If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Carl Sagan's dream takes one step closer to fruition: nuclear powered space ships   (bbc.com) divider line 70
    More: Cool, nuclear power, Carl Sagan, Atomic Nucleus, International Space Station, launch site, electromagnetic pulse, planetary alignment, spacecrafts  
•       •       •

3288 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Apr 2014 at 8:17 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-24 07:16:30 AM  
FTFA: no one has yet built a fusion reactor that produces more energy then you put in

It's THAN, you stupid asshats!
I only mention it because the article itself is a colossal downer with no nuclear explosions or new news.
 
2014-04-24 07:41:27 AM  

staplermofo: FTFA: no one has yet built a fusion reactor that produces more energy then you put in

It's THAN, you stupid asshats!
I only mention it because the article itself is a colossal downer with no nuclear explosions or new news.


Yep.  It's excessively pessimistic.  This is how it closes:

Project Orion may have been ill-conceived, foolhardy and environmentally irresponsible, but nuclear power could yet be a tool to take humans to the stars.

It wasn't ill-conceived nor was it foolhardy.  Launching from the surface of the Earth would have been environmentally irresponsible, it's true, but that doesn't apply to ships built in space and launched from there.  EMP from the sub-kiloton detonations would have been pretty minimal.
 
2014-04-24 08:17:20 AM  
Just make sure you have good core containment. We don't want Reavers at the edge of our solar system
 
2014-04-24 08:19:52 AM  

dittybopper: staplermofo: FTFA: no one has yet built a fusion reactor that produces more energy then you put in

It's THAN, you stupid asshats!
I only mention it because the article itself is a colossal downer with no nuclear explosions or new news.

Yep.  It's excessively pessimistic.  This is how it closes:

Project Orion may have been ill-conceived, foolhardy and environmentally irresponsible, but nuclear power could yet be a tool to take humans to the stars.

It wasn't ill-conceived nor was it foolhardy.  Launching from the surface of the Earth would have been environmentally irresponsible, it's true, but that doesn't apply to ships built in space and launched from there.  EMP from the sub-kiloton detonations would have been pretty minimal.


Minimal, especially when contrasted with general solar and background radiation. For nuclear-explosion thrust, the ablative shielding that would protect a spacecraft would also likely perform an extra layer of protection against radiation damage. The Medusa-type propulsion could have the fore sail far enough forward of any critical systems that shielding would be unnecessary.

RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.
 
2014-04-24 08:22:49 AM  
Also, with the types of power used in the Orion-type systems, it isn't just the in-atmosphere launch that's an issue. People get worked up about the possibility of a launch failure spreading weapons-grade nuclear material over a large area. People were freaking out over Cassini's power systems, even though that shiat wasn't going to hurt anyone if the launch vehicle exploded in atmosphere.
 
2014-04-24 08:43:33 AM  
Oh goody. Now when the shuttle explodes we get to deal with nuclear fallout! Give it up nerds. You will never be Captain Kirk and fark green women. The ones here don't want you why would aliens women be any different?
 
2014-04-24 08:47:11 AM  

dr_blasto: RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.


The problem is that they aren't very efficient.  For a given amount of fissile material, you'll get much more power out of a nuclear reactor than you will from an RTG.

That's fine when you are trying to power a spacecraft that only needs a few hundred watts of power to keep the electronics running, but it's quite another when you start talking about powering an engine like VASIMR or providing enough power to keep a spacecraft habitable for humans.
 
2014-04-24 08:49:14 AM  

dwade: Oh goody. Now when the shuttle explodes we get to deal with nuclear fallout! Give it up nerds. You will never be Captain Kirk and fark green women. The ones here don't want you why would aliens women be any different?


You've been suffocating yourself with fossil fuel exhaust while trying to avoid the safer nuclear options, and you cry shame on those who want to get off this rock?

The species only stands a chance if it can dominate more than one planet at a time.  All else is irrelevant as there'll be no way for the polar bears and kittens to survive if we don't make a new habitat.
...and you won't be making new habs with tiny chemical engines.
 
2014-04-24 08:49:54 AM  

dr_blasto: RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.


Actually, they are the same basic design and their lack of safety is more of a neglect than design problem. The huge problem with an RTG on a space craft is the first 3 or 4 hours of flight. There has been a few known and surprising accidents where a spacecraft with an RTG burnt up. The fuel is designed to survive that kind of event but you still have a chunk of radioactive material that fell from the sky.. not good.

The only reason they put up with the risk is because it's the only practical way to generate any electricity past the asteroid belt.
 
