|
Post by ross128 on Dec 10, 2016 0:08:33 GMT
Oh, you don't accelerate a whole ship to that speed. It'd be far too much work to slow it down again. You just accelerate a chunk of inert mass on a collision course, a kilogram or two will do. Even with that in mind, I *did* say "if you have a nearly unlimited supply of energy", which is a big "if".
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 10, 2016 0:43:01 GMT
or you could accelerate a 50t mass to 60km/s, that would hit with 100PJ force... conveniently that would also be near unstoppable cause you can't just destroy that much mass
or you could go the colony drop route, 500t+ mass at anything above 60km/s, would probably kill all life on at least once continent with a 1EJ impact a la the dinosaurs.
really any dense mass going sufficiently fast makes for a really devastating and hard to stop alternative to nuclear bombing a target...
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Dec 10, 2016 0:56:16 GMT
or you could accelerate a 50t mass to 60km/s, that would hit with 100PJ force... conveniently that would also be near unstoppable cause you can't just destroy that much mass or you could go the colony drop route, 500t+ mass at anything above 60km/s, would probably kill all life on at least once continent with a 1EJ impact a la the dinosaurs. really any dense mass going sufficiently fast makes for a really devastating and hard to stop alternative to nuclear bombing a target... Don't need to destroy if you see it coming far enough out. Just ablate material on one side (or somehow produce thrust, but ablation via nuclear explosive is much easier) so that enough dV is generated that it misses your planet.
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Dec 10, 2016 1:48:22 GMT
But that's the thing, it doesn't... my ship is at worst a GW heat source radiating from several Gm range, stars are YW sources radiating from light years away. Simply put at 40Gm my ship will look colder to your sensors then any star in the sky because W/m2 would be spread out across the entire area of that sphere That doesn't work because star charts exist... plus, I'm never scanning you from only one direction. Anyways, other people have responded to you quite adequately, and you haven't presented a (any, to be honest) good counterargument. I'm going to re-address a few points i may have skimmed over or skipped entirely last night, because I needed to go to sleep. To start with, using the Hubble to scan for threats is gonna be pretty damned ineffective. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, a full-sky scan with the Hubble would require ~1 million years to complete. Now, you pointed out that we can give the Hubble a larger aperture to reduce exposure time. So, let's assume we can cut exposure time from 10 minutes to 1 second (600 times shorter), it would still take 1,666.66 years to conduct the scan. Your 10 arrays of 10 will cut that down to 16.66 years. If you want to cut that down to 1 year, you need to up your Hubble Fleet to ~1,600 telescopes. Considering that an Earth/Mars Hoeman Transfer can be managed in under a year, you need to double that to ~3,200 so your first scan of an approaching threat is not a week before they arrive. Now, let's talk about the infrastructure you are going to need to support these telescopes. Manufacturing them all and placing them in orbit is going to beggar you, by itself. But let's assume you somehow get them there and still have enough money to buy lunch when you're done (space elevators, that'll at least let you put them in GEO orbit for 'free'). You're going to need several literal fleets of engineers to maintain them all, but that's still not going to be your biggest cost of operating them. Image processing is. The current Hubble telescope Wide Field Channel produces a 16-megapixel image over a 0.003 Deg 2 FoV (202x202 arcseconds) A full sky scan with 5% overlap is ~14.5 million scans. You will be generating ~230 trillion pixels per sky scan. If we were to print this scan at 300 DPI, it would cover ~500 square kilometers. If we printed it on 8.5"x11" paper, and glued them end-to-end, it would reach from the earth to the moon, 10 sheets thick. If you displayed these images on a 60" TV (1 Sq m) at 2 images per second, it would take 15 years, 24 hours a day, to show them all. And you want to make one of these pictures every 6 months or less. I don't even know how to convey an estimate of how long it would take to process all that imagery, or how much computing power you would need to do it fast enough to be useful. Actually, that was just one point, and if that doesn't convey a sense of the scale of task you are talking about accomplishing by surveying the entire solar system at a scale to detect starships, I won't even know how to proceed with the conversation. I had to go to sleep too, so I feel your pain. To start with my response; no, we're not actually using Hubble copies. The Hubble is an instrument tuned for interstellar-intergalactic range survey; we're just using systems of equal or greater sophistication for active scanning modules. More importantly, I think we have fundamental misunderstanding of each other's position on manufacturing. It sounds like you believe heavy industry will still be done mostly deep in a gravity well, whilst I believe that CoADE is done mostly with Zero-G manufacture. I mean, creating surfaces that are perfectly smooth down to the micron level is expensive on Earth, but likely to be much easier with orbital factories; there's no way my minimissile drives could be so dirty cheap otherwise. Building a multikiloton vessel (ala CoADE) on Earth and boosting it into space would be cost prohibitive today; but mining resources from low G bodies (asteroids?) and constructing what you need in low gravity... Much more plausible. Similarly, much of the cost of an precise sensor array can be greatly reduced with orbital industries. Processing sensor data is not the challenge you think it is; processing power is not only growing every generation but simultaneously getting cheaper as well. Even more importantly, expert systems that automate data sieving and analysis are growing exponentially more capable. You haven't even responded to the spysats near Mars noticing the conspicuous absence of your Navy, so I don't know where to proceed either. It seems as if we are working off fundamentally different understandings of the setting. Right, off duty, I've had supper, time to make my additional responses. Point the second: How will I counter your spying on me by dumping disposable spysats into my Hill Sphere? Answer is three parts. The first is passive scanning. Right now, at this very moment, NASA is tracking over half a million pieces of debris in Earth orbit, most of which are smaller than a softball in size, and all of which are colder than dirt. The majority of the spotting and tracking for this project is handled by ground-based sensors. Even assuming no advances at all are made in optical sensor technology by the time we get to the point of fighting wars in space, it will already be possible to detect and track any object close enough to a given planet to be able to provide useful sensor data on that planet. The second is active scanning. Even if we assume that you come up with the perfect meta material and open-loop cryo cooling system to hide your cameras, there is no reason at all that I cannot carry out daily active-scan sweeps of traffic-free space with an X-ray band radar pumping out enough power to force your cameras to resonate it back (and likely destroy their electronics in the process, twofer). Even just a network of low-orbit conventional radar sets (which would be necessary for traffic control) stands a very good chance of compromising a certain percentage of your drones, depending on how broad a band your EM-absorbing material coating is able to soak up. The third part comes from the fact that your spy drones must report home, and no matter how they do it, it will be possible somewhere in the chain to pick up the transmissions and cut it off. If they report directly, they need a powerful signaling laser to do so discretely, and that makes them run hotter and therefore harder to find, if they do so indirectly, then your listening post cannot be far away, and is therefore vulnerable. Point the third: If you use large, stationary observation facilities, I can destroy them with a flood of cheap nukes. To borrow one of your designs, the assault-carrior drone with thousands of 2.68 kt nukes. Strip it of all heat-producing parts: Boost it via coil or rail onto a rough trajectory to intercept your observation point positions. Midcourse guidance via cold-gass emissions, you only need a few meters per second dV to alter an interplanetary trajectory by millions of kms. At a predetermined distance, the outer casing of the drone is shed via simple electronic latches and kicker solenoids. The actual payload is bare warheads, no need for terminal guidance. A compressed-gas cylinder at the center vents in a controlled manner to give a few cm/s of spread to the cloud, timed so that at the point of intercept, you have a sphere of warheads several hundred km in diameter, at a density of 1-5 km between warheads. Add to this mixture a handful NEFP devices programmed to target active defenses the moment they begin firing, and another handful targeting the actual objective set to detonate concurrently with the SEAD-tasked devices. The drones use only cold-gas release and solenoid-operated valves, meaning that they can make their one-way mission on battery power only with solar trickle-charging. The components are all, naturally, VantaBlacked. One of these by itself stands a very good chance of accomplishing its mission, unless you detect it before it gets to terminal phase. A few dozen, launched on separate courses and timed for simultaneous arrival virtually guarantees it. Points I am willing to concede: If we have the manufacturing and logistics capacity to be flying around in kt-scale spaceships, we have the capacity to manufacture massive arrays of massive optical sensors. We probably also have a strong socio-economic imperative to do so at great expense, though I am still not convinced that it would be practical to frequently perform a full-sky scan of our solar system at a resolution sufficient to reliable detect non-emissive meter-scale objects. The only efficient way to process the staggering amount of imagery generated would be to make multiple scans and compare for objects which have moved. The problem is that means processing dozens of scans to get a good sample of what is background and what is local, and then processing dozens more to seek new contacts and determine whether they are valid contacts, or one of an unimaginable number of potential false-positives. No matter which you you slice it, you are looking for a needle in a haystack, and the needle is both plastic and of straw-yellow colouration.
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Dec 10, 2016 4:04:56 GMT
I find it amusing that you dismiss the presence of opposing telescopes because you'll be able to easily find them, but it doesn't occur to you that a cloud of several thousand nuclear warheads several hundred kilometers in diameter, or even a container large enough to hold those warheads, might be just as easy to spot as the telescope.
Or the fact that if you only have a few m/s of dV in cold gas and no terminal guidance, your warheads will be arriving slower than molasses in January.
You'd be better off just assuming that the enemy can see the missiles coming, and firing enough ordinance to saturate the defenses they have against it. Or if your target is relatively immobile like a planet, fire something with enough KE that it doesn't matter that they know about it months in advance because they don't have anything that can meaningfully deflect it.
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Dec 10, 2016 4:11:47 GMT
I find it amusing that you dismiss the presence of opposing telescopes because you'll be able to easily find them, but it doesn't occur to you that a cloud of several thousand nuclear warheads several hundred kilometers in diameter, or even a container large enough to hold those warheads, might be just as easy to spot as the telescope. Or the fact that if you only have a few m/s of dV in cold gas and no terminal guidance, your warheads will be arriving slower than molasses in January. You'd be better off just assuming that the enemy can see the missiles coming, and firing enough ordinance to saturate the defenses they have against it. Or if your target is relatively immobile like a planet, fire something with enough KE that it doesn't matter that they know about it months in advance because they don't have anything that can meaningfully deflect it. well, a large part of my argument here hinges on the fact that if I cannot find his stealth telescopes, then he cannot find my stealth missile dumps. What's good for the goose is, after all, good for the gander. as to slow arrival... did you miss that the initial boost would be carried out by coil or rail cannon? These systems would be the interplanetary equivalent to an ICBM. It only needs a few m/s of dV capacity, because it will only need to make minor course corrections to target something like a Lagrange Point. It will still arrive at many km/s.
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Dec 10, 2016 4:36:34 GMT
My argument is the opposite: of course you can see the telescopes, but they can also see any ordinance you would send toward them, months before it gets there. Because space is incredibly empty, which makes it very easy to see things from extreme distances. The only solution is to attack with such overwhelming force as to render the enemy's knowledge of the incoming attack moot, because there is no stealth in space.
And the reason it would take months to get there? The telescopes wouldn't be in your orbit, they would be in orbits controlled by their owners. For example, in a fight between Mars and Earth, Earth would be able to see everything Mars is up to from the safety of their own orbit and vice versa. They'd both have a good two or three months' warning at minimum if either side attempted an attack.
