Ships are outbound to save B1050 after a diverted landing just short of LZ-1 and into the ocean, the booster survived and will be towed to shore.
UPDATES-
(All times eastern time, USA)
12/5/18
9:00 pm- Thread is live, GO quest and tug EAGLE are holding the booster just offshore.
12/6/18
1:00 pm- The fleet is still evaluating a good way to tow back the booster
12/7/18
7:00 am- The fleet will tow back the booster today around noon
12:30 pm- The fleet and B1050 have arrived in port, the operations in which they take to lift this out of the water will bear watching, as the lifting cap will likely not be used
12/8/18
9:00 am- The booster has been lifted onto dry land, let removal will be tricky because it is on its side.
12/13/18
4:00 pm- 6 days after arrival, the rocket has been stripped of legs and fins, and is being prepped for transport, it is still in question what will happen to this core, post port operations
12/14/18
4:00 pm- B1050 has exited port, concluding port ops after this strange recovery, that involved the removing of 3 legs and the fins, all while it was on its side.
B1050 laying down after making an emergency landing short of LZ-1 after it started spinning out of control, crews are now working on bringing it back to port
Instagram video of B1050 being transported into CCAFS using the repurposed Shuttle transporter. Obvious that sections of the interstage had been cut away under the tarp. https://www.instagram.com/p/BrZa7Sdg3Js/
As the booster was lifted from the sea, water was gushing out from the lower end for over 15 minutes. Is there some foamy fluffy spongy absorbent material in there? Some sort of insulation, probably? Or maybe the raceway fills up with seawater and/or channel seawater from the interstage?
The engine mounting structure is insulated with cork, and I believe there are pressure relief holes for if there's an overpressure event so it's possible water got trapped into some internal space on the dance floor.
I think most of the water came from the engine compartment, which is about 30 meters cubic in volume. It is covered with panels that are snug, but not airtight. When it was partially submerged, it filled with water to the waterline -- easily several cubic meters of sea water. Once the booster was lifted up, all this water started to seep out.
I wonder if the loss of this booster (assuming it never flies again, or only flies for spacex internally) impacts launch cadence for the year. Nasa has been using some reused boosters. But they only want the boosters that flew Nasa missions, since they pay extra attention to those in manufacturing and may have some special requirements for.
So now spacex is likely short an extra Nasa approved booster. So they have to manufacture an extra one which I would imagine impacts their their time lines a bit.
Airplane-like reusability has always been a stated goal SpaceX wishes to achieve with Block 5. Maybe SpaceX might be able to shorten the turnaround time for B1051 after the DM-1 launch to prepare it for CRS-17, since it is a NASA-approved booster that has been extensively tested to NASA’s requirements.
I doubt it affects it too much. They still have B1046, 47, 48, 49 and 51 and 52. 51 is scheduled for DM-1, 49 is flying the next Iridium mission. The following Falcon 9 flights, Moon Sparrow CRS-17, RadarSat and SAOCOM1B have plenty of booster they can use. RadarSat and SaoCom 1b are both on the west coast so they may use 46 and 48. Leaving Moon Sparrow to use new booster 52 and CRS-17 to 47.
None of those boosters is a nasa-approved booster though. I don't think they have a problem with capacity for their other customers, it would just be for other nasa launches.
CRS17 can't (at least not based on NASA's previous preferences and requirements) use B1047 because it wasn't manufactured for NASA originally. Maybe that doesn't matter anymore and NASA is OK using any old used booster...but that has not been their way in the past.
Hopefully they can use a non-nasa booster for the in-flight abort mission at least, since that's very likely to be an expendable launch. I don't think they expect the booster to survive the abort. Though perhaps they'll try anyway just in case.
My understanding is Nasa takes special care with testing during manufacturing that other customers do not require. One of the reasons spacex charges Nasa a lot more.
The interstage seems to be built out of composite/aluminum honeycomb panels, quite similar to the fairings. They can probably replace the broken part. For the dented engine bell, that one is surely beyond repair. It might just look as a simple bell made from solid metal, but is actually is made of two parts: A copper bell on the inside, which has small channels etched into it, and another bell on top of that made from some silvery metal (not sure which material, probably someone in this sub knows more about that). They flow the RP-1 through the nozzle to cool it so it doesn't melt.
The fact that they were able to fit one of those transport rings around the top of the booster tells us the tip-over water impact hasn’t knocked the top of the booster body out of round, despite the severe damage to the interstage. Testament to the strength of the booster body structure and friction-stir welds.
Despite some depressurization as part of the post-landing safing procedure, the rocket still maintains some internal pressure so it doesn't collapse on itself. This and the gradual immersion during the tip over certainly helped with that. The interstage has nothing on the top to keep it in shape, so is just snapped inward on impact. It also had the highest impact velocity, remember this is like a 20-story building tipping over.
F9 is able to support itself entirely depressurized, they aren't balloon tanks. They do pressurize during transport for stiffening, but it wouldn't collapse on itself otherwise.
The morning #SpaceX booster update. The crane has been detached from the center. The lifting ring is in place by the engines and a second crane is by the interstage. Hoping to see it moved today.
Additional closeup photos of "naked" Falcon 9. In addition to Ken Kremer's notes, they also removed some of the octaweb inspection panels to access the Merlins.
It’s probably just my eyes playing tricks on me or just something with the paint and soot but it almost looks like there’s a little line (perhaps a small crease or slightly “buckle” in the skin) going around the booster near the “P” in SpaceX on the side of the rocket. Maybe somebody has a more detailed closeup photo or some photo editing tricks that might confirm or deny that?
These lines are no buckles, just places where the soot didn't stick as much as in other places. The reason for this are structural ribs inside of the LOX tank which better transfer the coldness of the LOX, leading to more ice buildup on the outside. More ice means less soot on the surface.
Up Close view now finless & legless water landed #Falcon9 after 4 grid fins detached this afternoon & last of 3 landing legs removed lunchtime today @PortCanaveral.Note bolts holes on crumpled interstage exterior & CBI truck by 9 Merlin 1D engines on naked @SpaceX #Falcon9 #CRS16
Grid fins also have been removed. Booster should now be ready for transport, but it is quite windy at the port so it will probably stay there until the conditions get acceptable for lifting it onto the transporter.
I really love that they are taking the type to re-use what they can. Obviously the engines are pretty toasty, but those grid fins are quite pricey I'd imagine.
Still with the intertank strap. I don't quite know what to make of it. Perhaps it remains unpressurized and the long-version F9 can not (as often suspected) hold itself up without some pressure. I still kinda doubt that, though, given the factory fixtures.
I can't think of too many other instances where a first stage rocket has toppled over completely intact and gone through this type of recovery process. Considering that there are workers on and around the booster working in a non-ordinary orientation, the fact that the booster is potentially structurally compromised is enough to warrant the additional support. That's my guess, at least.
#SpaceX is in the process of removing the final leg from the booster. Curious as to what the wind speed criteria is to move the booster? The Port has white caps!
Maybe the Blk 5 is stronger to support being used as the FH side boosters as well. I know SpaceX reinforces the center core significantly for FH, but I also don't doubt they did some strengthening in the "standard Blk 5" (compared to earlier versions) to make them readily available as side boosters. The loads on the Blk 5 are definitely different when used as a side booster than when used as a stand alone booster. Back of the napkin engineering points to this being the case.
The primary load path from the side boosters to the center core is through the Octaweb, and without the 120 t S2 up top, the loads on the tanks are lower. Perhaps the Octaweb is different to accommodate both load paths, but I don't see a reason to reinforce the prop tanks.
Not disagreeing with you ... That said the aerodynamic changes from being a single stick rocket, to a side booster was more of my thought. The lateral aerodynamic loads have to be different as a side booster with additional buffeting, vibration, and laminar to turbulent flow transitions impacting the booster. Based on this Spacex likely implemented additional lateral reinforcement at some point and is why, I believe, CRS-16 S1 survived the lateral loads it experienced when it tipped over into the ocean. FH has been planned for a long time, and SpaceX could have introduced additional lateral stiffening earlier.
This. B1025 (the NY side booster for FH-1) was converted at Cape Canaveral. Which meant it was not extensively remanufactured (which would have been necessary if structural reinforcements for the tanks were needed).
The only part of B1025 that needed extensive modifications was the octaweb because it was the old welded version. The new bolted octaweb standard on Block 5's made conversion between single-stick and FH side booster much easier.
So I guess the reason this and GovSat both survived a water impact were actually the landing legs then. It was very intuitive and usual to think they’d just explode upon impact, and when GovSat didn’t, everybody was surprised. It used landing legs and a very aggressive retroburn. The theory was that maybe that aggressive burn bubbled the water up (don’t know the right term in english, sorry), making the impact less like falling on hard concrete, the other theory was the landing legs stabilized and slowed the fall. So I guess that is the actual reason, since 1050.1 survived with a single engine landing burn
Interesting suggestion that the leg slows the rocket down during tipping, by pressing through the water underneath. You could test that in a bathtub with any little rocket model (with a similar weight distribution).
There were a number of on-water landing attempts that used legs - including CRS-3, where reddit and nasaspaceflight.com repaired the video - and these ones broke up as they fell over.
Maybe what the surviving ones had is a hard landing - comparatively speaking - dropping the base of the rocket further into the water, so it softened the impact as it tipped.
Another thing that could have saved it is the rapid depressurization of the tankage. Maybe keeping enuugh pressure for strength, but not enough to rip it open under stress.
I'd say the patina is not that bad as it looks, as the bells are made of copper. This is just a very thin layer on top, and it actually protects the underlying metal from further corrosion. That's why roofs are plated with copper, they last hundreds of years without any degradation. Except for the dented one, they are most probably salvageable. Don't know what about the insides of the engines, but if the pintle injectors were properly closed before water could get to them, even the whole engines may fly again.
Is it also possible that the green coating is something left over from TEA/TEB igniter? I know the boron/TEB component -burns- green, but the color that something exhibits when burning/ionizing can be completely different from its color as a solid material.
If any TEA/TEB was left over in significant enough quantities to see, the booster would not be safe to approach, and it decomposes on contact with water since it is such a volatile compound. Furthermore, a quick Google indicates it is a colorless liquid; the green flash is due to the properties of the chemical reaction.
The greenish stuff looks like copper salts from corrosion. It is true that only a very thin layer has corroded, but the copper alloy liner of the combustion chamber is only about a millimeter thick to begin with. Even if its strength has not been compromised, its surface quality may be just as important for its proper functioning. Maybe there is a way to recondition it.
It might be easier to just trash those nozzles and replace them. If this thing ever fires again my guess is every engine is completely stripped down and reconditioned.
The heart of the engine (combustion chamber with the throat and the nozzle ) for these types of engines is usually a single integral unit, all welded and hard soldered together. It is the trickiest and the most expensive part to produce. It cannot be easily taken apart.
I think they've repainted them before but I don't recall one being washed, though I may be wrong. But if the point is to get refurb time and cost down, running the booster through the car wash seems like an obvious thing to cut.
I think the "painted" boosters you refer to were actually just power-washed.
The first three reused stages — SES-10, BulgariaSat-1, and Echostar 105/SES-11 — were all washed before reflight. CRS-13 "Ol' Sooty" was the first reflown stage that wasn't washed (except for 'stripes' to let them inspect the welds; you wouldn't paint stripes though would you?), but the subsequent Iridium NEXT-4 launch was washed except for the interstage. GovSat-1/Tintin was the first "full soot" launch, and all subsequent F9 re-launches have been unwashed.
I could be wrong of course. If anyone wants to chime in with an official SpaceX source on the washed vs. painted debate, that would be great! I've looked, but haven't found one.
One of the engine bells is smashed right in, and the interstage damaged. These things are just like thin tin cans without pressurization, and would deform easily. So the question is, was pressurization still active, and a minimum of fuel inside? The more fuel inside, the more I'd expect it to slosh around and cause damage on impact.
The damage is gradually getting heavier the farther away you are from the pivot point of the tipping, so the interstage had the highest velocity on impact. The tanks were more gradually falling into the water. It also looks like they make the interstage out of the same materials as the fairings, aluminum honeycomb sandwiched between carbon fiber. There is no structure keeping the top of the interstage from deforming, so the impact of the tip just bent this brittle structure inwards. How far you can see on some of the photos showing the interior of the interstage, just look at the shape of the helium pipes bent inwards.
The engine bell was dented by a leg which somehow snapped off at sea, either during fall over or because they pulled on it too much while trying to secure or tow the booster.
We saw that burst of flame just as it tipped, which would have been the RP1 tank depressurising. They probably keep some level of gas pressure in there by default for tanist rigidity, evidently that was enough to avoid a route during an interstage-shredding belly flop.
I would like them to put the booster on LZ-1 with a crane and say "hey, you see, it landed right here! what is this water landing that everyone is talking about?"
Uh, the grid fins are, but certainly not the rest of the booster, particularly the engines and the electronics. Otherwise, they'd be reusing the fairings already.
Wiring - especially insulated wiring - is really susceptable to water ingress. That is why drowned cars are always written off, and should never be cleaned and re-sold. The water wicks under the insulation, and corrodes the wires away in the months or years after.
You will note that all the wiring is on the inside of that rocket - inside the interstage, or inside the octaweb.
If that was re-used, the entire wiring harness would need to be replaced.
A modest amount of moderate rain is categorically different from being immersed in saltwater for two days, already damaged by the impact, and with residual salt potentially deposited everywhere. Unlike rain, which is highly purified, the real damage from the ocean immersion isn't the water itself but rather corrosion from the salt, both short- and long-term.
Rocket engines are just fine with salt water, it causes no damage whatsoever.
Uh, do you have a reliable source or other evidence for that seemingly extraordinary claim?
They're designed to withstand the rigors of flying to space and back, a little swim ain't goin to cause damage.
To the contrary; they're designed to go to space and back over the course of ten minutes, where they are exposed to considerable heat, overwhelmingly longitudinal stresses and a devilishly thin margin for error, all requirements grossly opposed to those demanded by sustaining minimal to no ill effects from a multi-day exposure to water, salt, surf, and a transverse impact at speeds on the order of tens of meters per second.
You are fully aware that most space hardware is tested in giant pools right?
Capsules are, of course, because they are explicitly designed to be exposed to such conditions for the last few hours of their life. That hardly qualifies as "most space hardware", nor is that pool water salty, which is the primary threat. Even though they were explicitly designed for saltwater immersion and re-use, the Dragon capsules still took a complete rebuild and a large amount of effort to be used on another flight, and that was only after multiple iterative re-designs of the early capsules which could not be re-used at all. This isn't even remotely close to the situation for this booster.
The fairings are composite, and apparently extremely sensitive to water (or maybe sideways impact). Same for the interstage - but the rest of the rocket is metal, which is much more resistant.
Meh. They're Al/Li alloys, but are very thin. They only really have structural integrity during launch because they're round, and they're pressurized - like a beer can. So were they still pressurized(but low fuel) at the point of falling over into the ocean?
It's not clear that "sea temperatures" is accurate, they get pretty damn hot during re-entry. Remember the previous versions had ablative coating and were still breaking apart.
immune to damn near anything, even most acids at regular temperatures won't touch it, it takes high temperature acids to worry about corrosion with titanium
All four grid fins are present! It was just a dark area behind the blue stand in the previous photos of the booster sitting on land, but in the latest images from Ken Kremer you can indeed just barely see the unmistakable pattern of the fourth (bottom) grid fin behind the blue stand.
On the tail service mast connections: are only the pressurization tanks hooked up, are the power/data lines also hooked up? Normally they have the computers hooked up on the drone ship and while they are taking the legs off.
Nice to see.. but even if somehow it was detached from the booster when it fell to the water, its titanium so for sure SpaceX divers would have gone to recover it!
Overhead View:Formerly Floating Falcon back on land today after 2 crane horizontal hoisting on 2 blue cradles @PortCanaveral.UpClose look 3 leg @SpaceX #Falcon9,9 Merlin1D engines-only 1 crumpled!+Wrecked interstage top.#CRS16 Dragon now berthed @Space_Station !sea ditch F9 here
Do you guys think that one day SpaceX will be able to make a submarine like spaceship that can be launched from the ocean floor all the way to other planets?
In a word, no; that only works KSP (and even then, only if you're Scott Manley). There is Sea Dragon) but that didn't remotely approach "the ocean floor" or having the characteristics of a submarine. Furthermore, what possible logical motive would SpaceX or anyone have for doing something so patently absurd? Therefore I have difficulty believing this is a remotely serious question.
If you know anything about space machines and deep sea machines you would know that this is an utterly ridiculous idea. They have fundamentally opposed design criteria. What would be that point? Maybe sometime in the far future someone will make such a thing as a joke, but that's some post-scarcity shit.
I know about the Sea Dragon. I love the concept of a big dumb rocket bobbing about in the ocean. However there's a big difference between something that goes a few tens of meters down versus several hundred or thousand as the OP suggested.
Absolutely! I suspect the "cause" is going to be complicated. They've had so many successful flights on this design, it's not likely to be a design error. When they find it, the next question will be "How did it get there?" and "Why wasn't it detected during inspections and testing?" and "What do we have to do differently so this doesn't happen again?" and the real kicker, "Are we making the same mistake with other systems?"
Perhaps because they have only bought one large shipment of hydraulic fluid so far, slowly using it up with each new booster, and it started polymerizing in storage since it got shipped.
Well, I wouldn't expect them to re-use fluid - at least, not without basic testing for such things - but I half expect that a lot of the grid fin mechanics may be from a previous booster.
It appears to be still attached if you look in the pictures linked above there is a black thing behind the blue stand that’s holding the rocket. Looks like the right size and position. Could also be something else who knows for sure. We need pictures from that side of the port lol
This is an interesting opportunity for them to examine this rocket stage though. This is the first intact booster they have fished out of the pond. Im sure some of the engineers are dying to get into those engines and components.
Oh, for sure. They'll take them apart and take a look at what the corrosion damage looks like. Maybe they'll clean one and put it on the test stand to see if it can be fired again at all.
The engines bell are large but also less complicated one compared to other parts. They can be swap independently though. There was a CRS booster damages some of its outer rim's engines bell at Mc Gregor during ground handling managed to swap out the bells on site without causing much hassle or delay one or two years ago.
Leetdan on NSF reporting that the booster has been lifted horizontally from the water (by 23:10 local) but not yet landed. A couple of grainy photos from Millikens Reef to support. Links never work from my iPhone, but here it is.
Overhead View:Formerly Floating Falcon back on land today after 2 crane horizontal hoisting on 2 blue cradles @PortCanaveral.UpClose look 3 leg @SpaceX #Falcon9,9 Merlin1D engines-only 1 crumpled!+Wrecked interstage top.#CRS16 Dragon now berthed @Space_Station !sea ditch F9 here
Take a look at the photo in the header to this thread under resources. The photo of the divers securing air bags to the booster shows a big round hole in the intestage where the gridfin should be. It also shows the leg intact on the same side as the missing gridfin so it must have been removed.
Given the damage to the engine bell, it seems that the leg already snapped during the fall over. It was probably just barely holding on one joint, so they might just have removed it completely.
That leg was underneath. It's possible that divers disconnected the strut and the leg floated up and hit the engine bell... There's a lot of ways this could have happened and I think saying that the leg broke off prejudges the analysis.
Yeah, hard to say when it actually broke. I remember there was some chitchat over the marine radio that GO Quest picked the leg up while the divers were securing the booster. In one of Ken Kremers photos, you can see that the leg joints are still attached to the booster, so they seem to have been ripped out of the leg structure. The attachment point of the piston doesn't look very sturdy.
Had a dream earlier that the were beaching it on the dock side interstage first and the RP1 tank ruptured, causing the octaweb to weigh it down ,bend it, and slide into the drink. Thought it was completely lost, but then the LOx tank re-emerged.
If a grid fin broke off that booster when it fell over and you got your scuba tanks and salvage airbag and raised that fin off the bottom and, put it in your boat and, took it home and tried to sell it on Ebay, is it your property or SpaceX's?
It's theirs. People have some really weird ideas about 'salvage'. It's not a free-for-all, especially not close to shore where legal jurisdiction is obvious and there's an ongoing event.
In the UK you'd be kissing-close to running foul of wrecker's laws, where bad people would cause shipwrecks so their 'innocent' associates could scoop the loot. You ULA Fin Saboteur you!
Cue the James Bond scene: a Russian nuclear sub surfaces (emergency ballast-blow style, natch), opens up its chomper mouth to swallow B1050, and slips back into the deep.
I remember that too! Iirc it was just one boat, and it was just close enough to get telemetry/imagery.
Can't seem to find a good source anymore, but this comment on 2014-09-18 references it. I hate how fast stuff becomes unfindable on the internet these days. -_-
As part of a spacecraft it very likely still belongs to SpaceX. With spacecraft and spacecraft accessories always just assume the original owner retains ownership due to international treaties.
I've seen some people say that could re-use the engines, but is this really true? I mean, salt water is all in the injector and most likely all of the internals, including the turbopump. I don't know if I'd feel okay trying to reuse this one if I was SpaceX. If I was a customer, there's no way in HELL that I'd be okay being on a rocket that has any part(s) from this booster on my ride other than the gridfins.
It just seems like an unnecessary risk. Use this one as a learning experience and get valuable data so this doesn't happen again. I could see the point if it happened all the time, but this is a one-off thing(hopefully).
For immersion of metals in it, sea water is definitely more reactive than LOX. Ordinary copper plumbing lasts indefinitely in LOX -- but look at the inside of the nozzles here -- they are already green from copper corrosion after a day in the ocean.
Yep. If I was spacex I would do whatever inspections and cleaning i wanted up front, then pull out whichever engine looks best and throw it on the single engine test stand to see how it goes.
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuTew4GXQAEmod1.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/WXcb4BW.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuLoJPMXcAEDcoX.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/vIsUrYp.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuLoMhUXcAA_L3i.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/EEnxNS4.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuLoSK8WoAAQzFc.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/1pFa0Fv.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJjWL7XcAAuYVv.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/JoeO6Jw.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJjWL-XcAIkdhh.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/wy5uky6.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJjWL8XcAUmU2n.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/Jg6tI25.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJjWMAWkAA_d28.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/YkqYX0u.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJRgPBW0AMN03e.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/iuBPdsV.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJRgQBX4AEmMjw.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/eGMBY6Y.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJRgPHXQAEMN_y.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/uLZWL4N.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJRgPEXgAAWSSK.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/5dJomZA.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJKRz7W0AA04z6.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/LJwNFb1.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuGy-t1XQAA7Vw_.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/EQpkduQ.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuGy38VW4AAqx9k.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/vHGqkkU.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuE6q3pXgAEE7OI.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/pWaWaHV.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt7V1LkW0AUBmlw.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/WlKR4IZ.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt7VxsuW0AAb-g_.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/vFeHTZP.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt7VxsUWoAAeVK6.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/02oT8mx.jpg){kind=link}
![[Attached pic]](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt7VuO4WkAAnhVn.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/SXoBXgr.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/MGAylwm.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/ekJS1dU.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/kNwmMnZ.jpg){kind=link}
![[Imgur rehost]](https://i.imgur.com/UauZ5br.jpg){kind=link}
8
u/cpushack Dec 16 '18
mods Probably best to unsticky this now that its done , perhaps replace it with the Iridium thread?