Skr
2014-04-24 08:58:24 AM  
Thought this was going to be about the "Blow up nuclear bombs behind the craft" propulsion. That always reminded me of Super Metroid and using the bomb jump technique.
 
2014-04-24 09:06:01 AM  
The Voyager space probes, currently heading beyond the bounds of the Solar System, and the Cassini spacecraft in orbit around Saturn are fitted with nuclear power plants. These Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) rely on the natural decay of plutonium to generate heat, which is then converted into electricity.

Yeah, but that isn't PROPELLING the spacecraft, which is what you are implying. It's simply providing electricity to run the onboard electronics.

And until we use the actual nucelear reaction as our power source, rather than using a byproduct, this isn't going to do jack unless you plan on having these ships just continually vent the cooling water into space.

dwade: Oh goody. Now when the shuttle explodes we get to deal with nuclear fallout! Give it up nerds. You will never be Captain Kirk and fark green women. The ones here don't want you why would aliens women be any different?


And THAT is why we have a space station or moon base as our staging platform, and send conventional shuttles up from the Earth. It's really not that hard to figure out.
 
2014-04-24 09:09:48 AM  

Skr: Thought this was going to be about the "Blow up nuclear bombs behind the craft" propulsion. That always reminded me of Super Metroid and using the bomb jump technique.


Know how we know you didn't understand TFA?
 
2014-04-24 09:13:46 AM  
My favorite anecdote about the Orion drive was that the feed mechanism was designed by Coca-Cola since the mini nukes were to be the size of a soda can. Of course, thats being remembered from a SALT segment by Dyson.
 
2014-04-24 09:14:50 AM  

dr_blasto: RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.



RTGs are very inefficient at producing electricity.
 
2014-04-24 09:24:31 AM  

SmackLT: Just make sure you have good core containment. We don't want Reavers at the edge of our solar system


Radiation didn't create the Reavers, it just gave them their punk rock look.
 
2014-04-24 09:24:56 AM  
If star trek has taught me anything, we better make sure our ejection systems do not go offline when we need them most.
 
2014-04-24 09:33:35 AM  
Came for Footfall, leaving disappointed
 
2014-04-24 09:38:27 AM  
Kerbal Space thread?
 
Skr
2014-04-24 09:47:01 AM  

WelldeadLink: Skr: Thought this was going to be about the "Blow up nuclear bombs behind the craft" propulsion. That always reminded me of Super Metroid and using the bomb jump technique.

Know how we know you didn't understand TFA?


I was referring to another method of Nuclear travel that I had first thought of when reading the headline.  Not to the fusion/helium presented in the article.
 
2014-04-24 09:53:31 AM  

Rev.K: Kerbal Space thread?


imgs.xkcd.com

/There really is an XKCD for everything.
 
2014-04-24 10:02:11 AM  
I think Stanislaw Lem had that dream before Sagan, but perhaps it doesn't count because Lem wasn't a scientist?
 
2014-04-24 10:05:20 AM  

stratagos: Came for Footfall, leaving disappointed



"Sancho, my armor!"
 
2014-04-24 10:07:47 AM  

dittybopper: Rev.K: Kerbal Space thread?



/There really is an XKCD for everything.


Hahaha!!
 
2014-04-24 10:26:55 AM  

give me doughnuts: stratagos: Came for Footfall, leaving disappointed


"Sancho, my armor!"


God was knocking, and he wanted in *bad*...
 
2014-04-24 10:32:19 AM  
Mikey1969:

And THAT is why we have a space station or moon base as our staging platform, and send conventional shuttles up from the Earth. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Best part of that is we can build space ships that are designed to never enter an atmosphere, only high orbit.  We won't be bound by size and ship design(within reason of course), making colony ships viable.
 
2014-04-24 10:41:48 AM  

give me doughnuts: dr_blasto: RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.


RTGs are very inefficient at producing electricity.


True, but isn't heat management an issue with fission reactor designs?
 
2014-04-24 10:42:02 AM  

give me doughnuts: dr_blasto: RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.


RTGs are very inefficient at producing electricity.


For long voyages which would you rather have efficiency, reliability or length of service?  Ya get two.
 
2014-04-24 10:51:11 AM  

mongbiohazard: True, but isn't heat management an issue with fission reactor designs?


Neutron management is the biggest issue. Fission reactions are done with a critical mass while RTG use only the natural decay of the material.
 
2014-04-24 10:52:01 AM  

Mikey1969: And until we use the actual nucelear reaction as our power source, rather than using a byproduct, this isn't going to do jack unless you plan on having these ships just continually vent the cooling water into space.


