darthgently Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 Ballutes! Suspend the cargo inside. Slow down up high with lower weight penalty. The driving design rule being to maximize blunt surface area using as little mass as possible. Keep it pressurized enough above Q all the way down to retain shape. If big enough to keep temps low enough maybe even silicone rubber would work. Might take a 60m radius sphere of 5 mil silicone rubber for a 15 metric ton payload according to grok3, fwiw. 4 to 5 m/s terminal velocity (!). It lands where it lands, lol Color it piebald like a big spherical cow. What’s not to like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVaughan Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 Large language models generally don't understand anything about either mathematics or the concepts they sprout. I wouldn't trust them to actually calculate anything more complex than a straightforward unit conversion. Most of them can't even correctly multiply two large numbers together. ChatGPT once said that one of the advantage of an underwater telescope would be to study the stars without atmospheric distortion. Consider them good at tasks like "When the training data talks about topic X, this word tends to come next after this other word". That means they can often parrot back information that is already in their training data, but makes them terribly unreliable once you get to anything that is outside their training data. In general, they do not have enough understanding to actually calculate anything, they just parrot back whatever information was in their training data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 On 3/27/2025 at 2:48 AM, AVaughan said: In general, they do not have enough understanding to actually calculate anything, they just parrot back whatever information was in their training data. Expand You forgot the word 'garbled' in your description. If you trained a LLM on flower names and color names, gave it the dataset 'Roses are red and violets are blue' then the odds of answering 'what color are violets?' would be ~50% 'red' and ~50% 'blue' because it was not trained on 'and' or 'are' in this context and could only look at proximity in the dataset for clues. I cannot imagine that there are many LLM that have been trained on enough rocketry information to have any context for the rocket equation beyond linking it to the name(if that). Leave LLMs to what they are good(ish) at: writing fiction in the style of a prolific author that is well represented in their dataset.(the stories may not be any good, but I have confidence that they word usage and sentence structure will match very well) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 I asked Grok 3 the following: "On a non rotating planet, launching from the equator, how much larger must a rocket be to place a satellite into a polar orbit relative to an equatorial orbit?" Which is obviously a trick question. If the planet is not rotating, there is no equatorial boost, and thus there is no difference in the size of the rocket required. The relevant part of Grok's response: Quote Expand While it does correctly calculate the Delta-V to make a plane change of 90 degrees once you are in orbit, it fails to grasp that a plane change is not needed, then makes up everything after that point, including what appears to be an arbitrary multiplication by the square root of two to correct an "overestimation" of cost which actually ends up 5 m/s higher. To its credit it does use real formulas everywhere, correctly reasons the orbital velocity, correctly describes the difference between an equatorial and polar orbit, and then afterwards has a wonderful long section where it does successfully reason through the rocket equation to find the required mass ratios to meet its (incorrect) Delta-V numbers. However it then divides these mass ratios by each other to come up with the answer. I guess that is true when the only extra thing you need to add is fuel and you only have a single stage. But it is a little misleading, though I could have phrased the question a little better. I did then remind Grok that the launch azimuth is not restricted to a specific direction and then it proceeded to absolutely nail the answer (though I specifically restricted the answer to Delta-V only). I would still hesitate to use it for complex things I know nothing about because I have no way of knowing it was correct. But to be honest I had a big "Oh no" moment there. The last time I used AI it couldn't even add up Delta-V numbers correctly or comprehend that landing on an atmospheric world took far less Delta-V than taking off from it. Before I asked this question I asked it about how shockwaves influence hypersonic heat shield design, and I couldn't actually tell if it was right or not. It was outside my ability. When I asked it about this I saw my entire profession flash before my eyes as I saw correct formula after correct formula pop onto the screen. I was relieved when I read through it. But it couldn't do anything near this a year ago, and right now it made one bad assumption towards an admittedly poorly worded question. Maybe this is the practical limit, but if it makes the same level of improvement next year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 On 3/27/2025 at 3:42 AM, Ultimate Steve said: I asked Grok 3 the following: "On a non rotating planet, launching from the equator, how much larger must a rocket be to place a satellite into a polar orbit relative to an equatorial orbit?" Which is obviously a trick question. If the planet is not rotating, there is no equatorial boost, and thus there is no difference in the size of the rocket required. The relevant part of Grok's response: While it does correctly calculate the Delta-V to make a plane change of 90 degrees once you are in orbit, it fails to grasp that a plane change is not needed, then makes up everything after that point, including what appears to be an arbitrary multiplication by the square root of two to correct an "overestimation" of cost which actually ends up 5 m/s higher. To its credit it does use real formulas everywhere, correctly reasons the orbital velocity, correctly describes the difference between an equatorial and polar orbit, and then afterwards has a wonderful long section where it does successfully reason through the rocket equation to find the required mass ratios to meet its (incorrect) Delta-V numbers. However it then divides these mass ratios by each other to come up with the answer. I guess that is true when the only extra thing you need to add is fuel and you only have a single stage. But it is a little misleading, though I could have phrased the question a little better. I did then remind Grok that the launch azimuth is not restricted to a specific direction and then it proceeded to absolutely nail the answer (though I specifically restricted the answer to Delta-V only). I would still hesitate to use it for complex things I know nothing about because I have no way of knowing it was correct. But to be honest I had a big "Oh no" moment there. The last time I used AI it couldn't even add up Delta-V numbers correctly or comprehend that landing on an atmospheric world took far less Delta-V than taking off from it. Before I asked this question I asked it about how shockwaves influence hypersonic heat shield design, and I couldn't actually tell if it was right or not. It was outside my ability. When I asked it about this I saw my entire profession flash before my eyes as I saw correct formula after correct formula pop onto the screen. I was relieved when I read through it. But it couldn't do anything near this a year ago, and right now it made one bad assumption towards an admittedly poorly worded question. Maybe this is the practical limit, but if it makes the same level of improvement next year... Expand This tracks my experience. Fun for ballparking something and fascinating to watch its process in “think” mode. Grok 3 is currently the leader in LLM analytical math but it can error in surprising ways especially if the prompt leaves it room to do so. Sometimes making the answer more complicated than necessary as your plane change experience showed. It is good at detecting problematic input. I had specified kt instead of mt for weight units and it quickly decided that kilotons was ridiculous for the problem and assumed I meant metric tons after also quickly determining knots made no sense at all. So that was interesting On 3/27/2025 at 3:22 AM, Terwin said: cannot imagine that there are many LLM that have been trained on enough rocketry information to have any context for the rocket equation beyond linking it to the name(if that). Expand Grok 3 in “think” mode is pretty far above that bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) On 3/27/2025 at 1:11 AM, darthgently said: Ballutes! Suspend the cargo inside. Slow down up high with lower weight penalty. The driving design rule being to maximize blunt surface area using as little mass as possible. Keep it pressurized enough above Q all the way down to retain shape. If big enough to keep temps low enough maybe even silicone rubber would work. Might take a 60m radius sphere of 5 mil silicone rubber for a 15 metric ton payload according to grok3, fwiw. 4 to 5 m/s terminal velocity (!). It lands where it lands, lol Color it piebald like a big spherical cow. What’s not to like? Expand There are several variations of this inflatable heat shield idea. The most researched one is a conical inflatable heat shield. It’s being investigated for example as a heat shield to make the Cygnus cargo capsule reusable: Here’s a research article on it: HEART FLIGHT TEST OVERVIEW 9th INTERNATIONAL PLANETARY PROBE WORKSHOP 16-22 JUNE 2012, TOULOUSE https://websites.isae-supaero.fr/IMG/pdf/137-heart-ippw-9_v04-tpsas.pdf As discussed there the parameter used to measure the capability of a particular shape to slow down descent is not wing loading, weight divided by wing area, but the ballistic coefficient, (mass)/(drag coefficient*drag area), β = m/CDA, given in metric units. This takes into account the fact different shapes are more effective in slowing down the spacecraft by including the coefficient of drag CD as well as being more general than just looking at wings for the decelerator. In this report, the mass used for their analysis is 5,000 kg and the diameter of their conical decelerator is 8.3 meters. There is thermal protection applied but I gather less of it is needed since the conical aeroshell is just made of silicone rubber. If it is just ballistic coefficient determining this then for a spacecraft or stage about 9 times heavier, say, 40,000+ kg, then the area needs to be 9 times more, that is, a conical shell about 25 meters in diameter. This is useful for just drag decelerators, but is incomplete for winged reentry because it does not include the effects of lift. For instance if wings with high lift/drag ratio at hypersonic speeds were used the descent rate would be decreased even further. The hypersonic aerodynamics of the Space Shuttle have been described as falling “like a brick.” Then wings with high L/D ratio could greatly improve on this. Bob Clark Edited March 27 by Exoscientist Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 On 3/27/2025 at 1:11 AM, darthgently said: Color it piebald like a big spherical cow. What’s not to like? Expand Grey, shaped like a sperm whale. Don’t panic ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 (edited) New high temperature ceramic heat shield materials promoted to SpaceX: AN OPEN LETTER TO ELON MUSK. Dr. Ed Pope https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7306136414910300160 Published 3/14/2025 MATECH, Cal Nano aim to commercialize UHT composites. The partnership’s combined technological advances and manufacturing prowess will target the scale-up and industrialization of FAST SPS for high-temp and UHT composites serving aviation, defense. https://www.compositesworld.com/news/matech-cal-nano-aim-to-commercialize-uht-composites Bob Clark Edited March 27 by Exoscientist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 Some comments removed. Stick to the topic, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 On 3/27/2025 at 8:33 PM, Exoscientist said: New high temperature ceramic heat shield materials promoted to SpaceX: Expand Normally I read your posts with my "Oh, this should be good" glasses, but no, this is very interesting. As Dr. Ed Pope says "{T}he current SpaceX approach is to make incremental improvements to outdated materials technology in the hope that its many deficiencies can be overcome. It’s 'throwing good money after bad.' Even worse, it’s wasting precious time." For those who didn't read the link, the technology being promoted is basically to make a reusable, ablatorless, tough carbon material called C/ZrOC that can be made into a thin aeroshell heat shield. C/ZrOC can be made large and in complex shapes, with insulating foam or blankets behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 On 3/28/2025 at 8:13 PM, Meecrob said: For those who didn't read the link, the technology being promoted is basically to make a reusable, ablatorless, tough carbon material called C/ZrOC that can be made into a thin aeroshell heat shield. C/ZrOC can be made large and in complex shapes, with insulating foam or blankets behind. Expand Grok3 search and analysis of the MATECH claims and related info about the material. Will be interesting to see what pans out: (I verified all the key citation links. The second to last citation link is the only one that 404s and this looks like a news feed that likely purges old news and grok referred to an old cache perhaps. Or hallucinated) Reveal hidden contents Key Points MATECH is a company specializing in advanced materials, particularly for high-temperature applications like orbital reentry. C/ZrOC, a carbon fiber-reinforced zirconium oxycarbide composite, seems likely to handle orbital reentry temperatures, with claims of withstanding up to 2760°C (5000°F). Research suggests these claims are supported by testing in government labs, but specific data may not be publicly available due to defense contracts. Overview of MATECH MATECH, based in Westlake Village, California, focuses on developing innovative materials for high-temperature environments. Since its founding in 1989, it has worked on ceramic fibers and ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) for applications in hypersonics, propulsion, and space reentry. Their expertise lies in creating materials that can endure extreme conditions, making them relevant for aerospace and defense sectors. C/ZrOC and Orbital Reentry Temperatures C/ZrOC is a composite material combining carbon fibers with a zirconium oxycarbide matrix, designed for ultra-high-temperature (UHT) applications. MATECH claims it can handle temperatures up to 2760°C, which is higher than typical orbital reentry temperatures (around 1500-2000°C for Low Earth Orbit reentry). This makes it a potential candidate for heat shields on spacecraft, especially for more demanding reentries like those from lunar or Mars missions. The evidence leans toward MATECH’s claims being substantiated, as the material has been tested in multiple government labs and is at pre-qualification status for hypersonic and missile defense applications. However, detailed test results are not publicly accessible, likely due to the sensitive nature of defense contracts. Unexpected Detail: Defense Applications An interesting aspect is C/ZrOC’s use in hypersonic aeroshells, which extends beyond orbital reentry to include missile defense. This dual-purpose application highlights its versatility, potentially impacting both civilian space access and military technology. Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of MATECH and C/ZrOC for Orbital Reentry MATECH, or Materials and Technologies, Corp., is a California-based company established in 1989, recognized for its leadership in developing advanced materials for high-temperature applications. The company’s focus includes optical, electronic, bio-materials, and particularly ultra-high-temperature (UHT) ceramic fibers and ceramic matrix composites (CMCs). These materials are critical for industries such as aerospace, defense, and space exploration, where extreme thermal conditions are encountered, such as during orbital reentry. Understanding C/ZrOC C/ZrOC is a composite material developed by MATECH, consisting of carbon fibers reinforced with a zirconium oxycarbide (ZrOC) matrix. Zirconium oxycarbide is a ceramic compound known for its stability in reducing gases and potential for high-temperature resistance, while carbon fibers provide structural strength. This combination is designed for non-ablative heat shields and thermal protection systems (TPS), aiming to maintain shape and functionality under intense heat without significant material loss. MATECH claims that C/ZrOC can withstand temperatures up to 5000°F (2760°C), which is significantly higher than the typical orbital reentry temperatures for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) spacecraft, generally ranging from 1500°C to 2000°C. For comparison, the Space Shuttle’s heat shield tiles were designed for up to 1650°C, and the Apollo command module’s heat shield could handle around 2200°C. Given these benchmarks, C/ZrOC’s claimed temperature tolerance suggests it could be suitable not only for LEO reentry but also for more extreme scenarios, such as reentry from lunar or Mars missions, which involve higher heat fluxes. Substantiation of Claims MATECH’s claims for C/ZrOC are supported by extensive testing and development efforts. According to public statements, the material has been tested in multiple government laboratories under extreme conditions, with temperatures reaching up to 2760°C. For instance, a CompositesWorld article from July 2024 notes that C/ZrOC has been deployed in hypersonic aeroshells and tested up to 2760°C, aligning with MATECH’s claims. Additionally, an X post by Dr. Ed Pope, a consultant associated with MATECH, mentions that samples are available for purchase after testing in government labs up to 5000°F (Dr. Ed Pope’s X post). The material has also achieved pre-qualification status for hypersonic and missile defense applications, as noted in various reports, including a Wanlitex article from July 2024, which highlights its use in defense contracts. In 2023, MATECH completed a production run of 50 kilograms of C/ZrOC for a defense customer, with plans for an additional 70 kilograms in 2024, indicating practical application and scalability. However, the specific details of these tests, such as exact conditions simulating orbital reentry (e.g., heat flux, pressure, and duration), are not publicly available. This is likely due to the defense-related nature of the projects, which often involve classified information. Despite this, the company’s history of innovation, including patents for high-temperature CMCs, and their collaboration with major defense contractors, lend credibility to their claims. Material Properties and Relevance to Orbital Reentry To understand C/ZrOC’s suitability, it’s helpful to examine the properties of its components. Zirconium oxycarbide has been studied in academic literature for its stability, particularly in reducing atmospheres, with some studies indicating stability up to 800°C in certain conditions (PMC article on ZrOC). However, MATECH’s composite form, with carbon fiber reinforcement, enhances its thermal and mechanical properties, enabling it to handle much higher temperatures. A Scientific Reports article on zirconium carbide (related to oxycarbide) discusses its potential for ultrahigh-temperature applications, such as coatings for hypersonic vehicles, suggesting a family of materials with similar capabilities. The non-ablative nature of C/ZrOC is particularly noteworthy. Unlike ablative materials that erode during reentry, C/ZrOC is designed to maintain its structure, which is crucial for reusable spacecraft and long-duration missions. This property is supported by MATECH’s statements about its use in reusable heat shields for commercial spacecraft, as mentioned in the Wanlitex article. Comparative Analysis and Potential Limitations Comparing C/ZrOC to existing materials, traditional heat shields like those on the Space Shuttle used silica tiles or carbon-carbon composites, with temperature limits around 1650°C. Newer materials, such as silicon carbide (SiC) CMCs, can handle higher temperatures, but MATECH’s C/ZrOC claims a significant advantage with its 2760°C tolerance. This is particularly relevant for future missions, such as Mars return, which involve higher reentry speeds and heat fluxes. Potential limitations include the lack of publicly available peer-reviewed academic papers specifically on C/ZrOC, which could provide independent validation. While MATECH’s testing in government labs is a strong indicator, the absence of detailed public data means some uncertainty remains for lay audiences. Additionally, the cost and manufacturability, while claimed to be low, need further validation in commercial contexts beyond defense applications. Historical Context and Innovation MATECH’s journey since 1989 includes developing preceramic polymers for various ceramics, such as silicon carbide, silicon nitride, and hafnium carbide, all for high-temperature structural applications (Matechgsm website). Their work on C/ZrOC builds on this foundation, with a focus on UHT materials for hypersonics and space. This long-term commitment is evidenced by their patents, such as one for a process to fabricate CMCs with enhanced temperature resistance (USACA news on patent), though not specifically for C/ZrOC. Tables for Clarity To organize the information, here is a table comparing C/ZrOC to traditional heat shield materials: Material Max Temperature (°C) Application Ablative/Non-Ablative Silica Tiles ~1650 Space Shuttle heat shield Non-Ablative Carbon-Carbon ~2200 Apollo heat shield, nose cones Ablative SiC CMC ~2000-2500 Hypersonic, reentry Non-Ablative C/ZrOC (MATECH) 2760 Hypersonic, orbital reentry Non-Ablative And a timeline of MATECH’s key developments: Year Milestone 1989 Founded, began R&D on high-temperature ceramics 2019 Received patent for CMC fabrication process 2023 Produced 50 kg of C/ZrOC for hypersonic testing 2024 Contract for hypersonic aeroshells, further orders planned Conclusion In summary, MATECH’s C/ZrOC composite is a promising material for handling orbital reentry temperatures, with claims supported by testing in government labs and practical applications in defense. Its ability to withstand 2760°C positions it well for future space missions, though the lack of detailed public data introduces some uncertainty. For users seeking a material for extreme reentry conditions, C/ZrOC appears to be a strong candidate, backed by MATECH’s decades of expertise. Key Citations CompositesWorld article on MATECH C/ZrOC deployment Wanlitex article on ultra-high-temperature composites PMC article on zirconium oxycarbide properties Scientific Reports on zirconium carbide stoichiometry USACA news on MATECH’s CMC patent Matechgsm website on ceramic fibers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 On 3/28/2025 at 8:13 PM, Meecrob said: Normally I read your posts with my "Oh, this should be good" glasses, but no, this is very interesting. As Dr. Ed Pope says "{T}he current SpaceX approach is to make incremental improvements to outdated materials technology in the hope that its many deficiencies can be overcome. It’s 'throwing good money after bad.' Even worse, it’s wasting precious time." For those who didn't read the link, the technology being promoted is basically to make a reusable, ablatorless, tough carbon material called C/ZrOC that can be made into a thin aeroshell heat shield. C/ZrOC can be made large and in complex shapes, with insulating foam or blankets behind. Expand to be fair the current problem is not the tps, but it certainly is slowing down the testing of same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 On 3/29/2025 at 1:53 AM, Nuke said: to be fair the current problem is not the tps, but it certainly is slowing down the testing of same. Expand No excrement, lol, but you can work on more than one thing at once, right? The thermal is an aspect that isn't in line with the order-of-magnitude type changes on SS/SH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 On 3/29/2025 at 2:33 AM, Meecrob said: No excrement, lol, but you can work on more than one thing at once, right? The thermal is an aspect that isn't in line with the order-of-magnitude type changes on SS/SH Expand i mean they tested their new tiles in the plasma wind tunnel, only thing left is a live test that you cant do if your ship blows up before it gets mostly to orbit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Doesn't Starship need to survive the launch to practice reentry? (I don't think the TPS tiles are the current problem) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 On 3/28/2025 at 8:13 PM, Meecrob said: Normally I read your posts with my "Oh, this should be good" glasses, but no, this is very interesting. As Dr. Ed Pope says "{T}he current SpaceX approach is to make incremental improvements to outdated materials technology in the hope that its many deficiencies can be overcome. It’s 'throwing good money after bad.' Even worse, it’s wasting precious time." For those who didn't read the link, the technology being promoted is basically to make a reusable, ablatorless, tough carbon material called C/ZrOC that can be made into a thin aeroshell heat shield. C/ZrOC can be made large and in complex shapes, with insulating foam or blankets behind. Expand If this new high temperature material is able to solve the Starship thermal protection issues, I think SpaceX would accept this relatively mild criticism anyway. Bob Clark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) On 3/29/2025 at 3:20 PM, Exoscientist said: If this new high temperature material is able to solve the Starship thermal protection issues, I think SpaceX would accept this relatively mild criticism anyway. Bob Clark Expand I have a feeling SpaceX had a plan B with regards to thermal even before you brought this to my attention. SS/SH is shaping up to be a game-changer, but the one part that seemed off was the tiles. That's why I was seriously thinking that SpaceX was aiming to have the refuel ships without tiles. This changes everything though, as in if this technology performs as intended, its kinda like a cheat code almost. On 3/29/2025 at 5:05 AM, Nuke said: i mean they tested their new tiles in the plasma wind tunnel, only thing left is a live test that you cant do if your ship blows up before it gets mostly to orbit. Expand Oh, my apologies. I took the wrong meaning from your comment. Edited March 29 by Meecrob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuky Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 I feel that Spacex wants to do everything inhouse so they probably won't be looking into that. I guess making everything inhouse makes it cheaper and there is no fear pf supplier going bust. One option might be for Spacex to license that technology so they can build it by themselves for their use and not for sale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) You talk like SpaceX should be embarrassed....Far from it, my man! SpaceX basically invented new Space. They get to call the shots now....As much as I love NASA, the torch needs to be passed. Someone find that graphic of the amount of launches from countries around the world vs. SpaceX....and SpaceX is just breaking a sweat I imagine On 3/29/2025 at 3:20 PM, Exoscientist said: If this new high temperature material is able to solve the Starship thermal protection issues, I think SpaceX would accept this relatively mild criticism anyway. Bob Clark Expand I still feel that Elon has cards up his sleeve that he is waiting to play. Edited March 31 by Meecrob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Fram2 launch in 3 hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 NSF stream showing a large stormcloud with lightning, but not over the pad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 No official word, but the astronauts haven't gone to the pad yet and the weather's getting worse. The T-zero is still counting down, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 2 hours and the rain is coming down. Ah, Chun Wang just posted a clip of them closing the hatch. Looks like it's still go for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.