|
|
|
Post by cutterjohn on Dec 10, 2016 4:46:26 GMT
I'm going to re-address a few points i may have skimmed over or skipped entirely last night, because I needed to go to sleep. To start with, using the Hubble to scan for threats is gonna be pretty damned ineffective. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, a full-sky scan with the Hubble would require ~1 million years to complete. Now, you pointed out that we can give the Hubble a larger aperture to reduce exposure time. So, let's assume we can cut exposure time from 10 minutes to 1 second (600 times shorter), it would still take 1,666.66 years to conduct the scan. Your 10 arrays of 10 will cut that down to 16.66 years. If you want to cut that down to 1 year, you need to up your Hubble Fleet to ~1,600 telescopes. Considering that an Earth/Mars Hoeman Transfer can be managed in under a year, you need to double that to ~3,200 so your first scan of an approaching threat is not a week before they arrive. Now, let's talk about the infrastructure you are going to need to support these telescopes. Manufacturing them all and placing them in orbit is going to beggar you, by itself. But let's assume you somehow get them there and still have enough money to buy lunch when you're done (space elevators, that'll at least let you put them in GEO orbit for 'free'). You're going to need several literal fleets of engineers to maintain them all, but that's still not going to be your biggest cost of operating them. Image processing is. The current Hubble telescope Wide Field Channel produces a 16-megapixel image over a 0.003 Deg 2 FoV (202x202 arcseconds) A full sky scan with 5% overlap is ~14.5 million scans. You will be generating ~230 trillion pixels per sky scan. If we were to print this scan at 300 DPI, it would cover ~500 square kilometers. If we printed it on 8.5"x11" paper, and glued them end-to-end, it would reach from the earth to the moon, 10 sheets thick. If you displayed these images on a 60" TV (1 Sq m) at 2 images per second, it would take 15 years, 24 hours a day, to show them all. And you want to make one of these pictures every 6 months or less. I don't even know how to convey an estimate of how long it would take to process all that imagery, or how much computing power you would need to do it fast enough to be useful. Actually, that was just one point, and if that doesn't convey a sense of the scale of task you are talking about accomplishing by surveying the entire solar system at a scale to detect starships, I won't even know how to proceed with the conversation. They don't need to do full sky scans, because there's nothing in the full sky. You watch the stations, shipyards, mining settlements. You watch along the ecliptic plane because that's where any theoretically stealthed ship, with its absolutely minimal delta-v, is traveling. Traveling outside of the ecliptic means you need lots of delta-v, and hence lots of power, and hence you're bright as a star and don't care about stealth. And that's all ignoring the fact that hubble is 1986 technology, and is a precision scientific instrument built for accuracy, not speed, and doesn't operate in the wavelengths that would be useful for early detection of hostile craft.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Dec 10, 2016 5:02:24 GMT
Again, spysats can do their job from a much further distance than a missile. Otherwise the situation would be perma-MAD. 1. Right. Any spysats deep in your Hill Sphere will die. The ones farther away, though, will not, and they'll still prove effective at seeing your fleet positioning, unless you decided to build an entire cryo-fleet. 2. Free electron induced short-wavelength scans will penetrate any kind of stealth we can think of today. That is true (and something I noted in my own statements against your sneak attack Super-MAD doctrine). However, active scan is sharply range limited and if the spysats can sit close enough where their passive instruments can pick up *some* data (like, the absence of a fleet) but outside of the radius of your XRay sweeps... Space is huge, and as long as I sit outside of your active scan range, remain cold and do nothing but look... I can hide in a very large amount of space. Well, a large part of my argument here hinges on the fact that if I cannot find his stealth telescopes, then he cannot find my stealth missile dumps. What's good for the goose is, after all, good for the gander. as to slow arrival... did you miss that the initial boost would be carried out by coil or rail cannon? These systems would be the interplanetary equivalent to an ICBM. It only needs a few m/s of dV capacity, because it will only need to make minor course corrections to target something like a Lagrange Point. It will still arrive at many km/s. Your saturation nuke wave can be countered if I have set up my own counternuke wave sufficiently far out (or on a sufficiently high agility bus - remember, your buses are slow and cold, I don't have to care about stealth as the defender). But yes, if you use multiple nuke buses with a high degree of built-in stealth, most reasonable defenses will be overwhelmed. The question is, can you simultaneously overwhelm all my sensor stations? Bear in mind, some of them will be much deeper within my defended (and actively swept zone) than others, and if an surprise stealth attack takes out one active station, the others are going to go on alert and shower their vicinities with hard radiation sweeps and nuclear beacons. Another consideration is cost effectiveness. Attacking nukes would be an order of magnitude cheaper (because their job is to kill the fixed/low mobility sensor station) while counternukes (barring insanely accuracy) would need to be significantly more powerful to guarantee nuclear fratricide through neutron flux. The attacker can, in theory, out-endure the defender because of this advantage.The same goes for Kesseler attacks/KE. I must invest into either extremely powerful laser grids, defense batteries (orders of magnitude more expensive than attacking) and/or armor the sensor stations against the attack. I suspect armoring is fairly cost effective for sensor stations close to resource sites, but boosting kilotons (or more!) of armor to Lagrange Points sounds quite expensive. Overall, however, these attacks are unlikely to occur out of a war, and the sensor-rich environment is likely to be the norm at the beginning of any war.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Dec 10, 2016 10:09:36 GMT
The cost of a massive orbital sensor array is actually quite easy for a multi-planetary society to justify even in peacetime, because incoming ships/missiles aren't the only thing they have to worry about: the array's primary purpose would likely be to identify and track asteroids in order to prevent collisions. Colonies that lack a breathable atmosphere will be particularly interested in any asteroid large enough to pop a dome. Clusters of small asteroids will also throw up a red flag, because a bunch of small holes in a dome can be just as much of a problem as one large hole. So most colonies are likely to have a strong vested interest in having plenty of warning about any object larger than a tennis ball that happens to be on a collision course, whether it was launched by a hostile entity or merely some unfortunate physics. Even Earth will start to worry about smaller and smaller objects as satellites and space stations proliferate, because they will increasingly have a large amount of property and personnel that isn't shielded by the atmosphere. This mindset also means disguising your attack as a group of asteroids isn't a viable tactic, because anybody in their right mind would shoot down actual incoming asteroids anyway. Naturally, this also means anything more energetic than said asteroids will be seen as even more of a threat. There is technically one type of "space stealth" that is practical if you have a nearly infinite supply of energy though: Relativistic Kill Vehicles. If you accelerate something up to 99%+ of c, it'll arrive hot on the heels of its own light cone. It's not what people typically think of as "stealth" to be sure, it'll be heavily blue-shifted and you'd be able to see the launch event from the next galaxy, but it's technically invisible the same way a supersonic bullet is "silent". It gives off plenty of light, but by the time you see it you're already dead. Though, everybody in the galaxy (and eventually most of your local cluster, probably) who is advanced enough to know what an RKV is would know that somebody just got pasted by one, and that it was launched in your neighborhood. They might decide you're not a very good neighbor. Of course, it also depends heavily on how quickly you can accelerate it. If you need a few hundred years to hit 99%c, then your target will be able to see the beginning of the launch event a hundred years before the shot hits. They might have time to move out of the way (which is the only defense against an RKV). An interplanetary super-laser might be able to achieve a similar style of surprise attack, where they can see the attack just fine but because it travels at the speed of light, seeing it and being hit by it are the same thing. hitting 99% c with conventional tech is quite the undertaking in both power and mass. For example my ~2% c space ship has a mass of 3,290,000,000kg and cost of 31.6Gc and requires 4TW. To get to ~90%c about 300PW would be needed (just scaling up with more reactors / radiators and proportional amounts of extra fuel). For relativistic KKV's, you pretty much need a Bussard ramjet ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet and www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/slowerlight.php under the heading 'go fast') or a planet-sized coilgun (not surrounded by an atmosphere).
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Dec 10, 2016 16:07:44 GMT
They don't need to do full sky scans, because there's nothing in the full sky. You watch the stations, shipyards, mining settlements. You watch along the ecliptic plane because that's where any theoretically stealthed ship, with its absolutely minimal delta-v, is traveling. Traveling outside of the ecliptic means you need lots of delta-v, and hence lots of power, and hence you're bright as a star and don't care about stealth. While this is true, the practical result is simply that you end up needing fewer scopes to make the same frequency of sweeps, and that you need less processing power to manage it. It also means that if you lose track of even one of my warships, you won't ever find it again, until it either returns to port or kills you. And that's all ignoring the fact that hubble is 1986 technology, and is a precision scientific instrument built for accuracy, not speed, and doesn't operate in the wavelengths that would be useful for early detection of hostile craft. this is a fairly misleading statement. The Hubble has had a number of service missions, the most recent of which (in 2009) replaced the cameras (and some other internals) with the latest and greatest. The hubble is not "1986 technology", it is a 1986 shell with 2009 technology inside.
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Dec 10, 2016 16:30:17 GMT
Again, spysats can do their job from a much further distance than a missile. Otherwise the situation would be perma-MAD. 1. Right. Any spysats deep in your Hill Sphere will die. The ones farther away, though, will not, and they'll still prove effective at seeing your fleet positioning, unless you decided to build an entire cryo-fleet. 2. Free electron induced short-wavelength scans will penetrate any kind of stealth we can think of today. That is true (and something I noted in my own statements against your sneak attack Super-MAD doctrine). However, active scan is sharply range limited and if the spysats can sit close enough where their passive instruments can pick up *some* data (like, the absence of a fleet) but outside of the radius of your XRay sweeps... Space is huge, and as long as I sit outside of your active scan range, remain cold and do nothing but look... I can hide in a very large amount of space. right, so i've got your spysats out of my Hill Sphere. Obviously, I have also removed them from my Lagrange points, since those are also of extreme strategic importance. This reduces you to using flyby sats at ranges I am not likely to detect, which in turn sharply limits the quality and quantity of data you can collect on me. Which means I can practice Maskirovka, and you can never be completely certain as to location of my fleets and/or individual offensive assets. As you note, there's a whole damn lot of empty in which to hide something small and cold in-between planets. The question is, can you simultaneously overwhelm all my sensor stations? Bear in mind, some of them will be much deeper within my defended (and actively swept zone) than others, and if an surprise stealth attack takes out one active station, the others are going to go on alert and shower their vicinities with hard radiation sweeps and nuclear beacons. Certainly. You long-range observation stations will, necessarily, need to be located in places your lagrange points to provide you with the clear sightlines you will need to observe large portions of the solar system, while still keeping them close enough to staff, supply, maintain, and defend. Since the Lagrange points are so widely separated, you cannot actively scan the space between them, nor all the space approaching them. Which means that if I use a coilgun in my planetary shadow to boost attacks out of plane, i can time them for simultaneous arrival, and be reasonably confident that they will all be detected at the time, in terms of T-impact. If this detection time is after terminal phase, then it is likely to be impossible to defend against the sheer numbers of inbound, especially if some of the devices are used as stand-off NEFPs. Another consideration is cost effectiveness. Attacking nukes would be an order of magnitude cheaper (because their job is to kill the fixed/low mobility sensor station) while counternukes (barring insanely accuracy) would need to be significantly more powerful to guarantee nuclear fratricide through neutron flux. The attacker can, in theory, out-endure the defender because of this advantage.The same goes for Kesseler attacks/KE. I must invest into either extremely powerful laser grids, defense batteries (orders of magnitude more expensive than attacking) and/or armor the sensor stations against the attack. I suspect armoring is fairly cost effective for sensor stations close to resource sites, but boosting kilotons (or more!) of armor to Lagrange Points sounds quite expensive. Overall, however, these attacks are unlikely to occur out of a war, and the sensor-rich environment is likely to be the norm at the beginning of any war. As you stated, this is a tactic that would work against me as well as it does for me, which was what I meant when I made the remark about this whole thing being a MAD scenario. In interplanetary warfare, the attacker always holds the advantage. If two equals attack at the same time, the result is likely to be that they both lose. I would also like to point out that in the case of KE attacks, once the projectile reaches a certain mass and velocity, there is no practical way to stop it, unless we have the technology to generate and safely store sufficient quantities of antimatter to make AM munitions. Short of completely annihilating it, all you can do is change it from a solid to a liquid to a gas, and even a multi-ton slug of gas coming your way at a few hundred km/s is not something you will survive without a planetary atmosphere in the way.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 8, 2017 6:31:23 GMT
If you want to further mass (and cost) reduce your laser enter numbers manually for the turret size so it is the smallest possible and/or bump your aperture size (shrink/raise it by .001 increments; you can do less but it doesn't always save out properly though it works for your current session) max turret size (100m x 100m x 100m) lasers can get down to about 22 tons. My guess is you have a huge amount of mass wasted into reaction wheels. I was doing the same thing when I first got into designing lasers by just using the sliders. This was a great suggestion. I got at times GWs more power at 1000km and much more closer by entering aperture size manually in this way.
|
|
|
Post by theholyinquisition on Feb 8, 2017 21:50:30 GMT
If you want to further mass (and cost) reduce your laser enter numbers manually for the turret size so it is the smallest possible and/or bump your aperture size (shrink/raise it by .001 increments; you can do less but it doesn't always save out properly though it works for your current session) max turret size (100m x 100m x 100m) lasers can get down to about 22 tons. My guess is you have a huge amount of mass wasted into reaction wheels. I was doing the same thing when I first got into designing lasers by just using the sliders. This was a great suggestion. I got at times GWs more power at 1000km and much more closer by entering aperture size manually in this way. Necroposting.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 9, 2017 1:05:01 GMT
|
|