• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
mlooney

Story Friday April 3rd 2020

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, mlooney said:

No question that Bova got his idea there from Heinlein.

Maybe not. The concept predated the novel; Jerry Pournelle is credited with creating the concept in the 1950s. I'm sure it was widely known in their community before TMiaHM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Maybe not. The concept predated the novel; Jerry Pournelle is credited with creating the concept in the 1950s. I'm sure it was widely known in their community before TMiaHM.

Maybe.  It's an obvious concept to any one that understands 1/2mv2.   I think, but am willing to be proved wrong, that the first use of kinetic strikes in SF was in Moon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mlooney said:

Maybe.  It's an obvious concept to any one that understands 1/2mv2.   I think, but am willing to be proved wrong, that the first use of kinetic strikes in SF was in Moon. 

That is the first place I recall seeing it in Sci Fi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
10 hours ago, hkmaly said:

If driving is supposed to involve steering, definitely. Only way to change direction in this kind of speeds is with some kind of thrust, and it would be VERY slow.

You are a projectile. You have no time to react. You don't even have time to register that you might need to react.

You have time to react if you are reacting to something which is eight light minutes from you, like Sun.

8 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I can't believe we are still beating this dead horse. The window collapses due to pressure differential, almost instantly. Your head ablates faster than the baseball, albeit, there's more to ablate. Otherwise, the sheet metal and plastic do not last long. The engine and transmission will be among the last survivors, so might protect you feet for a while.

You are also bathed in blue shifted radiation. The sky in front of you might become dark as the light shifted above the visible, if your eyes weren't among the first things to go.

On the other hand, how long will you need to leave the atmosphere? It's just 100km if you go directly up, granted it's more when you somehow start on road.

And the speed is not 0.9c, it's 0.6c.

I think this would need some actual computation and some details about the car.

Sure, you will be dead before you slow down, but comparing the time needed for car to collapse and time needed to leaving atmosphere wouldn't be so easy.

(Also note that just like in the relativistic baseball story, we are assuming some magical way you get to that speed, because if you started at zero and accelerated, you would be dead long before actually reaching that speed.)

8 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
10 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Did you HEAR any politicians? They are DEFINITELY Pan Narrans. The fact their stories have nothing to do with reality don't make them less stories. In fact, some political speeches MIGHT be more realistic than some fairy tales.

The more polished ones tell stories. We happen to have one in particular who likes to tweet. He's been having a field day with Covid-19.

Yeah, that one seems less realistic than Rapunzel, but it's still story, made from multiple tweets together.

8 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
10 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Their position would be much better if they have actual weapons capable of precision strikes. Rocks thrown from orbit are NOT precise. Titanium rods would be better, but still, hard to take out White House for example without causing civilian loses.

Neither one is precise if it's not precise. Both are precise if you make them precise. It is more difficult, takes more effort, to make a bombardment from lunar orbit precise than from an inner orbit. The payoff in terms of destructive power is greater.

Rocks are not homogeneous enough and might shatter when falling.

7 hours ago, mlooney said:
8 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Maybe not. The concept predated the novel; Jerry Pournelle is credited with creating the concept in the 1950s. I'm sure it was widely known in their community before TMiaHM.

Maybe.  It's an obvious concept to any one that understands 1/2mv2.   I think, but am willing to be proved wrong, that the first use of kinetic strikes in SF was in Moon. 

One story was definitely first but the concept is obvious enough someone might came up with it independently without reading previous usages. Just because someone was not first doesn't mean he didn't "created" it independently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

You have time to react if you are reacting to something which is eight light minutes from you, like Sun.

On the other hand, how long will you need to leave the atmosphere? It's just 100km if you go directly up, granted it's more when you somehow start on road.

And the speed is not 0.9c, it's 0.6c.

I think this would need some actual computation and some details about the car.

Sure, you will be dead before you slow down, but comparing the time needed for car to collapse and time needed to leaving atmosphere wouldn't be so easy.

(Also note that just like in the relativistic baseball story, we are assuming some magical way you get to that speed, because if you started at zero and accelerated, you would be dead long before actually reaching that speed.)

Recall, the original scenario is speeding toward a red light. You are moving horizontally, not vertically.

You are eight light minutes from the sun, from the point of view of a relatively stationary observer. You, at relativistic speeds do not experience eight minutes; but this is more than mitigated by several things. You are already dead for most of the trip. Your car is at best a ballistic object, the ability to influence your direction disappeared early on when your tires lost contact with the road due to A. vaporization, and B. trajectory. But you don't hit the sun unless you happened by chance to be aimed that way; and there is some incentive to have not been driving in the direction of the sun in the first place. Most likely whatever remains of your vehicle will speed it's way out of the solar system, and eventually out of the galaxy.

 

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yeah, that one seems less realistic than Rapunzel, but it's still story, made from multiple tweets together.

Granted, you can build a story around tweets. Humans are good at finding patterns even if there isn't an intrinsic one.

I view the noise of the far right much like a vinyl record skipping. There really isn't a sense that there was a tune being played, you're just lost in the repetition of a short segment that keeps repeating.

Read this for a sense of what I mean. There is a story there, but the main player has made himself a sad pawn with little voice, hasn't he? The one guy close to him who has some sense about this is likely to be $#!t canned for telling him he's wrong.

 

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Rocks are not homogeneous enough and might shatter when falling.

One story was definitely first but the concept is obvious enough someone might came up with it independently without reading previous usages. Just because someone was not first doesn't mean he didn't "created" it independently.

TMiaHM used ore in canisters. The accelerator was intended to put the ore in orbit.

As someone pointed out, if you vaporize a meteor that is heading toward the earth, the earth gets hit by a bunch of hot gas, a substantial part of the mass of the original meteor (depends on how far away you intercept in and such). Arguably, if your big rock breaks up, you may do even more damage, spread over an area rather than dig a deep hole.

The main reason of course is it's cheaper; the rocks are already there. In the case of TMisHM, so was the initial launcher. (They knew it was going to be taken out, so they built a second, secret one.)

FWIW, our Sunday expanded comics pages when I was a kid had some smallish panel that was like science wonders. I do not recall much about it, but the only one I remember was about Project Thor, A.K.A Rods from God, Jerry Pournell's thing. I saw it there before I read TMiaHM, it may predate the book, but I don't know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

One story was definitely first but the concept is obvious enough someone might came up with it independently without reading previous usages. Just because someone was not first doesn't mean he didn't "created" it independently.

The earliest usage that I am aware of for kinetic impactors (as distinct from simple "interplanetary artillery" wherein a cannon of some sort is used to fire shells at another planet a la Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon") in a space war is from E. E. "Doc" Smith's novel, "Skylark Three", in 1930, in which the people of planet Osnome begin a project to divert a moon to smash into the homeworld of invading aliens (the war ends before the project can be completed, but it is made clear that they were capable of accomplishing it if the war had continued).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ijuin said:

The earliest usage that I am aware of for kinetic impactors (as distinct from simple "interplanetary artillery" wherein a cannon of some sort is used to fire shells at another planet a la Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon") in a space war is from E. E. "Doc" Smith's novel, "Skylark Three", in 1930, in which the people of planet Osnome begin a project to divert a moon to smash into the homeworld of invading aliens (the war ends before the project can be completed, but it is made clear that they were capable of accomplishing it if the war had continued).

That makes sense. Most of these concepts are much older than culture suspects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ijuin said:

The earliest usage that I am aware of for kinetic impactors (as distinct from simple "interplanetary artillery" wherein a cannon of some sort is used to fire shells at another planet a la Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon") in a space war is from E. E. "Doc" Smith's novel, "Skylark Three", in 1930, in which the people of planet Osnome begin a project to divert a moon to smash into the homeworld of invading aliens (the war ends before the project can be completed, but it is made clear that they were capable of accomplishing it if the war had continued).

 

3 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

That makes sense. Most of these concepts are much older than culture suspects.

While smashing a moon into a planet is a kinetic strike of sorts, it's some what beyond the "throwing rocks" stage of kinetic attacks.  Not sure if I would count that as an orbital attack or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mlooney said:

 

While smashing a moon into a planet is a kinetic strike of sorts, it's some what beyond the "throwing rocks" stage of kinetic attacks.  Not sure if I would count that as an orbital attack or not.

I would think using a super cannon does. It's basically TMiaHM with a different launcher. Although, it is also conceivable that the author missed the point that the falling effect was significant, perhaps was just thinking, 'shoot cannon'. Also touches on real life, some dude was trying to build a super cannon, back in the 80s or 90s to launch satellites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Also touches on real life, some dude was trying to build a super cannon, back in the 80s or 90s to launch satellites. 

Gerald Bull was a crazed man that built super guns for Iraq, among other things. Also the most important artillery designer of the late 20th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Recall, the original scenario is speeding toward a red light. You are moving horizontally, not vertically.

Depends on terrain. But, yes, mostly.

17 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

You are eight light minutes from the sun, from the point of view of a relatively stationary observer. You, at relativistic speeds do not experience eight minutes; but this is more than mitigated by several things. You are already dead for most of the trip. Your car is at best a ballistic object, the ability to influence your direction disappeared early on when your tires lost contact with the road due to A. vaporization, and B. trajectory.

Depends on what you mean by reaction and what situation we speak about.

If we are talking about general question if it's possible to react in speeds close to speed of light, the answer is definitely yes. You may even be able to change direction, if you have rocket engine or something else generating trust.

Of course, in this scenario, your only possible reaction is to regret that you 1) tried something this stupid 2) did not pack a rocket engine 3) did not pack shielding capable of withstanding going through atmosphere in this speed. The question if you have time for that is philosophical: according to some theories, your entire life replays in front of your eyes before you die.

17 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
20 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yeah, that one seems less realistic than Rapunzel, but it's still story, made from multiple tweets together.

Granted, you can build a story around tweets. Humans are good at finding patterns even if there isn't an intrinsic one.

I view the noise of the far right much like a vinyl record skipping. There really isn't a sense that there was a tune being played, you're just lost in the repetition of a short segment that keeps repeating.

Read this for a sense of what I mean. There is a story there, but the main player has made himself a sad pawn with little voice, hasn't he? The one guy close to him who has some sense about this is likely to be $#!t canned for telling him he's wrong.

Repetition is the simplest pattern possible. And I assume you know the famous song 99 Bottles of Beer? The song also tells a story. Not complicated story, but a story nevertheless.

17 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

TMiaHM used ore in canisters. The accelerator was intended to put the ore in orbit.

As someone pointed out, if you vaporize a meteor that is heading toward the earth, the earth gets hit by a bunch of hot gas, a substantial part of the mass of the original meteor (depends on how far away you intercept in and such). Arguably, if your big rock breaks up, you may do even more damage, spread over an area rather than dig a deep hole.

The main reason of course is it's cheaper; the rocks are already there. In the case of TMisHM, so was the initial launcher. (They knew it was going to be taken out, so they built a second, secret one.)

If the big rock breaks up, it may do more damage, but also at different place than original target.

8 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Although, it is also conceivable that the author missed the point that the falling effect was significant, perhaps was just thinking, 'shoot cannon'.

Speaking about which, while classical orbital bombardment uses falling effect, other kinds of kinetic attacks as well as meteorites itself do not rely on it.

If you put stationary object in front of Earth, the Earth will hit it with speed of 30km/s. For comparison, terminal velocity of object in free fall is about 80m/s. Meteorites falling on Earth won't get faster by falling - they get slower by air resistance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

... if you have rocket engine or something else generating trust.

We were, however unrealistically, talking about a motor vehicle. The very few rocket powered cars that have been built were not street legal.

 

50 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Repetition is the simplest pattern possible. And I assume you know the famous song 99 Bottles of Beer? The song also tells a story. Not complicated story, but a story nevertheless.

... not enough of a story to earn the title, ' Narrans' .

 

"Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, aleph null bottles of beer,

Take one down, pass it around, aleph null bottles of beer on the wall."
 

50 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

If the big rock breaks up, it may do more damage, but also at different place than original target.

Speaking about which, while classical orbital bombardment uses falling effect, other kinds of kinetic attacks as well as meteorites itself do not rely on it.

If you put stationary object in front of Earth, the Earth will hit it with speed of 30km/s. For comparison, terminal velocity of object in free fall is about 80m/s. Meteorites falling on Earth won't get faster by falling - they get slower by air resistance.

It will, on the average, not change trajectory, so unless you split the remainder widely apart, you're still screwed. One thing they got right in Armageddon.

Stationary with respect to what? The sun? It will fall toward the sun, then.

Terminal velocity depend on factors, such as density. As you allude to, it only applies in the atmosphere, which, granted is a relative term. But for the most part, over most of the fall, terminal velocity does not matter until you are within near earth orbit. Then yes, your plummeting object will experience atmospheric resistance and heat up glowing hot and will loose some speed. If it is small enough, it will vaporize; larger, and a portion will hit, larger still, and you can effectively ignore the atmospheric taxation. Your tungsten telephone poles should do better than the average bear.

An object does not have to be de-orbited to hit the surface. If you can make the orbit eccentric enough, it will hit at higher than orbital velocity, being on the downward side of it's eccentric orbit; but you'd have to account for atmospheric skip. Targeting would likely be a bitch.

 

 

Edited by Darth Fluffy
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... if you have rocket engine or something else generating trust.

We were, however unrealistically, talking about a motor vehicle. The very few rocket powered cars that have been built were not street legal.

Neither is speeding nor riding through red lights legal.

Also, we are talking about changing direction. The rockets would need to be directed perpendicularly to your direction, like from side window or something. Those few rocket powered cards have them pointing to back.

(Wait, am I argumenting for your side? :))

2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Repetition is the simplest pattern possible. And I assume you know the famous song 99 Bottles of Beer? The song also tells a story. Not complicated story, but a story nevertheless.

... not enough of a story to earn the title, ' Narrans' .

I disagree.

2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It will, on the average, not change trajectory, so unless you split the remainder widely apart, you're still screwed. One thing they got right in Armageddon.

Yes. However, in Armageddon, they were trying to save Earth, not White House. Bigger target.

2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Stationary with respect to what? The sun? It will fall toward the sun, then.

That's actually exactly what most meteorites are doing. We egoistically talk about how they fall on Earth, but they are on their own extremely eccentric orbit, minding their own business, when suddenly Earth hits them with it's 30km/s from side.

(Ok, most meteorites are not stationary, but their speed relative to Sun is usually smaller than Earth's.)

2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Terminal velocity depend on factors, such as density. As you allude to, it only applies in the atmosphere, which, granted is a relative term. But for the most part, over most of the fall, terminal velocity does not matter until you are within near earth orbit. Then yes, your plummeting object will experience atmospheric resistance and heat up glowing hot and will loose some speed. If it is small enough, it will vaporize; larger, and a portion will hit, larger still, and you can effectively ignore the atmospheric taxation. Your tungsten telephone poles should do better than the average bear.

Yes, Tungsten poles are very dense and have very small cross-section in direction of fall. Standard rocks, not so much. Which is exactly why I keep saying they are not ideal weapons if you need some precision.

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

An object does not have to be de-orbited to hit the surface. If you can make the orbit eccentric enough, it will hit at higher than orbital velocity, being on the downward side of it's eccentric orbit; but you'd have to account for atmospheric skip. Targeting would likely be a bitch.

Again, even harder if you are trying to hit specific target (and not just "anywhere on Earth will do") with simple rock.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Neither is speeding nor riding through red lights legal.

True, but people actually do speed through red lights. People do not use rocket cars on the road. For numerous reasons. One of the earleir Darwin awards was a guy using JETO rockets to make his car go faster. 'Nuff said?

 

44 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Also, we are talking about changing direction. The rockets would need to be directed perpendicularly to your direction, like from side window or something. Those few rocket powered cards have them pointing to back.

(Wait, am I argumenting for your side? :))

Real rocket cars and their ilk, including down to dragsters and such are notoriously uncontrollable. This is why, when you attempt to break the land speed record, you do so on a very flat wide open plain, such as Bonneville Salt Flats.

Of course, with a rocket car, you have an additional consideration of needing downward pressure to ensure that you remain a land vehicle for the records.

 

44 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I disagree.

Well, OK, then; I probably won't want to read your narratives. Well, Groundhog Day wasn't bad.

 

44 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Yes, Tungsten poles are very dense and have very small cross-section in direction of fall. Standard rocks, not so much. Which is exactly why I keep saying they are not ideal weapons if you need some precision.

Rocks are not ideal weapons. They are expedient weapons. In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, they entail making calculations to use existing payloads and equipment for bombardment.

Look at it this way. You might need to defend yourself. You have all kinds of options. You need to defend yourself in the next few seconds. You'll grab whatever you can.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Neither is speeding nor riding through red lights legal.

True, but people actually do speed through red lights. People do not use rocket cars on the road. For numerous reasons. One of the earleir Darwin awards was a guy using JETO rockets to make his car go faster. 'Nuff said?

So there are at least SOME people who use rocket cars on the road :)

Ok, were.

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also, we are talking about changing direction. The rockets would need to be directed perpendicularly to your direction, like from side window or something. Those few rocket powered cards have them pointing to back.

(Wait, am I argumenting for your side? :))

Real rocket cars and their ilk, including down to dragsters and such are notoriously uncontrollable. This is why, when you attempt to break the land speed record, you do so on a very flat wide open plain, such as Bonneville Salt Flats.

Of course, with a rocket car, you have an additional consideration of needing downward pressure to ensure that you remain a land vehicle for the records.

Compared to normal cars, even Apollo was hard to control.

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I disagree.

Well, OK, then; I probably won't want to read your narratives. Well, Groundhog Day wasn't bad.

Why my narratives? I'm just saying that just because some narrative is bad it won't stop being narrative, in the same way that rotten apple is still apple despite not being safe to eat. (Well ... ok, eventually the apple will rot to state when it's no longer recognizable as apple ...)

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yes, Tungsten poles are very dense and have very small cross-section in direction of fall. Standard rocks, not so much. Which is exactly why I keep saying they are not ideal weapons if you need some precision.

Rocks are not ideal weapons. They are expedient weapons. In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, they entail making calculations to use existing payloads and equipment for bombardment.

Look at it this way. You might need to defend yourself. You have all kinds of options. You need to defend yourself in the next few seconds. You'll grab whatever you can.

"You need to defend youself in the next few second" is exactly the situation anyone parking a spaceship on Earth orbit is NOT.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Why my narratives?

Narratives written to the (lack of) standards you are espousing.

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

I'm just saying that just because some narrative is bad it won't stop being narrative, in the same way that rotten apple is still apple despite not being safe to eat. (Well ... ok, eventually the apple will rot to state when it's no longer recognizable as apple ...)

Ooo, I see a future in marketing in your career. :lol: "Buy Windows. It's an operating system." :P

 

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

"You need to defend yourself in the next few second" is exactly the situation anyone parking a spaceship on Earth orbit is NOT.

Which I believe has little to do with how this topic started. Wasn't the quote you responded to talking about Heinlein's book?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
10 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I'm just saying that just because some narrative is bad it won't stop being narrative, in the same way that rotten apple is still apple despite not being safe to eat. (Well ... ok, eventually the apple will rot to state when it's no longer recognizable as apple ...)

Ooo, I see a future in marketing in your career. :lol: "Buy Windows. It's an operating system." :P

I'm acknowledging the situation, not promoting it. And, yes, if Windows is operating system, then 99 Bottles of Beer is story. Hmmm ... well, ok, Windows 98.

I would actually be bad in marketing and I would never promote windows. Or systemd.

9 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
10 hours ago, hkmaly said:

"You need to defend yourself in the next few second" is exactly the situation anyone parking a spaceship on Earth orbit is NOT.

Which I believe has little to do with how this topic started. Wasn't the quote you responded to talking about Heinlein's book?

No, I believed the topic started with evaluating how did Uryuom convinced Earth governments to follow their laws.

And I'm saying that if they would be refugees, it would be very unlikely.

Also, it's obvious that there were contact with Uryuom homeworld recently, way AFTER the change which prevented Uryuoms from using Earth magic.

(Also, I totally consider the whole situation with Uryuom weird, in a "Can't think about explanation making it logical" way. I hope Dan has some but I'm afraid he doesn't.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Also, I totally consider the whole situation with Uryuom weird, in a "Can't think about explanation making it logical" way. I hope Dan has some but I'm afraid he doesn't.

Yes it is weird

In the same way that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics both fail when we try to make them interact is weird

To paraphrase Mark Twain, Truth is stranger than Fiction because Fiction needs to make sense

The subjective reality that is EGS is apparently real enough that it no longer needs to make sense to anyone, even the author

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

I'm acknowledging the situation, not promoting it. And, yes, if Windows is operating system, then 99 Bottles of Beer is story. Hmmm ... well, ok, Windows 98.

I would actually be bad in marketing and I would never promote windows. Or systemd.

No, I believed the topic started with evaluating how did Uryuom convinced Earth governments to follow their laws.

And I'm saying that if they would be refugees, it would be very unlikely.

Also, it's obvious that there were contact with Uryuom homeworld recently, way AFTER the change which prevented Uryuoms from using Earth magic.

(Also, I totally consider the whole situation with Uryuom weird, in a "Can't think about explanation making it logical" way. I hope Dan has some but I'm afraid he doesn't.)

OK, I'll grant you the Uryuom probably wouldn't throw rocks if they have something better. But I doubt they'd haul tungsten telephone poles from another star system either. If you come right down to it, if they lack a third option, of two choices, they'd probably throw rocks. Much less effort.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this