Author Topic: Article: Trumpís plan to privatize the ISS by 2025 probably wonít work  (Read 10205 times)

Offline Joseph Peterson

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 753

I don't see how Bigelow is part of this equation at all. As much as I want Bigelow to be successful, so far the market has not allowed him to progress far enough that could reasonably expect him to be able to build, test and certify a BA330 by 2025. Not to NASA specs at least. Just look how long it's taking Commercial Crew - 8 years if we're lucky from program kickoff.

A B330 was supposed to be shipped to NASA for ground testing in March.  IF funding and ground test results allow allow, we could potentially see XBASE launch as soon at 2020.  NextSTEP may not get the headlines, but there are results coming from the program.  It is still theoretically possible for B330 to be certified, so I used Bigelow as a placeholder.  Any company could replace Bigelow.

Quote
And I doubt NASA would be able to get away with a single-source award for a space station module to Bigelow, so there would need to be some period of contract competition.

I completely agree that we want at least two providers.  $2 billion is my working estimate for how much single-source providers would cost, assuming no providers take advantage of the lack of competition.  History indicate the hypothetical United Station Alliance will almost certainly take advantage, so $2B is a theoretical minimum.

Quote
I just don't think this plan has been well thought out by the administration. Not enough specifics have been provided to understand what is and is not possible.

Completely agree.  Until there is a rational review, I favor continuing ISS until 2028.
If ZBLAN can't pay for commercial stations, we'll just have to keep looking until we find other products that can combine to support humans earning a living in space.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
For Bigelow's prices, see the following article:

Quote from: NSF
For commercial customers, the BA 330 would cost $25M in order to rent a third of the station (i.e., 110 cubic meters) for a period of 60 days. A taxi seat aboard SpaceXís Dragonrider to the BA-330 would cost $26.5M per seat.

These prices would include consumables, all on board research equipment, a full time Bigelow Aerospace crew, astronaut training and the ability to take several kilograms of finished research products back to Earth.

According to Mr. Gold, the Bigelow crew would include a pilot and possibly another person responsible for the station keeping.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/affordable-habitats-more-buck-rogers-less-money-bigelow/
« Last Edit: 05/20/2018 02:24 PM by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
Although not mentioned in the article, the $26.5M per seat price for Dragon 2 assumed 7 astronauts per flight which wouldn't leave a lot of space for cargo.

A better estimate comes from Gerst's numbers that excludes cargo. He came up with $58M per seat (excluding cargo). If you assume 5 seats x $58m for each mission, you get a price of $290M per flight for commercial crew. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1628475#msg1628475

For commercial cargo, you can assume a price of around $225M per mission for SpaceX ($152M x 1.5).
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-to-pay-more-for-less-cargo-delivery-to-the-space-station/
« Last Edit: 05/20/2018 03:04 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4045
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2714
  • Likes Given: 3482
Although not mentioned in the article, the $26.5M per seat price for Dragon 2 assumed 7 astronauts per flight which wouldn't leave a lot of space for cargo.

A better estimate comes from Gerst's numbers that excludes cargo. He came up with $58M per seat (excluding cargo). If you assume 5 seats x $58m, you get a price of $290M per flight for commercial crew. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1628475#msg1628475

Of course that was assuming a Bigelow station in LEO for Bigelow's private station, not something being added on to the International Space Station (ISS). Different standards, different needs, etc.

And for crew and cargo launched out of the U.S. destined to an expanded or privatized ISS they would likely still use the Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew contracts for services.

Or not. Which is the challenge here - we really we don't know enough to know what approach is possible, which is why NASA and this administration need to wrap their heads around this topic and come up with some specifics.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
If you take all of the numbers mentioned above into account, you get a total of about $1.5B per year.

$450M for renting out a B330 for a year ($25M for 60 days x 6 x 3=$450M).

$580M for commercial crew (2 flights per year) and

$450M for commercial cargo (2 flights per year). 

P.S. The current price for ISS is about $5.5B per year ($3.5B from the United States and $2B from international partners).
« Last Edit: 05/20/2018 03:52 PM by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
Although not mentioned in the article, the $26.5M per seat price for Dragon 2 assumed 7 astronauts per flight which wouldn't leave a lot of space for cargo.

A better estimate comes from Gerst's numbers that excludes cargo. He came up with $58M per seat (excluding cargo). If you assume 5 seats x $58m, you get a price of $290M per flight for commercial crew. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1628475#msg1628475

Of course that was assuming a Bigelow station in LEO for Bigelow's private station, not something being added on to the International Space Station (ISS). Different standards, different needs, etc.

