Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
* FAQ    * Search   * Login 
Want to support this site? Click

Quote of the Week: "In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own." - Alexis de Tocqueville, French writer (1805-1859)


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 02:53pm
Offline
Of Sector 2814
User avatar

Joined: 2005-03-23 06:31pm
Posts: 3009
Location: Visiting Haleakalā
Nuclear Fission Fragment drives have issues ([urlhttp://www.rbsp.info/rbs/RbS/PDF/aiaa05.pdf]even the primary source I have for them says they are probably not feasible[/url]), they do however had the advantage of being able to be be built with modern technology. They also can get ISPs of around 1*10^6 sec, which is better than the Ion drives by a factor of 100.



Governance not Politics
-Mike Steele for Congress

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 02:55pm
Offline
Cowardly Codfish
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Posts: 8514
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea
PeZook wrote:
So, a thousand super-tankers (assuming 500 thousand tons per ship) is 500 MILLION tonnes of fuel to get to Alpha Centauri using a theoretical nuclear fusion rocket.

I might've been a little too optimistic about our capability of getting to Alpha Centauri :D


Can you imagine even building the engines for that nuclear fusion rocket? Or what it would take to hold it together under acceleration and deceleration? It's not pretty. And that's if you're willing to wait 900 years to get it to the Alpha Centauri system! I question whether the electronics in the probe would survive that long in interstellar space.

I think I'd rather spend my money building a colossal array of space telescopes capable of interferometry when you line them up properly.



"You can't hammer tin into iron, no matter how hard you beat it, but that doesn't mean that tin is worthless."
-Jon Snow, A Game of Thrones

"I prefer my history dead. The dead sort is written in ink, the living in blood."
-Rodrik Greyjoy, A Song of Ice and Fire

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 04:39pm
Online
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2010-09-03 09:31pm
Posts: 1770
Actually considering the distance to travel, 6 railway tankers isn't all that bad...all things considering. The life of the physical ion exhaust grid is over 3 years already. Just need to get enough thrusters to bring the acceleration to a point where the probe can get there in a reasonable amount of time.



You will be assimilated...bunghole!

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 04:46pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Posts: 13225
Location: Poland
6 railways tankers is trivial ; A single Saturn V could sent up that amount of tonnage, assuming a 20 ton tanker. But that's for a theoretical superdrive running on antimatter ;)



Image
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11

Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.

MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 05:04pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2011-08-26 03:53pm
Posts: 1986
Location: Bridge of Battleship SDFS Missouri
It would take longer to produce the anti-matter needed than it would for the Fusion rocket to get there wouldn't it? :P

(note, tounge-in-cheek...I wouldn't know for sure)



SDNW5: Republic of Arcadia...Sweden in SPAAACE

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 05:08pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Posts: 13225
Location: Poland
We just need a sufficiently awesome/insane piece of infrastructure to do it. Like covering half the Moon with solar panel farms ;)



Image
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11

Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.

MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 05:14pm
Offline
Glamorous Commie
User avatar

Joined: 2003-02-26 12:39pm
Posts: 16867
Location: 差不多先生
Orions are still quite viable when fired from orbit. And the probe might even get there in time.



For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Richard Feynman

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 05:23pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Posts: 13225
Location: Poland
Except for teeny tiny problem of manufacturing enough nukes to load them :P

But besides that, Orion's only advantage is that the fuel is dense ; But the ISP is only around 3000-4000 so you'll still need an absurd mass of it.



Image
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11

Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.

MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 05:26pm
Online
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2010-09-03 09:31pm
Posts: 1770
PeZook wrote:
6 railways tankers is trivial ; A single Saturn V could sent up that amount of tonnage, assuming a 20 ton tanker. But that's for a theoretical superdrive running on antimatter ;)


Not to nit-pick, the article said super-duper ion OR antimatter. So I'm thinking oversized / overcharged ion drives would do the trick...just need a small nuclear reactor to provide power to them.



You will be assimilated...bunghole!

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 08:16pm
Online
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2010-09-03 09:31pm
Posts: 1770
Just thought of something...when you factor in relativity, would that cause the craft to consume less fuel? Think about humans for instance, at high fractions of lightspeed we age slower, consume less food, etc... Would a mechanical device such as an engine consume less fuel then?



You will be assimilated...bunghole!

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 08:49pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand

Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 19969
No.

For a given delta-v, you will need slightly MORE fuel on a slightly relativistic journey to gain that delta-v, not less.



Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:
What is this 'favourite character' you speak of? I have walls lined with bookshelves, having a single favourite character would be like having a favourite brick.
-Story of my literary tastes.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-18 09:01pm
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2007-10-30 05:48pm
Posts: 285
Location: Εν ενί γαλαξία μένω, ον συ ου δύνασαι ευρείν χωρίς διαστημικού οχήματος.
Some of you asking how we might find a way of traveling there someday would likely be interested in this here video: Voyage to Pandora.

I have not watched the whole video just yet, but it seems to be worthwhile if you have a few minutes to kill. It discusses various proposed propulsion systems and spacecraft powered by anti-matter reactors among other things. The narrator is somewhat annoying though.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-19 05:27am
Offline
Emperor's Hand

Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 19969
If we want to accomplish something within our grandchildren's lifetimes, antimatter is not something we should put on the list of objectives. THere is no remotely cost-effective way to create it, and making it in particle accelerators a particle at a time is so staggeringly inefficient that we'd be at it all century to get anything done.



Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:
What is this 'favourite character' you speak of? I have walls lined with bookshelves, having a single favourite character would be like having a favourite brick.
-Story of my literary tastes.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-19 10:48am
Offline
Jedi Master

Joined: 2011-07-15 05:31pm
Posts: 1303
GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
They just don't come any closer than this.

What if we find star-less planet closer? :P

PeZook wrote:
Somebody needs to throw 300 billion dollars at the problem.

You mean, occupy 1/4 of Iraq less? :lol:

Sad thing is, if Dubya instead of freedomzing Iraq spent the cash on space elevator-like structure, he could have built several for the kind of money he burned and construction of the probe, no matter how heavy, would have been trivial.

RRoan wrote:
You could alternatively go with a laser-propelled optical sail, but that requires some intense infrastructure.

No, at least not at first. You could get away with slowly raising additional power plants and lasers to orbit over time, you would need full power after the probe would have covered a lot of distance.

Guardsman Bass wrote:
Or what it would take to hold it together under acceleration and deceleration? It's not pretty.

Um, we're talking about 1/4 G accel/decel here, it's really not (pardon pun) rocket science...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-19 10:52am
Online
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2010-09-03 09:31pm
Posts: 1770
Quote:
Um, we're talking about 1/4 G accel/decel here, it's really not (pardon pun) rocket science...


Yeah see that's the beauty of slow acceleration. Low stresses on the spaceframe, but over long enough time you can get to a very high rate of speed. As I said earlier, 1/4g acceleration would get you to half the speed of light by the time you got to the midway point. Plus if you send a manned crew, having constant acceleration would eliminate the problems of how to generate gravity to keep the crew healthy.



You will be assimilated...bunghole!

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-19 05:45pm
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2004-12-21 01:14pm
Posts: 2588
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe, Terra
Borgholio wrote:
Not to nit-pick, the article said super-duper ion OR antimatter. So I'm thinking oversized / overcharged ion drives would do the trick...just need a small nuclear reactor to provide power to them.


You do know that Ion drives do need a propellant? (Usually Helium.) It's not just electricity driving them. The mass of propellant needed for a ion drive propelling that mass+drive weight+actual probe for about a decade at 1/4g is not trivial.

Which means you need more drives to make it to the 1/4g thrust target.

Also, you would need about 6 equal thruster sections, capable of 1/4 g each, to make that journey before they burn out (2-3 years lifetime). Which means even bigger thruster arrays to generate enough thrust.

It's the same thing as with other rocket drives. at some point, it's a race you only can lose.

Especially, since you can only increase overal thrust if the engines were capable to propel themselves at MORE than the wanted target. No matter of how many 1/10 g max output drives you put together, they will never reach 1/9 g.



The Greeks are somewhat undependable allies when it comes to keeping promises. I am sure the fleet of 300 galleys they promised will turn out to be 3 guys in an oversized cooking pot. (Thanas, revealing the plans for German world domination)

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-20 02:34am
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Posts: 13225
Location: Poland
Uh...yes they will. If you use two engines with thrust X, you will get 2X the thrust. So if one engine is capable of accelerating a 0.5kg mass at 1 m/s^2, and itself weighs 0.5kg, then two such engines will accelerate the same payload at 1.33 m/s^2.



Image
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11

Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.

MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-20 02:59am
Offline
Padawan Learner

Joined: 2011-06-09 03:35am
Posts: 159
Also of note with the design of the ship. One can take a page from Atomic Rockets (Which seems to have influenced teh Jungle Smurf's movie) and have the thurst engines mounted a the front of the ship 'pulling' the mass along.

I believe the creator proposed 'Valkyrie as name?

So, instead of a large, solid piece of engineering. You just need a very strong shaft/pole/rope/filament to hold everything together. The creator suggested this would save weight/mass. Mind you, the creator was also proposing an antimatter drive to move the thing along as well...

Much cheers to all.



Highlord Laan wrote:
Agatha Heterodyne built a squadron of flying pigs and an overgunned robot reindeer in a cave! With a box of scraps!


"And low, I have cometh, the destroyer of threads."

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-20 03:08pm
Offline
Jedi Knight

Joined: 2008-11-14 01:47pm
Posts: 829
Location: Latvia
Fusion rocket engine seems to be only realistic way to propel a space probe so fast it could go to Apha Centauri in 20 - 30 years. According to Atomic Rockets Drive table fusion engine could reach exhaust speed of 30 000 km/s so a cruise speed of some 15 - 20 % c would be possible to reach.
Howewer that would require a lighweight fusion reactor with extreme power to weight ratio.
So in order to send an interstellar probe we would have to at first build self sustaining fusion reactor and then improve the technology until neccesary performance goals are reached.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-20 04:29pm
Online
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2010-09-03 09:31pm
Posts: 1770
Sky Captain wrote:
Fusion rocket engine seems to be only realistic way to propel a space probe so fast it could go to Apha Centauri in 20 - 30 years. According to Atomic Rockets Drive table fusion engine could reach exhaust speed of 30 000 km/s so a cruise speed of some 15 - 20 % c would be possible to reach.
Howewer that would require a lighweight fusion reactor with extreme power to weight ratio.
So in order to send an interstellar probe we would have to at first build self sustaining fusion reactor and then improve the technology until neccesary performance goals are reached.


The problem is fuel supply, not thrust. Yes a fusion rocket would leave an ion drive in it's wake while it was burning, but it also uses much more fuel. Ion drives are like the Geo Metros of space propulsion. Slow as hell to start with, but excellent fuel economy once they get going. I can't see anything else capable of accelerating to relativistic speeds...



You will be assimilated...bunghole!

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-21 12:18am
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2005-04-16 09:44pm
Posts: 222
I was away from town for a couple of days, and look at how much stuff there is to respond to! It's not often that I get to geek out about interstellar rocketry.

PeZook wrote:
What? Ion drives can have an ISP on the order of 10 000 seconds, which beats VASIMIR by 100% and NERVA by 1000%.


And it's still too low for anything beyond interstellar precursor missions. 100,000 seconds is a good rule-of-thumb minimum ISP for an engine intended for interstellar travel.

PeZook wrote:
NASA thinks that there might be a possibility to use antimatter or some sort of uber ion drive to achieve ISP of 50 000 seconds, but that seems to the physical upper limit of reaction drives.


50,000 seconds for an antimatter rocket sounds like it might be a reference to the AIMStar concept (or something similar), which used antimatter-initiated fusion to heat propellant instead of using the reaction products directly. It's nowhere near the maximum achievable even with fission, let alone fusion or antimatter. An ideal fission drive would, IIRC, have a Ve of ~0.055c (an ISP of ~1.7 million seconds). Fusion maxes out at a Ve of 0.089c, or ~2.7 million seconds. Antimatter? An ideal beam-core antimatter rocket can achieve a Ve of 0.58c (~17.7 million seconds), and if you can also utilize the gamma rays then the Ve maxes out at .96c, or a staggering 29.4 million seconds!

Are you actually going to be able to build rockets that can achieve those velocities with those engine types? No, because this is the real world and you can't make an idealized perfectly efficient rocket. But there's a whole three orders of magnitude of potential improvement beyond 50,000s before you hit the physical upper limit of reaction rockets. :P

PeZook wrote:
But besides that, Orion's only advantage is that the fuel is dense ; But the ISP is only around 3000-4000 so you'll still need an absurd mass of it.


This is true of the in-depth design studies for an interplanetary orion, but those were relatively small vehicles and 50's-era pure-fission pulse unit designs. The maximum specific impulse for an orion increases with size, since it can survive using more powerful pulse units and yield rises a lot faster than mass until you hit the energy density limits of nuclear weapons. Using thermonuclear pulse unit designs will allow for more powerful pulse units at a given weight, increasing the specific impulse considerably.

For reference, the momentum-limited interstellar orion design concept had a specific impulse of ~710,000 seconds.

Borgholio wrote:
Just thought of something...when you factor in relativity, would that cause the craft to consume less fuel? Think about humans for instance, at high fractions of lightspeed we age slower, consume less food, etc... Would a mechanical device such as an engine consume less fuel then?


... no. It means you use more fuel. In fact, as you get into the relativistic velocity regime (past .5c or so) the required amounts of fuel start rising a lot faster than predicted by the regular rocket equation. The idea of using high time dilation factors to get large reductions in apparent trip times is probably not workable without engines based on fantastically high-energy processes unknown to modern physics.

I swear, the relativistic rocket equation hates our guts.

Simon_Jester wrote:
If we want to accomplish something within our grandchildren's lifetimes, antimatter is not something we should put on the list of objectives. THere is no remotely cost-effective way to create it, and making it in particle accelerators a particle at a time is so staggeringly inefficient that we'd be at it all century to get anything done.


A large part of the problem with antimatter is that we currently produce it with ultra-high precision-scientific instruments on the bleeding edge of modern technology and which are optimized for things other than the production of antimatter. Forward estimated that a purpose-built antimatter production facility would be something like 10,000 times more efficient at antimatter production than scientific colliders and would bring the cost of antimatter down to ~10 million dollars per milligram, at which point it is cheap enough to be realistically used for space travel.

The bigger issue is storing antimatter for lengthy periods of time.

Irbis wrote:
RRoan wrote:
You could alternatively go with a laser-propelled optical sail, but that requires some intense infrastructure.

No, at least not at first. You could get away with slowly raising additional power plants and lasers to orbit over time, you would need full power after the probe would have covered a lot of distance.


You're forgetting the lenses. :P

Forward's original concept used a 1,000-kilometer zone plate, levitated in place by rockets near the orbit of Neptune. While later research has reduced the necessary lens size (mostly by using materials with much higher thermal limits and therefore allowing for much higher acceleration), you still need optical elements of a size such that they cannot be feasibly lifted into orbit; you need to construct them in space, and they should be far enough out that gravitational distortions don't play merry hell with their shape.

Interstellar travel of any sort is hard. If you're still at the point where you build your space infrastructure at the bottom of a gravity well, chances are you won't be able to pull off an interstellar mission with a low enough travel time that it won't get passed by later generations of probes. :)

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-21 03:49pm
Offline
Jedi Knight

Joined: 2008-11-14 01:47pm
Posts: 829
Location: Latvia
Borgholio wrote:
Sky Captain wrote:
Fusion rocket engine seems to be only realistic way to propel a space probe so fast it could go to Apha Centauri in 20 - 30 years. According to Atomic Rockets Drive table fusion engine could reach exhaust speed of 30 000 km/s so a cruise speed of some 15 - 20 % c would be possible to reach.
Howewer that would require a lighweight fusion reactor with extreme power to weight ratio.
So in order to send an interstellar probe we would have to at first build self sustaining fusion reactor and then improve the technology until neccesary performance goals are reached.


The problem is fuel supply, not thrust. Yes a fusion rocket would leave an ion drive in it's wake while it was burning, but it also uses much more fuel. Ion drives are like the Geo Metros of space propulsion. Slow as hell to start with, but excellent fuel economy once they get going. I can't see anything else capable of accelerating to relativistic speeds...


Ion engine has nowhere near exhaust velocity required for fast interstellar travel. Ion engines max out at around 300 km/s exhaust velocity. Even if it is possible to design ion engine with order of magnitude greater exhaust velocity the required electrical power for meaningful thrust levels would quickly go into terawatt range. Fusion engine while providing greater specific impulse also have advantage of producing thrust directly.
Ion thrust = reactor > machinery to convert heat into electricity > ion engine
Fusion thrust = reactor with magnetic nozzle

Obviously a system that produce thrust directly would be capable of much higher performance than a system that involves power conversion steps generating looses and tons of waste heat requiring huge radiators.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-26 06:50am
Offline
Jedi Master

Joined: 2011-12-10 10:13am
Posts: 1343
PeZook wrote:
6 railways tankers is trivial ; A single Saturn V could sent up that amount of tonnage, assuming a 20 ton tanker. But that's for a theoretical superdrive running on antimatter ;)

That's about one hundred thousand Tzar Bombas. It's not enough to blow up the Earth ala Alderaan, but I have my concerns about constructing the most powerful weapon in the history of mankind just to send a simple probe.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-26 06:54am
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Posts: 13225
Location: Poland
Sending ANYTHING over interstellar distances will involve building devices that could sterilize the Earth if misued.

It's a good thing Al-Kaida won't ever be able to produce antimatter and send it into space to act as fuel for interstellar probes, then :P



Image
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11

Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.

MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The closest exoplanet has been discovered. PostPosted: 2012-10-26 08:54pm
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2009-12-28 09:27pm
Posts: 412
What are the chances that we might find a rogue planet within two light years?



Suffering from the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kingmaker, Titan Uranus and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group