Why couldn't the cooling lines be run out onto the outside of the ship or into a section of the ship that is open to space to cool the water running through the lines?
 
2014-04-24 10:53:37 AM  

dittybopper: dr_blasto: RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.

The problem is that they aren't very efficient.  For a given amount of fissile material, you'll get much more power out of a nuclear reactor than you will from an RTG.

That's fine when you are trying to power a spacecraft that only needs a few hundred watts of power to keep the electronics running, but it's quite another when you start talking about powering an engine like VASIMR or providing enough power to keep a spacecraft habitable for humans.


It's the near-zero maintenance that makes them useful. The full-on fission power plants are significantly more complex. RTG can provide plenty of power in space for what missions we're actually running. I don't see any real plan to move humans anywhere really far any time soon.

Tr0mBoNe:
Actually, they are the same basic design and their lack of safety is more of a neglect than design problem. The huge problem with an RTG on a space craft is the first 3 or 4 hours of flight. There has been a few known and surprising accidents where a spacecraft with an RTG burnt up. The fuel is designed to survive that kind of event but you still have a chunk of radioactive material that fell from the sky.. not good.

The only reason they put up with the risk is because it's the only practical way to generate any electricity past the asteroid belt.


The Soviets used different combinations of poorly assembled stuff. Primitive forms of RTG using riskier fuels, lower-quality containment systems and so on. Now people are raiding those old sites and salvaging those things for metals and scrap without understanding the risk of radiation exposure.
 
2014-04-24 10:54:12 AM  

Saiga410: give me doughnuts: dr_blasto: RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.


RTGs are very inefficient at producing electricity.

For long voyages which would you rather have efficiency, reliability or length of service?  Ya get two.


Aren't reliability and length of service essentially the same thing?
 
2014-04-24 10:54:39 AM  

KellyX: Mikey1969: And until we use the actual nucelear reaction as our power source, rather than using a byproduct, this isn't going to do jack unless you plan on having these ships just continually vent the cooling water into space.

Why couldn't the cooling lines be run out onto the outside of the ship or into a section of the ship that is open to space to cool the water running through the lines?


Limited by heat dumb only through radiation.
 
2014-04-24 10:56:57 AM  

KellyX: Mikey1969: And until we use the actual nucelear reaction as our power source, rather than using a byproduct, this isn't going to do jack unless you plan on having these ships just continually vent the cooling water into space.

Why couldn't the cooling lines be run out onto the outside of the ship or into a section of the ship that is open to space to cool the water running through the lines?


You can't just run them out to any old heat exchanger in space. What do you transfer the heat to?
 
2014-04-24 10:58:58 AM  

dittybopper: Saiga410: give me doughnuts: dr_blasto: RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.


RTGs are very inefficient at producing electricity.

For long voyages which would you rather have efficiency, reliability or length of service?  Ya get two.

Aren't reliability and length of service essentially the same thing?


I will define reliabiltiy as % chance of breakdown in the power generation cycle and length of service as the usable life of the fissial material.
 
2014-04-24 11:00:48 AM  
God was knocking and he wanted in bad.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-24 11:01:09 AM  

dr_blasto: KellyX: Mikey1969: And until we use the actual nucelear reaction as our power source, rather than using a byproduct, this isn't going to do jack unless you plan on having these ships just continually vent the cooling water into space.

Why couldn't the cooling lines be run out onto the outside of the ship or into a section of the ship that is open to space to cool the water running through the lines?

You can't just run them out to any old heat exchanger in space. What do you transfer the heat to?


What Dr. Blasto said. Heat can conduct or radiate (as infrared), and it's rather inefficient at that radiation thing. The reason heat fins / fans work on earth is that we drive large volumes of air over a large surface area, thus conducting the heat away through direct transfer.

I can imagine that some of the waste heat could be used to power a heat engine, but the rest will have to have some method of control / capture / use (which I suspect will be through heating a reaction-mass before jetting it).
 
2014-04-24 11:01:16 AM  

dittybopper: Saiga410: give me doughnuts: dr_blasto: RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.


RTGs are very inefficient at producing electricity.

For long voyages which would you rather have efficiency, reliability or length of service?  Ya get two.

Aren't reliability and length of service essentially the same thing?


No.

Reliability is indicative of a device's capacity to run without requiring mechanical intervention or repair.
Length of service is the service life of a system that includes maintenance intervals and repairs.

If your car breaks down and you get it serviced, the service live hasn't changed, but your perspective of the thing's reliability will have.
 
2014-04-24 11:01:35 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: mongbiohazard: True, but isn't heat management an issue with fission reactor designs?

Neutron management is the biggest issue. Fission reactions are done with a critical mass while RTG use only the natural decay of the material.


That's true, but you have to remember that you don't have to have 100% containment in a spaceship like you have to have for a reactor on Earth, you just have to place shielding between the reactor and the occupants.

Kind of like NR-1, the worlds smallest nuclear-powered submarine.  When the reactor was running, you couldn't be aft of the shielding, even outside of the sub, because of radiation.  But the crew area was shielded enough that it was in the "shadow" of the radiation.
 
2014-04-24 11:07:02 AM  

dr_blasto: KellyX: Mikey1969: And until we use the actual nucelear reaction as our power source, rather than using a byproduct, this isn't going to do jack unless you plan on having these ships just continually vent the cooling water into space.

Why couldn't the cooling lines be run out onto the outside of the ship or into a section of the ship that is open to space to cool the water running through the lines?

You can't just run them out to any old heat exchanger in space. What do you transfer the heat to?


I thought he originally said they were using cooling water to keep whatever from overheating...  Wouldn't piping the water to be exposed to space drop the temperature down as the water circulates?
 
2014-04-24 11:09:27 AM  

SordidEuphemism: dr_blasto: KellyX: Mikey1969: And until we use the actual nucelear reaction as our power source, rather than using a byproduct, this isn't going to do jack unless you plan on having these ships just continually vent the cooling water into space.

Why couldn't the cooling lines be run out onto the outside of the ship or into a section of the ship that is open to space to cool the water running through the lines?

You can't just run them out to any old heat exchanger in space. What do you transfer the heat to?

What Dr. Blasto said. Heat can conduct or radiate (as infrared), and it's rather inefficient at that radiation thing. The reason heat fins / fans work on earth is that we drive large volumes of air over a large surface area, thus conducting the heat away through direct transfer.

I can imagine that some of the waste heat could be used to power a heat engine, but the rest will have to have some method of control / capture / use (which I suspect will be through heating a reaction-mass before jetting it).


The problem with using some kind of capture material is that this is all mass that must be moved and takes up volume. It doesn't move the spacecraft and is dead weight.  Eventually your heat-capture material will run out and there aren't any good ways to replenish it.

Setting mass in motion, even in a vacuum, takes energy. The more mass, the more energy so the bigger your generator needs to be, meaning the more heat you have to address, leading to more capture material and on and on.

I suppose you could build a disposable chemical propulsion system to set the whole deal in motion and use the nuclear systems for additional acceleration in small bursts that allow for radiated cooling, but you would need a super efficient method to start/stop the chain reaction that doesn't ruin your fuel or break your reactor.
 
2014-04-24 11:09:41 AM  

staplermofo: FTFA: no one has yet built a fusion reactor that produces more energy then you put in

It's THAN, you stupid asshats!
I only mention it because the article itself is a colossal downer with no nuclear explosions or new news.


I submit that the sentence from the article generated more energy from staplermofo than it took to type it.
 
2014-04-24 11:15:18 AM  

Flappyhead: Mikey1969:

And THAT is why we have a space station or moon base as our staging platform, and send conventional shuttles up from the Earth. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Best part of that is we can build space ships that are designed to never enter an atmosphere, only high orbit.  We won't be bound by size and ship design(within reason of course), making colony ships viable.


We still need to get the material to high orbit.  Titan designed rockets ain't gonna do it.  Especially not at the current cost per kg.  Then there's the risk of having critical material and supplies not making the trip because we're using 50 year old technology.

\We need a "Pillar to the Stars"
\\but realistic...
 
2014-04-24 11:15:52 AM  
Welp, now i need to go play both Super Metroid and Kerbal Space Program (Interstellar).

Not like I had other things planned tonight...
 
2014-04-24 11:17:42 AM  

BalugaJoe: God was knocking and he wanted in bad.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 226x349]


if it saves us from parachuting baby elephants, then I'm all for it
 
2014-04-24 11:18:57 AM  

dr_blasto: SordidEuphemism: dr_blasto: KellyX: Mikey1969: And until we use the actual nucelear reaction as our power source, rather than using a byproduct, this isn't going to do jack unless you plan on having these ships just continually vent the cooling water into space.

Why couldn't the cooling lines be run out onto the outside of the ship or into a section of the ship that is open to space to cool the water running through the lines?

You can't just run them out to any old heat exchanger in space. What do you transfer the heat to?

What Dr. Blasto said. Heat can conduct or radiate (as infrared), and it's rather inefficient at that radiation thing. The reason heat fins / fans work on earth is that we drive large volumes of air over a large surface area, thus conducting the heat away through direct transfer.

I can imagine that some of the waste heat could be used to power a heat engine, but the rest will have to have some method of control / capture / use (which I suspect will be through heating a reaction-mass before jetting it).

The problem with using some kind of capture material is that this is all mass that must be moved and takes up volume. It doesn't move the spacecraft and is dead weight.  Eventually your heat-capture material will run out and there aren't any good ways to replenish it.

Setting mass in motion, even in a vacuum, takes energy. The more mass, the more energy so the bigger your generator needs to be, meaning the more heat you have to address, leading to more capture material and on and on.

I suppose you could build a disposable chemical propulsion system to set the whole deal in motion and use the nuclear systems for additional acceleration in small bursts that allow for radiated cooling, but you would need a super efficient method to start/stop the chain reaction that doesn't ruin your fuel or break your reactor.


I agree, I was simply expanding on how one might use a liquid-cooled reactor system. Although, at high enough temperatures, everything's a liquid... ;)

/hey, we're accelerating faster now...
//yeah, half the ship's been turned into reaction mass.
///...oh.
 
2014-04-24 11:19:30 AM  

dr_blasto: dittybopper: Saiga410: give me doughnuts: dr_blasto: RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.


RTGs are very inefficient at producing electricity.

For long voyages which would you rather have efficiency, reliability or length of service?  Ya get two.

Aren't reliability and length of service essentially the same thing?

No.

Reliability is indicative of a device's capacity to run without requiring mechanical intervention or repair.
Length of service is the service life of a system that includes maintenance intervals and repairs.

If your car breaks down and you get it serviced, the service live hasn't changed, but your perspective of the thing's reliability will have.


In space, where major repair is essentially impossible without the likes of Kaylee, the two mean exactly the same thing.
 
2014-04-24 11:21:17 AM  

dittybopper: That's true, but you have to remember that you don't have to have 100% containment in a spaceship like you have to have for a reactor on Earth, you just have to place shielding between the reactor and the occupants.

Kind of like NR-1, the worlds smallest nuclear-powered submarine.  When the reactor was running, you couldn't be aft of the shielding, even outside of the sub, because of radiation.  But the crew area was shielded enough that it was in the "shadow" of the radiation.


Neutrons are the chain in the chain reaction. You manage them by controlling their absorption in control rods and moderating material to keep the heat in check. I remember reading about the attempts at making an atomic powered airplane in the 1960s. It got to the point where they were flying large test aircraft with active reactors (not doing anything but splitting a boggling number of atoms per second) to see how it would all hold together. There was a 2 ton lead disk between the reactor and the cockpit to shield the crew from the flux. They never actually powered flight with it since they couldn't overcome the issues with containment and efficiency.

Most sane concepts of shielding in space involve using a large water jacket around the crew compartment. Water is a fantastic neutron moderator. It'll also help with that pesky star that's close by... it'll toast you pretty quick outside the magnetosphere. I wouldn't rely on lead shielding as well.. that degrades as it is exposed to more radiation and also does nothing to neutron radiation.
 
2014-04-24 11:24:27 AM  

Skr: WelldeadLink: Skr: Thought this was going to be about the "Blow up nuclear bombs behind the craft" propulsion. That always reminded me of Super Metroid and using the bomb jump technique.

Know how we know you didn't understand TFA?

I was referring to another method of Nuclear travel that I had first thought of when reading the headline.  Not to the fusion/helium presented in the article.


Read the top of the article again.
 
2014-04-24 11:25:01 AM  

dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Saiga410: give me doughnuts: dr_blasto: RTG power, like Cassini's, are a form of nuclear power. Those types work really well for electricity generation, with a bonus that they're much safer than the crap nuclear generators the Soviets used in their remote outposts and RADAR stations.


RTGs are very inefficient at producing electricity.

For long voyages which would you rather have efficiency, reliability or length of service?  Ya get two.

Aren't reliability and length of service essentially the same thing?

No.

Reliability is indicative of a device's capacity to run without requiring mechanical intervention or repair.
Length of service is the service life of a system that includes maintenance intervals and repairs.

If your car breaks down and you get it serviced, the service live hasn't changed, but your perspective of the thing's reliability will have.

In space, where major repair is essentially impossible without the likes of Kaylee, the two mean exactly the same thing.


That's true enough.

I'd rather have the likes of Kaylee, now that you've mentioned that option.
 
2014-04-24 11:30:06 AM  

dr_blasto: That's true enough.

I'd rather have the likes of Kaylee, now that you've mentioned that option.


I think the Kaylee/Inara/River/Zoe question is more revealing about a person than the Ginger/Mary-Ann dichotomy.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report