And for crew and cargo launched out of the U.S. destined to an expanded or privatized ISS they would likely still use the Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew contracts for services.

Or not. Which is the challenge here - we really we don't know enough to know what approach is possible, which is why NASA and this administration need to wrap their heads around this topic and come up with some specifics.

That is what they are doing, Gerst said that they have released a research announcement to get a better idea of the specifics.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5e0e00e15b74891deee925b0979a8fc4&_cview=0
« Last Edit: 05/20/2018 03:39 PM by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
See also this article:

Analysis Looks at Costs, Markets and Government Role in Private Space Stations:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2018/05/07/analysis-costs-markets-government-role-private-space-stations/
« Last Edit: 05/20/2018 03:39 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Joseph Peterson

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 753
If you take all of the numbers mentioned above into account, you get a total of about $1.5B per year.

$450M for renting out a B330 for a year ($25M for 60 days x 6 x 3=$450M).

$580M for commercial crew (2 flights per year) and

$450M for commercial cargo (2 flights per year). 

P.S. The current price for ISS is about $5.5B per year ($3.5B from the United States and $2B from international partners).

The cargo rate is too low.  A 60% decrease in launches is going to increase per launch costs.  Because D2 will be both a crew and a cargo craft, the crew average is almost certainly too low as well.

What we need is a modifier to account for reduced cadence.  I do not have all of the information necessary to calculate an exact amount.  The primary questions I need answers to are:

How many spacecraft do we want to support?  My preference is at least two cargo and two crew craft.  A single provider will most likely profit from their monopoly, leading to higher total costs.  With four total flights, Cygnus, Dream Chaser, Dragon, and Starliner each craft gets a maximum of one flight per year if we want to avoid reducing the total number of spacecraft.

and;

What flight rate does each spacecraft need to close the business case at current prices?  While I believe that Orbital can make a profit flying one Cygnus per year, fixed costs have to be  covered.  I wouldn't be surprised if Cygnus' price has to go from $225M at two flights per year to $350M at one.

While I can't say what the real minimum market size required to maintain commercial LEO transportation is, the per flight costs will be significantly higher than what we currently pay for ISS transportation with only two crew and two cargo flights per year.
If ZBLAN can't pay for commercial stations, we'll just have to keep looking until we find other products that can combine to support humans earning a living in space.

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 4
Are we approaching this question from the fundamentally the wrong perspective. 

I think there is a lot of discussion of "when can we turn ISS off."  But shouldn't the real question be "how soon can we get commercial stations up, and what will it take?" 

And right now, it doesn't appear that we are discussing what it will take. 
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
If you take all of the numbers mentioned above into account, you get a total of about $1.5B per year.

$450M for renting out a B330 for a year ($25M for 60 days x 6 x 3=$450M).

$580M for commercial crew (2 flights per year) and

$450M for commercial cargo (2 flights per year). 

P.S. The current price for ISS is about $5.5B per year ($3.5B from the United States and $2B from international partners).

The cargo rate is too low.  A 60% decrease in launches is going to increase per launch costs.  Because D2 will be both a crew and a cargo craft, the crew average is almost certainly too low as well.

What we need is a modifier to account for reduced cadence.  I do not have all of the information necessary to calculate an exact amount.  The primary questions I need answers to are:

How many spacecraft do we want to support?  My preference is at least two cargo and two crew craft.  A single provider will most likely profit from their monopoly, leading to higher total costs.  With four total flights, Cygnus, Dream Chaser, Dragon, and Starliner each craft gets a maximum of one flight per year if we want to avoid reducing the total number of spacecraft.

and;

What flight rate does each spacecraft need to close the business case at current prices?  While I believe that Orbital can make a profit flying one Cygnus per year, fixed costs have to be  covered.  I wouldn't be surprised if Cygnus' price has to go from $225M at two flights per year to $350M at one.

While I can't say what the real minimum market size required to maintain commercial LEO transportation is, the per flight costs will be significantly higher than what we currently pay for ISS transportation with only two crew and two cargo flights per year.

The current plans is to have two commercial crew flights to the ISS per year (until 2024). So it's not a reduction. For cargo, there would also be commercial cargo flights to LOP-G, so the prices shouldn't be any higher.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 02:38 PM by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
Are we approaching this question from the fundamentally the wrong perspective. 

