Big Dumb Boosters revisited

dicktice · 2006-11-11 18:44:32

Once we've reached the Moon and decided to set up a mining operation or two, how about returning to the early concept of single-stage no-return booster rockets, launched straight up through the atmosphere, to escape Earth, orbit Moon for automatic and/or assisted soft, tail-first landing at the designated site(s)? With today's materials, and technological advancements since the 1960's, regolith movers, fuel, modular living quarters from vehicle-teardowns, and consumables, all could be delivered "on the cheap" within 3-days of launching. Engines and ancillary paraphernalia could be salvaged and warehoused for future cislunar expeditions and beyond. Returning personnel would travel back to Earth in Apollo-type (updated and upscaled) LEM and reentry capsules, or their modern equivalents now being proposed ... or to rendezvous the then completed and fully operational ISS....

GCNRevenger · 2006-11-11 22:20:02

No. Single-stage rockets have poor efficiency because you have to lug so many tonnes of dead weight from unneeded high-thrust engines and empty fuel tanks. It would cut deeply into the payload of a reasonably cheap rocket, even the absurdly large SeaDragon mega-rocket was two stages.

And there are practical concerns, that you don't need anywhere near the thrust of launch to execute the breaking maneuver or Lunar landing (especially since the fuel tanks would be empty), plus the shape of the engine nozzle strongly impacts the efficiency. One shape of nozzle works well at high air pressure, and another type works well at low air pressure. No shape of nozzle works well at both.

And what happens when you get there? How will you land a ~100m+ tall rocket on the Lunar surface? Since the payload is on top and the engines on the bottom, you will have serious issues with torque loads. Further, the landing gear for such a vast rocket would be very heavy too simply due to its size. And when are you on the ground, how do you get the payload down from the top of the rocket?

"Today's materials and technology" really haven't changed the basic tenants of rockets since Nazi Germany's V-2 rockets, the dirty secret of spaceflight is that the technology has largely reached a plateau because of the limits of practical rocket fuels and the cost of advanced materials.

The engines for such a monsterous rocket would be troublesome to restart if for no other reason than their size and the difficulty of settling free-floating fuel in such a huge tank reliably. They would also be quite worthless on the Moon, having far more thrust than is needed for anything, and if they are optimized for low altitude Earth launch then their efficiency will suffer in Lunar vacuum.

No no... if you want to mine the Moon, really mine it in a way that is seriously beneficial and profitable to the mother world, than you MUST use RLVs. True, real RLVs, on both ends of the trip. There is simply no way in heck you could possibly move the materials with expendable rockets without going completely broke.

Simply building and launching rockets far in excess of Ares-V sized ones will be extremely expensive, just because of how hard it would be to build and handle something that big and how often you won't be flying it. 10-20MT class RLVs are the ticket.

dicktice · 2006-11-27 20:31:40

In answer, I submit the following:

Single-stage, kerosene/liquid oxigen-pressurized single engine, electrc motor geared gymballed to steer straight up leaving the atmosphere while still subsonic to where the Earth-Moon gravity fields will nulify each other upon arrival, using thrusters to reverse direction and then the engine circularize orbit around the Moon and land tail-first on five extendable splayed-out legs.

Structural elements inside the nearly empty fuelt tanks designed to assemble into useful surface structures. Shape of the engine nozzle optimized for space, since atmospheric burn straight up so much shorter than in vacuum to escape to Earth/Moon gravity null point.

Engineer the rocket to lie down, employing the thrusters under computer control, preparatory to dissassembly and exposing the cargo in the horizontal position.

Glass and carbon fibre composite construction, not expensive to lay-up in quantity on-site, from production tooling in the form of plugs used typically within the boat building industry.

The engine would specified to be reliable restarting in vacuum a limited number of times, by competitive prototyping based upon quantity production economical payoff to the best design, and then produced jointly by bidders wherever sited for launch. Used for the engine harware on the Moon to be determined after some more thought.

Mining the Moon should begin by deep coring where orbital surveys suggest ... kilometres deep, to investigate layering and potential heavy minerals deposits, as well as surface scraping for H2O containing regolith, with tunneling as a biproduct for refinery and living facilities. The mined products not to be returned to Earth, buy utilized on the Moon, you know, to support the colony on Mars as well as cis-lunar and Earth coorbit space exploration thoughout this century.

Getting there and back ourselves, would involve all the manned space techniques, multistage rockets, loiter orbiting both Earth and Moon, lunar landing and launch vehicles, Earth reentry, not to mention space stations eventually orbiting both Earth and Moon, we've been discussing. No argument.

"Going broke" by the way, is what happens when you start an un-winable war on Earth, using up all your accumulated material resources and "the flower of your youth" (recalling the expression from WWI) to no purpose, eh?

GCNRevenger · 2006-11-28 00:12:31

No, it would never work. Its just not efficient enough, you've got a whole confluence of show-stoppers:

-Kerosene sucks, you nearly cut your payload in half versus Hydrogen, especially given the increasing edge Hydrogen has with bigger tanks
-Pressure fed kerosene engines have inferior performance, severely limiting payload especially in an SSTO style role. This alone kills it, the payload fraction is just too small. Not even the SpaceX Falcon rockets use pressure fed main engines.
-Subsonic ascent through the atmosphere, since every second of time you are below orbital or escape velocity requires you to burn fuel to counter gravity, you would throw away a lot of fuel by taking your time to accelerate. Straight up ascent doesn't really shorten the time it takes to climb above the atmosphere much either (see delta-IV heavy).
-Vacuum-optimized engine nozzle, particularly with the slow ascent, will simply knee-cap the whole rocket even worse. It might even double the amount of fuel needed. There is up to a 100sec Isp difference between 1 and 0atm.
-Lugging the tank all the way to the Moon just isn't happening, the big Ares-V heavy lifter will normally be able to deliver ~20MT of payload to a soft landing using liquid hydrogen for LOC and decent. The Shuttle external tank, for instance, weighs thirty metric tonnes. You just have no clue how absolutely crucial staging is for direct-flight rockets.

The problem with ships landing to form "useful structures" is that these structures are useless; there is plenty of raw building material available, low grade aluminum and perhaps even titanium will literally be dumped and piling up as waste from oxygen extraction, and is easy to cast into bulk low-performance materials that a rocket would be made from.

The stuff that will be going to the Moon is the kind of thing you can't make there from cast aluminum, glass, or titanium: stuff like turbines, electric motors, nuclear reactors, cryocoolers, dump trucks/bulldozers/etc, and elements/supplies that can't be made locally.

Easy and cheap to build it from composites huh? When is the last time anybody built massive ~25m+ composite tanks capable of supporting thousands of tonnes of weight as well as holding cryogenic liquid oxygen and all that while under high pressure? Boating industry? Oh please, not more of the "ship building = rocket building" nonsense. Supertankers and submarines aren't built from composites.

The engine would specified to be reliable restarting in vacuum a limited number of times, by competitive prototyping based upon quantity production economical payoff to the best design, and then produced jointly by bidders wherever sited for launch.

Rubbish, this is just a bunch of buzz-words strung together: making such a massive engine, making it able to restart several times (NO large engine has demonstrated this, EVER), making it highly efficient for a pressure-fed, and making it reliable enough to risk, and then making it cheap?

No no no... pick any one. Simple engineering/cost concept: with each major feature added, the cost increases exponentially. Simple and true; no amount of Dilbert boss-isms can change the simple fact that if it has to do lot of things, its going to be hard to build, and if its hard to build then its going to cost an arm, both legs, twelve pints of blood, and your first born.

And these thrusters that do all this maneuvering and landing: you sure are putting an awful lot of faith in them, and the transition from tail-first powered decent to thruster-only decent will be a tricky proposition.

The mined products not to be returned to Earth, buy utilized on the Moon, you know, to support the colony on Mars as well as cis-lunar and Earth coorbit space exploration

Then how will you make any money? Earthlings have all the money, and for a long, long, long-long-long time rockets of all types will burn cash just as surely as they do rocket fuel.

The focus for such heavy transport should be on rare element mining, like Platinum-group metals, for return to Earth. Once a little real income is available, THEN things will open up. PGMs aren't going to be deeply buried since they are left behind in meteor fragments.

""Going broke" by the way, is what happens when you start an un-winable war on Earth, using up all your accumulated material resources and "the flower of your youth" (recalling the expression from WWI) to no purpose, eh?"

Unwinnable? 80% of the violence is in Baghdad, and the only reason that is is to perform in front of media cameras. In any event, the media was the one who changed our victory condition to "stop the violence," which is not what we came to do. And please, "use up our resources?" Hardly, you sorely underestimate just how rich America is. And American soldiers are about as likely to die in accidents here in America as they are to bombs and bullets in Iraq. The comparison with WW2 is apt as it illustrates your ignorance and inability to distinguish two qualitatively different situations because "war = bad:" we were losing almost 7,000 troops in WW2 per month. And for nothing? No more Saddam, liberated 30M people, shaky but holding democratic government...

dicktice · 2006-11-28 08:17:25

Great stuff. I've been hoping to get some dialogue going regarding direct ascent missions. My last remark wasn't meant to press any hot buttons, so let me explain that I was (a) referring to the First World War: the "war to end all wars," which made WWII necessary to be won or else (b) you mentioned "going broke" in connection with expendable rockets, remember? I only meant that funds become available when they're really needed, in a war for instance. Maybe I shouldn't have said un-winnable, since that wasn't the point, and for that I apologize. We've got similar problems in south Afganistan at present, but don't let's let political arguments blunt the problem of BDB feasibility. Back when I finish work today.

dicktice · 2006-11-30 20:02:04

I take back the kerosene fueled rocket. Use a single LH2/LOX non-gymballed rocket engine, with tandem tanks stacked above, and a cluster of thrusters in the nose, of an otherwise cylindrical vertically launched bare-bones vehicle. What's the feasibility of a test shot, aimed and steered to rendezvous at the L1 point, pertform a heading reversal while falling into any lunar orbit of choice, and soft-land on the near and far side of the Moon, shut down, vent any remaining O2 and H2, the expendable engine allowed to crush beneath the upright vehicle in the regolith, and then toppled over under computer control by the thrusters, to lie horizontally until the arrival of construction astronauts? No payload, at first, other than the tanks which have the potential of becoming habitat enclosure components, and the outer shell halves for roofing to support regolith shielding once the tank-derived habit is dug-in by astronauts having arrived Apollo-wise after enough one-way cargos have been accumulated for an extended stay on the Moon. Once the minimum scale one-way feasibility shots have become routine, the vehicle would be scaled up in size to carry bulk cargo, such as water-ice to start with, frozen in winter and launched from the northern and sothern latitudes seasonally, perhaps stored within the space between the tanks and the outer shell.... [Thinks: that should bring about a reply!]

Palomar · 2006-12-01 12:55:47

I don't think it's nice to call them big DUMB boosters.

--Cindy

cjchandler · 2006-12-02 09:48:30

Since this seems to be the place to post crazy ideas, how about this, take methane and oxygen and mix as liquids. Then take a really heavy duty cyrocooler and cast a solid fuel rocket at say, 40 K. Then use water ice for the walls, and keep it in a refrigerated lanch silo. Then you can have a strait shot to the moon with a single stage rocket and bring water instead of steel from the walls. No pumps and high isp.

TwinBeam · 2006-12-03 03:49:41

If the objective is "cheaper spaceflight", engine/fuel efficiency is the least concern.

The shuttle requires an expensive standing army of technicians to refurbish and inspect it before each flight, and of course to monitor it continuously on orbit. That army has to go, or at least be spread over far more launches. I doubt we're likely to see the latter any time soon. Even if we get a moon base, I'd expect no more than 2-3 launches a year - and even that rate would be hard to sustain if we don't get per-launch costs WAY down.

1) Solid boosters only for the first stage. No expensive super-efficient rockets for the heavy lifting first phase. Too difficult to recover and refurbish to make it worth going to re-useable engines, too expensive to throw them away. Maybe add one or two small liquid fueled rockets to the stack to give some dynamic control and guidance.

2) Eliminate the naval operation used to recover the shuttle's SRBs before they're ruined by salt water. Don't bother recovering the boosters for refurbishing - just pay a nominal amount to have them salvaged by independent operators, so they don't pollute the ocean too much.

3) Build the boosters close to the launch site - maybe build them on a barge, on canals leading out to the launch sites. Float them out, stand them up, load the last stage/payload, and fire them. No multiple stages of production, transport, assembly, etc.

4) The last stage should be designed for minimum maintenance costs compatible with safety - whether that means "simpler and more durable" or "smaller, redundant plug-in components". If it can't be designed in a way that total refurbishing costs are substantially less than the cost of a non-reusable upper stage, go with a non-reuseable upper stage, and work to get manufacturing costs down.

5) The last stage should probably strap on beside the first stage. That allows a single method for bundling a variable number of stages, with no separate design for interfacing upper and lower stages. If multiple stages are needed, use more solid boosters. Drop spent boosters before lighting off the next stage's boosters.

6) For larger cargo launches, perhaps such as a moon base hab, use more boosters and a specially designed non-reuseable "on top" stage. Make it efficient enough to be reliable, but otherwise focus on net system and operating costs.

7) The last stage goes only to LEO. Crews and cargo for the moon or Mars or a more permanent orbit should be transferred in a capsule to a true spacecraft that never has to re-enter atmosphere. So there must be a separable and separately re-entering capsule "stage", but it doesn't need any engines of its own.

This won't get costs down to "cheap" - that'll probably take something far more exotic. But it seems achievable, and isn't too far off from the current NASA plan. $1000/kg of useful payload to LEO seems a reasonable goal, and far better than the shuttle.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-03 07:24:10

No no, its still not good enough: even if you had a Hydrogen engine with a great ~450sec vacuum Isp you are talking about a mass fraction probably <1% The Delta-IV Medium would be a good comparison, that it uses a cheap rocket engine and aluminum construction: it has a ~3.4% payload fraction to LEO and thats with staging. Generously assuming the size of the vehicle makes up for staging and using medium/high Isp hydrogen engines, you can deliver ~1/7th the LEO mass to the Lunar surface. That leaves you with ~0.5%.

That 0.5% isn't payload either, its mostly dead engines lugged from launch.

All this talk about "well why don't we" or "tell me why it shouldn't" and "but why can't" etc etc is all the wrong question! Getting to the moon with chemical rockets is extremely difficult thanks to Tiokovski. No no, the question should be the other way around, justify why an idea does work, not challenge to find reasons why it can't, because so many ideas just don't make the numbers add up that it is unreasonable to assume the average idea would work.

SSTO to the Moon isn't going anywhere. Period. Even a massive Saturn-V sized SSTO rocket can't deliver useful masses to the Moon. Its just not good for anything, if you want to build a HAB on the Moon, send 1-2 inflatable modules with hollow walls, inject them with hardening foam, and pile a meter or two of conveniently light-weight-in-Lunar-gravity dirt on top. And deliver water? Why would you do that? 90% of waters' mass is the oxygen which we already have plenty off on the Moon.

These verneer thrusters would not be very practical either, you can't really use thrusters to stabilize the ascent of a rocket without burning quite a bit of fuel to operate them. And then, this is assuming they have the millisecond responsiveness required. You would also need a second set on the bottom of the rocket, since it would be difficult to control rotation without the aid of the main engine during the cruise/approach phase. Also, they will have to be quite powerful to nudge something that big and heavy. I don't think that you can escape the need for a gimbaled engine.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-03 22:05:09

A rocket made out of ice? Simple, it would be too heavy to ever get off the ground if it were made thick enough to support its own weight versus the several G's involved with launch. Ice is really heavy

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-04 08:14:17

Generally speaking, a "one and a half" stage arrangement matches better with large Hydrogen engines for LEO payloads. You are thinking something like this?: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nls.htm

Instead of using Shuttle-derived boosters with fewer segments, instead use enlarged EELV boosters. They are lighter, cheap, and expendable. Use a pair of RS-68's instead of modified SSMEs ("STME") and use either a small RL-10 or hypergolic upper stage for small stuff or NASA's new J-2X for the upper stage for big payloads or escape velocity shots.

And in a side-mount arrangement, you still have to have an interstage structure, its just on the side instead of on top. It also radically increases drag and reduces engine efficiency since you have to burn fuel to keep from tipping over.

Don't reuse anything, especially not the upper stage.

TwinBeam · 2006-12-05 01:25:40

NLS is close - except I'm suggesting more and/or larger solid boosters, and it would not normally go beyond LEO - leave that to a craft better specialized for vacuum operations.

Is EELV "real" in any sense? How do we know it'd be cheaper than solid boosters for a similar lift capability?

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-05 12:05:05

I am wary of putting too much emphasis on solid rockets though, their efficiency is really quite awful compared to their liquid fueled siblings. Beyond a certain point, you get rapidly diminishing returns, that the bigger you make it you get incrementally less payload. Maybe pressure-fed hybrid boosters would be a little better (safer too), but thats quite a bit more complicated.

One or two large, cheap, simple hydrogen engines mated with different numbers of medium size solid rockets and interchangeable upper stages makes more sense. This way, you need a very small upper stage for LEO payloads but you have the option for a heavier one for GEO, extra heavy, or escape velocity shots. Subtracting or omitting the solid rockets would give you an almost SSTO rocket for small payloads too.

Boeing's Delta rocket is already much like this, except it is designed for only one main engine that could stand to be more efficient, solid rockets are too small, and too much emphasis is placed on the upper stage. Ideally the rocket, in its full maximal arrangement, could lift 50MT (enough to send a crew to Lunar orbit in a single launch, or refuel the Earth-return tanks of a Mars cycler)

That said however, you still need at least some economies of scale to make such a scheme practical. Somebody has to BUY the things on a regular basis, say 6-8 times a year at least.

Now, if you are talking really cheap, then some kind of partially reusable vehicle makes more sense. In this case, the best bet is using vertically launched "fly back" boosters: a smaller Hydrogen-fueled upper stage would ride under or surrounded by up to three Kerosene-fueled boosters that are equipped with wings, wheels, and possibly jet engines. These would take the vehicle up to Mach-5/6 and near the edge of the atmosphere. Then you would be talking real savings, but only if it were to fly pretty often.

cIclops · 2006-12-06 04:40:35

Now, if you are talking really cheap, then some kind of partially reusable vehicle makes more sense. In this case, the best bet is using vertically launched "fly back" boosters: a smaller Hydrogen-fueled upper stage would ride under or surrounded by up to three Kerosene-fueled boosters that are equipped with wings, wheels, and possibly jet engines. These would take the vehicle up to Mach-5/6 and near the edge of the atmosphere. Then you would be talking real savings, but only if it were to fly pretty often.

This sounds similar to the RpK /Kistler K-1 that is now being developed under a COTS contract. The first stage is flyback and the second stage is reusable after reentry from orbit. Both stages use kerosene/LO2 and the OMS uses ethanol/LO2. They claim the vehicle will be reusable with a nine day turnaround.

SpaceNut · 2006-12-06 05:20:30

If you look a little further you will find that the first stage is a parachute recovery in the ocean while the second stage uses a parachute as well to make them both recoverable.
K-1 Launch Vehicle: Photo Gallery

cIclops · 2006-12-06 06:39:52

If you look a little further you will find that the first stage is a parachute recovery in the ocean while the second stage uses a parachute as well to make them both recoverable.
K-1 Launch Vehicle: Photo Gallery

Both stages use parachutes and airbags for a soft touchdown on land near the launch site. The first stage uses its engine to flyback. See flightprofile

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-06 07:12:59

No, I mean a booster with even less "reprocessing" needed than the K-1. That means real wings, real wheels, and maybe real jet engines for the 'fly back" part.

But I digress, I have a pretty low opinion of the whole Kistler outfit, and I don't think that they are really competent rocket men. I mean, it took them how long and how much money to build one rocket? And what happens to their company if said rocket blows up?

Oh thats right, they would go beg NASA for THIRD nine-digit bailout, eyes all teary, weeping over "the cruel fate of AltSpace" if the taxpayers don't cough up the cash. And so much for ISS duty for a few years while they hand-build another one bit-by-bit from scratch.

The money we're paying them would probably better go to building more EELVs, which would bring down their unit cost.

I'm also pretty dubious if their upper stage will even survive reentry on a regular basis... until I see Elon's rocket fly a few times or the Kistler half a dozen times, don't bother trying to cheerleader me about AltSpace.

SpaceNut · 2006-12-06 07:43:59

Yup cIclops I seem to recall the soft landing but would not the main engines for each stage need to be throttled way back so as to not rip the parachutes off...

Web site is done at this moment when I am writing this...

cIclops · 2006-12-06 07:57:58

RpK have a $207 million contract from COTS and they only get this money milestone by milestone. There are 13 milestones leading upto the first flight. They get paid as they complete each milestone. If they meet all those milestones including a successful first flight they get about $140 million. The next flight pays them $25m and the third $10m. Then they can start work on the crew options.

See appendix 2 of the Contract details for RpK and SpaceX (5MB PDF)

BTW ATK are are building it, so it might fly - if it does it will be amazing for that price!

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-06 08:05:54

What? Milestones? Thats stupid, the only "milestone" that counts is a good launch!

cIclops · 2006-12-06 08:15:10

Don't forget the good landing and reflight!

publiusr · 2006-12-08 16:24:10

Give me a Sea Dragon, and place some large modules on the lunar surface. If some automated craft can slowly grow (assemble) mass-drivers, then you need no spacecraft at all once your infrastructure is up and independant.

dicktice · 2006-12-08 16:31:07

Probably the first, most important task in support of any permanent bases on the Moon, will be to provide it with a constellation of GPS satellites to enable direct-ascent cargo BDB's from Earth to put down accurately at any site needing supplies, on demand.

srmeaney · 2006-12-19 22:00:09

Unfortunately the reason no one wanted to live on the surface was long term exposure. Sustainability, of Colony, where as it was easier to go underground and use existing resources to define the limits of habitation.
With the one way trip thinking ($20 Billion / Year / Colonist Mars or Moon) you have to provide continuous resupply.

Year One: 50 Lunar Colonist/Habitat=$1000 Billion per year.

Year Two: 50 Lunar Colonist/Mining and Construction specialists and work dome=$2000 Billion per year.

This provides the first year of assembly of the Surface Work Dome. A Low Pressure work area beneath which the Team of colonists can begin tunneling downward.
The Dome Is a Industrial Scale Airlock Providing surface access.
At fifty metres depth they can fan out from a central node- a multiple elevator shaft for the movement of colonists and dirt.

Year Three: The First Underground City industrial Suburb with a capacity of a Thousand People$20,000 Billion/year.

From these Suburbs where the colonists can be moved into, it becomes necessary to construct a major agfarm to provide for water, food, resource processing.The Network of cities expands as further surface domes sink elevators to allow traffic access.
Increasing in cost over a hundred years until the Lunar colony is capable of supporting 10,000,000 people.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-11-11 18:44:32

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#2 2006-11-11 22:20:02

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#3 2006-11-27 20:31:40

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#4 2006-11-28 00:12:31

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#5 2006-11-28 08:17:25

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#6 2006-11-30 20:02:04

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#7 2006-12-01 12:55:47

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#8 2006-12-02 09:48:30

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#9 2006-12-03 03:49:41

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#10 2006-12-03 07:24:10

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#11 2006-12-03 22:05:09

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#12 2006-12-04 08:14:17

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#13 2006-12-05 01:25:40

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#14 2006-12-05 12:05:05

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#15 2006-12-06 04:40:35

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#16 2006-12-06 05:20:30

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#17 2006-12-06 06:39:52

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#18 2006-12-06 07:12:59

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#19 2006-12-06 07:43:59

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#20 2006-12-06 07:57:58

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#21 2006-12-06 08:05:54

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#22 2006-12-06 08:15:10

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#23 2006-12-08 16:24:10

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#24 2006-12-08 16:31:07

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

#25 2006-12-19 22:00:09

Re: Big Dumb Boosters revisited

Board footer