Poll

Which section should this thread be in

Advanced Topics
3 (21.4%)
SpaceX Section
11 (78.6%)

Total Members Voted: 14

Voting closed: 12/16/2018 01:24 pm


Author Topic: Re-purposing SpaceX hardware for near term exploration of Mars  (Read 9479 times)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8932
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6146
  • Likes Given: 2079
No that's incorrect, see the attached image, this is the BFS (2017 configuration), it is not being used in mass colonization, but being used to launch a satellite.

As I alluded to in the previous post, this illustration is pure marketing spin.

You don't need a BFS to launch a satellite. You gain nothing. It just adds more mass and then you have to land the BFS and re-cycle it.

And now you're going to tell me that the BFS is effectively an upper stage. Well, it can be, but its also an enormous development cost which you have to recover from a limited market when you could have used a conventional upper stage and still have people willing to pay for it.

Where is the customer that is willing to pay more for a satellite launch using a BFS as an upper stage?

That's the whole point of BFS: By being fully reusable the cost of launching BFS to deploy a payload to orbit (such as the satellite in the picture) drops well below that of (partially) expendable systems such as Vulcan, Ariane and even F9 and FH.

But from your repeated posts it is rapidly becoming clear that you are incapable of getting your head around the concept of reusability and the cost savings that come along. You are just as much in denial as the CEO's of ULA and Arianespace were two years ago.

Offline Russel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 1


And that's where this thread begins. Absent of a BFS, but given the technology, how then do you propose to explore Mars.

And I do wish you guys would get back on topic.

my take on it is that SpaceX, NG (maybe I dont know the economics of their vehicle), Blue and yes ULA are all positioned to start playing a role in first a lunar "surge" and than next a Mars up tick in exploration.

but people will go to the Moon first...and that will be a proving ground for the "methods" that are used for Mars exploration (and maybe Venus atmosphere) ...the key is going to develop an architecture that works...

I'm not particularly bothered by the "moon first" approach. Its really unnecessary to getting to Mars but if someone want to then why not, we will learn things from it.

What I do have a problem with is Elon and his fans getting distracted from the fact that getting to Mars is hard. Colonisation is a couple of orders of magnitude harder. If we are going to get there in the near term to actually explore then we are going to need an architecture that doesn't involve large scale ISRU and therefore doesn't involve a direct to Mars surface and then direct to Earth approach. I also have a problem with NASA wasting a lot of money on something (SLS) when it could get the same thing cheaper from commercial providers and instead concentrate on doing the really hard stuff.

Offline Russel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 1
No that's incorrect, see the attached image, this is the BFS (2017 configuration), it is not being used in mass colonization, but being used to launch a satellite.

As I alluded to in the previous post, this illustration is pure marketing spin.

You don't need a BFS to launch a satellite. You gain nothing. It just adds more mass and then you have to land the BFS and re-cycle it.

And now you're going to tell me that the BFS is effectively an upper stage. Well, it can be, but its also an enormous development cost which you have to recover from a limited market when you could have used a conventional upper stage and still have people willing to pay for it.

Where is the customer that is willing to pay more for a satellite launch using a BFS as an upper stage?

That's the whole point of BFS: By being fully reusable the cost of launching BFS to deploy a payload to orbit (such as the satellite in the picture) drops well below that of (partially) expendable systems such as Vulcan, Ariane and even F9 and FH.

But from your repeated posts it is rapidly becoming clear that you are incapable of getting your head around the concept of reusability and the cost savings that come along. You are just as much in denial as the CEO's of ULA and Arianespace were two years ago.

You're now being uncivil.

I've made it clear I have no problem with the idea of reusability, but how many times do I need to repeat that BFS as it is presented (a very large Mars colonisation vehicle) is non-commercial. Its not needed at the scale its presented as. Not for commercial uses.

That doesn't mean that they won't test BFS related technology and that that won't result in a reusable upper stage for commercial use.

But that does not mean that we should expect that a full scale BFS will be the first to land on Mars. For one thing, it won't be going anywhere without fuel.

We need to be sensible and pragmatic about this.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 12:16 pm by Russel »

Offline Russel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 1
I will also add that despite all the talk about the BFS, this thread was created to specifically exclude discussion of the BFS. Discussion of the BFS is off topic.

So would you guys kindly stay on topic?

Moderators. Can you please enforce this?
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 12:20 pm by Russel »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8932
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6146
  • Likes Given: 2079
Because the only ones who can actually tell if BFS is financially viable (or not) are Elon and Gwynne.

there are other people who can make as good a judgment as those two.  I'll name two.  the first is the money people and the second is the USAF.

both have a pretty good idea of the economic "possibilities" of BFR/BFS or whatever it is called

You state an assumption here. Ample proof for your assumption being a bad one can be found in the fact that those same money people are still very much willing to invest in SpaceX. And USAF is actively funding the development of the BFR/BFS engine: Raptor.

Issuing statement the way you do makes you sound like that (former) ULA guy who used an Excel spreadsheet to "prove" that first stage reusability for Falcon 9 was cost ineffective.
Time proved him wrong on every assumption he had made to support his "proof".

I dont know about that either...I have not seen the spreadsheet...but the reusability and economics behind the first stage reuse are still "in work"
No, they are not. The savings SpaceX is getting from reusing F9 first stages have already begun to pay back significant chunks of the reusability-development investments. It is only a matter of time (and less time than you might think) before every single reuse of an F9 first stage is adding very significant profits to every single launch, above and beyond the profits they are already making now.

It's a one-size-fits-all vehicle to do everything.
Point-To-Point transportation of cargo and passengers. Launch of commercial payloads. Launch of institutional payloads. Launch of military payloads.
The history of "onse size fits all vehicles that can do anything is not promising

And yet that is where everyone is heading for.
See: https://spacenews.com/launch-companies-reduce-vehicle-options-to-lower-costs/

On a more personal note. I can understand that you, being a hardcore fan of Boeing, have a tendency to react strongly to every post concerning SpaceX. After all, SpaceX and Boeing are not exactly friends.
But I suggest you remember what happened the last time you over-reacted in similar discussions.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8932
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6146
  • Likes Given: 2079
You're now being uncivil.
No. I'm pointing out a pattern that is beginning to emerge from your recent posts.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 12:24 pm by woods170 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8932
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6146
  • Likes Given: 2079
I will also add that despite all the talk about the BFS, this thread was created to specifically exclude discussion of the BFS. Discussion of the BFS is off topic.

So would you guys kindly stay on topic?

Moderators. Can you please enforce this?

If discussion of the BFS is off topic than why did you bother to mention BFR/BFS no less than half a dozen times in your opening post?
By doing that you very much made BFR/BFS on-topic.


Also: if you wish to address the moderators: there is a "Report to moderator"  link underneath every single post. Use that in stead of addressing them in the open thread. It's much more efficient.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 07:07 pm by woods170 »

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 1381


And that's where this thread begins. Absent of a BFS, but given the technology, how then do you propose to explore Mars.

And I do wish you guys would get back on topic.

my take on it is that SpaceX, NG (maybe I dont know the economics of their vehicle), Blue and yes ULA are all positioned to start playing a role in first a lunar "surge" and than next a Mars up tick in exploration.

but people will go to the Moon first...and that will be a proving ground for the "methods" that are used for Mars exploration (and maybe Venus atmosphere) ...the key is going to develop an architecture that works...

I'm not particularly bothered by the "moon first" approach. Its really unnecessary to getting to Mars but if someone want to then why not, we will learn things from it.

What I do have a problem with is Elon and his fans getting distracted from the fact that getting to Mars is hard. Colonisation is a couple of orders of magnitude harder. If we are going to get there in the near term to actually explore then we are going to need an architecture that doesn't involve large scale ISRU and therefore doesn't involve a direct to Mars surface and then direct to Earth approach. I also have a problem with NASA wasting a lot of money on something (SLS) when it could get the same thing cheaper from commercial providers and instead concentrate on doing the really hard stuff.

SLS (and to some extent the gateway) are a function of next to zero political leadership from the executive office ie the office of the president

All presidents come into office and eventually get into "space policy".  in the process of getting "into it" they go from "lets do something different because my administration is doing everything different from the last one" to the reality of "wow its expensive to do things in space and worse NASA is not very good at it anymore and Idont want to have a Challenger or Columbia on my watch"

so what do they do?  give money to build things.  building things is fine because they take forever, keep certain pols happy and never fly.

The notion of changing how human spaceflight is done is not that appealing because it offers now so little reward.  no politician (ormost of them anyway) thinks that sending people to the moon would get them any "creds" with the American people

The loss in TX 7 where the guy had brought home the space pork and his rival ridiculed it...its not a single event

As for Musk and Mars...

you and I are I guess two of the skeptics.  I think Musk balked on Red Dragon 1) because NASA wouldnt pay the money to make the powered landing stuff work and 2) he got worried that Dragon would not last the trip to mars.

right now he has the best ofboth worlds...he is slowly but surely developing a solid product that probably has lower cost to orbit (real lower cost to orbit) then the competition and might be on the verge of some real break throughs in refurbishment/reusability

and the day of "every person access to space" is pushed back yet again...