I think there is a lot of discussion of "when can we turn ISS off."  But shouldn't the real question be "how soon can we get commercial stations up, and what will it take?" 

And right now, it doesn't appear that we are discussing what it will take.

That's a good point. At the hearing, Gerst said that fixing an date (2025) was actually the Administration's idea, not NASA's. He said that the Administration believed that it was important to have an end date in order to get the future of the ISS discussion going.

One of the interesting things is that the House seems more open to a 2025 end date for the ISS than the Senate. I thought that Cruz and Nelson's grand standing during the hearing wasn't helpful.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 03:25 PM by yg1968 »

Offline incoming

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 41
I wasn't trying to make an apple to apple comparison. My understanding is that NASA's objective in completely privatizing LEO would be to reduce the amount spent on LEO research (I am guessing to  less than a billion per year).  Half of the ISS' budget is related to commercial crew and cargo. Spending on those services would also go down because less missions would be ordered by NASA. The bulk of NASA's activities would not be in LEO anymore.

Transportation costs are not going to drop as much as you expect.  Fixed costs have to be paid to maintain LEO launch capacity.  Dragon and Starliner marginal costs are similar whether they carry one person or seven.  The same applies to partially full supply craft.  Even if we cut the number of providers it is hard to see cutting launch costs and capacity payments below $1.5 billion.  Add the rent check to Bigelow and something for the astronauts to do and we're looking at a bill of at least $2 billion.

There was a lot of talk early in the commercial crew program about what flight rate would be required to keep both contractors viable.  I think there was testimony from both Boeing and SpaceX on the topic (in case someone more motivated than me wants to look it up). But the bottom line is that what NASA is purchasing under commercial crew is probably the viability "floor" to keep the two companies in the business. Things could change if they find other customers but thus far that hasn't been the case.

On the cargo front, prices went UP from CRS 1 to CRS to, not down. Sure there is more capability being brought to bear, but we certainly aren't seeing any trending of service costs going down, even with falcon 9 reusability now more or less a reality.

When considering the "commercial" alternative to ISS, consider that at least some of the companies involved aren't just asking for rent or fee for services - they are asking for up front development funding a la commercial crew and COTS. IIRC there was about $150 million starting next year in the NASA budget for such a program. Then you also have to consider the ~$1 billion cost of de-orbiting ISS.  Add all those costs up and even if we are looking at a 50% reduction in "rent" cost vs. ISS operations costs, which seems unlikely to me, I think even the analysis above is overly optimistic. 

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
For CRS2, Orbital ATK's price went down by 15%. SpaceX's prices went up by 50%. See the ARS Technica article linked above.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2018 03:26 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Joseph Peterson

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 753
If you take all of the numbers mentioned above into account, you get a total of about $1.5B per year.

$450M for renting out a B330 for a year ($25M for 60 days x 6 x 3=$450M).

$580M for commercial crew (2 flights per year) and

$450M for commercial cargo (2 flights per year). 

P.S. The current price for ISS is about $5.5B per year ($3.5B from the United States and $2B from international partners).

The cargo rate is too low.  A 60% decrease in launches is going to increase per launch costs.  Because D2 will be both a crew and a cargo craft, the crew average is almost certainly too low as well.

What we need is a modifier to account for reduced cadence.  I do not have all of the information necessary to calculate an exact amount.  The primary questions I need answers to are:

How many spacecraft do we want to support?  My preference is at least two cargo and two crew craft.  A single provider will most likely profit from their monopoly, leading to higher total costs.  With four total flights, Cygnus, Dream Chaser, Dragon, and Starliner each craft gets a maximum of one flight per year if we want to avoid reducing the total number of spacecraft.

and;

What flight rate does each spacecraft need to close the business case at current prices?  While I believe that Orbital can make a profit flying one Cygnus per year, fixed costs have to be  covered.  I wouldn't be surprised if Cygnus' price has to go from $225M at two flights per year to $350M at one.

While I can't say what the real minimum market size required to maintain commercial LEO transportation is, the per flight costs will be significantly higher than what we currently pay for ISS transportation with only two crew and two cargo flights per year.

The current plans is to have two commercial crew flights to the ISS per year (until 2024). So it's not a reduction. For cargo, there would also be commercial cargo flights to LOP-G, so the prices shouldn't be any higher.

You expect at least two commercial cargo flight per year to LOP-G beginning in 2025?

I'm not seeing it.  I am seeing a gap in demand if we are relying on LOP-G to support commercial cargo.  Do you plan on paying companies to maintain capability during the gap?

If so, how much do you estimate we'll need to pay?

Edit: Second quote difficulties.

I wasn't trying to make an apple to apple comparison. My understanding is that NASA's objective in completely privatizing LEO would be to reduce the amount spent on LEO research (I am guessing to  less than a billion per year).  Half of the ISS' budget is related to commercial crew and cargo. Spending on those services would also go down because less missions would be ordered by NASA. The bulk of NASA's activities would not be in LEO anymore.

Transportation costs are not going to drop as much as you expect.  Fixed costs have to be paid to maintain LEO launch capacity.  Dragon and Starliner marginal costs are similar whether they carry one person or seven.  The same applies to partially full supply craft.  Even if we cut the number of providers it is hard to see cutting launch costs and capacity payments below $1.5 billion.  Add the rent check to Bigelow and something for the astronauts to do and we're looking at a bill of at least $2 billion.

There was a lot of talk early in the commercial crew program about what flight rate would be required to keep both contractors viable.  I think there was testimony from both Boeing and SpaceX on the topic (in case someone more motivated than me wants to look it up). But the bottom line is that what NASA is purchasing under commercial crew is probably the viability "floor" to keep the two companies in the business. Things could change if they find other customers but thus far that hasn't been the case.

On the cargo front, prices went UP from CRS 1 to CRS to, not down. Sure there is more capability being brought to bear, but we certainly aren't seeing any trending of service costs going down, even with falcon 9 reusability now more or less a reality.

When considering the "commercial" alternative to ISS, consider that at least some of the companies involved aren't just asking for rent or fee for services - they are asking for up front development funding a la commercial crew and COTS. IIRC there was about $150 million starting next year in the NASA budget for such a program. Then you also have to consider the ~$1 billion cost of de-orbiting ISS.  Add all those costs up and even if we are looking at a 50% reduction in "rent" cost vs. ISS operations costs, which seems unlikely to me, I think even the analysis above is overly optimistic.

$1.5 billion is my estimate of the minimum necessary to maintain commercial crew and cargo.  $2 billion adds rent for a single Bigelow module, and maybe a little bit of science spending.

ISS transportation costs once we stop buying Soyuz seat are projected to be ~$1.8B/yr.  The $300M difference is my rough estimate of the marginal launch costs we can saving by reducing the number of flights.  Fixed costs don't go away without reducing providers though.  Space and Flight support will also see a small decrease in total spending, however I don't believe people include this amount when discussing the cost of operating ISS.  If I am mistaken, I can adjust the estimate.  Without doing any digging, I expect this adjustment would be on the order of $100M/yr.

The $500M for the Bigelow module, and maybe a little bit of science spending, doesn't replace the work currently being done on ISS.  We'd need at least two, most likely three, B330s, and all of the bits ISS has and B330 doesn't.  My goal was to provide the minimum necessary station to make maintaining the commercial crew and cargo fleet worthwhile.  This cost will go up if we want to have a useful national lab in orbit.  If we want to be able to do similar levels of research on commercial stations, total savings will be measured in the hundreds of millions.  We only get huge savings from cancelling ISS if we decide to abandon LEO.

In other words, we agree.
« Last Edit: 05/24/2018 01:28 AM by Joseph Peterson »
If ZBLAN can't pay for commercial stations, we'll just have to keep looking until we find other products that can combine to support humans earning a living in space.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
The cargo rate is too low.  A 60% decrease in launches is going to increase per launch costs.  Because D2 will be both a crew and a cargo craft, the crew average is almost certainly too low as well.

What we need is a modifier to account for reduced cadence.  I do not have all of the information necessary to calculate an exact amount.  The primary questions I need answers to are:

How many spacecraft do we want to support?  My preference is at least two cargo and two crew craft.  A single provider will most likely profit from their monopoly, leading to higher total costs.  With four total flights, Cygnus, Dream Chaser, Dragon, and Starliner each craft gets a maximum of one flight per year if we want to avoid reducing the total number of spacecraft.

and;

What flight rate does each spacecraft need to close the business case at current prices?  While I believe that Orbital can make a profit flying one Cygnus per year, fixed costs have to be  covered.  I wouldn't be surprised if Cygnus' price has to go from $225M at two flights per year to $350M at one.

While I can't say what the real minimum market size required to maintain commercial LEO transportation is, the per flight costs will be significantly higher than what we currently pay for ISS transportation with only two crew and two cargo flights per year.

Under CRS2, there is a discount when a company flies multiple missions per year. I don't know what that discount is. But each company flies 6 missions during a 4-5 year period. So most companies will not be flying 2 missions per year under CRS2. However, NASA said that it might rearrange some of its cargo flights in order to reduce the price (because of this discount) of commercial cargo.
« Last Edit: 05/26/2018 02:23 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Joseph Peterson

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 753
The cargo rate is too low.  A 60% decrease in launches is going to increase per launch costs.  Because D2 will be both a crew and a cargo craft, the crew average is almost certainly too low as well.

What we need is a modifier to account for reduced cadence.  I do not have all of the information necessary to calculate an exact amount.  The primary questions I need answers to are:

How many spacecraft do we want to support?  My preference is at least two cargo and two crew craft.  A single provider will most likely profit from their monopoly, leading to higher total costs.  With four total flights, Cygnus, Dream Chaser, Dragon, and Starliner each craft gets a maximum of one flight per year if we want to avoid reducing the total number of spacecraft.

and;

What flight rate does each spacecraft need to close the business case at current prices?  While I believe that Orbital can make a profit flying one Cygnus per year, fixed costs have to be  covered.  I wouldn't be surprised if Cygnus' price has to go from $225M at two flights per year to $350M at one.

While I can't say what the real minimum market size required to maintain commercial LEO transportation is, the per flight costs will be significantly higher than what we currently pay for ISS transportation with only two crew and two cargo flights per year.

Under CRS2, there is a discount when a company flies multiple missions per year. I don't know what that discount is. But each company flies 6 flight during a 4-5 year period. So most companies will not be flying 2 missions per year under CRS2. However, NASA said that it might rearrange some of its cargo flights in order to reduce the price (because of this discount) of commercial cargo.

Now we're starting to get on the same page. 

While I find it highly unlikely that LOP-G will need two cargo flights per year beginning in 2025, I will assume it is possible for the sake of argument.  Let's assign the cargo flights.

Each station will need at least one cargo ship capable of returning cargo to Earth.  Dragon and Dream Chaser get at least one flight each.

Each station will need at least one ship for waste disposal(assuming we don't want to spend extra developing dedicated waste disposal systems).  Cygnus gets one flight to each station, for a total of two flights.  This limits Dragon and Dream Chaser to one cargo flight per year maximum.

Crew flights are straightforward, unless crew Dream Chaser comes online.  Dragon and Starliner each get one.

The lack of any potential for competitive bidding without reducing providers troubles me though.  It's hard to foresee many scenarios where costs don't spiral out of control, especially with Orbital's waste disposal monopoly.
If ZBLAN can't pay for commercial stations, we'll just have to keep looking until we find other products that can combine to support humans earning a living in space.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
The best way to prevent cost increases is that no one would be guaranteed of anything under the next contract (CRS3). If the prices of one provider are excessive compared to the others, that company would not obtain a contract. It would even be possible to add new companies such as Blue Origin. Although I expect SNC to team up with Blue Origin during CRS2 (SNC has hinted that this could happen). In terms of how many cargo flights would be required to LOP-G, I don't think that NASA knows at this point. 
« Last Edit: 05/26/2018 02:21 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4045
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2714
  • Likes Given: 3482
The best way to prevent cost increases is that no one would be guaranteed of anything under the next contract (CRS3).

One of the components of price estimating for contracts is how much certainty there is, so removing certainty may actually have the opposite effect you're looking for.

Quote
If the prices of one provider are excessive compared to the others, that company would not obtain a contract.

Which is what happens when you have competitive bidding. This is actually what happens today assuming all bidders meet the requirements for all other categories and price is the determinant factor.

Quote
It would even be possible to add new companies such as Blue Origin.

Once NASA is no longer the end customer one would hope that the launch customers (i.e. those that own/operate the cargo and crew spacecraft) would be responsible for bringing on and managing new launch providers.

Quote
In terms of how many cargo flights would be required to LOP-G, I don't think that NASA knows at this point.

And LOP-G is a NASA program, so it's unlikely the privatizing discussion above applies. NASA will likely want to be in control of it's supply chain like it does today.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9652
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 869
CRS1 companies were not guaranteed to have a contract under CRS2. The same thing is likely to happen to an eventual CRS3. You are likely to have a minimum amount of missions (for example 6) but that's it.

I never said anything about LOP-G being privatized but Gerst has mentioned that NASA would need commercial cargo for the LOP-G. It might be under a different contract than CRS but the concept would be similar.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2018 04:07 AM by yg1968 »

Tags: