Space X Interplanetary Transport System

The idea of landing the booster back on the launch pad and recycling it within 24 hours (implied) seems pretty incredible. As in, I don't think that's a credible approach. They're nowhere close to that level of precision in their landings yet. Also, the potential for a pad accident to damage the tanker vehicle seems way too high. It would seem to make much more sense to have two boosters and to launch the two rockets in relatively rapid succession, then recycle both for future missions.

And I'm not sure why you'd launch the spacecraft with people aboard first. Launch the tanker first and make sure you have fuel on orbit, then put the manned spacecraft up to rendezvous with it. If the tanker fails, you can delay the manned launch until you have fuel available.
 
Does seem a bit illogical as any kind of issue with the tanker and/or booster is going to leave a bunch of colonists stuck in orbit with nowhere to go.
 
Two years ago pad landings were "impossible", let alone one on a barge floating at sea.
 
Looking at the design of the interplanetary vehicle on its own I guess Mr Musk must have been a Dan Dare fan when younger.

With suitable fuel depot it is designed to reach Jupiter & Saturn.
 
Saw some figures on Musk preservation
http://www.spacex.com/mars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1YxNYiyALg

The Rocket is HUGE it dwarfs the Saturn V
As expendable it would carry 550 tons to Low orbit
Reuse and Refuel it carry 450 tons to Mars
passengers around 100 to 200 people !

Launch mass is around 10000 tons (NOVA Size)
lift off by 42 raptor engine (Lox/CH4 fuel) in Booster (6700 tons) and 6 raptor engines in Spaceship (1900 tons).
Once refuel the Spaceship can get any were in Solarsystem and land there (it will take travel-time of Years)
the Mars rocket build from Carbon-fiber material, they got already a LIFE SIZE prototype tank under testing !
and Raptor engine made first test firing

Time tabel ?
Vage but aiming for 2023, so NASA hurry up, other wise a private company land first on Mars...

What will be Zubrin reaction on that ?
i bet pure excitation...
 
Thank to NASA Space Flight Forum and Chris Bergin some picture

index.php


index.php


index.php


index.php


index.php


index.php


Prototype tank
index.php
 
Quite a few of the questions in the Q & A were pretty dire.

As a Douglas Adams fan like the idea of him calling the first ship Heart of Gold.
 
Only requires a reusable rocket over three times bigger than a Saturn V, with 42 engines in the first stage.

Seems totally reasonable.
 
Flyaway said:
Quite a few of the questions in the Q & A were pretty dire.

As a Douglas Adams fan like the idea of him calling the first ship Heart of Gold.

Dire?
 
blackstar said:
Only requires a reusable rocket over three times bigger than a Saturn V, with 42 engines in the first stage.

Seems totally reasonable.

Actually it make quite sense

until 1964 NASA study for Manned Mars Mission, the use of a gigantic rockets called NOVA with payload on 400 tons in low orbit
To reduce the Launches to minimum Two or Three
SpaceX ITP goes same direction but with one big differences ITP is reusable, NOVA not !
and New Glenn from Blue Origin almost in size of Saturn V and reusable...

Oh i yeah the current reaction at ULA, ArianeSpace and NASA...
200_s.gif
I
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
Quite a few of the questions in the Q & A were pretty dire.

As a Douglas Adams fan like the idea of him calling the first ship Heart of Gold.

Dire?

"Dire" as in "Release the dire wolves on these fricken' morons. Who let these hippies, self-promoters and whackjobs anywhere near the microphones?"

This is in a sense the PR flacks worst nightmare. Sometimes a questioner comes along who is so awful that their awfulness rubs off on the questionee. Musk did a fair job of dealing with them by either not understanding them, or outright shoving them aside.

"I have a bus outside..."
"I'm sorry, that's not a hair question. NEXT!"
 
Michel Van said:
Oh i yeah the current reaction at ULA, ArianeSpace and NASA...
200_s.gif
I

Honestly, I doubt those folks much care, except maybe NASA. They know that the ITS, successful or not, is not relevant for commercial space launch services. Demand for launches in the existing weight classes isn't going to dry up just because SpaceX can lob 400 tons at Mars every so often. Heck, this probably helps ULA and Ariane because SpaceX engineering talent that could be refining a next gen Falcon Heavy successor will instead be designing the non-commercial ITS.
 
Here is the official slide set from the presentation including pictures of that monstrous LOX tank they've already fabricated.

http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/mars_presentation.pdf
 
TomS said:
Honestly, I doubt those folks much care, except maybe NASA. They know that the ITS, successful or not, is not relevant for commercial space launch services. Demand for launches in the existing weight classes isn't going to dry up just because SpaceX can lob 400 tons at Mars every so often. Heck, this probably helps ULA and Ariane because SpaceX engineering talent that could be refining a next gen Falcon Heavy successor will instead be designing the non-commercial ITS.

Yes
Therefor is very interesting that Musk mention in presentation incidental
About to use the Booster as suborbital Intercontinental cargo flights (ROMBUS)
If SpaceX manage to create this market, they can finance there Mars project
 
At first you need to show a capability to build a LOX for Venture Star/X-33 size vehicle before going any further. If you can`t build a colony on The Moon , you can`t do it on Mars either. There is no existing expertise to land a man on the Moon let alone on Mars no matter how much I would like to be wrong.
 
http://gizmodo.com/this-is-how-elon-musk-plans-to-build-a-city-on-mars-up-1787146547

http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/27/13080950/spacex-mars-photos-wallpaper-elon-musk
 
Michel Van said:
About to use the Booster as suborbital Intercontinental cargo flights (ROMBUS)

Not the booster, but the spacecraft itself. I believe *that* was what he said could be made into an SSTO or a suborbital hopper. The SSTO option seems of dubious value, since the ship would be stuck on orbit unable to come back unless refueled, but the suborbital hopper seems like it might be of some value. but I believe he was wrong on his estimates of flight times. I believe trans-Atlantic is more than 10 minutes...
 
Raptor engine test at McGregor site. I think this is a subscale demonstrator and that the full size version is to be tested at Nasa Stennis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7kqFt3nID4
 
TomS said:
The idea of landing the booster back on the launch pad and recycling it within 24 hours (implied) seems pretty incredible. As in, I don't think that's a credible approach. They're nowhere close to that level of precision in their landings yet.

Okei, so in vacuum your points would be correct and fair. But you are ignoring two major things;

1; History.

2; As Elon often says, one doesn't know one is on an exponential curve until one zooms out.

Do you know what their accuracy was with the first landings like CASSIOPE and CRS-3? About 10km +/-. About a year later they got that down to like 10-20 meters. Year later still, they landed a stage, for first time ever. By anyone. Less than a year after that again, they had landed half dozen, many of which were within 1-2m of bulls eye. If they managed to go from landing 0 stages within 1-2m to landing safely 6 stages in just little over 2 years - why is it logical to assume they won't improve on that even more in 6 years or so? So you are at best operating as if we were in 2013.

As to the second point, before any BFR-ITS ever flies, they would have A LOT of F9/FH flights under their belts. They managed to land safely 6 stages in under a year. Before BFR-ITS ever flies it will be over a hundred stages. A hundred landings and 6 years to improve accuracy even more and to test out technology and software they dont have *today*. Don't underestimate just how rapidly they are developing technology.

Pulled high res pictures from the presentation, all here; http://imgur.com/a/NRIvz
 

Attachments

  • BFR+ITS.jpg
    BFR+ITS.jpg
    509.1 KB · Views: 380
  • ITS.jpg
    ITS.jpg
    378 KB · Views: 375
flanker said:
TomS said:
The idea of landing the booster back on the launch pad and recycling it within 24 hours (implied) seems pretty incredible. As in, I don't think that's a credible approach. They're nowhere close to that level of precision in their landings yet.

Okei, so in vacuum your points would be correct and fair. But you are ignoring two major things;

1; History.

2; As Elon often says, one doesn't know one is on an exponential curve until one zooms out.

Personally, I don't doubt that SpaceX can obtain the accuracy. The issue is about risk mitigation. Assumption: Lift-off and landing, like an aircraft, are the most risky parts of the flight. If there were an issue with the landing (and no complex system can be made 100% without fault), the risk is that it could damage the launch/landing pad. This would take the launch pad out of commission while the repairs are made and investigation into what went wrong.

From a risk mitigation perspective, it would be far better to land the stage back 'near' the launch pad. That way you could continue to fly if one of the landings fails. This is especially critical if SpaceX continues to plan to launch passengers first, then their fuel. The launch pad would seem to be a single-point-of-failure; a new launch pad could take a year or more to build but a new landing pad should be easy to build in a few months - it's not like America has a problem making parking lots :).

And talking about the passenger plans, it would seem lower risk to launch all the fuel first (as others on this thread have stated), and have the tankers LEO rendezvous, then launch the passengers and again LEO rendezvous with the tankers, refuel, and finally TMI (trans-Mars injection).


-r.
 
This is my main issue -- an accident on a fixed pad during landing kills the entire launch infrastructure for weeks (minimum) and has a high chance of at least dinging the spacecraft waiting to be loaded. (Same issue on launch, too. A pad accident like the most recent one would also destroy the other waiting vehicle, if it's as close as shown). It makes sense, IMO, to get the landing pad away from the launch site.

Assuming they can achieve the required precision, perhaps the solution is to use a set of mobile pads similar to the Crawler-Transporters at KSC now but designed to work as part of the launch/land system. Launch from one such pad, then land on another one a half-mile or so away (or whatever your safe distance looks like). Then swap the crawlers, bringing the one with the recovered booster back to the launch site while the one that just launched the booster moves over to the recovery site for the next landing. A similar vehicle can bring the next spacecraft payload to the launch site from a safe distance as well.

Admittedly, this is more launch infrastructure, and thus more cost, but I'd bet it's cheaper than replacing the pad facilities or one of the spacecraft after an accident.
 
TomS said:
Assuming they can achieve the required precision, perhaps the solution is to use a set of mobile pads similar to the Crawler-Transporters at KSC now but designed to work as part of the launch/land system. Launch from one such pad, then land on another one a half-mile or so away (or whatever your safe distance looks like). Then swap the crawlers, bringing the one with the recovered booster back to the launch site while the one that just launched the booster moves over to the recovery site for the next landing. A similar vehicle can bring the next spacecraft payload to the launch site from a safe distance as well.

I was thinking something just like this. :) It also gives you options for taking it to a VAB relatively easy if something needs to be looked at or replaced.
 
Related landing question:

How large a hole are those engines going to plow when it lands vertically on Mars?

I can see a definite need for pre-missions to scout and establish a landing site, and probably pre-position anciliary equipment and fuel production facilities.
 
flanker said:
Don't underestimate just how rapidly they are developing technology.

And don't over-hype it either: Falcon Heavy was supposed to fly in 2012.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/business/technology/the-qanda-after-spacexs-mars-rocket-reveal-was-incredibly-weird/2016/09/28/3a88b77a-8598-11e6-b57d-dd49277af02f_video.html

And:

"I like to imagine SpaceX planted these questioners to make the guy on stage talking about colonizing Mars look like the sane one in the room."

http://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/9/27/13080992/elon-musk-spacex-mars-colonization-speech-weirdos-kiss?utm_content=bufferf8108&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
 
"I like to imagine SpaceX planted these questioners to make the guy on stage talking about colonizing Mars look like the sane one in the room."


That is just sad. That somebody could think that pretty much summarizes today's twitterati generation.
 
blackstar said:
flanker said:
Don't underestimate just how rapidly they are developing technology.

And don't over-hype it either: Falcon Heavy was supposed to fly in 2012.

Sure, if one ignores the reason for the delays time after time. FH in 2012 is not the same FH in 2016. Between then and now they have been through 3 major versions of Falcon 9 with one more coming up next year. So if anything - you just proved my point. ;)

And i am not over hyping it. It is a fact that they have been through 3 major versions of Falcon 9 in 3 years or so. Dragon 2 in 2012 doesnt look anything like Dragon 2 from 2016 either.
 
flanker said:
Sure, if one ignores the reason for the delays time after time. FH in 2012 is not the same FH in 2016. Between then and now they have been through 3 major versions of Falcon 9 with one more coming up next year. So if anything - you just proved my point. ;)

Now you're being silly.

Missing deadlines is not a good thing, no matter what the excuse.
 
fredymac said:
Raptor engine test at McGregor site. I think this is a subscale demonstrator and that the full size version is to be tested at Nasa Stennis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7kqFt3nID4
Full size engine, just without the extended bell if a flight article. Raptor is actually quite compact.
 
ADVANCEDBOY said:
There is no existing expertise to land a man on the Moon let alone on Mars no matter how much I would like to be wrong.

Nonsense. You are wrong. It exists. Landing on a planet is easy and has been done many times.
 
The problem with the plan, as far as is presented, is that the operational design represents a huge risk. Musk requires the ITS have reliability on the order of modern day transport aircraft. That reliability can only be ensured after a huge number of flight tests. For the 787, Wikipedia says that the flight test program involved 1,700 flights.

No rocket system has flown a fraction of that number of flights. Saturn V flow ~1% of the 787 test flights. The space shuttle flew <10% of the total number of 787 test flights.

Unless Musk can magically assure reliability or ensure several hundred flights of the largest rocket booster ever, he cannot achieve the per-flight reliability he requires.

Which brings us to the next logistical problem. The ITS will represent a mammoth pre-flight and launch risk. It'll have explosive power on the order of a tactical nuke. How does Musk even begin a flight test program with that rocket? He has to ensure system reliability to a high level before he can even begin flights, because of the risk the rocket poses.

I don't think his architecture is remotely feasible, because it requires a reliability level never yet seen on a space launch system. To get that reliability, he needs a flight rate never yet seen on a space launch system. And that flight rate is needed for a rocket which requires a massive reliability to even begin flying and whose size is far too large for any commercial use.

All of this is before we begin dealing with the Martian trip architecture, which doesn't seem to be very solid. For one, he will need a bunch of launch sites and a bunch of rockets and an industrial amount of propellant.

Those problems aside, what is interesting is the new rocket engine and the rocket engine design. If Musk can achieve his design goals there, that will be very useful and very impressive.
 
I still don't understand the attraction of going to Mars, especially 100 or 200 people at a time. The infrastructure required to support them would be massive and the likelihood of disaster would be significant.

This whole drive for Mars strikes me as a rather poorly thought out flag-planting exercise. We still need to build a significant level of capability in the near-Earth region before we start seriously thinking about moving hundreds of people to Mars. It's every bit as dangerous to live on as the moon is except its 10x further away from support and in a gravity well that's about 10x deeper to boot.
 
JeffB said:
I still don't understand the attraction of going to Mars[/qote]

I don't understand the appeal of living in Los Angeles, Manhattan, Tokyo or London, but a lot of people do.


The infrastructure required to support them would be massive and the likelihood of disaster would be significant.

That's why cowards would be ill-advised to go.

This whole drive for Mars strikes me as a rather poorly thought out flag-planting exercise.

What's wrong with planting flags, if you plants homes and farms and businesses right next to 'em?

We still need to build a significant level of capability in the near-Earth region before we start seriously thinking about moving hundreds of people to Mars.

Why? What infrastructure could you build in LEO or GEO that would greatly enhance transport to Mars?

It's every bit as dangerous to live on as the moon is except its 10x further away from support and in a gravity well that's about 10x deeper to boot.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Getting the hell away from the control of Earth has a whole lot of appeal. At some point the population and infrastructure of Mars would be self-sustaining... whether that's 1000 people or 10,000, who knows; but the moon will always be an outpost of Earth until people start shovign around tens-of-kilometer scale carbon asteroids and water comets.
 
Orionblamblam said:
JeffB said:
I still don't understand the attraction of going to Mars
I don't understand the appeal of living in Los Angeles, Manhattan, Tokyo or London, but a lot of people do.


The infrastructure required to support them would be massive and the likelihood of disaster would be significant.

That's why cowards would be ill-advised to go.

This whole drive for Mars strikes me as a rather poorly thought out flag-planting exercise.

What's wrong with planting flags, if you plants homes and farms and businesses right next to 'em?

We still need to build a significant level of capability in the near-Earth region before we start seriously thinking about moving hundreds of people to Mars.

Why? What infrastructure could you build in LEO or GEO that would greatly enhance transport to Mars?

It's every bit as dangerous to live on as the moon is except its 10x further away from support and in a gravity well that's about 10x deeper to boot.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Getting the hell away from the control of Earth has a whole lot of appeal. At some point the population and infrastructure of Mars would be self-sustaining... whether that's 1000 people or 10,000, who knows; but the moon will always be an outpost of Earth until people start shovign around tens-of-kilometer scale carbon asteroids and water comets.

It IS a bad thing. Distance doesn't automatically guarantee independence, Mars is just as likely to be treated as an outpost of Earth for a period as well until they can make themselves self-sustaining, and even then they may not want to let you go. Set up a small colony in the Asteroids if you're that desperate to be independent, the smaller the outpost probably the better and like Grizzly Addams, be prepared to move on as soon as you see the "smoke of another mans fire". Ultimately though, you know that "government" will follow. Once you have that critical mass of people, the political class will appear and hey presto, you'll be back where you started, metaphorically.

The question in this case is why would you build your completely experimental, largely untested, off-world colony on a planet 6 months away when you could build it just as easily on the moon which is only 3 days away? Once you've worked how to do that reliably and repeatedly in what is effectively our back-yard, then you'll be ready to face the challenges of landing and building a colony on something the size of Mars. But then why would you bother? The gravity still isn't high enough to not affect the human physiology significantly. The atmosphere is toxic and the radiation levels are very high given Mars' near non existent magnetic field. Once you've mastered the necessary skills, it'd be far easier to build centrifuges with sufficient shielding to support larger populations at normal g's from materials mined from the moon and asteroids and built with fuel mined from same.

What could we do in LEO or GEO? Well, given that the biggest cost of doing any of this is getting up the first 150 miles, technologies that could assist that process like skyhooks or other tether based momentum transfer systems would be extremely useful. Especially if your initial target is the moon because the mass transfer back from the moon either as processed resources or just rocks is sufficient to keep pushing people and supplies up the well.

This is all just my opinion of course, obviously you see other benefits of going straight to Mars that I missed.
 
DrRansom said:
The problem with the plan, as far as is presented, is that the operational design represents a huge risk. Musk requires the ITS have reliability on the order of modern day transport aircraft. That reliability can only be ensured after a huge number of flight tests. For the 787, Wikipedia says that the flight test program involved 1,700 flights.

No rocket system has flown a fraction of that number of flights. Saturn V flow ~1% of the 787 test flights. The space shuttle flew <10% of the total number of 787 test flights.
Soyuz-U has had 784 flights of which 764 were successful; the entire R-7 family has 1,859 flights of which 1,744 are successful. Now granted, by aircraft standards that's still only just out of testing, and that's the only launcher that has come close to mass production, but it has been achieved.
 
DrRansom said:
The problem with the plan, as far as is presented, is that the operational design represents a huge risk.

How could it not? Lots of things present risk. Sailing to the "New World", going to the moon, etc. etc. The bold move forward and overcome those challenges. The timid stay home and waste away.


DrRansom said:
Musk requires the ITS have reliability on the order of modern day transport aircraft. That reliability can only be ensured after a huge number of flight tests. For the 787, Wikipedia says that the flight test program involved 1,700 flights.

And? How reliable were the first turbojets? Maybe we shouldn't have built one until we knew the first one would have the reliability of a GE90? I mean how could we have been so heartless to force people onto those first 707s?

DrRansom said:
No rocket system has flown a fraction of that number of flights. Saturn V flow ~1% of the 787 test flights. The space shuttle flew <10% of the total number of 787 test flights.

And? How do you expect to flight 1700 flights without, you know, flying 1700 flights?

DrRansom said:
Unless Musk can magically assure reliability or ensure several hundred flights of the largest rocket booster ever, he cannot achieve the per-flight reliability he requires.

Maybe he should wait until reliability magically appears and THEN start to build his rockets?

DrRansom said:
Which brings us to the next logistical problem. The ITS will represent a mammoth pre-flight and launch risk. It'll have explosive power on the order of a tactical nuke. How does Musk even begin a flight test program with that rocket? He has to ensure system reliability to a high level before he can even begin flights, because of the risk the rocket poses.

Just plain Chicken Little scare mongering. It wouldn't be significantly more dangerous than a Saturn V or Shuttle.

DrRansom said:
I don't think his architecture is remotely feasible, because it requires a reliability level never yet seen on a space launch system.

And never will be as long as the mentality of "we can't move until there is zero risk" exists.
 
blackstar said:
flanker said:
Sure, if one ignores the reason for the delays time after time. FH in 2012 is not the same FH in 2016. Between then and now they have been through 3 major versions of Falcon 9 with one more coming up next year. So if anything - you just proved my point. ;)

Now you're being silly.

Missing deadlines is not a good thing, no matter what the excuse.

I am not saying it is a good thing - i am saying there is a reason for it. And the reason for it is that Falcon 9 development simply outruns Falcon Heavy development since the later is based on the former. First FH was based upon v1.0 F9. v1.0 was replaced with v1.1 which was radically different and basically a whole new rocket. v1.2 was a heavy evolution of v1.1 but none the less it still required extra work for the octaweb. Which also applied to FH. Etc etc.

Byeman said:
ADVANCEDBOY said:
There is no existing expertise to land a man on the Moon let alone on Mars no matter how much I would like to be wrong.

Nonsense. You are wrong. It exists. Landing on a planet is easy and has been done many times.

18lpgsh3lidr6jpg.jpg


sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
I don't think his architecture is remotely feasible, because it requires a reliability level never yet seen on a space launch system.

And never will be as long as the mentality of "we can't move until there is zero risk" exists.

Nailed it. "Nothing is worth doing until there is 100% safety guarantied." We always assume a certain risk level in our daily lives, and yet we just deal with it.

Regarding "why send crew up first", Elon's comments;

Elon says that this is the plan if the refueling process is quick, like a couple weeks or less. If it takes a lot longer, then the spacecraft will be launched first without people, and then whenever it’s all refueled and ready to go, a spacecraft carrying just people will be launched and it will deliver the crew to the spacecraft for an Earth orbit rendezvous.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/09/spacexs-big-fking-rocket-the-full-story.html
 
RLBH said:
Soyuz-U has had 784 flights of which 764 were successful; the entire R-7 family has 1,859 flights of which 1,744 are successful. Now granted, by aircraft standards that's still only just out of testing, and that's the only launcher that has come close to mass production, but it has been achieved.

Thanks for that, so there is a rocket with the sufficient number of flights.

Sferrin - you fundamentally misunderstood my issue with Musk's proposal. His Mars colonization proposal requires changing the rocket launch paradigm from 'single-launches at a time' with very low launch rates to a reliability of a modern jet liner. It took 50 years of constant jet flights to reach today's jet-liner reliability. Space launches are nowhere near the reliability required for multiple heavy rocket launches in a week with sufficiently cheap infrastructure to make the whole system economical.

This isn't a problem of accepting zero risk. This is a problem of understanding just what Musk is implicitly proposing. He implicitly proposes shifting space launch costs, via the development of low-maintenance high-reliability systems. That is the space-launch Holy Grail which has eluded developers for 50 years. He is following the underpants gnome school of development:
- design cutting edge rocket
- ...
- airline like reliability, operational cost, and safety to enable high-volume interplanetary travel!

Musk never stated how he is going to fill in the '...' If we base rocket development upon the airline and automobile industry, it will take 50 years of relatively high-volume use to understand what is required. Rockets have barely begun to be designed for high-volume use. Nobody has the experience required to design for high-volume use. Musk gave no proposal about how to fill that knowledge and experience gap.

Now, to a degree Musk's Mars proposal is constrained by SpaceX. SpaceX is a rocket company, so the Mars transport will be a traditional rocket. That may not be the best option. Perhaps another technological breakthrough (high-ISP electric propulsion) will allow Mars colonization without as many space launches.

However, all of the above is besides another point: why go to Mars in the first place? Is there anything of value there for people on Earth?

And, we are still jumping ahead of the first problem. SpaceX has to build a rocket with the cutting edge features:
- brand new, high performance engine
- Nearly all-composite structure, especially unlined tanks
- Two gas/liquid internal pressurization (I don't know the technical word here, but basically replacing helium.)
- Validating the use of 42 engines for launch and flight, including the attendant problems that causes: launch platform design, acoustic loading, etc.

I'm glad SpaceX is looking at doing the above. If it can succeed, then space launch will be much cheaper than today.

PS: Christopher Columbus got lucky.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom