<p>Update on Orion:</p><p> </p><p>EMP effects of high altitude nuclear detonations have been noted and studied. Nukes ranging from 1 KT to over 1MT have been detonated in space. The primary EMP effect is due to gammma radiation released at the instant of detonation causing electrons in surrounding materials to be stripped away from their respective atoms and propelled radially away from the site of the explosion. This is a large current and can be quite a serious problem. After the blast, there is of course, a flow of electrons back towards the site of the explosion, but this current flow is energized by electromagnetic effects (opposite charges attract and therefore any large charge is rapidly neutralized) and not gamma radiation. (Incidentally, this effect is yet another coffin nail for the Electric Universe folks) </p><p> </p><p>In the propulsion units proposed for the Orion Project, wasting a large fraction of the bomb yield in gamma rays harms the overall efficiency of the method. The gamma rays impinging on the pusher plate yield little reaction effect and everyone is correct in worrying about large currents that might be induced in the pusher plate. But recall, the design of the propulsion modules utilizes low Z materials in the radiation channel of the bomb. This material absorbs the initial radiation pulse from the nuclear reaction, and spreads it out over time. This is done to enhance the efficiency of the yield, and to spread the impulse out over time so as not to fracture the pusher plate from a high shock load.</p><p> </p><p>The bomb actually releases comparably little gamma radiation in the direction of the vehicle. Effective temperature of the nuclear device blast the pusher plate 'sees' is in the 100,000K range, not the multi-millionK temperature of an 'ordinary' nuke. </p><p> </p><p>Should EMP effects still be a problem, a palliative measure would be to add small amounts of a light metal to the proposed 'oil' mix discussed for application to the pusher plate between detonations. I am thinking aluminum would be fine. Or perhaps putting the metal in the radiation channnel with the filler material would be preferred.</p><p> </p><p>Also, recall the detonation rate is scaled to the size of the vehicle. 1 per second detonations would only occur for the very smallest Orion vehicles. Recall the pulse rate for the large interstellar Orion craft is ~1 nuke per minute. Intermediate sized vehicles would have intermediate pulse rates.</p><p> </p><p>Regarding cost, Dyson envisioned the instellar Orion vehicle being financed over ~400 years. Contemplate underwriting the cost (not the technology) of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier in 16th century Britain. Ouch! Yet such vehicles today (~400 years later) are a comparative bargain.</p><p> </p><p>Don't worry about sticker shock on an interstellar Orion vehicle.</p><p> </p><p>Regarding environmental damage, contemplate one Orion launch lofting 4000 tons(!) of payload versus the number of Soyuz or shuttle launches needed to lift the same load. (note,using boron in the radiation channel filler material of ground launced Orions has been studied to reduce radioactivity effects) I am thinking the environmental damage for conventional propulsion vs. Orion (considering the enviromental effects of building the Soyuz's and shuttles in addition to launching them) is overwhelmingly less for the Orion vehicle.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is the Atomic Pulse Rocket, a pot-bellied spaceship nearly the size of the Empire State Building, propelled by a series of atomic blasts. The enormous rocket (weighing 75,000 tons fully loaded) is designed to leave Earth with a thrust of 100,000 tons. Altogether a thousand atomic blasts—each equal to 1,000 tons of TNT—are fired from a low velocity gun into a heavy steel rocket engine at a rate of one per second until the vehicle leaves Earth's atmosphere. Then steam and vaporized steel from the combustion chamber maintain the thrust. Inside the rocket, living quarters are situated in the rim of a pressurized wheel-like cabin which revolves to provide artificial gravity. Tubular hydroponic "gardens" along the rim produce oxygen and high-protein food <br /> Posted by Kevin_J_waldroup</DIV></p><p>Whoever did that artwork got the trajectory wrong. It's far more effecient to launch a spacecraft from the surface of the Earth in the direction of rotation... not against it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p>Considering Orions proposed size and thrust...and payload capacity, it probably wouldn't matter what direction its launched towards. Guess it would only matter if the maximum payload of 75,000 tons was required and no less. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Update on Orion: posted by vogon13</DIV></p><p>When will Orion proponents get it into their heads that no deliberate release of significant radioactivity into the environment is acceptable? And accidental release is cause for prosecution? </p><p>When will they realise that deliberate nuclear explosions above ground is likewise utterly unacceptable?</p><p>When will they realise that the the world cannot accept an EMP threat to the hundreds of satellites that are essential to 21st century civilisation?</p><p>Orion was conceived during the height of the cold war when it was acceptable to let of nuclear explosions in the atmosphere and space. It is no longer acceptable to do so and has not been or more than 40 years. And there is no way it will change in the future.</p><p>As for alternate launches causing more polution, alternate launches don't produce radioactivity and EMP. There are simpler, safer and more elegant ways of getting into space and travelling round the solar system.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p>I'm a big Orion fan. After all, who wouldn't be considering you can launch something the size of a battleship into space relatively cheaply.</p><p>There are some problems with Orion, that's true. But, there aren't many problems that have to do with the actual design or feasibility of the vehicle. That's fairly sound. There is one unanswered problem that I'm aware of that has to do with certain dynamics and interactions at the near surface of the pusher plate causing unexpected ablation. (Basically, the interaction of the shockwave on itself.) But, other than that, the rest of it is fine and is feasible.</p><p>The problem comes with the fact that we don't allow nuclear testing anymore. The amount of radiation and assorted nastiness that would be released in a full scale Orion launch is nothing compared to the amount released in yearly tests during the 60's+. It's a pittance. We're talking about very low yield nuclear weapons made as cleanly as possible and optimized for Orion. It wouldn't have been that big of a deal compared with the types of tests we were running back then. Then, it was the days of growing "mushrooms" in Nevada and making islands flat. Today, it's a different story.</p><p>If, for some reason, we HAD to get something up in space the size of a battleship, then Orion IS our only hope of doing so. We could do it. The tech is there to manufacture the propulsion units (bombs) needed and we do have the resources. All we would need is a little time, some good tests and a star to steer by. 
</p><p>Of course, an Earth to Orbit Orion vehicle will never exist unless there was some critical and practical reason for doing so. But, it's possible. Plus, it's darn cool.<br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
</p><p>Of course, an Earth to Orbit Orion vehicle will never exist unless there was some critical and practical reason for doing so. But, it's possible. Plus, it's darn cool.<br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm a big Orion fan. After all, who wouldn't be considering you can launch something the size of a battleship into space relatively cheaply.There are some problems with Orion, that's true. But, there aren't many problems that have to do with the actual design or feasibility of the vehicle. That's fairly sound. </DIV></p><p>Only at the concept level. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is one unanswered problem that I'm aware of that has to do with certain dynamics and interactions at the near surface of the pusher plate causing unexpected ablation. </DIV></p><p>Only one. ignoring the unacceptable contamination of the launch site, the atmosphere, the creation of artificial van Allen belts, EMP....</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The amount of radiation and assorted nastiness that would be released in a full scale Orion launch is nothing compared to the amount released in yearly tests during the 60's+. </DIV></p><p>Since these lenels were simply appalling and quite unacceptable even then (which is why aabove ground testing stopped) this is hardly a recommendation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We're talking about very low yield nuclear weapons made as cleanly as possible and optimized for Orion. </DIV> </p><p>As cleanly as possible is not clean enough.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If, for some reason, we HAD to get something up in space the size of a battleship, then Orion IS our only hope of doing so. </DIV></p><p>Outside science fiction we don't need to do this. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Plus, it's darn cool. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_ </DIV></p><p>Ufortunately coolness is not a guide to advisability or pacticality. Otherwise we would all have flying cars!</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Only one. ignoring the unacceptable contamination of the launch site, the atmosphere, the creation of artificial van Allen belts, EMP....</DIV></p><p>Yes, only one that I know of. Those are not vehicle design concerns. They're "concerns" surely. But, they don't become design concerns until they're told to find solutions for them. AFAIK, the creation of some sort of artificial van Allen belt or EMP issues were not among the primary dangers associated with Orion. Can you elaborate further or provide some information on that? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since these lenels were simply appalling and quite unacceptable even then (which is why aabove ground testing stopped) this is hardly a recommendation. As cleanly as possible is not clean enough. Outside science fiction we don't need to do this. Ufortunately coolness is not a guide to advisability or pacticality. Otherwise we would all have flying cars!Jon Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>I wasn't advocating getting behind an Orion project. There's no need for it. I only went to say that IF we needed something with similar lift capabilities, Orion would be the only way we could go about it. </p><p>It was once estimated, using the "cleanest" propulsion units possible (bombs) at the time that one person somewhere in the world would die. That's a pretty disturbing thing to contemplate. However, for many nuclear tests performed during the heyday of testing, 10 to 100+ people were estimated to have died per test, somewhere in the world. (That's using a strict "crankin out numbers" approach, not a real-time after-effects tally.) That's a devastating number to think about if you were an engineer on those projects. </p><p>For this reason, I would not advocate Orion unless our needs were sufficiently dire. However, the ability to produce very clean, small, weapons is already within our grasp. It's possible that propulsion units could be created that would effectively yield nothing more than a small increase in acceptable levels of radiation.</p><p>Testing would have to be done and without it, everything else is really just speculation. Educated speculation, to be specific, since all the concept phases including some design phases were already fairly fleshed out. But, considering the amount of effort that was put into Orion and the minds that worked on it, there wouldn't be any appreciable surprises from the design table to the field, IMO.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p>that there was very little real testing, according to Dyson's book. Apart from some lab trials and theoretical studies, and small model flights. rather like the gap between Goddard's first flights and the sapce shuttle. Sure, there were no obviously insoluble technical problems, bot lots of nasty unexpected issues between the concept and the realsisation.</p><p>One problem is scaling. You can scale almost every other type of propulsion systems. With Orion you can't. It is either a very small test model, or the full thing.</p><p>Jon</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that there was very little real testing, according to Dyson's book. Apart from some lab trials and theoretical studies, and small model flights. rather like the gap between Goddard's first flights and the sapce shuttle. Sure, there were no obviously insoluble technical problems, bot lots of nasty unexpected issues between the concept and the realsisation.One problem is scaling. You can scale almost every other type of propulsion systems. With Orion you can't. It is either a very small test model, or the full thing.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>How do you do the very small test model ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How do you do the very small test model ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I believe the tested it using a chemical pulse propulsion system at something like 100 meters or 10 kilometers or something. I can't say off the top of my head how high it was; but they did use a steady pulse of chemical explosives to test the idea. </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How do you do the very small test model ? Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The concept model for the pulsed propulsion used chemical exposives. It was called the "Putt Putt" test.</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQCrPNEsQaY</p><p>The significance here was a workable delivery system. The system also had to be able to compensate for misfires.</p><p>Besides laboratory tests, field results from actual nuclear detonations on various materials were studied as well. There are several very notable series of tests involving different materials. While these were separate from the Orion projects, the results of these tests showed that materials could survive intact even if there were with a few meters of a nuclear blast. A series of test results with the affectionately named "Lew Allen's Balls" were studied and showed that a thin layer of graphite could act to prevent ablation of the surface.</p><p>Other "field test" types of information were used including data footage of the survival and apparent very rapid acceleration of various other materials (most notably a large plate used to cap a test area) that were in extremely close proximity to nuclear blasts yet, apparently, survived. One was never found and, jokingly, it was said it may have been the first atomically launched satellite. However, footage of its survival showed that it made it off its unintended launch pad intact. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The concept model for the pulsed propulsion used chemical exposives. It was called the "Putt Putt" test.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQCrPNEsQaYThe significance here was a workable delivery system. The system also had to be able to compensate for misfires.Besides laboratory tests, field results from actual nuclear detonations on various materials were studied as well. There are several very notable series of tests involving different materials. While these were separate from the Orion projects, the results of these tests showed that materials could survive intact even if there were with a few meters of a nuclear blast. A series of test results with the affectionately named "Lew Allen's Balls" were studied and showed that a thin layer of graphite could act to prevent ablation of the surface.Other "field test" types of information were used including data footage of the survival and apparent very rapid acceleration of various other materials (most notably a large plate used to cap a test area) that were in extremely close proximity to nuclear blasts yet, apparently, survived. One was never found and, jokingly, it was said it may have been the first atomically launched satellite. However, footage of its survival showed that it made it off its unintended launch pad intact. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>That film show a test that was kinda cute, but has no relationship to what would happen with a series of nuclear blasts. There is quite a bit of materials data from underground nuclear testing up through the early MX program era. High x-ray and neutron doses can influence material properties and create damage that you might not have considered. I am more than a wee bit skeptical that a thin coat of graphite would stop ablation, depending on what you mean by thin. I am equally skeptical that materials within a few meters of the nuclear blast will survive intact, unless there is some serious work going on to handle the shock waves from the x-ray deposition, or unless they are very thick.</p><p>But it really doesn't matter, because nobody is going to tolerate multiple atmospheric detonations of nuclear devices. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That film show a test that was kinda cute, but has no relationship to what would happen with a series of nuclear blasts. </DIV></p><p>As I said, "<em>The significance here was a workable delivery system.</em>" (Delivery system as in propulsion charge delivery.) </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is quite a bit of materials data from underground nuclear testing up through the early MX program era. High x-ray and neutron doses can influence material properties and create damage that you might not have considered. I am more than a wee bit skeptical that a thin coat of graphite would stop ablation, depending on what you mean by thin.</DIV></p><p>A few millimeters, at best, would be what would be needed as determined by laboratory tests with plasma and pusher plate materials. Anti-ablation coatings were stumbled upon during testing and research into similar methods used in the past lead to the unearthing of L.Allen's tests in which he used graphite with great success as a protective coating. It was also used, IIRC, in underground testing. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I am equally skeptical that materials within a few meters of the nuclear blast will survive intact, unless there is some serious work going on to handle the shock waves from the x-ray deposition, or unless they are very thick.</DIV></p><p>Materials have survived, intact, meters away from nuclear detonations. "Lew Allen's Balls" are just one example. The important part is that the energy from the detonation in the Orion scheme is going to be converted by the propellant, (essentially opaque to x-rays, etc) which is converted to a jet of plasma which strikes the pusher plate. So, its really not a case of direct propulsion by nuclear blast. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But it really doesn't matter, because nobody is going to tolerate multiple atmospheric detonations of nuclear devices. Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>True. The days of farming mushrooms in the desert are over.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p>I have never been in favor of any nuclear rockets operated endoatmospherically. If Orion were to be feasible as an interstellar vehicle from the cost standpoint I mentioned...that is, the whole build more bombs than were ever built during a half century arms race. The vehicle could be taken to a safe launch orbit and the bombs taken up inert of course.</p><p>There would still be some risk of radioactive contamination should an inert nuclear payload launch accident occur, and considering the scale of an Orion craft. Quite a few LVs would be required to get an Orion to orbit. These difficulties get into some of the glossed over aspects Jon Clarke alluded to. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1vKMTYa40A&feature=related <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Building Tomorrow's Space Battleships with Today's Tech<br />By Robert Peterson<br /><br />special to space.com<br />posted: 06:02 pm ET<br />21 January 2000<br />http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/space_battleship_000121.html<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Building Tomorrow's Space Battleships with Today's TechBy Robert Petersonspecial to space.composted: 06:02 pm ET21 January 2000http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/space_battleship_000121.html <br /> Posted by Kevin_J_waldroup</DIV></p><p> </p><p>The ship "Michael" from Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's "Footfall." </p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/2/edbd02a1-854e-4a3d-b239-9ce4f6ed9d0d.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">What about the EMP effect nearby satellites in orbit.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Would they be toast.</font></p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000021516_2000013018.pdf <br /> Posted by Kevin_J_waldroup</DIV></p><p>I actually authored one of those graphics (it's funny how things grow legs). It was from the MiniMagOrion project (2003) where I was the PI when I still worked at Andrews-Space (the concept is Dana Andrews' brain child). Here's a link to a page with more info if you are curious:</p><p>http://ralph.open-aerospace.org/solar/MMO/ </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>---</p><p>www.holderconsulting.com </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What about the EMP effect nearby satellites in orbit.Would they be toast. <br />Posted by js117</DIV></p><p>That depends on how close they are and what sheilding they have. High altitude EMP (HEMP) is what has received the most coverage in the popular press. The field might affect satellites, but it is not hard to provide protection. I just don't know which, if any, satellites have accepted the small weight penalty to do so. Weight is money, big money, for commercial satellites.</p><p>But if the blast is quite close you get source region effects and direct deposition of electrons. Pretty much anything electrical will be toast in that environment. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That depends on how close they are and what sheilding they have. High altitude EMP (HEMP) is what has received the most coverage in the popular press. The field might affect satellites, but it is not hard to provide protection. I just don't know which, if any, satellites have accepted the small weight penalty to do so. Weight is money, big money, for commercial satellites.But if the blast is quite close you get source region effects and direct deposition of electrons. Pretty much anything electrical will be toast in that environment. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Thank-you DrRocket<span> </span>for your comments .</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">This a another good reason not to use this type of<span> </span>propulsion.</font></p><h1 style="background:#f8fcff;margin:auto0in"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:11pt">This is also against the</span><span style="font-size:11pt"> <span>Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty which </span></span></font></h1><h1 style="background:#f8fcff;margin:auto0in"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:11pt">States</span><span class="Heading1Char"><span> </span></span></font></h1><ol><li class="MsoNormal" style="background:#f8fcff;margin:0in0in10pt;line-height:normal;tab-stops:list.5in"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'TimesNewRoman','serif'">Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any <span style="color:blue">nuclear weapon</span> test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control. <span> </span></span></li></ol><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'TimesNewRoman','serif'">China<span> , USA </span>signed this treaty.</span> <p> </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.This is also against the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty which States Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control. China , USA signed this treaty. <br />Posted by js117</DIV><br /><br />that is hardly a good reason not to use it.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 191
-
-
Blue Origin scrubs 1st New Glenn rocket launch due to technical issue- Started by Admin
- Replies: 5
-
-
Scientists turn 3 years' worth of solar flares into audible sound (video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
What happened to the flags Apollo astronauts left on the moon?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram