It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

air in space i just seen a bbc newsround report

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
No, they are in zero-g: the laws of aerodynamics are completely different.


So when I, in my Cessna 150, go into a zero-g flight, the aerodynamic characterists of my plane change? How? Why? Please do elaborate...



I could try, but I don't think you would understand.


Or because you haven't time to bend over and reload yet...



No, I don'trecoginize those designs. They are Chinese and Russian.


It's actually the JAXA satellite Akebono. The second one is Mir, as I said, which is Russian. The third is the TSS-1.



Please defer all comments to the Chinese and Russians, please.


Why? They have to build Japan's satellites? And wouldn't all satellites fly the same way, regardless of nationality?

Also, that opens up a whole can of worms to be discussed... Why do Russian and Chinese cosmo-/taikonauts use space suits as well? Are they in with NASA, or do they have their own billion dollar contracts to follow up on?



Do you believe now?


That you really have no idea what you're talking about? From the second post you made in this thread...

[edit on 8/9/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]




posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
So when I, in my Cessna 150, go into a zero-g flight, the aerodynamic characterists of my plane change? How? Why? Please do elaborate...

Take your Cessna 150 up to FL5500 and you will see.



Or because you haven't time to bend over and reload yet...

Violation of T&A(SS)???




Why? They have to build Japan's satellites? And wouldn't all satellites fly the same way, regardless of nationality?

Do all cars drive the same?



Also, that opens up a whole can of worms to be discussed... Why do Russian and Chinese cosmo-/taikonauts use space suits as well? Are they in with NASA, or do they have their own billion dollar contracts to follow up on?

They are in on it too. The spacesuit manufacturer is of course a global company with political ties across the globe. Haven't you ever wondered why Brazil has spacesuits?




That you really have no idea what you're talking about? From the second post you made in this thread...

Interesting.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Take your Cessna 150 up to FL5500 and you will see.


Oddly enough, I can't becuase the air isn't thick enough to allow the plane to fly that high...

And despite being in zero-g flight that high, they still have a velocity. That velocity, plus contact with air, means heat. For example, when a body (satellite, asteroid, meteorite, etc...) reenters the Earth's atmosphere, it gets hot. Why? Because of the friction...



Violation of T&A(SS)???


You mean like posting information that is knowingly false?




Do all cars drive the same?


Can you avoid my questions even more?



They are in on it too. The spacesuit manufacturer is of course a global company with political ties across the globe. Haven't you ever wondered why Brazil has spacesuits?


So... Then... Why are all the nations' space suits different? If it was one company, wouldn't it be easiest to make on design? And I always thought Brazil had a spacesuit for its people that went into space, because in the real world that the rest of us occupy, they would need them...

So let's see here, to summarize... You refuse to provide evidence other than what you say and you ignore all the pertinent questions that myself and others have posed... You're very credible and believable. Really. Keep up the great work. I'm sure you'll last a long time here on ATS.


[edit on 8/9/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Oddly enough, I can't becuase the air isn't thick enough to allow the plane to fly that high...

No, no. The air is fine. It's just a matter of thrust; well, in your case horsepower.




And despite being in zero-g flight that high, they still have a velocity. That velocity, plus contact with air, means heat. For example, when a body (satellite, asteroid, meteorite, etc...) reenters the Earth's atmosphere, it gets hot. Why? Because of the friction...

Interesting point. And why do they re-enter the atmosphere again?




You mean like posting information that is knowingly false?


I was teasing. I can take it.
Mods: please let this debate see its' course. Thanx!




Can you avoid my questions even more?

Sometimes questions can be more thought provoking than answers.





They are in on it too. The spacesuit manufacturer is of course a global company with political ties across the globe. Haven't you ever wondered why Brazil has spacesuits?





So... Then... Why are all the nations' space suits different? If it was one company, wouldn't it be easiest to make on design? And I always thought Brazil had a spacesuit for its people that went into space, because in the real world that the rest of us occupy, they would need them...

So let's see here, to summarize... You refuse to provide evidence other than what you say and you ignore all the pertinent questions that myself and others have posed... You're very credible and believable. Really. Keep up the great work. I'm sure you'll last a long time here on ATS.


There is a simple answer to your question. It would be wayyy too obvious if they only made 1 spacesuit. It's more a symbol of national pride than of need. Much like the American flag on the moon. Not necessary at all.

I haven't refused to provide any evidence. In fact, I try to answer each and every question you ask. Please let me know if you would like further explanation on any of my replies. I would be more than happy to do so!

Thanks! I have been on ATS for over a year. Is that a long time??


[EDIT] p.s. how will i know when i have been here for a long time? please reply!

[edit on 9-8-2006 by backtoreality]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
....

Dude, just quit while you're ahead. It seems like you have a habit of letting the horse's ass speak for it's mouth.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
No, no. The air is fine. It's just a matter of thrust; well, in your case horsepower.


Prop driven planes perfom a whole lot better in denser air... If it gets denser as the you go higher, why do I (and thousands of other pilots) get drop off in performance the higher we go?

Also, how come if we go up high enough without an oxygen supply (and even with the windows open) begin to suffer from hypoxia? Shouldn't opening the windows let me breath with ease?




Interesting point. And why do they re-enter the atmosphere again?


Because they exist in reality.




Sometimes questions can be more thought provoking than answers.


Well, despite not being thought provoking (except in wonderous awe at what children must be taught these days), your posts sure are laughable.






There is a simple answer to your question. It would be wayyy too obvious if they only made 1 spacesuit. It's more a symbol of national pride than of need. Much like the American flag on the moon. Not necessary at all.


Oh, right... ANd you were clever enough to see through this ruse how, again?



I haven't refused to provide any evidence. In fact, I try to answer each and every question you ask. Please let me know if you would like further explanation on any of my replies. I would be more than happy to do so!


Will do, shortly... I'll comprise a post of all unanswered questions in this thread posed towards you. Good luck.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Planes can only go supersonic for tens of seconds?
That's pretty laughable in itself. How do you explain the SR-71? Or the F-15 ASAT and Streak Eagle programs? All of which flew supersonic for a lot longer than "tens of seconds".



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I hope you don't mind, but I've posed some new questions as well. Anyway, here goes.

First off, some general questions...

If the air is cold, like you say, how can the astronauts breath it? Wouldn't it burn thier lungs? Give them frostbite, or anything else?

Atmospheric pressure is directly proportional to the weight of the air. In fact, 99.9999% of the air is below 100 km, which is the internationally defined boundry of space. So, in space there is less air above the astronauts, so what is causing the pressure?

The temperature of space is about 6K. The freezing temperature of air is around 63 K. That's nearly a difference of 60 K. How does the air not freeze?


Originally posted by backtoreality
NASA purchased an "air filtration system" for 42.8 million dollars--from the same company that sells the spacesuits to NASA.


You have quite an exact number there. Did you get that from a budget appropriation, or what? How can you be certain that the air filter was made by the same company that makes the spacesuits?



At 35,000ft you are above more than 90% of the Earth's atmosphere; yet, take a deep breath and everything is fine.


Peoples' ears pop when they dive and resurface in the water. This is because of the change in pressure on the ear drums. Why do peoples' ears pop when the plane ascends and descends?


Originally posted by backtoreality
Secondly, this is what the industry leads us to believe. Do you not find it currious that air at higher altitudes can be cold, while less dense at the same time?


Now, I don't think you have a firm grasp on how the Earth's atmosphere is laid out. Allow me to explain that, including the way temperatures work within it.

We live in the layer known as the troposphere, which extends from the surface up to about 12 km (averaged, it's less at the poles and higher at the equators). Now, you're correct, it does get cooler as you go up. Not because the air is denser though, but because of the effects of a process known as expansive cooling.

The layer above that is known as the stratosphere. It picks up from where the troposphere leaves off, and goes on up to about 50 km in altitude. This is where commercial airliners fly. Odd thing is, temperature actually increases with height in this layer, but only because of heat created by UV-rays coming from the Sun.

Above the stratosphere is the mesosphere, which extends upwards to about 85 km. On top of that, there is the thermosphere, which reaches altitudes of around 650-700 km. Both of these get cooler with higher altitude, due to expansive cooling once again.

Now, another thing is that the elements in the air also changes significantly with altitude. The higher you go, the less nitrogen, oxygen, and other heavy elements you find. By the time the thermosphere is reached, pretty much all that is left is hydrogen, helium, and less than 1% of atomic oxygen.

So how do you explain away that the cooling isn't because of expansive cooling and that the oxygen some how stays aloft, dispite its higher mass?


Originally posted by backtoreality
The actual design, however, consists of a latch on one of the smaller windows, allowing it to be opened. The is one of these windows on opposite sides of the spacecraft, inabling a nice cross breeze for when they go to bed. Yet another coverup of the truth.


And you came across this information how, exactly? Also, traveling at several thousand kilometers per hour would create a pretty strong "cross breeze." Or is there more fancy duct work at play again?


Please explain the aerodynamic properties of satellites that allow them to stay aloft. How are the laws of aerodynamics completely different in zero-g flight? So when I, in my Cessna 150, go into a zero-g flight, the aerodynamic characterists of my plane change? How? Why? Please do elaborate...

Also, I think it's kind of odd that your post times don't really correspond well with the time zones of Tokyo. It's like, you're in the west coast of the US or something... Maybe you just keep odd hours, I certainly don't know...

I think that that just about does it.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
As long as we agree that there is in fact "air" in space; enough so that it has a major (meaning, it is constantly considered when dealing with artificial satellites) impact on orbiting debris.


I did not said that there was "air" in space, I said that space is not a complete vacuum.

And do not forget that whatever exists out of our atmosphere is sufficiently weak to not interfere with the astronauts when they are out of their vehicles.
Remember that when the astronauts are working outside the ISS, for example, they are travelling at the same speed, i.e. 27,000Km/h.
If you have ever gone skiing then you have already felt the force of air against you. Supposing that you were travelling at 70Km/h and knowing that the difficulty of travelling though air increases with the square of the velocity you can imagine the force that would be against the astronauts travelling at 27,000 Km/h if there was air enough to be breathable in space.




I don't like to post links because it is weak. It shows that you are proficient with Google, not that you actually know what you are talking about. An occasional one here and there is Ok, but there are too many people who post links on every reply with a 2 sentence summary--so what? Search engines are for that, not message boards. Thus, I dislike 'em!


Not all links come from Google. In fact, I do not like Google when I am searching for something because it lacks some options that could make the searches really easy.

But a search engine can be a real good tool to find what you want.




p.s. thanks for the lesson in vocabulary. i had no idea!


You're welcome, I really like to deny ignorance.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm… Is someone going to address Endiku’s video? Why was that orange tarp thing moving like that?


anyone thought about solar winds????

Rocques22



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Planes can only go supersonic for tens of seconds?
That's pretty laughable in itself. How do you explain the SR-71? Or the F-15 ASAT and Streak Eagle programs? All of which flew supersonic for a lot longer than "tens of seconds".

If you would have quoted me correctly, you would understand the context in which I made that statement. Here, I will re-post for you:


Planes can NOT fly easier at supersonic speeds. It requires LOTS more fuel and the engines cannot resist the heat buildup but for a few tens of seconds (i.e. military fighters--no, not the F-22, etc, i know--and commercial airliners--no, not the concorde, special exception).

I wasn't trying to get into a discussion on exceptions to the rule, I was speaking of aircraft IN GENERAL. That's why we are not in the military aircraft section.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by rocques22

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm… Is someone going to address Endiku’s video? Why was that orange tarp thing moving like that?


anyone thought about solar winds????

Rocques22


I don't think solar winds are strong enough to have such an impact on such a small sheet.

I better solution would be that there was a big gust of wind--but not from the sun.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rocques22

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm… Is someone going to address Endiku’s video? Why was that orange tarp thing moving like that?


anyone thought about solar winds????

Rocques22


I had already posted what looks like the official version in this post.

If this is plausible or not, you decide.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Oh so basically, what you're saying is the blatantly obvious fact that commercial planes can't go supersonic, which no one claimed anyway.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
I hope you don't mind, but I've posed some new questions as well. Anyway, here goes.

First off, some general questions...

Alrighty, sir.



If the air is cold, like you say, how can the astronauts breath it? Wouldn't it burn thier lungs? Give them frostbite, or anything else?

It's no problem to breathe in space. Your body warms up the air as it enters and is very warm by the time it reaches your lungs. Astronauts have verified this in private.




Atmospheric pressure is directly proportional to the weight of the air. In fact, 99.9999% of the air is below 100 km, which is the internationally defined boundry of space. So, in space there is less air above the astronauts, so what is causing the pressure?

There are a variety of things coming into play here. That 0.00001% plays an important role, as does the effect from the moon's atmosphere, as does the pressure exerted by the sun, as does the air gravitating towards the astronauts, etc, etc.



The temperature of space is about 6K. The freezing temperature of air is around 63 K. That's nearly a difference of 60 K. How does the air not freeze?

What your Google search didn't tell you is that 6K is the temperature of space IN THE SHADE. The temperature of space when exposed to the sun is something like 300F. That's how the air does not freeze.




You have quite an exact number there. Did you get that from a budget appropriation, or what? How can you be certain that the air filter was made by the same company that makes the spacesuits?

Unfortunately, I cannot name names. All I can say is that this precise information came to me from a VERY reliable source. I am not at liberty to say any more about where the information came.




At 35,000ft you are above more than 90% of the Earth's atmosphere; yet, take a deep breath and everything is fine.


Peoples' ears pop when they dive and resurface in the water. This is because of the change in pressure on the ear drums. Why do peoples' ears pop when the plane ascends and descends?

I understand that you like airplanes, but you cannot continue to compare flying to the outside environment.

Let me answer this question with another--I think you will soon understand. Next time you are on the highway going fast, roll down your window. Now, being very careful I want you to release the waste from a hole puncher. But wait until you get a few month's worth of punching, so it's almost spilling out the sides. Now crack the window, about 20% open, and see what happens. Actually, I cannot condone this experiement as it is highly dangerous. I had a friend who did that one time and his left eardrum ruptured.




Originally posted by backtoreality
Secondly, this is what the industry leads us to believe. Do you not find it currious that air at higher altitudes can be cold, while less dense at the same time?


Now, I don't think you have a firm grasp on how the Earth's atmosphere is laid out. Allow me to explain that, including the way temperatures work within it.

We live in the layer known as the troposphere, which extends from the surface up to about 12 km (averaged, it's less at the poles and higher at the equators). Now, you're correct, it does get cooler as you go up. Not because the air is denser though, but because of the effects of a process known as expansive cooling.

The layer above that is known as the stratosphere. It picks up from where the troposphere leaves off, and goes on up to about 50 km in altitude. This is where commercial airliners fly. Odd thing is, temperature actually increases with height in this layer, but only because of heat created by UV-rays coming from the Sun.

Above the stratosphere is the mesosphere, which extends upwards to about 85 km. On top of that, there is the thermosphere, which reaches altitudes of around 650-700 km. Both of these get cooler with higher altitude, due to expansive cooling once again.

Now, another thing is that the elements in the air also changes significantly with altitude. The higher you go, the less nitrogen, oxygen, and other heavy elements you find. By the time the thermosphere is reached, pretty much all that is left is hydrogen, helium, and less than 1% of atomic oxygen.

So how do you explain away that the cooling isn't because of expansive cooling and that the oxygen some how stays aloft, dispite its higher mass?

Again, a Google search is only good if you know what you are looking for. Next time, try "gravitational effects of the human body on molecular oxygen". You should get some good hits even in English.




Originally posted by backtoreality
The actual design, however, consists of a latch on one of the smaller windows, allowing it to be opened. The is one of these windows on opposite sides of the spacecraft, inabling a nice cross breeze for when they go to bed. Yet another coverup of the truth.


And you came across this information how, exactly? Also, traveling at several thousand kilometers per hour would create a pretty strong "cross breeze." Or is there more fancy duct work at play again?


Again, I am not at liberty to reveal my source. I can tell you, however, that this is NOT the same source as I was referring to before.

No fancy ductwork needed. These windows were designed by NASA...NASA! Of course they know how to engineer the windows so as to allow a comfortable cross-breeze for the astronauts. Actually, sleep is very important for the astronauts do to the demanding schedule they keep, effects of zero-g, lack of internet access, etc. NASA pours an insane amount of money into the comfort of astronauts as they sleep. Haven't you ever seen that bed that NASA made for them?

I don't have enough space left for the satellite question (only 200 characeters left)



Also, I think it's kind of odd that your post times don't really correspond well with the time zones of Tokyo. It's like, you're in the west coast of the US or something... Maybe you just keep odd hours, I certainly don't know...

I think that that just about does it.

What does this have to do with ANYTHING??


Well, that just about does it for me to.
I hope I have answered all your questions.


p.s. let me know if you are a believer now.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh so basically, what you're saying is the blatantly obvious fact that commercial planes can't go supersonic, which no one claimed anyway.


Really? I know some people who flew on the concorde you might want to talk to.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
It's no problem to breathe in space. Your body warms up the air as it enters and is very warm by the time it reaches your lungs. Astronauts have verified this in private.


Your body temperature is roughly 310 K. The temperature in space is roughly 6 K. So you expect me to believe that in the small distance from the nose/mouth to the lungs one's body can heat the air to where it doesn't pose a problem to internal organs? That temperature being at least freezing, which is 273 K... That means the body is heating the air 267 K in the span of less than a foot.

How is that done? How do you know the astronauts have verified this in private? How come you seem to be the only one in all the world privvy to this knowledge?



There are a variety of things coming into play here. That 0.00001% plays an important role, as does the effect from the moon's atmosphere, as does the pressure exerted by the sun, as does the air gravitating towards the astronauts, etc, etc.


What atmosphere does the Moon have? What pressure from the Sun - solar wind, light pressure, something you've made up? The astronauts' own gravitational pull? Etc, etc?

And I find it funny that you would say that the pressure is caused by the Sun, when a few posts prior you said this...


Originally posted by backtoreality

Originally posted by rocques22
anyone thought about solar winds????


I don't think solar winds are strong enough to have such an impact on such a small sheet.


Seriously, you're beyond nonsensical.



What your Google search didn't tell you is that 6K is the temperature of space IN THE SHADE. The temperature of space when exposed to the sun is something like 300F. That's how the air does not freeze.


No, I didn't use Google. Sorry to disappoint. Just in working on my Physics and Astronomy degrees I happened to pick a few things up here and there. But, in one aspect, I was wrong... That's the average temperature of interstellar space.

The average temperature for an object in the Sun is roughly 7 C, which is still nowhere near 300 F. Of course, if it were 300 F, like you claim, how can the astronauts breath that, as that would be well above the boiling point?



Unfortunately, I cannot name names. All I can say is that this precise information came to me from a VERY reliable source. I am not at liberty to say any more about where the information came.


So, you made it up then, is what you're saying?



I understand that you like airplanes, but you cannot continue to compare flying to the outside environment.


Why? Because you can't answer my questions about it?


Let me answer this question with another--

I thought you were going to answer my question with another question? Why don't you just answer my question? Is it because you truely know nothing at all about what you are speaking?


Again, a Google search is only good if you know what you are looking for. Next time, try "gravitational effects of the human body on molecular oxygen". You should get some good hits even in English.


Again, I didn't use Google. I actually have an intellect that I can rely on for true statements, unlike you. Though, to humor you, I did Google search that...


Google Search

Tip: Try removing quotes from your search to get more results.


Your search - "gravitational effects of the human body on molecular oxygen" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.


I also did remove the quote...

Here are the results of my search. There is nothing there to explain away my question for you. So why don't you just do it yourself, or are you incapable of taking these lies any further?

Also, you avoided my question, once again. Guess how surprised by that I was! SO here it is again: So how do you explain away that the cooling isn't because of expansive cooling and that the oxygen some how stays aloft, dispite its higher mass?



Again, I am not at liberty to reveal my source. I can tell you, however, that this is NOT the same source as I was referring to before.


So a different made up source, then?



No fancy ductwork needed. These windows were designed by NASA...NASA! Of course they know how to engineer the windows so as to allow a comfortable cross-breeze for the astronauts.


So NASA who is partly behind the entire thing does not need to design special ducts for the craft moving at several thousand km/h, but special ducts are needed for aircraft moving at only a few hundred km/h?


I don't have enough space left for the satellite question (only 200 characeters left)


Nice way to cop out of answering those... You very easily could have answered it in a second post.



Well, that just about does it for me to.
I hope I have answered all your questions.


Nope, you've just done more to avoid them... Like every other time. I'll put them into a nice summary for you, once again, in a subsequent post.



p.s. let me know if you are a believer now.


Yup, this post of yours did nothing but reaffirm that you're either really uneducated, a bad hoaxer, you think you're very intelligent, or a combination of those things, plus many more I'll refrain from mentioning here.

EDIT: Bad Google links (maybe because of the Firefox tags?) and a mistyped quote.

[edit on 8/10/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm… Is someone going to address Endiku’s video? Why was that orange tarp thing moving like that?


Curious, isn't it? This isn't one of those deals like with the flag on the Moon, where it continues to swing around a little because there's no air to slow down the pendulum motion. Maybe it has to do with exhast or something coming from the docking vehicle. I don't know. It just looks like wind blowing.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Enkidu, your question about that video was answered here.


[edit on 8/10/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Dear cmd,

I agree with you on one point: this is getting nonsensical. There isn't even a flow to the conversation anymore. So, I would like to focus on one point, then move to the next.

I will go ahead and start. I disagreed with you about the temperature in space. Yet, after correcting you, you still stuck to your guns with the following statements:

1."The temperature in space is roughly 6K"
2."The average temperature for an object in the sun is roughly 7C...which is still nowhere near 300F"

You have already corrected yourself on #1, but you still will not budge on #2. I for one, do not understand what "average temperature" means when you are dealing with objects in direct sunlight. To take an average, we would begin at some finite point off the "surface" of the sun. Then how far back do we go: Mercury, Earth, Jupiter, Kuiper Belt, Oort Cloud, Andomeda?? For someone as yourself who has studied Astronomy and Physics, I would think that these same thoughts would have crossed your mind before making such a statement.

I guesstimated that an object in direct sunlight (i.e. astronauts, since that was what we were referring to) would be about 300F. No, I didn't Google it, because posting a very accurate number was not necessary--all I needed to show was that your estimate of 7C was way, way off. But, just to make you feel better about the situation, I provide the following excerpt:



In space, the temperature can range from -180°F out of view of the sun; and to +235°F in the direct glare of the sun.

www.onsetcomp.com...

I admit, I was not a math major, however I believe that 300F is much closer to 235F than is 6C (43F). And I did that off the top of my head.

How long did you study Astronomy and Physics?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join