But I predict that Musk like Blue and ULA and other groups wont get to far from where federal money is going...and tht is to the Moon.  he needs the money  the federal government pays primo dollars

EDIT...one more thing

I really dont think most Americans say 98 or 99 percent CARE about what goes on in space with humans.

« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 12:39 pm by TripleSeven »

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1447
  • Liked: 1291
  • Likes Given: 116
Once again, I have no problem with the size of BFR. It may get built. But in order for it to get built it may get built first in a smaller version. My real issue is with BFS. BFS only really has one purpose and that's mass colonisation. Again, I'm not going to speak my mind about that issue on this thread. I just assert that BFS is not what we are going to be using for initial exploratory missions to Mars.

No that's incorrect, see the attached image, this is the BFS (2017 configuration), it is not being used in mass colonization, but being used to launch a satellite.

As I alluded to in the previous post, this illustration is pure marketing spin.

No, it's not, they already got a billionaire customer for a non-Mars related mission using BFS.

Quote
You don't need a BFS to launch a satellite. You gain nothing. It just adds more mass and then you have to land the BFS and re-cycle it.

Of course you gain something: lower launch cost, as already explained multiple times above. Yes it adds more mass and need to be landed and reused, but that's the same for F9 first stage too, are you telling me you think F9 first stage reuse gains nothing either? After all you don't need reusable first stage to launch a satellite either.

Quote
And now you're going to tell me that the BFS is effectively an upper stage.

Not just "effectively", it is an upper stage with integrated fairing.

Quote
Well, it can be, but its also an enormous development cost which you have to recover from a limited market when you could have used a conventional upper stage and still have people willing to pay for it.

Assuming BFR launch cost is $7M, and reusable F9 launch cost is $30M, then for each launch BFR can save $23M. To payback $5B of development cost, it needs ~200 launches. Assuming 20 launches per year, it needs ~10 years to pay back the development cost, not great but not bad either.

But once you adds Starlink the savings provided by BFR went through the roof, SpaceX has 11,000 satellites to launch, assuming 25 satellites per F9, that's 440 F9 launches or $13B in launch cost. Now assume BFR can launch 100 satellites per launch, then they only need 110 BFR launches or $770M in launch cost, an order of magnitude reduction in cost and a saving of $10B+, more than enough to pay back the BFR development cost.

And this doesn't even consider the fact that BFS opens up additional markets that conventional upper stage can never dream of. For example, SpaceX already signed up a customer willing to pay hundreds of millions for one BFS mission.

Quote
Where is the customer that is willing to pay more for a satellite launch using a BFS as an upper stage?

Customer doesn't need to pay more, they pay less since BFR is designed to be cheaper than F9/FH due to full reusability.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 12:40 pm by su27k »

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 1381

You state an assumption here. Ample proof for your assumption being a bad one can be found in the fact that those same money people are still very much willing to invest in SpaceX. And USAF is actively funding the development of the BFR/BFS engine: Raptor.

the USAF balked on any funds for BFR  the engine survives (and goes onto Falcon upper stage) if BFR or whatever it is called fails

but the USAF knows the money issue well


Quote
No, they are not. The savings SpaceX is getting from reusing F9 first stages have already begun to pay back significant chunks of the reusability-development investments. It is only a matter of time (and less time than you might think) before every single reuse of an F9 first stage is adding very significant profits to every single launch, above and beyond the profits they are already making now.

that is your opinion, one which is not universally held

Quote
And yet that is where everyone is heading for.

no not really.  Most are headed toward a vehicle which will deliver 15 tons to lunar orbit and more mass to LEO...almost no one is really working on point to point, a mars vehicle etc...  thats a SpaceX thing alone.




 

Offline Chris Bergin

Is this thread going anywhere? Seems to be an awful lot of "my idea" and "nope" style Q&A.

And people are going to get frustrated with lines like "What I do have a problem with is Elon and his fans getting distracted from the fact that getting to Mars is hard. "

That's patronizing in the style of "Elon should stop thinking about landing boosters as he'll lose focus on actually being able to launch satellites of any decent mass".

Let's give this thread 24 hours to prove itself. :)

Offline Russel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 1
Is this thread going anywhere? Seems to be an awful lot of "my idea" and "nope" style Q&A.

And people are going to get frustrated with lines like "What I do have a problem with is Elon and his fans getting distracted from the fact that getting to Mars is hard. "

That's patronizing in the style of "Elon should stop thinking about landing boosters as he'll lose focus on actually being able to launch satellites of any decent mass".

Let's give this thread 24 hours to prove itself. :)

What about just asking people to post on topic.
Its an interesting topic and I certainly don't have all the answers, which is why I asked.
If they're not interested in posting on the actual topic then the thread will die a natural death.

However I actually would like to see what good ideas there are about getting to Mars in the near term, on a limited scale, not involving the BFS (at least not the 100 people at a time version) and certainly not involving the scale of ISRU implied in the BFS.

That's what the thread is for. I would rather separate thread to debate the BFS.
Also telling people they haven't paid attention/listened/whatever is uncivil. I've tolerated the off topic stuff but the interesting stuff (and why this thread exists) is actual problem solving.

Offline Chris Bergin

Great.

Problem is, no one (including and especially yourself) has reported any of the uncivil posts, as you should do (otherwise you have no reason to complain). And I only ended up here because people were complaining about your posts. So there you go. :)

Offline Russel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 1
Great.

Problem is, no one (including and especially yourself) has reported any of the uncivil posts, as you should do (otherwise you have no reason to complain). And I only ended up here because people were complaining about your posts. So there you go. :)

Well all I'm asking is that this forum maintains the one basic rule of all forums - relevance.
I set this thread up making it very clear it was not about discussion of BFS.
I also politely suggested on several occasions that I wasn't interested in BFS related discussion but was happy to take it elsehwere.

If people don't think the actual topic is worth talking about they can choose not to comment.
If people continue to post off topic then I'll make a point of simply referring it to you.

Offline Slarty1080

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
  • UK
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 162
I think part of the trouble is that Starship / Superheavy are very logical choices for a Mars mission even if they do need to be modified in the near term as I mentioned up post), so it's hard to exclude them from a discussion concerning repurposing SpaceX hardware for Mars.

Unless you meant repurposing SpaceX hardware that has already flown in which case all SS/SH and  raptor discussion is off topic and it comes down to designing a Mars mission using F9, FH, Dragon and perhaps a few mods. So is discussion of modification to SS/SH for Mars on topic for this post? Also what constitutes near term? How many years?


The first words spoken on Mars: "Humans have been wondering if there was any life on the planet Mars for many decades well ... there is now!"

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4568
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1311
  • Likes Given: 2540
If we are not talking about BFS then I was strongly assuming we were talking about 'Red Dragon' and Falcon Heavies at the very least? I've even seen some papers and videos around where it is postulated that Dragon 2's and Falcon Heavies; coupled with add-on Habitation and Propulsion Modules (likely storable) could accomplish either 'Inspiration Mars' style missions with 2x Astronauts or a mission to Phobos with a crew of three, for a short stay with some basic EVA's in Stickney Crater. These two classes of missions would not interfere with any stated plans for SpaceX's BFR/BFS architecture and might even be good missions in their own right.

The Habitation/Mission Module for the 'Inspiration' and Phobos mission could be a stretched, 4-segment version of Cygnus that has been proposed by Orbital Science Corp. Cover it with kevlar and mylar for insulation and meteroid protection. An efficient life support and recycling system could be in the Cygnus; trialing efficiency and miniaturization of such systems. For The Phobos mission the spacecraft 'stack' could be an enhanced Dragon 2 for Command, Control and Earth Return, the Cygnus and another Module similar to an ISS Node, which would act as the Airlock and Equipment Module. I would see the need for Propulsion Modules - either one or two, depending on propellant load - that would have hypergolic propellants and engines - either of a cluster of Dracos or a single Super Draco with a large expansion nozzle.

The flight plan would be a long coast either to or fro from Mars with a Venus swing by being necessary. One of the legs would be shorter. This would be a classical Opposition class mission where the stay at Phobos could be as little as three weeks or as much as 40 days depending on the launch window and the delta-v requirements. Much more propellants than an economic, long stay Conjunction class mission, but an overall much shorter mission duration, paid for with a lot of fuel. But an extra Falcon Heavy launch in the architecture could provide those propellants. I'm remembering Robert Zubrin's 2011 idea for a mission design similar to 'Red Dragon' but with only two people aboard. The basic ideas were sound, but there was a bit of 'hand waving' done at the time. I've been trying to close the gaps and loopholes in the ideas, and have adopted a roughly similar concept to Zubrin's for my story.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 02:04 pm by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11502
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8559
  • Likes Given: 6978
Great.

