A diamond hull will not be enough!

shanedr · Oct 26, 2004

Why do you think every present science fiction writer, uses warp, dimensional travel, etc. when writing about star travel.

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 26, 2004

a_lost_packet_-"You have yet to explain why the two same temperatures are different just because one was generated by plasma and the other.. your "nuclear" explanation." maddad - Your plasma is only a few thousand degrees, while temperatures in a nuclear explosion reach 100 million. That is not an answer to why you insist that two similar temperatures are different because of their source and how that is relevant when testing for "temperature." In any event, you are incorrect in your assessment of the temperature of helium plasma. Here is a link discussing the advantages and disadvantages of using helium plasma in regards to temperature and energy availability (in coating applications btw): Plasma Flame Theory As you can see, temperatures of 13,000 k can be reached in this example. (Coatings applications) Helium also provides a much higher temperature when contained in plasma than other commonly used gases. While the link is concerning thermal coating applications, it has an effective chart for visual comparisons. (I'm not a "plasma guy" so I grabbed some links describing more about helium and plasmas

Helium plasma temperatures also reach stability and their highest mean value very quickly compared with, for instance, Hydrogen. Brazilian Journal of Physics Typical plasmas must be heated to 10 million K. FuseWeb.pppl.gov You can assume that the likely temperature of the initial plasma being directed using chemical explosives could have been within this range. Magnetic constraining of hydrogen plasma was probably not used to reach the extremely high temperatures seen to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 26, 2004

shanedr - Why do you think every present science fiction writer, uses warp, dimensional travel, etc. when writing about star travel. Because, as far as we know, faster than light travel is impossible when traveling through "normal" (4-d) space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

mcbethcg · Oct 28, 2004

There has yet to be a movie that addresses the issues related to the actual time spans required for interstellar travel, I think. A possible exception might have been the original planet of the apes, but I think in that case they blamed a malfunction that kept them suspended too long, rather than the actual time for the voyage.

toymaker · Oct 28, 2004

Perhaps you should take into account not only the material that the hull is made from but its structure.I am no scientists but I heard that porous have a greater ability to withstand damage. www.astropa.unipa.it/Asteroids2001/Abstracts/Talks/consolmagno.doc "Simulations of impacts into porous materials indicate that porosity can dramatically affect the evolution of asteroid regoliths, impact ejecta, and structure [10]. Impacts into high porosity asteroids create craters primarily by compaction with most ejecta being retained within the crater. As porosity increases ejecta velocities tend to drop, the size ejecta blankets are reduced, and the efficiency of asteroid impact gardening is significantly reduced. Because the compaction process dissipates impact shock more effectively, highly porous asteroids may be significantly more resistant to impact disruption and as a result have increased dynamical lifetimes. " So perhaps the answer lies in the way its constructed. Furthermore perhaps inspiration could be found in military armour where they find ways to overcome impacts not necceserly by harder and harder materials but by smarter use of existing ones-but what do I know

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 28, 2004

mcbethcq - There has yet to be a movie that addresses the issues related to the actual time spans required for interstellar travel, I think. You're right about that. At least, in the long-term voyages. 2001 dealt with it to some extent by hibernating the crew. Alien and Alien II took the same approach. However, nobody has done a "generation ship" type movie. I'd like to see one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 28, 2004

As stevewh33 implied, while it is acknowledge that porous asteroids (the most common I believe) are able to dissipate the impact energy of a collision very effectively, that type of design may not lend itself to protecting the integrity of a ship. Perhaps, to a certain extent an "ablative" hull design could work for low impact particles. However, when such a hull was hit, the impact energy would still "damage" the structure and reduce it's effectiveness over time. Now, if you could replace or repair the ablative/shock absorbing material over time, such a system might make sense. I'm reminded of the various proposals for "ice shields." Since water has the rare quality of expanding when it is frozen, perhaps such a shield could be repaired using available materials. ie: Every once in awhile, the ship would have to make a side-trip to a system in order to "scoop" up some material to crack into H20 shielding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

toymaker · Oct 28, 2004

Revelation Space and Chasm City by Alistair Reynolds is a quite good SF book that deals with the passage of time during travell in a interesting way that goes well with the story.

Maddad · Oct 28, 2004

packet "Plasma Flame Theory As you can see, temperatures of 13,000 k can be reached in this example." Son, that's what I've been telling you. It's far too cold compared to nuclear temperatures. 100,000,000 degrees is 7,000 time hotter! *Watching another one whoosh over your head* "In any case, the only temperatures such as you describe occur within a few meters of the center of the blast. They last for only a few milliseconds." Your own link says that the 20 kt bomb must be 3.5 meters from the pusher plate, which is within a few meters. However, since you changed the parameters to using a bomb with 1/100th the yield, you have to put it 1/10th the distance away from the pusher plate, which is 35 centimeters. 35 Centimeters is also withinin a few meters, or is packet math something different here too? The two tons of concrete aplated completely in 0.031 seconds, which is 31 milliseconds, matching your criteria for lasting only a few milliseconds. Of course now, you want to use a bomb that's 100 times smaller, so it's 10 times closer, so the ablation happens in only 0.0031 millseconds. In packet math is 3.1 milliseconds "only a few milliseconds" And don't forget, the 3.1 milliseconds is an outside figure. We only know that it happened in no more than this time. It could have happened in less. Why? Because these were only observations, not controlled experiments! *Watching another one whoosh over your head* "That is not correct as was evidenced by the tests demonstrated in the links provided and the conclusions of the Orion team." The tests your stupid team ran were 7,000 times too cold. "The concrete slab was not part of any Orion test conducted." Don't gimmie that BS. It's the observation that you cited in your links substantiating Orion. "The

Maddad · Oct 28, 2004

Furthermore, if the people who keep giving you these conflicting numbers were really scientists, then they wouldn't be using 200 feet. They would state it in meters. Amateurs use feet.

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 29, 2004

maddad - a_lost_packet_-Plasma Flame Theory As you can see, temperatures of 13,000 k can be reached in this example." maddad - Son, that's what I've been telling you. It's far too cold compared to nuclear temperatures. 100,000,000 degrees is 7,000 time hotter! *Watching another one whoosh over your head* You totally ignored the addition of the requirements of millions of degrees required to establish many plasmas and the direct link to the main web page of the US gov. for explaining plasma research didn't you? On top of taking my comment completely out of context as it was further clarified as an example of the use of plasma's in the coatings industry. Just another one of your statements already proven incorrect by me. a_lost_packet_-"In any case, the only temperatures such as you describe occur within a few meters of the center of the blast. They last for only a few milliseconds." maddad - Your own link says that the 20 kt bomb must be 3.5 meters from the pusher plate, which is within a few meters. However, since you changed the parameters to using a bomb with 1/100th the yield, you have to put it 1/10th the distance away from the pusher plate, which is 35 centimeters. 35 Centimeters is also withinin a few meters, or is packet math something different here too? You completely ignored the quote and document posted for your benefit that shows to the contrary along with my statements proving that this was not the design specification for Orion. You won't explain where you get these figures from even after I have given you the benefit of the doubt of being confused. Just another statement of yours that I have proven incorrect time and time again. maddad - The two tons of concrete aplated completely in 0.031 seconds, which is 31 milliseconds, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Oct 29, 2004

packet "You totally ignored the addition of the requirements of millions of degrees required to establish many plasmas" I didn't ignore it you goof. The page said that you'd have to reach millions of degrees to sustain nuclear reactions. It didn't say they'd done that. All they claimed was 13,000 degrees, not the 10,000,000 minimum fusion temperature. "As I have repeatedly told you, that was not a test associated with the Orion Project" Howsomever, the concrete plug was observed to have ablated - all two tons of it in just 31 milliseconds. Since you still claim that Orion would work because no ablation would take place, this observation disproves you. Your pet project cannot work. 'Project Orion seeking funding under the terms of "non-military" use and it's subsequent reduction of status in order to be brought under the auspices of funding available for such pursuits. However, NASA had been consuming such appropriations at a prodigious rate because of the Cold War "Space Race."' So you claim a good excuse for not having evidence. That does not prove that if you had such evidence, it would rescue your Project Orion. The most reasonable explanation for NASA ignoring easy space travel for decades is that they understand that it cannot work. Even though you do not comprehend what happens to a material when you jack up the temperature 7,000 times, NASA engineers did instantly and relegated your foolishness to the trash bin. packet "We tested this here nifty plasma ray gun that squirts junk out at 13,000 degrees! It never ablated anything, so a nuclear bomb can't ablate anything!" Real NASA Scientist "Uh, when we acutally used a nuclear bomb, we measured a temperature 7,000 times hotter. At that temperature all two tons of a concrete

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 29, 2004

stevewh33 - OK, Packet, just one question. Maddad wrote that when they were testing an Orion type system, they used a nuclear blast and it ablated a 'concrete plug in less than 31 ms." No that is not true. The test that he is referring to has absolutely nothing to do with Project Orion. A long time ago, when I was searching on the net for the names of "simultaneous nuclear blast tests" (In order to disprove yet another of maddad's allegations.) I ran accross two underground tests that were humorous and had a funny connection to ideas like Project Orion. The first was the infamous "manhole cover" incident where a steel plate cover was launched to an as yet undermined hight. The second was the obliteration of a large concrete cover. The post I linked this info to started out something like "This is hilarious" or some such. The only referrence that I made to any possible relationship to Orion was the fact that the "manhole" cover was not destroyed even though it was close to the epicenter of the blast. However, I also qualified my statement by pointing out that the "manhole" cover incident has nothing to do with Project Orion nor is it available for study. (It was never found but was caught on a frame of film.) I further qualified the incident by saying the only possible relationship that could ever be established is that the manhole cover survived the incident and was "jokingly" referred to as the first man-made object launched into space. (Impossible, but humorous.) I'd look up the post and quote it here. But, I've referrenced so much in this thread and quoted so much that I hope you understand if I just encourage anyone who wishes to look up my statements for themselves. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> (I'd really do it if you wanted me to np.) stevewh33 - IF concrete does NOT ablate much in the tests, and your references show this, viz., when exposed to a nuclear bl <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 30, 2004

stevewh33 - (P.S., if there's going to be a debate around here, let me know which side you're taking, will you? I used to successfully debate & win against 2 opponents simultaneously, and I'd NEVER want to be in opposition to you. Grin.) It, of course, always helps if you're on the side that happens to be "right." <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <jk> No offense intended to anyone taking an opposing viewpoint.. <cough cough> maddad <cough cough>. In all fairness, it's not really a debate. It's a contest to see who can stretch out the discussion of meaningless points the furthest: Maddad's statements or my rebutting of them. Neither of us is the type of person who "backs down" from a tussle. Now, an acknowledged "impasse" is a just cause to cease hostilities. It just seems he does not wish to agree to such a condition. On debates: One I enjoyed exceptionally was a debate in which I succesfully defended and obtained the release and full "pardon" for a historic figure using the prosecution's shameless revisionist history and flawed reasoning. It seems that the "Inquisition" wished to prosecute this person using only the most piteous of circumstantial evidence and the harsh laws and persecuting laws of the day. Oh, the defendent was Judas Escariot. Yes, I felt dirty. But, .. somehow jubilant at the same time. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Oct 31, 2004

steve "Maddad wrote that when they were testing an Orion type system, they used a nuclear blast and it ablated a 'concrete plug in less than 31 ms. Is that true? . . . I'd appreciate your comments on just this one point, as it's the crucial one. IF concrete does NOT ablate much in the tests, and your references show this, viz., when exposed to a nuclear blast, then the issue is settled. That's an interesting challenge, although I'm not sure that I buy into the logic. It's close, but a little bit backwards. If we find evidence that the concrete ablates, then the case is settled. Finding all the evidence in the world that does not show ablation doesn't settle it. One case that shows the ablations does though. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html Ok. This is a link that I thought packet gave us way back when we started snarling at each other. It's the Nuclear Weapons Archive site on the Pllmbob test. <ol>The page substantiates several points that I've been making: <li>"The mass of the collimator cylinder was at least 2 tonnes. . . " <li>" . . . and would have been vaporized by the explosion" It means 100% ablatement. <li>"if the collimator absorbed a substantial part of the explosion energy (say a third of it, or 100 tons) it would have been heated to temperatures far higher than any conventional explosive (by a factor of 50" The temperature was hotter than anything possible with conventional means by a factor of at least 50. Note that this pro-Orion site admits to a factor of 50; someone not wedded to Orion might asses the factor as being greater. <li>"Objects can only be propelled to very high velocities by a nuclear explosion if they are located close to the burst point. . . Th</li></li></li></li></ol>

Maddad · Oct 31, 2004

packet "stevewh33 - OK, Packet, just one question. Maddad wrote that when they were testing an Orion type system, they used a nuclear blast and it ablated a 'concrete plug in less than 31 ms." No that is not true. The test that he is referring to has absolutely nothing to do with Project Orion. Steve asked if two tons of concrete ablated in 31 milliseconds or not. It did. "the "manhole" cover was not destroyed even though it was close to the epicenter of the blast. You do not know that. All we know is that it took off like a bat out of Hell and nobody's seen it in 35 years. "maddad insists that this test was done in connection with Orion I insist that it was not done in connection with Orion. However, it does invalidate part of our Orion hypothesis, so it is relavant to Orion. For your Orion project to work, there cannot be any ablatement. Two tons of concrete ablating in less than 31 milliseconds is serious ablatement and therefore invalidates your pet hypothesis.

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 1, 2004

Maddad, this is the first time since we have been talking that you have every presented proof that you actually looked at the information that I have presented to you. While you may have misunderstood why such information was presented in the first place, I thank you for addressing it specifically. It is important to note that the Pascal tests had nothing to do with "Project Orion." It was just a nuclear test set, in a series, that I happened to referrence because it was humorous. However, several important points you have made substantiate statements I have made previously. Most importantly, that a nuclear blast can be tailored to produce desired results within a specified range. For instance, the vaporization and resultant energy, gained from the concrete collimeter plate produced enough force to successfully propel the "manhole" cover at an estimated 6 times the required escape velocity. While, of course, the manhole cover would not have been put into orbit, for various reasons, it did happen to survive the initial blast as evidence of it's image recorded on video cameras on site, in one frame. (As described in the link.) The tailoring of specially designed casings for propellant-bombs has been determined to be necesary in order to provide sufficient motive power when using such an NPP system in space for the very same reason; The lack of a mass to react with to produce additional force. When packet's helium ray gun is squirting plasma at 13,000 degrees it's 7,000 times colder than nuclear temperatures. What 13,000 degree helium "ray gun"? The 13,000 deg number is the one that you picked. I'm still trying to define the exact and actual parameters of the Helium-Plasma Temperature tests conducted in order to futher facilitate our "discussion" of them specifically. The "13,000 deg" number was only one that I linked to you to demonstrate the working use of a plasma in industry today. It ap <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 1, 2004

maddad - Steve asked if two tons of concrete ablated in 31 milliseconds or not. It did. Of course it did. In fact, in my post I reiterated: a_lost_packet_-I never claimed that concrete did not ablate. I also uttered another truism : a_lost_packet_- As a matter of fact, I have never made any defense of anything associated with Project Orion other than the validity of the tests and investigation which did take place. Any subsequent discussions have arised solely from responding to maddad's heckling. a_lost_packet_ - "the "manhole" cover was not destroyed even though it was close to the epicenter of the blast." maddad - You do not know that. All we know is that it took off like a bat out of Hell and nobody's seen it in 35 years. You are correct. As a matter of fact, I believe I was the first one to note that we can not use such a test as conclusive proof because we don't have the plate to examine. The only thing we do know, and have proof of, is that it survived the initial blast. I also described, many times, what could have possibly happened to the "manhole cover." The most probable idea is that it was severely disfigured or even melted due to atmospheric friction as it was "accidentally" launched. However, it was "caught" on film, substantiating that it was not "vaporized" as you have mentioned before. That is the only reason I have ever mentioned it. Again, as I have said many times before, I only linked this test because it was humorous and I came across it while I was linking tests to refute your statements concerning the total lack of tests involving "simultaneous nuclear blasts." (The refutation was successful I may add.) maddad - For your Orion project to work, there cannot <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Nov 2, 2004

packet 'It is important to note that the Pascal tests had nothing to do with "Project Orion." That is irrelevant. The observations disprove your hypothesis. "While, of course, the manhole cover would not have been put into orbit, for various reasons, it did happen to survive the initial blast as evidence of it's image recorded on video cameras on site, in one frame. This is only evidence that it survived the first milliseconds. Considering that it was observed as a white streak reaching for the sky by a casual observer suggests that shortly after it was filmed it also transformed into plasma. There are other explanations that allow it to remain solid that are consistent with such an observation. Saying that we have evidence it survived is highly misleading and it certainly does not constitute proof of your Orion idea. We do not know that it survived as a solid object for even one millisecond after we took that one frame. "The 10's of millions of degrees necessary to create most plasmas (according to the .gov site I linked) somehow escaped your notice perhaps? It couldn't have escaped my notice since I commented on it. Your problem is that the government identified this as the minimum necessary temperature. The didn't say that they had attained it with your ray gun. "Orion studies verified that ccmmon materiels,e.g.,aluminum or steel, can withstand surface temperatures exceeding 80,000°K under such conditions with only nominal ablation. When you are talking about a range of 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 Kelvin, there is no difference between 13,000 and 80,000. Both are too fridgedly cold to have a bearing on your Orion project. "It's not the range that is a factor. It is the impingement velocity of the force hitting the pusher plate

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 2, 2004

maddad - Now, since the crucial point has been established, that the two ton concrete plug ablated in 31 milliseconds, the issue is settled. Your project Orion cannot work. ROFL What is "crucial" about the two ton concrete plug? There is nothing concerning a two-ton concrete plug that is remotely associated with the Orion design or any experimental investigations remotely associated with the Orion Project. Saying that this is proof of a failure of concept is rediculous. Please provide me with the passage in the design proposals for Orion (you can use the LASL doc) that include a "two ton concrete collimeter plate wedged into a bored shaft in which a nuclear blast is initiated." I would also like you to answer to the allegations you have made concerning the presentation of this information in this thread. Prove that I have used the Plumbob tests as credible evidence, without qualifications, of a proof of concept for Orion. The only reason you keep referring to the Pascal tests are because objects "inadvertently launched" by the blasts were either destroyed or never found and presumed destroyed by the researchers. By continuously referring to them, you try to lend a false sense of experimental credibility to your rebuttals. Your only hope is that the truth is obscured by your volume of texts dealing with displaying "evidence" from these tests. The fact is that the Pascal tests had nothing to do with Orion, did not even remotely approximate the design considerations and were not at all structured to provide any information relating to relevent applications of a nuclear pulse propulsion design. So, what leap of logic do you use in saying that your interpretations of the Pascal tests have any bearing whatsoever on Project Orion? maddad - Saying that we have evidence it survived is highly misleading and it certainly does not constitute pr <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 2, 2004

Maddad, A request, if you will: How about I write a rebuttal which concerns calling into question the thermal and ablative testing done during Project Orion and also the important, as yet unanswered, questions revolving around the feasibility and practicality of the Orion design? How about that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

yesor9 · Nov 2, 2004

"If it's too far away from the pusher plate, more than 3.5 meters for a 0.3 kt device, then you do not get propulsion." madguy werd. Everybody knows that if you are 5 meters away from an atomic blast you do not move. You have to be REAL close to those things to feel it. Its one of the crazy things about them nucular WMDs. Also got the nucular temperatures. Nothing can survive it, never, and dont nobody say otherwise!

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 2, 2004

"If it's too far away from the pusher plate, more than 3.5 meters for a 0.3 kt device, then you do not get propulsion." -madguy yesor9 - werd. Everybody knows that if you are 5 meters away from an atomic blast you do not move.. ROFLMAO Yesor9, I'll buy you a beer for that comment. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Nov 4, 2004

packet "What is "crucial" about the two ton concrete plug? stevehw33 said it was crucial. You agreed with him when you hadn't read your own links. Now that you've read them, all of a sudden you want to disagree with him. "There is nothing concerning a two-ton concrete plug that is remotely associated with the Orion It's verified ablation disproves your Orion hypothesis. "The researchers stated that it survived the initial blast The Orion bozos don't know that. There is zero evidence that the plate survived for two feet beyond the field of view of the opening to the shaft. Just because they mistate the evidence is no reason for you to repeat it when you know better. "Where do you get 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 Kelvin from exactly? Look son, you're proposing to use nuclear bombs to propell your fancy spacecraft. Learn what a nuclear bomb is, Ok? Try Google. Do a little research on your own rather than asking me to spoon feed you everything. "For a 20kt device . . . Stop being a Waffle King. Orion doesn't use bombs that big; you've said so yourself. And cite a credible source, will you? Your Orion goofballs are likely to say anything. And quit confusing the fireball with the primary energy source. "Where do you see tests involving 80,000 degrees Kelvin being invalidated What part of too cold don't you understand? 80,000 is too cold, so no ablation occured. When we exposed two tons of concrete to 100,000,000 then it completely ablated in 31 milliseconds. yesor9 "werd. Everybody knows that if you are 5 meters away from an atomic blast you do not move. You have to be REAL close to those things to feel it.

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 5, 2004

a_lost_packet_-"What is "crucial" about the two ton concrete plug?" maddad - stevehw33 said it was crucial. You agreed with him when you hadn't read your own links. Now that you've read them, all of a sudden you want to disagree with him. Where did I ever agree with anyone that anything about the Pascal tests was crucial when it comes to thermal/ablative damage tests? Prove it, show where I have said anything of the kind. As a matter of fact, I don't believe I've ever used the word "crucial" in describing any evidence/test or investigative report associated with Project Orion. I've read my own links. What are you talking about? You're talking in circles. a_lost_packet_-"Where do you get 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 Kelvin from exactly?" maddad - Look son, you're proposing to use nuclear bombs to propell your fancy spacecraft. Learn what a nuclear bomb is, Ok? Try Google. Do a little research on your own rather than asking me to spoon feed you everything. Sounds like you just made it up and are back-peddling. I have no need to "go look it up." Besides, I have no wish to propel a ship like Orion with anything. I just started posting in this thread because you criticised the testing which performed. I could care less about the Orion Project craft or defending it's design. You're the one who has a beef with it, yet you can't put together any credible criticisms. So, I rebut your posts because I find doing so amusing. a_lost_packet_-"For a 20kt device . . . " maddad - Stop being a Waffle King. Orion doesn't use bombs that big; you've said so yourself. And cite a credible source, will you? Your Orion goofballs are likely to say anything. And quit confusing the fireball with the primary energy source. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

A diamond hull will not be enough!

shanedr

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

toymaker

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

toymaker

Guest

Maddad

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

yesor9

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page