A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old December 19th 16, 05:09 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?

I've snipped most of the comment as having been either hashed up by
Mookie switching back and forth between inline responses and bottom
responses or else just being Mookie being Mookie (and therefore merely
stupid).

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 1:23:45 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Skip to the bottom. Mookie once again flouts Usenet conventions by
posting everything at the bottom rather than in line with the original
discussion.


big snip

William Mook wrote:

WIth an evergrowing population of ever wealthier individuals, it is doubtful that the Earth will long supply the material needs of humanity. For that reason it is imperative to develop the means to meet this ever growing need from resources found in interplanetary space.


You and I will both be long dead by the time that even starts to look
like a problem.


Its a problem today. Water and steel prices are rising. We're paying vastly more for energy today than we were in the 1960s.


Energy is about 20% CHEAPER now than it was in 1960. The same is true
of steel and water.



This is rather like the whole 'peak oil' thing.


We're paying vastly more for energy today than we were in the 1960s. Prices fluctuate as as demand erodes. We are already past the peak.


No, we are actually paying less in constant dollars for energy than we
were in the 1960s. Peak oil has been predicted over and over. We
haven't hit it yet and it currently looks like the whole idea of 'peak
oil' is flawed.



'Proven reserves' has always been around 30 years worth for the last
half century or so. That's because we find new sources and improve
technology to be able to economically recover poorer deposits.


You have forgotten that oil prices were over $100 per barrel for a time. What do you think happened then? That's right, those people who needed oil to be low cost to survive, WENT OUT OF BUSINESS. This is called erosion of demand. Once that demand is gone, it won't come back easily. When demand falls below supply because of energy intensive business going out of business, prices moderate, but they never return to earlier epoch and even minor increases in demand spike prices very rapidly. We are in the post peak world whether you want to admit it or not.


I haven't forgotten anything. We're certainly not in a 'post-peak
world' because we still haven't hit peak oil yet, despite numerous
predictions about how we should have hit it already. What happened to
drop oil prices? A financial slump reducing demand coupled with new
recovery methods leading to vastly increased production is what
happened. Oil will probably remain 'soft' for another year or two and
then gradually recover as OPEC reduces production to decrease supply.


ALL
natural resources tend to work this way. You talk a lot about
hematite on Mars, but the concentrations in your own citations are way
too poor to be viable mining sources.


Meteorites crashing into the surface create huge globs of iron that are sitting on the surface. You can mine iron efficiently with a broom and a magnet on Mars today. You cannot do that on Earth.


Nope. Your own cite didn't show that. For it to work as you claim,
there would have to be molten iron near the surface of Mars. There
isn't. Your cite showed AN IRON METEORITE. That's iron that came
from elsewhere and hit Mars, Mookie, and it's just the size of the
meteorite. There is no massive flow of molten iron from inside Mars
because Mars is cool.




If items on Mars cannot be made and delivered to Earth more cheaply than Earth based resources, then there is no reason to ever go to Mars. Fortunately mass driver technology and power plant technology exists TODAY that make that possible.


No reason in your tiny mind, anyway. So YOU should not go.


You're the one who has a small mind if you cannot admit that the resources off world are vastly greater than remain on Earth. That is a very powerful and important reason to go to Mars and the other worlds of the solar system today. To make life better for everyone on Earth and bring about a trophic change in our environment.


Sorry, but you are both ignorant and insane.


Robots are transforming mining today


But not the kind of robots your citation above was about.


Nonsense. Mining robots mine materials.


Nonsense. You think that by scrambling between in-line and bottom
posting you can cloud what you said. I repeat - not the kind of
robots your citation was about.


http://fortune.com/2015/08/25/intern...ning-industry/


Big headline, no data. Talk about what they're "going to do".


You have no idea what you're talking about. By the time Musk has colonists going to Mars, those colonists will have AI driven mining equipment, manufacturing equipment, and equipment to blast materials back to Earth cheaply to anyone who wants to pay for it.


Yes, it will be a MookMagicalMars. Sure it will.

Munch Massive MookMagical Maundering


Heat shield rock - 98% iron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_re..._Meteorite.jpg

98% pure iron - created by a meteorite crashing into the iron rich surface of mars and spewing out pure iron.


And here we see Mookie's problem. He just doesn't read very well. The
cite is about AN IRON METEORITE. His last sentence above is simply
wrong and has nothing to do with his cite.


You are unaware of how the meteorite was formed. It was formed from an impactor impacting the iron rich surface of Mars and the energy blasting metal far and wide. Putting aside the formation of the chunk of iron and the far larger number of iron 'berries' found on the surface of Mars, ask yourself the following question; How many pure iron chunks like this exist on Earth? The answer is - none. How many pure iron chunks like this exist on Mars, well with only 4 rovers covering a grand total of 50 km with the horizon 3.4 km away - we've discovered one big one like the one I show in the figure, and thousands of smaller ones littering the landscape. So, like I said, with a broom and a magnet, you could sweep up 98% pure iron process it into steel and shoot it out of a General Atomics Rail gun at 14,000 mph and send over a billion dollars woth of steel back to Earth at virtually no added cost.


Do you know what the word 'meteorite' means, you ignorant ****? The
'meteorite' *IS* the 'impactor'. And you're wrong about Earth. See
Sudbury, for example. Yes, you may not get 'berries' because we have
air, but so what? There is no iron close to the surface to flow out
from a meteor strike on Mars.




General Atomics - MHD Fission Reactor
https://fusion.gat.com/pubs-ext/AnnS...ETC/A23593.pdf


Do you have a point? I've known about MHDs for decades.


The point is they're not in use on Earth for a variety of very good reasons. Those reasons don't apply on Mars. Supporting the notion that energy on Mars will be very cheap indeed.


MHDs are not magically cheap.


General Atomics - Rail Gun - fires a bullet fast enough to escape the moon's surface and hit Earth. Can be carried on the back of a truck, on a ship, or in a rocket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNLrQhn5nLo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygHN-vplJZg

Mach 7 - 2.3 km/sec - exceeds the escape velocity of the Moon. So, this device carried to the Moon, and powered up, would easily be capable of driving a lot of mass to Earth dirt cheap.


No.


Yes.


No.



I've been to Dahlgren and know about this program.


You obviously have not been read into the programme otherwise you'd keep your mouth shut about what you know first hand.


You obviously have no idea how classified programs work.



You apparently do not.


I know what Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work said about it. It achieves Mach 7 in Earth's atmosphere after exiting the barrel. That's 2.3 km/sec - lunar escape velocity. Now according to BAE CEO Jerry DeMuro the system is capable of attaining velocities in vacuo far higher. High enough to send projectiles from the Moon to Earth or from Mars to Earth. A well designed mass launcher would fit inside a 40 foot container and when deployed on Mars could send $1 billion a year worth of iron and other materials from Mars to any point on Earth.


You are ignoring so much of reality that the preceding is mere
fantasy. Energy isn't free. The 'barrel' certainly isn't free. How
many payloads can take the deposition of energy entailed by the
magnetic fields of a rail gun? How do you actually get the payloads
to a destination, since just aiming and shooting won't work?

snip Mook fantasies and insults

Jesus, but you're a stupid ****, Mookie.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #62  
Old December 19th 16, 12:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:44:32 AM UTC+13, Jonathan wrote:
On 12/17/2016 10:59 PM, William Mook wrote:



Dated does not mean outdated.

WIth an evergrowing population of ever wealthier individuals, it is doubtful that the Earth will long supply the material needs of humanity. For that reason it is imperative to develop the means to meet this ever growing need from resources found in interplanetary space.

If items on Mars cannot be made and delivered to Earth more cheaply than Earth based resources, then there is no reason to ever go to Mars. Fortunately mass driver technology and power plant technology exists TODAY that make that possible.




You're conclusion has a glaring logical flaw.


No it doesn't.

If we can't
learn to live on Earth in a sustainable way, given it's
incredible abundance and ideal conditions,


The biosphere is ideal for lower forms of life who don't mind competing tooth and claw and creating a culture of the survival of the fittest to that lower order irrespective of other higher values humanity might wish to develop.

Conditions on Earth are non-ideal for an intelligent industrial species. It is only by creating an industrial infrastructure that exists independently of the biosphere, and in fact sustains terrestrial conditions off world that we can continue to grow and develop as an intelligent industrial species.


This is pointy haired boss b.s.

You sound like you're claiming that industrialized farming is non-
sustainable. There are still inefficiencies in farming which can be
leveraged in order to produce more food than we do today. We've not
reached "peak food", if there is such a thing, considering "peak oil"
does not seem to have happened yet either.

Hell, John Deere is working on an all electric tractor ("full-sized",
not some tiny sub-scale prototype) which will improve efficiency and
overall reliability.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #63  
Old December 19th 16, 12:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?

In article ,
says...

On 12/18/2016 9:00 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
Face it, Mookie. Anything that makes mining cheaper or allows the use
of poorer ores on Mars will do the same thing here on Earth.
Interplanetary travel will never be able to compete in cost with
trains and ships, so Mars transportation costs to Earth will always be
much higher. That that means is that 'commodities' are always going
to be cheaper to produce here on Earth and they're more valuable on
Mars than they are shipping them to Earth where they cannot compete in
price. Obviously you are not only not an engineer, but you are not
even adequate as a 'business guy'.


Agreed. And even as transportation to/from Mars gets cheaper, so will
transportation on earth.

This is why I hate these "far future" discussions in sci.space.policy.
They're so far into the future that they absolutely do not impact policy
today. Instead of here, they belong in a rec.arts.sf group (or
something similar).

Today, we need to keep working on reusable transportation architectures
for space travel. Things that are near term like Falcon 9 first stage
reuse and ACES upper stage reuse. Follow that with reusable landers for
the moon and/or Mars.

Jeff




I think what is needed is a new profitable reason to
put people into orbit, once that happens the
free market will take care of the launch costs.


We have a profitable "new" reason, but it only works if launch costs
come down to something reasonable. That new reason is tourism. There
is a huge pent up demand for this, but just how big and how profitable
depends on how low launch prices can go.

The reasons, or excuses, to put people into orbit
are mostly pie in the sky uses like colonies or
joy rides.


Space tourism isn't as pie in the sky as many people think. The
Russians have charged tens of millions of dollars each for tourist
flights to ISS. This was pure profit for Russia since they were going
to fly to ISS *anyway*. They just swapped a government funded cosmonaut
seat for a "tourist" seat and charged a hell of a lot more (i.e.
profit!).

Drop that number by a couple orders of magnitude and the demand will go
up accordingly.

When fossil fuel costs become excessive then
a truly useful commodity like space solar power
can become practical and the free markets will
have a new reason to build large structures
in space.


Space power will be useful for the military long before it could ever be
profitable for commercial purposes. Hopefully the military will perfect
the technology. After that, who knows.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #64  
Old December 19th 16, 12:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?

Jeff Findley wrote:


Hell, John Deere is working on an all electric tractor ("full-sized",
not some tiny sub-scale prototype) which will improve efficiency and
overall reliability.


And this is actually a great application for electrics if the thing
isn't significantly more expensive than a regular tractor. It could
plow or whatever all day at the usual slow tractor speeds, then go
plug in and recharge at night. If it's autonomous and you can run it
at night, you could buy an extra set of batteries and keep one set on
charge while the other is being used.

What makes electric cars impractical are the range issues and how long
they take to charge. This is much less an issue with something like a
tractor.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #65  
Old December 19th 16, 03:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?

Lithium-6 Deuteride may be used to make a fission free nuclear explosive. By compressing the material to a high density before exposing it to a neutron flux very compact nuclear explosives can be made that release 270 billion joules per gram of material with no long-lived radioactive byproducts!

A micro-nuclear pulse engine may be built that creates an EMP with prompt radiation within a structure of the engine so that the expanding plasma is efficiently ejected, making efficient use of the energy. This basically solves the problem of space travel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEtaQpHBP4U

A vehicle with a 99,196 ton take off weight, consists of 48,942 tons of inert propellant, 36.4 kilogams of lithium-6 deuteride pellets subdivided into 1 million pellets each 36.4 milligrams each. Each releasing the equivalent of 2.34 tons of TNT. Surrounding each pellet is 48.94 kg of inert propellant within a 46 cm diameter bottle - which is filled with sea water contained in four 28.6 meter diameter spheres. At full thrust (2 gees) the four nuclear pulse engines of this craft detonate 497 of these pulse units each second in each engine.

The 99,196 ton vehicle carries 13,018 tons of payload, its structure is 37,235 tons, it carries 48,942 tons of inert propellant. With an exhaust velocity of 20 km/sec it attains 13.3 km/sec ideal delta vee, which when departing from Earth's surface, loaded with this payload is sufficient to travel to Mars. There are 250 passengers and crew on board. A little over 52 tons per person. 2 tons of consumables each. 50 tons of equipment each.

On Mars the vehicle when loaded with 100,000 tons of payload and the same structure and propellant (this time drawn from available water ice on Mars) attains a speed of 6.1 km/sec - which when starting on the Surface of Mars is sufficient to bring the payload back to Earth. With material that's worth $3,000 per ton, this earns $300 million per synodic period, and brings back another 13,018 tons from Earth. Dividing by 2.15 years per synodic period and 250 people that's $558,140 per person per year.

Of course a magnetic mass driver can send lower valued materials from Mars to Earth than rockets, merely by projecting it at 6.1 km/sec off Mars pointing in the right direction firing at the right speed at the right time. Shells are guided after departing the driver, so accuracy is important and improved upon since corrections can be applied mid flight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev0G49jXJX0

This cannon built for terrestrial use, shoots a 25 pound shell at a speed of 2.3 km/sec. Lunar escape velocity. Outside the atmosphere of Earth with a slightly longer cannon, but similar in every respect, this device can lob a shell at Mars escape velocity 36x per second! That's 1,620 tons per hour. During the 2,200 hour window each synodic period between Earth and Mars a single mass launcher like this transfer 3.56 million tons. 1.65 million tons per year. At $300 per ton this is another $495 million per year or $1.98 million per person per year.

This structure fraction, and overall weight and size - matches that of an AFRAMAX tanker. New builds run less than $65 million. They're 245 meters long 34 meter beam and 30 meter depth. A 30 meter diameter tank on each 'corner' of the ship fills with water, each feeds its own 120 meter arm that is actuated and contains a nuclear pulse propulsion unit at its tip. The propulsion unit gimbals in any direction once fully deployed.

A far larger version of something like this, but with nuclear pulse rockets on the tips, not rotors;

http://actu.epfl.ch/news/a-folding-d...off-in-a-snap/

A dozen of these built for $780 million - $312,000 per person. Another $1,040,000 - or $2,000 per ton - pays for the equipment that is transported to Mars. $1,352,000 per peson.

Water and iron, aluminum and other materials are easily available on Mars for return to Earth. Being able to earn $700,000+ per year one can see that people would arrange to go to Mars to earn substantial returns, or borrow money from others to achieve this, or arrange to send another to Mars to share in the value they can create there.

So, a 5 year period earning say $3.5 million return - on a $1.4 million investment - a 20% annual rate of return compounded for five years!

There are 12 million high net worth individuals in the world who have $46.2 trillion in disposable wealth. 1% of this population represents 120,000 per year and $462 billion per year. About 1,032 ships every synodic period.. 1,032 mass drivers operating across mars would deliver all the steel and needed on Earth and the ships 100 million tons per synodic period of higher value goods.

Within five years with this approach the Earth's markets would be saturated and other opportunities would be developed. Delivering for example, power stations built on Mars and deployed in GEO to deliver power on Earth by laser beam. Farm satellites built on Mars and deployed in polar orbit to deliver food anywhere its needed on Earth in minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcO_BjXfhhc



  #66  
Old December 19th 16, 04:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 8:54:09 AM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
I've been looking at some the incredibly expensive
steps which are planned for a Mars colony.

From the massive rockets, massive transports
and things like droves of robots that will
dig out an underground habitat and so on
and so on and so on...

Sounds like Trillions of dollars will be
needed over several decades.

Of course we all know that as time goes on
and cost estimates steadily rise, the
goals will shrink and shrink, until
in the end we land a couple of astronauts
for a couple of weeks.

But even if a self sustaining colony of
say a 100 people is established, what
will the human race get in return for
all this money and effort?



Finding life on Mars?


NASA has made it clear that's not a primary
concern. The current MSL couldn't identify
life is it was sitting in a field of moss.

And the next rover won't be able to either, instead
looking for signs of...ancient life, and identify
samples for some....future sample return mission
and to support some...future human habitation.

THE MSL 202O CAN DO EVERYTHING.....EXCEPT
DIRECTLY SEARCH FOR LIFE.

http://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/news/w...ws&NewsID=1678


It's yet another rover that's meant to get
a...sample return mission and colony instead
of directly searching for life.

That's just another self-serving deception
on the part of NASA, at the expense of
science and what the public wants.

For the incredible cost of a manned
landing, we could send a hundred much
more ambitious rovers far faster and
cover far more ground than a manned
landing.



Allow the human race to survive an impact?


It's far cheaper and easier to spot, divert
or destroy an asteroid than this colony.


Inspiration?


For what? Colonies around Jupiter?
Again, for the same end, just more
inspiration?


For resources?


What doesn't the Earth have that
the moon or asteroids have?


For national pride?


Spending that money directly improving America
would do far more in that respect.




If an agency is going to spend Trillions of
precious research money on a single project
it needs to be thoroughly justified so as
to be easily convincing.

So far I only see 'planting the flag' as
the only widespread appeal, and that's
not enough.


wonder what laser beams from space could do to our atmosphere?

just wait till a aiming problem or isis hacker redirects the beam into a weapon
  #67  
Old December 19th 16, 05:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 4:20:10 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jonathan wrote:


When fossil fuel costs become excessive then
a truly useful commodity like space solar power
can become practical and the free markets will
have a new reason to build large structures
in space.


It's cheaper to build your solar power plant down here. Again, the
cost of lifting all that stuff from Earth in the first place makes
space-based solar far too expensive. Hell, Earth-based solar is too
expensive right now and space-based costs at least an order of
magnitude more.

And why would a solar power satellite require people?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw


Inflatable concentrators that focus light on to thin disk solar pumped lasers that use conjugate optics to beam energy reliably and safely to Earth - produce 22 kW of useable power on the ground per kg of payload at GEO. A Falcon Heavy puts 18 tons into GEO sufficient to produce 400 MW of power continuously. The satellite costs $110 million. The Launch $90 million - $200 million altogether. At $0.11 per kWh a 400 MW power satellite operating 8,766 hours per year generats $385 million per year in revenue.

  #68  
Old December 19th 16, 08:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?

bob haller wrote:


wonder what laser beams from space could do to our atmosphere?


Nothing.


just wait till a aiming problem or isis hacker redirects the beam into a weapon


You probably believe nuclear reactors can be made to explode like
bombs, too.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #69  
Old December 19th 16, 09:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 4:20:10 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jonathan wrote:


When fossil fuel costs become excessive then
a truly useful commodity like space solar power
can become practical and the free markets will
have a new reason to build large structures
in space.


It's cheaper to build your solar power plant down here. Again, the
cost of lifting all that stuff from Earth in the first place makes
space-based solar far too expensive. Hell, Earth-based solar is too
expensive right now and space-based costs at least an order of
magnitude more.

And why would a solar power satellite require people?


Inflatable concentrators that focus light on to thin disk solar pumped lasers that use conjugate optics to beam energy reliably and safely to Earth - produce 22 kW of useable power on the ground per kg of payload at GEO. A Falcon Heavy puts 18 tons into GEO sufficient to produce 400 MW of power continuously. The satellite costs $110 million. The Launch $90 million - $200 million altogether. At $0.11 per kWh a 400 MW power satellite operating 8,766 hours per year generats $385 million per year in revenue.


At the price point you give an SPS doesn't produce anything. Prices
for SPS power are up around $3 or so, not 11 cents.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #70  
Old December 19th 16, 10:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?


William Mook wrote:
In 1970 during the first oil crisis (perhaps you heard of it)


That was 1973.

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Colds and a [Mars] colony Alain Fournier[_3_] Policy 5 November 20th 16 11:28 PM
An American Colony on Mars! Marvin the Martian Policy 22 July 25th 09 01:38 AM
for Karl the referee's parliamentary, such as me it's fixed, whereas under you it's sustaining provincial [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 August 14th 07 08:37 AM
Distance from on man to a colony is very great Moon or Mars boblpetersen1 Misc 13 November 18th 04 10:27 PM
Mars Colony hours, minutes, seconds Fidcal Astronomy Misc 1 February 2nd 04 05:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.