Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > FreeForAll
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-16-2022, 02:48 AM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default Artemis 1 launch dates (link)

Hello All,

SpaceFlightNow.com has posted (see: https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/10/...launch-attempt/ ) the possible launch dates for the Artemis 1 (SLS) vehicle; most of these are at night, and:

The first is just after midnight on November 14 (it opens at 12:07 AM EST [0507 GMT], and is 69 minutes in length). The last daily launch window in November is on the 27th, and only three days between 11/14 and 11/27 are "dark" ones (days when there is no launch scheduled, that is). The actual mission length will vary from about three weeks to about six weeks, due to the lunar launch window, and to the necessity for the Orion capsule's splashdown to occur in the Pacific Ocean in daylight.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-16-2022, 01:31 PM
Earl's Avatar
Earl Earl is offline
Apollo Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,894
Default

With Tim's permission (tbzep here on YORF; it's actually his thread), feel free to post Artemis updates in the following thread. We've been kinda piling 'em there for a while now.

Thread link: https://forums.rocketshoppe.com/sho...ghlight=artemis


Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-16-2022, 02:12 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,610
Default

__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-16-2022, 08:43 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,134
Default

Yep watched the $4.1 billion dollar shuttle derived mega-booster finally go... couldn't stay up to watch it because had to be up for work, but watched it on YT as soon as I got home. Couldn't see a thing but the fancy graphics, and a few seconds of pad and tower cam footage as it lifted off, before it was just a blinding white flaming tail from the SRB's, then a sparky tail from the spent boosters as alumina slag blew out of the spent boosters after burnout, as the blue dot of the main core SSME's (sorry RS-25's) flew off into the distance. Total flight time for the SLS-- 8 minutes, 3 seconds. Considering the $4.1 billion dollar price tag, that's $8,488,612.84 per second of flight...

All that to deliver the Orion and it's European Service Module atop the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage into low Earth orbit. The ICPS did a short burn to boost the perigee higher, then after one orbit did an 18 minute burn for TLI under the power of its single RL-10 engine. Then after a few minutes the stage separated from the Orion, which did a short separation burn to put space between it and the spent stage. The ICPS will follow it toward the Moon, deploying four cubesats in the lunar vicinity, then perform a "disposal burn" to change it's orbit enough for the Moon to slingshot it around and toss it into a solar disposal orbit. Orion will arrive in the vicinity of the Moon in a few days, but unlike its more capable Apollo predecessors, it doesn't have enough propulsive capability to enter low lunar orbit, so it's going into a weird highly elliptical lunar orbit which will put it at about an 80 mile perilune and then soaring out to about a 75,000 mile apolune about a day later. This allows it to have enough propellant to break back out of this weird orbit and return to Earth through TLI with the paltry propellant it has. This kind of orbit is basically useless for lunar exploration, unless one has a gateway station. IF there's ever a gateway station.

OF course the "Artemis project" doesn't even have a lunar lander... Oh, they've let a contract to SpaceX to build a "lunar starship" capable of landing on the Moon and acting as a lander for the crew. BUT of course this is predicated on there being a SUCCESSFUL Starship capable of being launched into space and then being successfully modified to fly to the Moon and land on it, and take off again. Of course if we have a functional, successful, OPERATIONAL Starship, WTF do we need a bloated, all-expendable, most expensive rocket ever built DINOSAUR like SLS for?? It's a bad joke. I would really like to get excited about all this, but it's basically just a stunt... not even as capable as Apollo 8. Rather pathetic. And it's absolutely criminal how much it costs for what it does IMHO.

I sure hope the hi-def cameras on the Orion return some h3lla good pictures... Lord knows we've paid enough for them!!! Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-17-2022, 12:03 AM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke strawwalker
Yep watched the $4.1 billion dollar shuttle derived mega-booster finally go... couldn't stay up to watch it because had to be up for work, but watched it on YT as soon as I got home. Couldn't see a thing but the fancy graphics, and a few seconds of pad and tower cam footage as it lifted off, before it was just a blinding white flaming tail from the SRB's, then a sparky tail from the spent boosters as alumina slag blew out of the spent boosters after burnout, as the blue dot of the main core SSME's (sorry RS-25's) flew off into the distance. Total flight time for the SLS-- 8 minutes, 3 seconds. Considering the $4.1 billion dollar price tag, that's $8,488,612.84 per second of flight...

All that to deliver the Orion and it's European Service Module atop the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage into low Earth orbit. The ICPS did a short burn to boost the perigee higher, then after one orbit did an 18 minute burn for TLI under the power of its single RL-10 engine. Then after a few minutes the stage separated from the Orion, which did a short separation burn to put space between it and the spent stage. The ICPS will follow it toward the Moon, deploying four cubesats in the lunar vicinity, then perform a "disposal burn" to change it's orbit enough for the Moon to slingshot it around and toss it into a solar disposal orbit. Orion will arrive in the vicinity of the Moon in a few days, but unlike its more capable Apollo predecessors, it doesn't have enough propulsive capability to enter low lunar orbit, so it's going into a weird highly elliptical lunar orbit which will put it at about an 80 mile perilune and then soaring out to about a 75,000 mile apolune about a day later. This allows it to have enough propellant to break back out of this weird orbit and return to Earth through TLI with the paltry propellant it has. This kind of orbit is basically useless for lunar exploration, unless one has a gateway station. IF there's ever a gateway station.

OF course the "Artemis project" doesn't even have a lunar lander... Oh, they've let a contract to SpaceX to build a "lunar starship" capable of landing on the Moon and acting as a lander for the crew. BUT of course this is predicated on there being a SUCCESSFUL Starship capable of being launched into space and then being successfully modified to fly to the Moon and land on it, and take off again. Of course if we have a functional, successful, OPERATIONAL Starship, WTF do we need a bloated, all-expendable, most expensive rocket ever built DINOSAUR like SLS for?? It's a bad joke. I would really like to get excited about all this, but it's basically just a stunt... not even as capable as Apollo 8. Rather pathetic. And it's absolutely criminal how much it costs for what it does IMHO.

I sure hope the hi-def cameras on the Orion return some h3lla good pictures... Lord knows we've paid enough for them!!! Later! OL J R
Well synopsized, Luke. Yes, it does feel like the attempts of post-Roman, early medieval European cultures which--having the amazing ruins of Roman roads, causeways, aqueducts, and official government buildings in their districts (but not the by-then-lost knowledge of how to build them)--tried to build more such architecture, but failed. There are a few yet-to-be-revealed (and hopefully successful) bits of news about Artemis 1 (although a much smaller and cheaper rocket could easily have carried all of them):

Ten CubeSat-size spacecraft--including solar orbiters, lunar orbiters, a tiny lunar lander, and one asteroid probe--are aboard, mounted on the Orion spacecraft's stage adapter (see the "Payloads" section *here*: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_1 [each spacecraft has its own website link as well]). Aside from the Japanese OMOTENASHI lander (their EQUULEUS solar orbiter has an appropriately astronomical equine name: http://www.ianridpath.com/startales/equuleus.html ), most of my attention is on NEA Scout (Near-Earth Asteroid Scout, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_Asteroid_Scout ), a solar sail-propelled space probe that will visit asteroid 2020 GE (and perhaps other asteroids and/or cometary NEOs, if its systems hold out), and:

Even the Orion spacecraft's development was--almost--handicapped by such a loss of institutional knowledge, like that which followed the Fall of Rome. When its 90-degree Service Module/Command Module (SM/CM) disconnect was being designed, *NO ONE* on the design team knew how the Apollo one--which they'd intended to pattern Orion's after--had been designed (all of those North American Rockwell and NASA MSFC & JSC folks, including von Braun's group, were long gone by then). They actually had to go up and examine the SM/CM disconnect on the Apollo-Saturn IB (the backup vehicle for the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission) that is displayed on its side in the KSC Visitor Center "Rocket Garden," because they had no engineering drawings of it! As well:

The Russians consider a space project--such as their Lunokhod lunar rovers--dead and beyond being restarted once its project personnel have retired, because even with full documentation and engineering drawings of the hardware, the knowledge that *really* counted was in their minds. (Our Navy, and India's space agency, ISRO, each keep a "nucleus community" of engineers and technicians--including in industry--who are well-versed in arcane knowledge such as how to manufacture reliable solid propellant rocket motors, because making them is almost as much an art as a science.) BUT:

While the Artemis program--including the Lunar Gateway station's highly elliptical seven-day near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Gateway )--is arranged the way it is in order to satisfy political requirements (which have forced some non-optimal engineering solutions), the program's other international partners (the Canadian Space Agency [CSA], ESA [European Space Agency], and JAXA [Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency]; Dmitry Rogozin of Roscosmos said that the program is too “U.S.-centric” for Roscosmos to participate in) want manned deep space experience, but could never afford similar ventures by themselves. (Truth be told, it would probably--especially now--be a financial stretch for the U.S. to carry out the Artemis program on our own, using the existing and under-construction hardware, especially the SLS rocket; even the ^Space Shuttle^ almost seems economically sensible, compared with that Shuttle-derived kludge of a rocket!)

But because international collaboration spreads out the cost of large space ventures, and gives all participants the same experience, the Artemis program will provide all of the partners--including the U.S.--with much-needed current human deep space flight experience, using today's space technology (not many of the Apollo Moonwalkers, or their mission controllers, are left; the scythe of time is striking them down, as surely as the wheat falls to the sickle blade...). But today's and tomorrow's astronauts will be able to tackle interplanetary voyages with greater knowledge and experience to draw from. If I had any decision-making power in the Artemis program (at the policy level), I would recommend that the partnership consortium consider inviting ISRO (India's space agency), KARI (South Korea's space agency), and Taiwan's space agency (NSPO, their National Space Organization) to join the Artemis program.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-17-2022, 09:12 AM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Nunya Bizznuss, Michigan
Posts: 13,443
Default

I think all the EXCUSES about not being able to recreate the Saturn V are largely BALONEY.
Gives bunk creedence to the "Faked the Moon Landing" conspiracy loons.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !

Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-17-2022, 10:02 AM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghrocketman
I think all the EXCUSES about not being able to recreate the Saturn V are largely BALONEY.
Gives bunk creedence to the "Faked the Moon Landing" conspiracy loons.
An expendable Saturn V doesn't make economic sense today, now that reusable lower stages are in use (and with SpaceX's Starship/Super Heavy Booster, *both* stages will be fully-reusable). But a delta-winged, reusable S-IC (Saturn V first stage) *would* make economic sense. The winged S-IC was the last reusable booster considered in the Space Shuttle design competition; it was an efficient design, NASA liked it, it could carry large expendable upper stages as well as a winged orbiter, and Boeing was chomping at the bit to build it...but it didn't reduce the overall Shuttle development cost enough to pass Congressional muster. Also:

Some concern was expressed that its F-1 engines weren't reusable, but the Rocketdyne engineers who developed it said that the F-1 could be made reusable with little trouble. Also, a single F-1 had once been static fired for an hour, so even the existing F-1 design could loft about 24 booster flights (1 hour divided by the 2-1/2 minute S-IC burn time during a launch). If the 33' diameter S-IC tankage tooling is all gone, the 26' diameter Shuttle External Tank tooling is not (the SLS core stage is built using it), so a slimmer--and a bit longer--winged "universal heavy-lift booster" similar to the winged S-IC could be built. As well as large upper stages, it could even carry a winged orbiter (with the smaller payload bay that NASA--but not the USAF--had wanted, and all-internal propellant tankage, or perhaps two side-mounted, jettison-able liquid hydrogen tanks, like the Grumman H-33 orbiter design), at last realizing the original Space Shuttle concept. (If an H-33-like orbiter, either delta-winged or straight-winged, was used, the jettisoned liquid hydrogen tanks could be retained in orbit for use as--or as components of--space stations, in-orbit propellant depots, interplanetary spaceships, etc.)
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-17-2022, 06:14 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghrocketman
I think all the EXCUSES about not being able to recreate the Saturn V are largely BALONEY.
Gives bunk creedence to the "Faked the Moon Landing" conspiracy loons.


Quite true... during the kerfluffle after Obama canceled Bush Jr.'s "Vision for Space Exploration" program, Constellation, and the Ares I and V rockets with it, NASA conducted the RAC-2 study because it was OBVIOUS *something* was going to replace it, but the question was "what". Their answer that was the most cost-efficient in terms of recurring (per flight) costs was a 3 stage, serially staged (inline), liquid propellant rocket with a kerosene/LOX powered first stage, a liquid hydrogen powered ascent stage, and a liquid hydrogen powered in-space propulsion stage using a highly efficient engine. No solid propellant boosters. Sound familiar?? Basically it was calling for a clone of Saturn V. It won on every metric-- cost, capability, adaptability, growth potential as needed... every metric but ONE-- the scale was tipped by the PRESUMPTION that using "already existing" shuttle tech, engines, and boosters, would allow for a shuttle-derived rocket to be developed faster and for less money. We now know that was a complete lie... Practically everything SLS used from the shuttle program had to be completely changed, all new tooling and equipment for the MAF, etc. Plus SLS is THE highest-cost launch vehicle ever conceived, using the most expensive *reusable* bits of the shuttle, but in EXPENDABLE mode. It's a stupid dinosaur of a vehicle that was obsolete before it ever left the drawing board.

They found a bunch of carefully stored F-1 engines from the Apollo program in storage on Redstone Arsenal, what is now the Marshall Space Flight Center. Dynetics got ahold of one and test fired it, went over it with a fine tooth comb, and came up with plans to improve on the original Apollo design. The F-1 had been improved into a new version called the F-1A, which would have boosted the thrust of the engine to 1.8 million pounds from the original's 1.5 million pounds. Basically all they did was tweak the injector plate and increase the turbine speed driving the turbopump. The 34 inch (IIRC) diameter turbine could have its speed increased considerably over the original spec, pumping more fuel into the chamber faster. That speed increase was the most that they could accomplish with the large turbine wheel, but the guys working on improving F-1 in the 60's recommended switching to a new turbine designed to be 28 inches in diameter that would increase the maximum turbine speed still further, and top out this proposed version of F-1 at over 2 million pounds of thrust EACH... BUT of course it was never built... the improved F-1A's would have been used on the second order of Saturn V's, but no second order was ever placed (incidentally they'd done the same with the J-2 engines, which is how we got J-2S, which increased power and reduced weight of the engine and increased efficiency, which gave a big performance boost-- they were to be used on the second order of Saturn V's as well, and so those rockets would have been MUCH more powerful than the original Saturn V with just those two upgrades!)

Dynetics looked over the F-1 and F-1A's and the biggest problem with putting them back into production was found to be the autoclave-brazed combustion chamber and upper nozzle, which was constructed of thousands of individual steel tubes bent to shape and brazed together in what was then the world's largest autoclave. Technology has improved considerably since then, and Dynetics came out with a design for a channel-wall nozzle (which is much simpler and cheaper to build) and combustion chamber and somewhat simplified turbomachinery... they recommended adopting the smaller higher-speed turbine design as an upgrade, and called the new proposed engine the "F-1B". I haven't heard much about it since then. They even came up with a use for it-- liquid rocket boosters for the SLS Block 2 which will need all new disposable boosters. A pair of F-1B's on each side LRB would replace the SRB's and give a substantial upgrade to SLS over even the new spiral filament wound disposable SRB's that ATK proposes. Of course there's too much pressure to use the solids for it to ever gain traction... they called their LRB's the "Pyrios" boosters after the horse that pulled Apollo's chariot across the sky, IIRC. Haven't heard much about it since then, but then I kinda lost interest once it was clear that they were ONLY going to build some frankenshuttle freakishly expensive hot mess, because of political reasons.

SO YEAH we COULD build a Saturn V clone, and it would be AWESOME with improved technology that they didn't have time or money or hadn't been invented back in the 60's, but NOPE, gotta keep Alabama and Louisiana and Utah happy doin the same old same old at 10X the price... for as long as it lasts...

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-17-2022, 06:21 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackshire
An expendable Saturn V doesn't make economic sense today, now that reusable lower stages are in use (and with SpaceX's Starship/Super Heavy Booster, *both* stages will be fully-reusable). But a delta-winged, reusable S-IC (Saturn V first stage) *would* make economic sense. The winged S-IC was the last reusable booster considered in the Space Shuttle design competition; it was an efficient design, NASA liked it, it could carry large expendable upper stages as well as a winged orbiter, and Boeing was chomping at the bit to build it...but it didn't reduce the overall Shuttle development cost enough to pass Congressional muster. Also:

Some concern was expressed that its F-1 engines weren't reusable, but the Rocketdyne engineers who developed it said that the F-1 could be made reusable with little trouble. Also, a single F-1 had once been static fired for an hour, so even the existing F-1 design could loft about 24 booster flights (1 hour divided by the 2-1/2 minute S-IC burn time during a launch). If the 33' diameter S-IC tankage tooling is all gone, the 26' diameter Shuttle External Tank tooling is not (the SLS core stage is built using it), so a slimmer--and a bit longer--winged "universal heavy-lift booster" similar to the winged S-IC could be built. As well as large upper stages, it could even carry a winged orbiter (with the smaller payload bay that NASA--but not the USAF--had wanted, and all-internal propellant tankage, or perhaps two side-mounted, jettison-able liquid hydrogen tanks, like the Grumman H-33 orbiter design), at last realizing the original Space Shuttle concept. (If an H-33-like orbiter, either delta-winged or straight-winged, was used, the jettisoned liquid hydrogen tanks could be retained in orbit for use as--or as components of--space stations, in-orbit propellant depots, interplanetary spaceships, etc.)


No need for stupid wings... just put a couple (few) Merlins or other smaller kerosene engines (like the FASTRAC engine NASA developed that Merlin was originally based on, but Merlins are reusable, so buy them from Musk and save the trouble) on the bottom of the F-1 powered first stage for the reentry burn and landing burn, and put some legs on it. Use the same reentry and landing method as Falcon 9. No reason it's got to be expendable. The F-1's aren't suitable for use as a landing engine-- too high a thrust, not deeply throttleable... so install a couple landing engines on it-- they can supplement thrust on the way up, and then perform the reentry and landing burn for the first stage.

Technically it should be possible to build a reusable second stage as well-- but the performance hit for the extra gear hits the performance MUCH harder, so it has to be studied in trades to see if it's worthwhile to do so. Either an inflatable heat shield like they're testing now, or make it a "hot structures" type heat shield... A single J-2 could act as a landing engine, perhaps. They're restartable and throttleable, perhaps would have to be made deeply throttleable, but it's not technically impossible.

Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-17-2022, 10:17 PM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke strawwalker
No need for stupid wings... just put a couple (few) Merlins or other smaller kerosene engines (like the FASTRAC engine NASA developed that Merlin was originally based on, but Merlins are reusable, so buy them from Musk and save the trouble) on the bottom of the F-1 powered first stage for the reentry burn and landing burn, and put some legs on it. Use the same reentry and landing method as Falcon 9. No reason it's got to be expendable. The F-1's aren't suitable for use as a landing engine-- too high a thrust, not deeply throttleable... so install a couple landing engines on it-- they can supplement thrust on the way up, and then perform the reentry and landing burn for the first stage.

Technically it should be possible to build a reusable second stage as well-- but the performance hit for the extra gear hits the performance MUCH harder, so it has to be studied in trades to see if it's worthwhile to do so. Either an inflatable heat shield like they're testing now, or make it a "hot structures" type heat shield... A single J-2 could act as a landing engine, perhaps. They're restartable and throttleable, perhaps would have to be made deeply throttleable, but it's not technically impossible.

Later! OL J R
I agree; I was being conservative regarding retaining the reusable S-IC's (its 26' diameter follow-on's) wings, because of doubts about whether the F-1 (or F-1A or F-1B) engines could be throttled enough to facilitate re-entry burns and powered landings. (Chrysler's SERV SSTO vehicle--which would have worked, because such big SSTOs are more efficient than small ones, due to scaling effects on component masses--used multiple hydrolox J-2S engines' hardware arranged to create an aerospike engine for ascent, but it used 28 vertically-and-internally-mounted turbojet engines for descent and landing, *not* the J-2S aerospike rocket unit [see: https://www.google.com/search?q=SER...chrome&ie=UTF-8 ].)
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024