Problem is, no one (including and especially yourself) has reported any of the uncivil posts, as you should do (otherwise you have no reason to complain). And I only ended up here because people were complaining about your posts. So there you go. :)

Well all I'm asking is that this forum maintains the one basic rule of all forums - relevance.
I set this thread up making it very clear it was not about discussion of BFS.
I also politely suggested on several occasions that I wasn't interested in BFS related discussion but was happy to take it elsehwere.

If people don't think the actual topic is worth talking about they can choose not to comment.
If people continue to post off topic then I'll make a point of simply referring it to you.

Arguing with the owner is usually not going to work out well for you, trust me.

My judgement is that you misunderstand the basic idea behind BFS/BFR, have decided that you know better than SpaceX how the economics work, and have a pet project that you want to push for which makes no economic sense whatever.

You've been refuted 9 ways from Sunday but you aren't listening. You're grasping at the claim that people are off topic because they don't want to debate your exact scenario.. it already got rebutted.

24 hours. If that.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 03:56 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Russel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 1
I think part of the trouble is that Starship / Superheavy are very logical choices for a Mars mission even if they do need to be modified in the near term as I mentioned up post), so it's hard to exclude them from a discussion concerning repurposing SpaceX hardware for Mars.

Unless you meant repurposing SpaceX hardware that has already flown in which case all SS/SH and  raptor discussion is off topic and it comes down to designing a Mars mission using F9, FH, Dragon and perhaps a few mods. So is discussion of modification to SS/SH for Mars on topic for this post? Also what constitutes near term? How many years?

The topic is very clear. Its about SpaceX hardware and technology already built and likely to be tested in the near future. The near future meaning roughly the next 5-10 years. Evolution of present SpaceX vehicles is on topic. BFS is not on topic. Technologies that may be developed in pursuit of BFS are on topic.

"Near term" means a mission planned in the 20s and executed in the 30s.

Offline Russel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 1
If we are not talking about BFS then I was strongly assuming we were talking about 'Red Dragon' and Falcon Heavies at the very least? I've even seen some papers and videos around where it is postulated that Dragon 2's and Falcon Heavies; coupled with add-on Habitation and Propulsion Modules (likely storable) could accomplish either 'Inspiration Mars' style missions with 2x Astronauts or a mission to Phobos with a crew of three, for a short stay with some basic EVA's in Stickney Crater. These two classes of missions would not interfere with any stated plans for SpaceX's BFR/BFS architecture and might even be good missions in their own right.

The Habitation/Mission Module for the 'Inspiration' and Phobos mission could be a stretched, 4-segment version of Cygnus that has been proposed by Orbital Science Corp. Cover it with kevlar and mylar for insulation and meteroid protection. An efficient life support and recycling system could be in the Cygnus; trialing efficiency and miniaturization of such systems. For The Phobos mission the spacecraft 'stack' could be an enhanced Dragon 2 for Command, Control and Earth Return, the Cygnus and another Module similar to an ISS Node, which would act as the Airlock and Equipment Module. I would see the need for Propulsion Modules - either one or two, depending on propellant load - that would have hypergolic propellants and engines - either of a cluster of Dracos or a single Super Draco with a large expansion nozzle.

The flight plan would be a long coast either to or fro from Mars with a Venus swing by being necessary. One of the legs would be shorter. This would be a classical Opposition class mission where the stay at Phobos could be as little as three weeks or as much as 40 days depending on the launch window and the delta-v requirements. Much more propellants than an economic, long stay Conjunction class mission, but an overall much shorter mission duration, paid for with a lot of fuel. But an extra Falcon Heavy launch in the architecture could provide those propellants. I'm remembering Robert Zubrin's 2011 idea for a mission design similar to 'Red Dragon' but with only two people aboard. The basic ideas were sound, but there was a bit of 'hand waving' done at the time. I've been trying to close the gaps and loopholes in the ideas, and have adopted a roughly similar concept to Zubrin's for my story.

I'd originally thought that the "Red Dragon" might make a good Mars lander/ascent vehicle and it would be worth hanging on to on the flight back as an Earth re-entry vehicle. Of course this would involve fuel being sent to Mars orbit.

There is a lot that can be made of a FH class vehicle if you use Earth orbit assembly (docking) and fuel transfer. So a habitat like you've pictured is a real possibility.

The nice thing about SpaceX technology is that with (relatively) cheap launches and in orbit fuel transfer its possible to contemplate a fast transit to Mars which to my mind is the best defense against radiation issues (apart from using fuel/other consumables and personal protection vests).

Offline rakaydos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 8
The topic is very clear. Its about SpaceX hardware and technology already built and likely to be tested in ... roughly the next 5-10 years. (...)BFS is not on topic.
Which is it? Make up your mind.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 11:39 pm by rakaydos »

Tags: