, few humans lives are vital from a purely society POV. The truth is, that few of those astronauts made a large difference to society OTHER than that they were in a particular place at a particular time. Do not get me wrong. I am not wild about losing life carelessly, but I would give my life if it meant helping my nation, something in Science, and/or esp. my family. Rutan had it right when he spoke of the fact that we fear too much a lose of life when pushing the edge. Also, I will point out that some ppl are CRITICAL to Humanity. Burt Rutan is one. Stephan Hawking is another. Even Paul Allen and Elon Musk are indispensable (they have made multiple different ideas happen), while somebody like Bill Gates (has not really done much, just wealthy) and nearly all Politicians are easily dispensable.
Now, as to the shuttle, it would be nice if we could do a couple of more launches. In particular, I would love to see us bring up a Sundancer to attach to the ISS. However, that will cost another billion or two for that launch. What are the chance of that? I give it LITTLE chance. In the end, I doubt that Obama/congress will increase NASA budget by that much. So the question is, are we (American, the west, and even Humanity) better served by putting together a new rocket or launching a few more missions? Having multiple private space LV AND a true heavy lift vehicle is far more useful (though again, I would argue that getting BA started now, is very important).
First, while death is sad, few humans lives are vital from a purely society POV. The truth is, that few of those astronauts made a large difference to society OTHER than that they were in a particular place at a particular time. Do not get me wrong. I am not wild about losing life carelessly, but I would give my life if it meant helping my nation, something in Science, and/or esp. my family. Rutan had it right when he spoke of the fact that we fear too much a lose of life when pushing the edge. Also, I will point out that some ppl are CRITICAL to Humanity. Burt Rutan is one. Stephan Hawking is another. Even Paul Allen and Elon Musk are indispensable (they have made multiple different ideas happen), while somebody like Bill Gates (has not really done much, just wealthy) and nearly all Politicians are easily dispensable.
Now, as to the shuttle, it would be nice if we could do a couple of more launches. In particular, I would love to see us bring up a Sundancer to attach to the ISS. However, that will cost another billion or two for that launch. What are the chance of that? I give it LITTLE chance. In the end, I doubt that Obama/congress will increase NASA budget by that much. So the question is, are we (American, the west, and even Humanity) better served by putting together a new rocket or launching a few more missions? Having multiple private space LV AND a true heavy lift vehicle is far more useful (though again, I would argue that getting BA started now, is very important).
At the time it was built the Shuttle was a marvel. 30-some years later it is obsolete. It's time to retire them for the same reason that they retired the F-111. A great aircraft but time and technology marches on. We can do better now.
As to the question of how it should have been done. NASA should have been given an extra 10 B$/yr starting in 2000. By now we would have the new system flying and the old Shuttles could be retired without any interruption to service. That didn't happen though. With current budget constraints the only way to fund development is to down the shuttles first. I don't like it but that's the reality.
As to what to replace it with, I vote for SOMETHING. Ares, SpaceX, SpaceShipFour, I don't care. The US just needs to get back up there with something with a minimal downtime.
As to the question of how it should have been done. NASA should have been given an extra 10 B$/yr starting in 2000. By now we would have the new system flying and the old Shuttles could be retired without any interruption to service. That didn't happen though. With current budget constraints the only way to fund development is to down the shuttles first. I don't like it but that's the reality.
As to what to replace it with, I vote for SOMETHING. Ares, SpaceX, SpaceShipFour, I don't care. The US just needs to get back up there with something with a minimal downtime.
first I whould retire the oldest shuttle. Then put the auther two shuttles on a reduced flights for the time being. untill somthing better combs along. as for the ETs make more rember the moon will nead ETs too i think their bigger tho
I will miss the shuttle's when they retire it does seem almost crazy to retire them once the worst problems have been fixed.
The vehicles are getting old and more advanced technology is here so retirement sooner or later is inevitable as they are obsolete.
I'm not exactly thrilled with the successor Orion because it is no successor and ignores many technical advances since Apollo.
In fact it ignores the entire experience base of LEO assembly and fuel transfer learned on ISS.
I doubt Orion will really amount to anything historic like the shuttle did in fact I see it as a step backwards as this vehicle does not push the state of the art.
When you really think about it the entire ESAS architecture is already obsolete it would be simply idiotic to do missions in the same manner as Apollo today.
But maybe we'll see something great from the private sector the Spacex vehicles do make a serious attempt at reducing costs and Reaction engine's Skylon vehicle looks very promising.
Personally Ares and Orion need to be scrapped and the budget redirected to more COTS type programs.
Dragon and Dreamchaser both can be flying much sooner then Orion/Ares I and perform pretty much all of it's missions.
Skylon would be more useful in the long term then Ares.
Need an HLV then fly what is quickest and cheapest that would be Direct or Atlas V phase 3.
The vehicles are getting old and more advanced technology is here so retirement sooner or later is inevitable as they are obsolete.
I'm not exactly thrilled with the successor Orion because it is no successor and ignores many technical advances since Apollo.
In fact it ignores the entire experience base of LEO assembly and fuel transfer learned on ISS.
I doubt Orion will really amount to anything historic like the shuttle did in fact I see it as a step backwards as this vehicle does not push the state of the art.
When you really think about it the entire ESAS architecture is already obsolete it would be simply idiotic to do missions in the same manner as Apollo today.
But maybe we'll see something great from the private sector the Spacex vehicles do make a serious attempt at reducing costs and Reaction engine's Skylon vehicle looks very promising.
Personally Ares and Orion need to be scrapped and the budget redirected to more COTS type programs.
Dragon and Dreamchaser both can be flying much sooner then Orion/Ares I and perform pretty much all of it's missions.
Skylon would be more useful in the long term then Ares.
Need an HLV then fly what is quickest and cheapest that would be Direct or Atlas V phase 3.
lclark2074":1b2qkpsk said:
Ares is already considered a dead program and a new SDLV that has more in common with the STS stack will replace it so restarting ET production is a smart move.
Killing just Ares I would free up enough money for an extra 5 to 10 shuttle flights eliminating the gap.
Of course other things can go too such as the J2X it's not needed 6 RL10Bs can perform the task of EDS propulsion a lot cheaper.
Heck you can do a low budget moon mission using a Centaur to send Orion to the moon and a SEP tug to send the lander ahead of time.
While I am a huge supporter of our space program, I believe the decision to retire the Shuttles is a correct decision, for many obvious reasons. These are:
1) The Shuttle design is approaching 40 years old and the youngest Shuttle is now over 20 years old.
2) The cost to launch each Shuttle is about $1 billion each, equivalent to a Saturn V launch cost for a moon mission, but all we get are low earth orbit missions.
3) No launch escape system for the crew - every astronaut I have ever talked to hates this about the Shuttle.
4) The Shuttle is very expensive to maintain and requires extensive maintenance between each mission.
5) The Shuttle's cargo bay can carry about 20 tons to the ISS, but there are less expensive ways to get 20 tons to low earth orbit.
6) Every astronaut knows that the potential for a total loss of vehicle and crew is high for each mission. They literally put their lives on the line with each mission with virtually no hope of survivability in a critical failure mode.
The most efficient and safe mechanism to get humans to orbit is a capsule design. The weight penalty is minimized with a capsule design and a launch abort tower can be installed on a capsule design, increasing safety for the crew.
Furthermore, because the Shuttle weighs over 100 tons, it could never be used for lunar or Mars missions. The fuel requirement alone to get the Shuttle out of earth orbit would require about 15 to 20 Shuttle launches just to deliver the fuel for such a mission.
It is time to put the Shuttle into retirement and move on to the next phase in US human spaceflight. Hopefully, Orion will not be cancelled.
1) The Shuttle design is approaching 40 years old and the youngest Shuttle is now over 20 years old.
2) The cost to launch each Shuttle is about $1 billion each, equivalent to a Saturn V launch cost for a moon mission, but all we get are low earth orbit missions.
3) No launch escape system for the crew - every astronaut I have ever talked to hates this about the Shuttle.
4) The Shuttle is very expensive to maintain and requires extensive maintenance between each mission.
5) The Shuttle's cargo bay can carry about 20 tons to the ISS, but there are less expensive ways to get 20 tons to low earth orbit.
6) Every astronaut knows that the potential for a total loss of vehicle and crew is high for each mission. They literally put their lives on the line with each mission with virtually no hope of survivability in a critical failure mode.
The most efficient and safe mechanism to get humans to orbit is a capsule design. The weight penalty is minimized with a capsule design and a launch abort tower can be installed on a capsule design, increasing safety for the crew.
Furthermore, because the Shuttle weighs over 100 tons, it could never be used for lunar or Mars missions. The fuel requirement alone to get the Shuttle out of earth orbit would require about 15 to 20 Shuttle launches just to deliver the fuel for such a mission.
It is time to put the Shuttle into retirement and move on to the next phase in US human spaceflight. Hopefully, Orion will not be cancelled.
garyegray":1sxcdzqa said:
You are dead on the money with all of that.
Basically, we should have spent more on Constellation over the last 6 years. If we had, we would be launching Ares I NOW.
The real trick is to continue with the Orion capsule and then see what to use it on. Be it a direct vehicle, a shuttle derived, or Atlas/Delta. In essence, we need the capsule and already have the work done.
The question is to what? I guess on Monday, we will find out.
I've always viewed the shuttles as a waste of money, time and human intelligence. It's very concerning to me that we seemed to step backwards and not forwards after Apollo. We sent people to the moon 40 years ago...40! Yet we then spent the next 40 years confined to riding in orbit around our planet doing menial tasks that could have been accomplished by unmanned rockets. To me that was technological retrograde.
Imagine for one moment if we continued going back to the moon and explored from there. We would by now have had permanent bases/settlements there and we would more than likely have been experiencing our first manned missions to Mars or a neighboring dwarf planet such as Ceres and asteroids such as Eros or Vesta.
I understand that many people think we didn't have the technology to do so, but I beg to differ. In all actuality we should have been farther ahead than we are currently. In our technological childhood we sent men to the moon and probes that continue to report after traveling for decades and BILLIONS of miles. Why scale back and limit ourselves to NEO missions?
We need to get back to the moon. We need to set up camp there. We need to build the proposed dark side of the moon giant telescope so we can see clearer and farther than ever before. We are capable of so much more....
Imagine for one moment if we continued going back to the moon and explored from there. We would by now have had permanent bases/settlements there and we would more than likely have been experiencing our first manned missions to Mars or a neighboring dwarf planet such as Ceres and asteroids such as Eros or Vesta.
I understand that many people think we didn't have the technology to do so, but I beg to differ. In all actuality we should have been farther ahead than we are currently. In our technological childhood we sent men to the moon and probes that continue to report after traveling for decades and BILLIONS of miles. Why scale back and limit ourselves to NEO missions?
We need to get back to the moon. We need to set up camp there. We need to build the proposed dark side of the moon giant telescope so we can see clearer and farther than ever before. We are capable of so much more....
I can understand the frustration. But in my opinion no one is going to Mars unless we can 1) find a much better reason, or 2) develop a much less expensive technology for human spaceflight.
Unfortunately a myth. Terrestrial radiotelescopes in remote ares suffer interference only on the narrow band of frequencies that are reflected efficiently by the ionisphere. If there was any interest in astronomy in this band (there isn't much) it could be done with an orbiting telescope at any reasonable distance from the earth. A simple terrestrial array of 1000 6-meter dishes could revolutionize radioastronomy and SETI but remains unfunded.
Unfortunately a myth. Terrestrial radiotelescopes in remote ares suffer interference only on the narrow band of frequencies that are reflected efficiently by the ionisphere. If there was any interest in astronomy in this band (there isn't much) it could be done with an orbiting telescope at any reasonable distance from the earth. A simple terrestrial array of 1000 6-meter dishes could revolutionize radioastronomy and SETI but remains unfunded.
As soon as the last shuttle touches down, Virgin Galactic will have better human space access than NASA
There is something wrong with that
There is something wrong with that
Now people are starting to be incorrect about the two shuttle accidents. One both of them could of been prevented but NASA management lets to many people have control and no common sense, Thiokol warned of challengers srb segment and columbias engineers wanted photos they knew the shuttle was in danger but management didnt want to hear that Now as to where the shuttles go they will be retired and so will the ares program as well in the days to come so if anyone has anything else to say please say it
Regarding the end of the Shuttle program, it remains obvious that they cannot continue to fly. As in all things, be they man or the machines we create, there comes a time to retire. Not to pass away never remembered, but simply to retire and recall the fruits of our labours and a life well lived. Passing away can come later once we are sure someone picked up that thing called the torch of our dreams, we won't matter anymore, we're dead, but the dream always will. So we retire the Shuttle program, we did that to Mercury, Gemini and Apollo too. Remember the X-15, or when Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier? We retired them all too, not with regrets but with the highest of honors we could accord them.
So, what next? Do we all sit back looking at the pictures and videos and dream of forgotten dreams? Remember the heritage that JFK started when he said we, in terms of all humanity (no offence meant to the US or NASA) :roll: :? , could land a man on the moon? What we have to do is get our governments to remember such dreams, such great men (leaders and visionaries perhaps???) and the heritage we inherited. Will we collectively let them forget all those men, all those who dreamed of a better world for all humanity, all those missions long before any of this internet started?
Let's go to the moon and establish bases. let's go to Mars, why not even to the stars? As Heinlein said "the earth is too fragile a handbasket to put all our eggs in" so let's get out of the farmyard. Anybody else grow up waiting for the next Heienlien or Clarke book to come out in softcover in the 60's? The way to end the wars is get over it, it's done, we have so much better things we could accomplish. Ranting a bit in a small mountain town with clear night skies, the stars are beautiful outside. Per Ardua Ad Astra.
So, what next? Do we all sit back looking at the pictures and videos and dream of forgotten dreams? Remember the heritage that JFK started when he said we, in terms of all humanity (no offence meant to the US or NASA) :roll: :? , could land a man on the moon? What we have to do is get our governments to remember such dreams, such great men (leaders and visionaries perhaps???) and the heritage we inherited. Will we collectively let them forget all those men, all those who dreamed of a better world for all humanity, all those missions long before any of this internet started?
Let's go to the moon and establish bases. let's go to Mars, why not even to the stars? As Heinlein said "the earth is too fragile a handbasket to put all our eggs in" so let's get out of the farmyard. Anybody else grow up waiting for the next Heienlien or Clarke book to come out in softcover in the 60's? The way to end the wars is get over it, it's done, we have so much better things we could accomplish. Ranting a bit in a small mountain town with clear night skies, the stars are beautiful outside. Per Ardua Ad Astra.
adman69":37tzlg9f said:
Uh, I'm sure you meant "far side." The Moon's "dark side" doesn't stay in one place. :lol:
Swampcat":28g8scwd said:
Yes, I meant far side LOL! I was involved in my rant...however the dark side and the far side are identical...when there's a full moon!
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Watch 2 gorgeous supernova remnants evolve over 20 years (timelapse video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram