SpaceX Falcon 9 historic landing thread (1st landing attempt & most recent missions)

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It is a new strong back, designed for the Falcon Heavy. They mentioned that it retracts at the last min, kind of like the Soyuz support structure, during the broadcast.

Thanks, I missed that bit. I usually watch the Technical Feed, but since it wasn't available I turned the sound down. I appreciate that Spacex does the Hosted feed, but at times it kinda bugs, if you know what I mean...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Echostar 23 launch, at one time listed as Feb 28th, now NET March 12th. Figured it would be later than the 28th but sorta surprised it's been pushed that far (Turns out it's a few extra days longer than it would be due to range scheduling conflicts by other vehicles). Shows even more why it was good NASA got CRS-10 to be swapped ahead of it.

Posted by Ticket2ride21 on Reddit:

"Spotted in Quartzsite AZ"

f3blx5F.jpg


Well, below is the best image I have seen as to how the back end of the "trailer" works. Of course there is no trailer that the Falcon is put onto, there are wheeled transportation assemblies (do not know what SpaceX calls them) that attach to it as the Falcon itself is the structural backbone of the "trailer". Anyway, one big pivot on this wheeled assembly, so the back end can be steered as needed. Not knowing much about the logistics, I figure they lock that out straight for driving down the highway and only activate it for slow tight turns like this.

F8Ub76h.jpg



Found the drawing below today, a Falcon-9 drawing by Ed Kyle, posted on NSF. The dimensions are subject to error as they are determined by photos. SpaceX does not have any info on dimensions other than the most basic

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41947.0

Ed Kyle's post is #15, at this link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41947.msg1645942#msg1645942

index.php
 
Last edited:
Well, below is the best image I have seen as to how the back end of the "trailer" works. Of course there is no trailer that the Falcon is put onto, there are wheeled transportation assemblies (do not know what SpaceX calls them) that attach to it as the Falcon itself is the structural backbone of the "trailer". Anyway, one big pivot on this wheeled assembly, so the back end can be steered as needed. Not knowing much about the logistics, I figure they lock that out straight for driving down the highway and only activate it for slow tight turns like this.

I've worked on bridges before where they brought the bridge beams in on trailers like this. You are exactly right on how it works. Also, if you'll note on the trailer unit there is a door open on the side. When they go to make a turn like this they fire up a gas powered hydraulic pump so it can steer while an operator walks around with a R/C unit that controls the steering. It's kinda cool.
 
I've worked on bridges before where they brought the bridge beams in on trailers like this. You are exactly right on how it works. Also, if you'll note on the trailer unit there is a door open on the side. When they go to make a turn like this they fire up a gas powered hydraulic pump so it can steer while an operator walks around with a R/C unit that controls the steering. It's kinda cool.

On some of the trucks, the RC transmitter is located in the rear pilot escort vehicle ( the pump unit can be started remotely), its one of the few times a P/E vehicle is allowed to have two persons in it other than for training. I happen to be a WA state qualified P/E operator and qualified flagger. Those extreme oversize loads like the Falcons while not particularly heavy have some very special routing requirements.
 
In the thread Space X What am I missing: https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?139192

sopirV wrote:

I'm sure this will be a lightning rod of a post, but can someone explain why the approach of the SpaceX team with falcon makes sense? The argument I understand is that significant costs can be saved if we don't modify the aeronautics of a reusable vehicle- IOW, vertical take off is best suited by vertical landing.

Where I'm stuck is the fact that the vehicle needs to carry/reserve fuel for the landing. How is that more economical than supplying enough of the good stuff to get the job done, and then having to save some we can return vertical?

I've moved my reply over to this thread as I think it is more appropriate, and others who follow this thread can see it. Some of what I mention here will be news (like Falcon 9 Block 5). And some a re-hash of discussions going way way back. But part of it I don't think was discussed in the same way, such as the way I'm starting it off below.

Let's say an expendable rocket's first stage needs to burn "100,000 units" of fuel by staging, for its second stage to put a given payload mass to a given orbit. Well, say you may need 6% of that fuel, or 6,000 units in order to be able to land on a barge on the ocean, and account for extra mass like landing legs and steering grid fins. So, you do not build the booster to hold 100,000 units of fuel, you build it a bit bigger (longer) to hold 106,000 units of fuel.

Why "only" 6% more fuel to be able to land? Because the rocket is VERY light with the upper stage and most of the fuel gone. So it does not need a lot of fuel to be able to maneuver, and land.

Yes, it costs a BIT more, but it is way less than 6% more cost since the main thing they need to do is to make the fuel tanks 6% longer, which does not cost much in raw materials. And if your company BUILDS its own tanks (as SpaceX does, they build as much as they can in-house), the labor and machinery is not going to cost much more to make the tanks 6% longer. The cost of the engines, guidance system, and so forth is the same (long as there is enough thrust, and the current uprated version of the 9 Merlin engines have plenty of thrust). As long as the extra mass does not over-stress something that should have been made a bit stronger (and indeed some components may need to be a bit stronger).

So, it costs a bit more to be able to have the extra fuel to be able to land on a barge in the ocean. If it lands successfully, then it can be a whole lot cheaper to be able to re-fly it, than to build a new booster. The unknowns, publicly, is what it costs for doing the ocean recoveries, what it costs to refurbish it to be able to fly again. But if the booster costs $30 million to build, and it costs $5 million total for recovery and refurbishment, that's $25 million savings. Now they have definitely spent many millions on the two ASDS landing barges, and some more on the dock infrastructures, but they also have spent many million on the launch pads, hangars, and other facilities. So the up-front cost of the ASDS barges should be amortized over time by the number of boosters that land on them that can be reused, which otherwise would splash into the ocean.

As things stand currently, it SEEMS like SpaceX is not giving a discount on previously used rockets, calling them "flight proven". Though nobody really knows for sure what the customer for the first re-flown booster will pay, full price or maybe a "secret" discount.

Now, I referred to using 6% fuel to be able to land on a barge at sea. Well, what if the customer payload is extra-heavy for the orbit it needs to go to, like GTO (Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit)? Make use of that 6% of "landing fuel", to get the payload into orbit, and not try to recover the booster. And that is exactly what will happen on the next flight, Echostar-23. It is so heavy that the booster will be expendable, it will not have landing legs or grid fins.

But let's flip that problem around the other way. What if the payload only needs to go to Low Earth Orbit, and/or is not very heavy? So there can be more fuel left over, like say 10%? Well, with 10% fuel left over, it can use that extra 4% to "boost back", literally stop its downrange motion and push back to Return To Launch Site (RTLS). That is exactly what CRS-10's booster did on Sunday. The Dragon spacecraft only goes into LEO, and is not THAT heavy (relative to the current Falcon's capability), so there is a lot of extra fuel available. So, it was able to use that extra fuel to land back at the Cape. Which saves time and money compare to sending a barge and a ship or two out to sea, spending days on the ocean and then back to port and using a crane to lift it from the barge to a special stand on the dock.

BTW - when Falcon Heavy (FH) is operational, it will have the greatest payload lifting capability since the Saturn-V. It will use three Falcon-9 boosters. All three firing at liftoff, then the middle throttling down a lot to use less fuel while the two side boosters do most of the work until the side boosters shut down. But the center core will have a LOT of fuel left in it, so after the side boosters are gone it can throttle up and fly a lot father downrange before it shuts down and the 2nd stage takes over. On a typical FH flight, the two side boosters will RTLS back to the Cape. And the center core will land on an ASDS Barge in the ocean. So, if things go well, they will get back all three of the first stage boosters. On some lighter payloads to LEO, they even plan to land the center core back at the Cape too. While for some really heavy payloads, they'll use all the fuel for the payload and the center core will be expendable.

I know this sounded extremely unlikely a few years ago. But they've developed this very carefully over the years, doing a number of landing test flights at McGregor, Texas. And they have worked out the bugs of the launch vehicle for landing more reliably (though "stuff happens", so if they get in say 10 flights I won't be surprised if there's a booster crash landing this year, I would be surprised if they crashed several). The last landing failure due to the vehicle was a bit over a year ago when a landing leg latch failed to lock, allowing the leg to fold and rocket to fall over. They also had a crash later but they knew it was a high-risk landing (extra-heavy payload so they had less fuel to use) and literally ran it out of fuel before it could land.

What's certainly left to be seen is how well the re-used boosters fare. SpaceX has already announced that late this year they will have "Block 5" of the Falcon-9, with some upgrades. And part of the upgrades are to make it capable of holding up to the re-entries better, so they expect to get many flights per booster out of that version. Which implies that the current ones won't get reused much, maybe only two flights, probably not more than three (A couple of the boosters that made risky super-hot re-entries, may never fly again. But the damage they had is showing SpaceX what they need to work on).

In late March or early April, there will be the first re-flown booster.

BTW - The above examples of 6% fuel for ASDS barge landings, and 10% for RTLS, are from memory of discussion on NSF forums 2 year ago or more. So, i'm not quite sure of the numbers. The RTLS might be 12%. And in any case it was "experts" doing the math to derive the % it would take. SpaceX has never said, IIRC. But in any case, even if a few percent off, the examples are useful for understanding how it does NOT require a lot of fuel to land, and that if a rocket is built on purpose to have more fuel than it needs to put a given payload into a given orbit, it can have the capability to use extra fuel to land vertically. And the way SpaceX builds their rocket boosters, it does not cost them much more to build longer tanks to achieve that capability.

Also, a lot of simplifications in the examples. For example, if the rocket needs 6% of fuel to land at sea, and you build the rocket to be able to hold 6% more fuel...... that is not enough. Because of the added mass of that extra 6% of fuel, and the added mass of the longer tanks. So...... it needs MORE fuel (and slightly longer tanks to hold that extra-extra fuel) in order to lift the extra 6% of fuel. Mind blown yet? :) May not need more than 1% extra-extra fuel though (not sure).

So, yeah.

They have to account for all that kind of stuff too. But they did it.

Finally, below, is a drawing showing the various versions (Including the original single engine Falcon 1). The original Falcon-9 (v 1.0) was shorter than today's, and had no capability for landing. Then they stretched the tanks (v 1.1) to give the Falcon not only more fuel to land, but far more fuel to boost heavier payloads too. Notably they also stretched the upper stage tankage as well, a major performance boost. Then for v 1.2 they uprated the Merlin engines, calling it "Full Thrust" or Falcon FT (not officially calling it v 1.2, IIRC). They are inconsistent with their designation for the versions, as shown by "Block 5" coming up late this year, when they have not used the word "Block" for any previous version (and it is not clear if the current vehicle is therefore the 4th version of Falcon 9 or what, since they've only had 3 publicly designated versions. And FH is supposed to be "current version Falcon" with modifications as needed to adapt the current type to a Falcon Heavy core and side boosters. When block 5 comes around then FH will also use block 5 boosters, modified to fly as FH).

See Wiki at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_(rocket_family)

800px-Falcon_rocket_family3.svg.png
 
Last edited:
I think the other point is that the extra 6%, 10% or whatever it is might be available without adding extra fuel. This is because there is already a certain amount of extra fuel required to account for potential inefficiencies in the engine. As an example, let's say you are taking a 200 mile trip in a car, and your car normally gets 20 miles per gallon. Your going to need more than 10 gallons of gas in your gas tank just in case you happen to get slightly less than 20 MPG. This could happen due to road conditions or a head wind, or the engine not quite running at full efficiency. A few extra gallons of gas will help to make sure that you make it to your destination, and once there you should have enough extra gas to make some side trips.

I think the same thing applies to the Falcon. There is extra fuel to ensure the success of the mission. However, since most flights are nominal, there will almost always be extra fuel left over, which allows for landing. For missions where some minor problems use more than the nominal amount of fuel, the landing would have to be aborted.
 
On some of the trucks, the RC transmitter is located in the rear pilot escort vehicle ( the pump unit can be started remotely), its one of the few times a P/E vehicle is allowed to have two persons in it other than for training. I happen to be a WA state qualified P/E operator and qualified flagger. Those extreme oversize loads like the Falcons while not particularly heavy have some very special routing requirements.

I've also seen them with a small cabin that looks like an X-wing cockpit on the front of the rear wheelset. I don't know if they use that for highway driving or just surface streets off the highway.
 
Where I'm stuck is the fact that the vehicle needs to carry/reserve fuel for the landing. How is that more economical than supplying enough of the good stuff to get the job done, and then having to save some we can return vertical?

I think that one other thing worth amplifying in George's post is that making the rocket a little longer probably isn't very expensive if it's done at the design stage. You do add weight and need slightly more powerful engines, but if that is designed in from scratch, it's not super-expensive. One thing that always surprises me about manufacturing is that the manhours are what's expensive, not so much the materials. As long as you planned for it, an engine that develops 105 kN of thrust isn't really any more manhours than one that develops 100 kN. Same thing with making the boosters and tanks longer. As long as you don't add a weld seam, it's just a difference in how long a plate you send through the same rolling machine.

Anything done after the design goes to production is an expensive nightmare that you chase through your entire project, often finding at the last minute that you have to scrap lots of expensive stuff.
 
Another reply here, from a message in the "Space X what am I missing?" thread.

Everything above mentions a lot of savings.
The sheer cost of softlanding in the ocean: chutes, deployment hdw, etc.
But the barge equipment to find, lift, load and carry back to another unloading / loading equipment system to take it to a refurbishing facility, the decontamination of the salty sea water is a huge cost alone.

Some of what you mention does not apply to Falcon-9 landings, sounds more like Shuttle SRB's. Are you sure you really know what they are like? No Chutes. No barge equipment to "find", or lift, or load, as the Falcon lands directly on the deck. Not a lot of "salty" issues since the rocket does not land in the ocean. Although in rough seas it might get some seawater spray on it externally, not much beyond a mist should be able to get inside (I know no specifics but would expect they have designed to minimize that issue. If it was really a major concern I'd expect they'd design in some fine spray mister nozzles in the engine compartment and hook up a hose to pump onboard fresh water to wash away any ocean water mist. Totally speculating there, *IF* it was an issue they otherwise did not resolve any other way). Of course there is also damp salty air.....which also exists at the launch pad.

And of course for the RTLS landings back to the Cape, even simpler and cheaper.

The cost of re-use is significant., but way less than the cost of a new F-9 booster. Kind of like using reloadable rocket motors. The extra cost for a reload casing is more, and there is the "refurbishment" issue of disassembling, cleaning, and then assembling a new motor. But the cost per flight is a lot less than an expendable.

As I said earlier, even if it cost $5 million for re-use, that is a huge savings over $30 million for the booster. The bigger question is whether the re-used boosters can be as reliable as new ones.
 
Last edited:
I've also seen them with a small cabin that looks like an X-wing cockpit on the front of the rear wheelset. I don't know if they use that for highway driving or just surface streets off the highway.

Boeing has, for wide body wing spars, trucks with a second driver in that aft set of wheels that might fit this description. Of course 777 wing spars aren't as big as a Falcon 9 booster, but they are rather long and apparently benefit greatly from these steerable-at-both-ends truck/trailer combinations. But they make rather more frequent albeit shorter trips at current production rates.
 
Elon tweeted there will be a big SpaceX announcement tomorrow at 1pm PST.

I'm guessing it's another update on a Falcon Heavy launch schedule, but we've seen those aren't really worth the paper they're written on so hopefully it's about something about his manned launches. It would be great if SpaceX has been given clearance to launch astronauts into space and not just cargo - but I'm sure if that has happened we'd have heard about it from other sources.

Any guesses?
 
Elon tweeted there will be a big SpaceX announcement tomorrow at 1pm PST.

I'm guessing it's another update on a Falcon Heavy launch schedule, but we've seen those aren't really worth the paper they're written on so hopefully it's about something about his manned launches. It would be great if SpaceX has been given clearance to launch astronauts into space and not just cargo - but I'm sure if that has happened we'd have heard about it from other sources.

Any guesses?

I forget where I saw this (probably facebook):

"Elon Musk announces and announcement, and the world goes nuts. How does he do it?"
 
Perhaps an interesting payload for Falcon Heavy's first flight.

Such as a re-flown Dragon spacecraft (no crew).

Really wild would be to fly it to the moon and back.
 
Here's the news:

A 2-person privately paid for flight around the moon in 2018, aboard a Falcon Heavy launched Dragon spacecraft.

Of course, 2018 seems wildly optimistic (more than three times "six months" away) so more likely 2019-2020.

https://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02...rewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year

SPACEX TO SEND PRIVATELY CREWED DRAGON SPACECRAFT BEYOND THE MOON NEXT YEAR


We are excited to announce that SpaceX has been approached to fly two private citizens on a trip around the moon late next year. They have already paid a significant deposit to do a moon mission. Like the Apollo astronauts before them, these individuals will travel into space carrying the hopes and dreams of all humankind, driven by the universal human spirit of exploration. We expect to conduct health and fitness tests, as well as begin initial training later this year. Other flight teams have also expressed strong interest and we expect more to follow. Additional information will be released about the flight teams, contingent upon their approval and confirmation of the health and fitness test results.

Most importantly, we would like to thank NASA, without whom this would not be possible. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, which provided most of the funding for Dragon 2 development, is a key enabler for this mission. In addition, this will make use of the Falcon Heavy rocket, which was developed with internal SpaceX funding. Falcon Heavy is due to launch its first test flight this summer and, once successful, will be the most powerful vehicle to reach orbit after the Saturn V moon rocket. At 5 million pounds of liftoff thrust, Falcon Heavy is two-thirds the thrust of Saturn V and more than double the thrust of the next largest launch vehicle currently flying.

Later this year, as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, we will launch our Crew Dragon (Dragon Version 2) spacecraft to the International Space Station. This first demonstration mission will be in automatic mode, without people on board. A subsequent mission with crew is expected to fly in the second quarter of 2018. SpaceX is currently contracted to perform an average of four Dragon 2 missions to the ISS per year, three carrying cargo and one carrying crew. By also flying privately crewed missions, which NASA has encouraged, long-term costs to the government decline and more flight reliability history is gained, benefiting both government and private missions.

Once operational Crew Dragon missions are underway for NASA, SpaceX will launch the private mission on a journey to circumnavigate the moon and return to Earth. Lift-off will be from Kennedy Space Center’s historic Pad 39A near Cape Canaveral – the same launch pad used by the Apollo program for its lunar missions. This presents an opportunity for humans to return to deep space for the first time in 45 years and they will travel faster and further into the Solar System than any before them.

Designed from the beginning to carry humans, the Dragon spacecraft already has a long flight heritage. These missions will build upon that heritage, extending it to deep space mission operations, an important milestone as we work towards our ultimate goal of transporting humans to Mars.
 
Last edited:
Here's the news:

A 2-person privately paid for flight around the moon in 2018, aboard a Falcon Heavy launched Dragon spacecraft.

Of course, 2018 seems wildly optimistic (more than three times "six months" away) so more likely 2019-2020.

https://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02...rewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year

SPACEX TO SEND PRIVATELY CREWED DRAGON SPACECRAFT BEYOND THE MOON NEXT YEAR

This gives them a commercial incentive to get FH going. Very encouraging.

Three big steps to make this happen:
1. Crewed mission it ISS
2. Fly FH
3. Combine
 
Given what happens to his characters, I wouldn't ride with Mr. Hanks.

Never travel with Tom Hanks! He goes to the moon --- Houston we have a problem. He flies a jetliner --- ends up in the Hudson River. Passenger on a cargo jet --- ends up a castaway on a remote island talking to a volley ball.
 
I'd be interested to know who these two are and how much of a "significant deposit" they made to convince SpaceX to run with it.

I'm assuming in the range of 9 figures, or at least close to it.
 
Per a tweet by Elon Musk....."Static fire of Falcon 9 just completed. Targeting EchoStar XXIII launch from @NASA's Kennedy Space Center on Mar. 14, early morning EDT."
 
From a SpaceX news release:

HAWTHORNE, Calif. – Mar. 9, 2017. Following today’s static fire test, SpaceX is targeting the launch of the EchoStar XXIII satellite from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Tuesday, Mar. 14. The launch window opens at 1:34 a.m. EDT and closes at 4:04 a.m. EDT.

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket will deliver the satellite to a Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO).

Note that Tuesday March 14th is 1:34 AM EDT, so anyone who watches it will be staying up late "Monday" night.

Unlike most launches, this one does have a "window" in case of a delay. But with the Superchilled propellants, they need to load late and launch ASAP before the fuel gets "warmer" (not superchilled), otherwise the fuel capacity inside the tanks decreases. The only workaround in case of a delay that lets the fuel get too "warm", is to totally empty the rocket then start over with superchilled propellant. Not sure if they can really do that. So, if they have a delay of more than just a few minutes, it might be a scrub. Or else a very very long delay to empty and refill.

And a reminder that due to the mass of this satellite, launched to GTO, it's going to need too much fuel to have enough left over for the booster to try an ASDS ocean landing. So, it does not have any of the landing equipment attached (no legs, no grid fins, etc).

The booster will crash into the ocean.

Photo of the Satellite:

TzBqML1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sad they have to let that one crash. Happy they will (hopefully) be launching the first ever reused booster later this month/April.
 
I wonder if the fee for launching to GTO makes it worthwhile to lose a booster?

That satellite pic, it seems like it could tip over so easy. But then again I suppose it has to be designed to be perfectly balanced not only for the way up but to remain stable once in orbit.
 
I wonder if the fee for launching to GTO makes it worthwhile to lose a booster?

Keep in mind that the fees have all been for expendable flights. The successful landings have been a "bonus". And SpaceX builds their rockets so inexpensively (making as much as they can in-house, including the tanks and engines), that their total cost is far below anyone else's rockets for the same performance (payload mass to various orbit categories). The first stage is reportedly about $30 million, that may be 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of other first stage boosters (at least for US-built launch vehicles). So, if the re-use never worked out, they'd still be at a big price advantage over all the other US launch vehicle makers. Though they do need to avoid any more accidents and more big schedule delays.

The current version of F9, 1.2 FT (Block 4?), did at least three GTO flights last year, all risky landings since they did not have enough fuel to do a re-entry burn to help reduce re-entry heating. First try ran out of fuel above the ASDS barge and crashed into it, big hole in deck took 6-8 weeks before it could be used again (fortunately the flight schedule did not need it). Two others worked, but they got scorched. No official word but it seems like those two will never fly again. But they may have learned key things from those on what needed to be improved the most for the next version (block 5) to be able to be reflown more (Touted as a key upgrade of Bock 5). It is sounding like even the ones that had "gentle" re-entries and safe landings may not fly but 2 or 3 times (1 or 2 reflights), Block 5 is supposed to last for several more.

So, as to this booster being expended for a GTO launch, maybe a year ago they would have gone for it. Since the "hot" re-entries seemed to damage the boosters enough not to be practical to re-fly, little point in trying to land it and get it back. As well, they have changed the fuel loading process since then, due to the Atmos-6 Pad explosion, they cannot load it as full of superchilled propellants as before, so the vehicle is not at 100% of the capability it was before the change. Also they would be risking the ASDS barge a lot, with a big backlog of missions.

That satellite pic, it seems like it could tip over so easy.

Oh, that's outrageously silly.



No such thing could ever happen.



Ever.



Well.....



Whoops.....

eJy3b.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA-19

At least that happened due to a massive procedural mistake, not hardware design.

The satellite fell to the floor as a team was turning it into a horizontal position. A NASA inquiry into the mishap determined that it was caused by a lack of procedural discipline throughout the facility. While the turn-over cart used during the procedure was in storage, a technician removed twenty-four bolts securing an adapter plate to it without documenting the action. The team subsequently using the cart to turn the satellite failed to check the bolts, as specified in the procedure, before attempting to move the satellite.
 
Last edited:
No landing? Don't think I'll stay up that late if there is not going to be a landing...
 
Echostar-23 Launch is tonight.

Launch Window begins in about 8 hours, 1:34 AM EDT.

Extreme cloud cover is a concern. Forecast now 40% GO (meaning 60% they may not go).

If delayed to the 16th, weather then is 90% GO.

SpaceX webcasts supposed to start 20 minutes before then, 1:14 AM EDT

Hosted Webcast:

[video=youtube;lZmqbL-hz7U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZmqbL-hz7U[/video]

Technical Webcast:

[video=youtube;zl8mi7laQGk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl8mi7laQGk[/video]


And.... here it is on the pad.

index.php
 
Last edited:
Back
Top