It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 96
77
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes I agree, and the smaller the particle size the greater the effect of drag due to the higher surface area to mass ratio. So let me ask you, how far do you expect a 1 cm particle to fall behind the shuttle due to drag in 30 minutes? Less than 1 kilometer? or over 100 kilometers?

Actually, air drag makes the draggier small particles pull ahead of the shuttle (in a slightly lower orbit). Orbital mechanics is weird and its 'normal' consequences can be very startling and counter-intuitive -- which is why these kinds of videos are so popular, and the less people know about spaceflight, the more popular they seem to be.

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:35 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
For the first minute and a half of the video there is nothing floating around the screen. We see sunrise by the glow in the lower right hand corner, still no particles floating in the video. No one needs to calculate trig for this observation.

No one needs real evidence, you say? Just YOUR interpretation of what you are 100% certain MUST be happening in videos whose environment you are unfamiliar with?

The Execute Package for that flight day will have the expected times of sunrise and sunset.

What is your estimate of the time (to the minute) that the sun MUST have risen? I'd like to have that on record so we can compare it to the NASA documentation when it becomes available. Then we'll have an independent check on how accurate your certainties turn out to be.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by JimOberg]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:46 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Expose a pot of water to 10^-12 millitorre which is the pressure which it would be seeing in space and see how quickly it boils away. Pretty much instantaneously.

What happens in a vacuum is that on a tiny water globulem the outer edge is evaporating in the vacuum, sucking heat out of the rest of the globule, some of which freezes. That frozen water will then sublime at a much lower rate than liquid water would boil. Under certain conditions water ice on the exterior of the shuttle can last for days, and in one case a hunk of ice on the top of one payload bay door survived entry and was observed atop the shuttle as it landed in Florida (where it quickly melted).

What was observed to happen for large volume water dumps was a phenomenon not anticipated by operators, that a significant fraction of the particles were ejected by collisions within the stream, in random directions (videos show this). Some drift back towards the shuttle and can shelter in its shadow, or in its payload bay. The theory doesn't matter, because the actual experience shows this.

Proclaiming that this can't happen because one has read a NASA report about the general process is inadequate evidence for believing it can't happen, when experience has shown that it does, theory be damned.

Whether it happened in this case, or there was another potential source of small nearby 'stuff' in the time leading up to the video, remains to be seen.

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:34 PM
Seriously I guess I will have to make my own video analysing it to show you guys what I am talking about at 2:29 of the 'longer' tether video??

At 2:29 you can see a 'donut-blob' literally materialise right at the top-center of the screen (you can see a differently contrasted 'oval'-shape spot at the top of the camera view, it is right at the edge of this part of the screen I refer to)

There are other instances of 'materialisation' in the film, but this one is more clear than the others i've seen.

This video has already been analysed by many 'experts' but the stuff you see about this show on 'UFO hunters'.. and all that TV stuff is bull! You guys don't realise it, but the history channel and discovery channel are all controlled by the ones who are trying to hide the truth from the public, DUH.. and they obviously will mask stuff like this up to discredit as much they can.

Watch the documentary "MOON RISING" please and then tell me there is no 'cover up' of anything very important.

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:33 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

It only turns to ice for a very short time, then the vacuum turns it into vapor.

This is why the ice crystals disappear so quickly. Extremely low pressure require very little heat to change the state of matter.

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by poet1b

Yup, that's why comets (mostly water ice) last for so long.
In orbit, in Earth's shadow, there ain't much heat to bring ice to sublimation temperature.

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by JimOberg

I only measure things in terms of uncertainty. Anyone who deals in terms of certainty is an amateur at best, and most likely a fool.

As I have stated many times, the most likely time of sunrise would be when we start seeing the white wash in the lower right hand corner of the video.

Yes, a clunk of ice clung to the hull of the Space Shuttle, and even lasted through re-entry, which is pretty amazing. I have to wonder how much that would be due to the shuttle panels ability to absorb heat.

A large clump of matter that gets cold enough can retain ice, we know this, but theory would point to the likelihood that the vacuum of space continually pulls mass away from the body. Heat from the sun speeds up this process of course.

Still, for the little dots we see in this STS-75 video to be close up to the shuttle, they would have to be very tiny particles of ice from a water dump, and there is no evidence what so ever that tiny particles of ice survive in space. Not only is it unlikely that small particles of ice would survive floating off the surface of the shuttle, we have a very large number of these particles that just so happened to come into view with the tether. The NASA report describes the norm, and there is as of yet no reason to claim this situation to be the exception, except for the desire of the debunkers.

What are the odds?

In terms if instrumentation and calibration, I would say that the degree of uncertainty is too large to make such an indication as you propose reliable.

You are talking about an exceptionally exceptional exception.

Which is extremely unlikely.

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by Phage

See above, as it explains comet tails as well.

I have often wondered if comets pick up what ever they are shedding, to create their tails, when they are in deep space outside of our solar system.

It seems that comets would only generate tails after so many passes, unless they picked up the material in deep space allowing them to continuously produce tails over the eons.

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:15 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

It only turns to ice for a very short time, then the vacuum turns it into vapor.

This is why the ice crystals disappear so quickly. Extremely low pressure require very little heat to change the state of matter.

Matbe this discussion is getting to a point where disagreements can be identified as connected with fundamental misunderstandings of physics.

I always thought that the amount of heat required to change the state of say one gram of ice to water or vapor was the same. But is it pressure dependent? Let me go look up 'heat of fusion' for water to see where the confusion lies -- and it could be in my own head.

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:57 PM
reply to post by JimOberg

Pressure is definitely a critical factor in changes of states of matter. This is how a refrigerator or AC works, as well as pressurized boilers.

Yes, it is good to look it up, everyone forgets details like this now and then.

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:32 PM

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes I agree, and the smaller the particle size the greater the effect of drag due to the higher surface area to mass ratio.

Actually, air drag makes the draggier small particles pull ahead of the shuttle (in a slightly lower orbit). Orbital mechanics is weird and its 'normal' consequences can be very startling and counter-intuitive -- which is why these kinds of videos are so popular, and the less people know about spaceflight, the more popular they seem to be.

Since my research showed you were right about diverging orbits reconverging, I'm guessing you're right about this too but I haven't had a chance to research it yet, but once I confirm it, this will make the 2nd thing about orbital mechanics I didn't know when I started reading this thread that you taught me.

So I'm right about the drag being higher on smaller particles but I'm guessing the drag causes them to fall into a lower orbit, which is a smaller orbit since it has a smaller radius from the center of the earth, and since they don't have to travel as far per orbit they can get ahead of the shuttle? Is that how it works? Yes that's a little counter-intuitive but it makes sense if that's the reason. Very interesting!

posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:51 PM

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

It only turns to ice for a very short time, then the vacuum turns it into vapor.

This is why the ice crystals disappear so quickly. Extremely low pressure require very little heat to change the state of matter.

Matbe this discussion is getting to a point where disagreements can be identified as connected with fundamental misunderstandings of physics.

I always thought that the amount of heat required to change the state of say one gram of ice to water or vapor was the same. But is it pressure dependent? Let me go look up 'heat of fusion' for water to see where the confusion lies -- and it could be in my own head.

You have to add the heat of fusion to the heat of vaporization to get the heat of sublimation:

weatherfaqs.org.uk...

Latent Heat

The amount of energy needed to accomplish a phase change. Latent heat of fusion is the amount of energy required to melt ice, and at 0°C is 3.34 * 105J kg-1 (or about 80 cal/g). The latent heat of vaporisation is the amount of energy needed to evaporate liquid water. It is equivalent to 2.50 * 106 J kg-1 (or about 600 cal/g) at 0°C. The latent heat of sublimation is the energy needed to carry out a change from solid (ice) to gas (vapour). It is the sum of the latent heats of fusion and vaporisation, i.e. 2.83 * 106 J kg-1 (or about 680 cal/g) at 0°C.

However from another source I think is more accurate, I got slightly different number for the heat of vaporization because they defined it differently:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Heat of fusion (0C Ice to 0C water):
79.7 cal/gm

Heat to go from 0C water to 100C water
100 cal/g

Heat of vaporization (100C water to 100C water vapor):
539 cal/gm

718.7 cal/g total heat needed to go from ice to water vapor on Earth

But the way that source calculates it, the heat of vaporization is defined differently, from 100 degrees C and not from 0 degrees C like the first source, so on Earth, you have to add the heat of 100 cal/gm to go from ice to water vapor, which gives you a total of 718.7 cal/g "heat of sublimation", slightly higher than the first source which stated 680 cal/g.

But in a vacuum, you don't have to heat water from 0C to 100C since ice sublimates directly. Therefore in space it would only take about 618.7 calories of heat per gram to heat 0C ice into water vapor, instead of the 718.7 on the Earth's surface.

The true latent heat is not affected by pressure:

latent heat of vaporization

latent heat: this is the heat or energy required to go from liquid to vapor without a temperature change. It is a result of hydrogen bonding. The latent heat is the same at any pressure.

So that last source says poet1b is wrong about "Extremely low pressure require very little heat to change the state of matter", and I'm pretty sure the source is right. Maybe poet1b is thinking about the 100 calories needed to heat a gram of water from 0C to 100C, but that's not part of the true latent heat, contrary to what the first source I cited said as that source assumed Earth conditions, probably because we're on Earth.

Edit for clarity and to add 3rd source.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:35 AM
well, i found detailed information about how water or ice particles behave in space, the process of solidification into ice, sublimation, vaporisation, resolidification, factors influencing the process, and finally, estimating time for particles of ice to subsist in space!

Poet1b, you will have a big surprise...you will always promoted the ideea that water or ice in space will evaporate/sublimate very quick...
well, you are wrong!

I have found a couple of different studies which confirm that particles of ice in space have a much long duration of their existence.

First, there is a scientific study, a very comprehensive one, about ice in space. Experiments were done regarding what happens to water in vacuum and quantifying the factors influencing it. The solidification and sublimation was filmed, measured and described down to a great complexity. A theoretical model was made, and the results were compared with the experiments, and it was found that the theory agrees very well with experimental results.

The study is called:

ICE IN SPACE:
AN EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL INVESTIGATION

by Harvey Patashnick, George Rupprecht

source: ntrs.nasa.gov...

(warning: very scientifical language and great complexity ;p )

The result of this lifetime calculation is shown in Figure 48, where the lifetime, T, is plotted as a function of particle radius for different solar distances. For comparison the lifetime, T , at one A.U. is shown as a broken line when a constant, size independent sublimation rate of Øo =10-7(g cm-2 sec-1) is assumed. Obviously the discrepancy can reach several orders of magnitude and illuminates the futility of an albedo concept for estimating the absorption for particles in these size ranges.
Figure 48 shows clearly that small ice particles, i.e. ice particles with radii

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:44 AM
watch this video before checking the rest of the materials.....

first off.... what the sts-75 mission was all about....

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

TSS-1R Science Investigations include: TSS Deployer Core Equipment and Satellite Core Equipment (DCORE/SCORE), Research on Orbital Plasma Electrodynamics (ROPE), Research on Electrodynamic Tether Effects (RETE), Magnetic Field Experiment for TSS Missions (TEMAG), Shuttle Electrodynamic Tether System (SETS), Shuttle Potential and Return Electron Experiment (SPREE), Tether Optical Phenomena Experiment (TOP), Investigation of Electromagnetic Emissions by the Electrodynamic Tether (EMET), Observations at the Earth's Surface of Electromagnetic Emissions by TSS (OESSE), Investigation and Measurement of Dynamic Noise in the TSS (IMDN), Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of TSS Dynamics (TEID) and the Theory and Modeling in Support of Tethered Satellite Applications (TMST).

The USMP-3 payload consists of four major experiments mounted on two Mission Peculiar Experiment Support Structures (MPESS) and three Shuttle Mid-deck experiments. The experiments are: Advanced Automated Directional Solidification Furnace (AADSF), Material pour l'Etude des Phenomenes Interessant la Solidification sur Terre et en Orbite (MEPHISTO), Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS), Orbital Acceleration Research Experiment (OARE), Critical Fluid Light Scattering Experiment (ZENO) and Isothermal Dendritic Growth Experiment (IDGE).

now refer to the following publications from our italian friends....

EUV-FUV spectroscopy of TSS optical Phenomena

We propose to use the IEH (International Ultraviolet Hitchhiker), a multidisciplinary facility (Astronomy, Solar System, Earth's atmosphere) to be mounted on the Shuttle pallet as a Hitchhiker flight opportunity, in order to obtain 2D images in the EUV-FUV ((400÷1300) Å) of the optical phenomena occurring in the neighborhood of the TSS satellite. These peculiar phenomena, not detectable during the first TSS mission, are primarily due to the interaction of a high-potential conductive body with the surrounding ionospheric plasma.

An overview of plasma science in the first Tethered-Satellite project (TSS-1)

This paper is an overview of the project TSS-1 and of its basic electrodynamic-science objectives. To this purpose, we first discuss the electrodynamics of conducting tethers in orbit and, secondly, provide a detailed description of the project and its payload. We also add, in the final part of the paper, a short account of the first TSS-1 flight which took place in August 1992.

now... connect the dots further....

Plasma Life Forms

Jay Alfred: Life-Like Qualities of Plasma: Bohm, a leading expert in twentieth century plasma physics, observed in amazement that once electrons were in plasma, they stopped behaving like individuals and started behaving as if they were a part of a larger and interconnected whole.

Plasma cosmologist, Donald Scott, notes that "...a [plasma] double layer can act much like a membrane that divides a biological cell". A model of plasma double layers (a structure commonly found in complex plasmas) has been used to investigate ion transport across biological cell membranes by researchers.

Plasma Life Forms in Space
An international scientific team has discovered that under the right conditions, particles of inorganic dust can become organized into helical structures which can interact with each other in ways that are usually associated with organic life. Using a computer model of molecular dynamics, V N Tsytovich and his colleagues of the Russian Academy of Science showed that particles in plasma can undergo self-organization as electric charges become separated and the plasma becomes polarized.

Plasma Life Forms in the Laboratory
In 2003 physicists; Erzilia Lozneanu and Mircea Sanduloviciu of Cuza University, Romania, described in their research paper how they created plasma spheres in the laboratory that can grow, replicate and communicate - fulfilling most of the traditional requirements for biological cells.

Plasma Orbs in Paranormal Literature
In 2004 an experiment was conducted where particles in a plasma crystal arranged themselves into neat concentric shells (or rings - from a two-dimensional perspective), to a total ball diameter of several millimeters.

further reading...... relevant scientific literature.....

Physics and Biology: Bio-plasma physics

From plasma crystals and helical structures towards inorganic living matter

Minimal-cell system created in laboratory by self-organization

First Evidence for Superfluidity in an Atom-Based Fermi Gas

Self-organization scenario acting as physical basis of intelligent complex systems created in laboratory

Self-organized complex space charge configurations at the origin of flicker noise

case closed.........

[edit on 23/11/09 by mcrom901]

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:32 AM
reply to post by depthoffield

Great post Depthoffield! I think that was just the information this thread needed! Starred your post!

Back on page 83 I said:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
STS-75 video, the ice particles are different sizes and the smaller ones will sublimate more quickly and the large ones will take longer

But my comment was based on theoretical physics, and it's nice to see sometimes the real experimental evidence confirms the theoretical predictions that the smaller particles won't last long but the larger particles will last longer:

Originally posted by depthoffield
it was found that the theory agrees very well with experimental results.

Experiments don't always confirm theoretical predictions but it's nice to see in this case they do!

However even I didn't expect a 1mm particle would last 10 days in the sun and a 1cm particle would last one year in the sun, that's amazing!

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:20 AM

Originally posted by mcrom901
watch this video before checking the rest of the materials.....

I actually agree with some of the concerns in that video about cosmology going off on tangents that can't be proven nor disproven such as some of the alternate universe theories, and I have yet to see real world confirmation of other theories such as M-theory but once it got to the electric universe statements, there is more garbage and misinformation about some electric universe theories than I've seen in even the alternate universe theories.

But don't you see the irony of posting a video stating that we need to focus on the empirical, rather than the theoretical mathematics, and then presenting evidence on theoretical rather than the empirical? As in the following:

Plasma Life Forms in Space
An international scientific team has discovered that under the right conditions, particles of inorganic dust can become organized into helical structures which can interact with each other in ways that are usually associated with organic life. Using a computer model of molecular dynamics.....

I didn't see any empirical observations of helical structures in plasma, just a computer simulation, and I've seen a lot of things simulated on computers that don't line up with empirical observations, the point of the video you posted.

One of the sources you linked:

www.iop.org...

As predicted by numerical simulations [17], these cylindrical crystals convert into helical structures with fewer grains per unit length. According to numerical experiments, highly symmetric spherical dust structures can be formed only when the spherical symmetry is externally supported

So you post a video complaining about the problems with numerical simulations, then you present evidence based on numerical simulations, do you see the irony?

I'm not closed minded to say plasma life forms CAN'T exist, perhaps they can.

However the evidence I've reviewed for their existence is unconvincing. I look forward to perhaps someday seeing some convincing evidence but if it's there now I haven't seen it yet, but I'm still reviewing the links you posted.

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:22 AM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Phage

See above, as it explains comet tails as well.

I have often wondered if comets pick up what ever they are shedding, to create their tails, when they are in deep space outside of our solar system.

It seems that comets would only generate tails after so many passes, unless they picked up the material in deep space allowing them to continuously produce tails over the eons.

Interesting suggestion -- completely at odds with conventional astronomy, but creative and imaginative (this is meant as praise). So it's not just the people familiar with space flight who are wrong about space ice and you are right; astronomers are wrong about comets, and you are right. The latter sentence was not meant as praise.

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:30 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So I'm right about the drag being higher on smaller particles but I'm guessing the drag causes them to fall into a lower orbit, which is a smaller orbit since it has a smaller radius from the center of the earth, and since they don't have to travel as far per orbit they can get ahead of the shuttle? Is that how it works? Yes that's a little counter-intuitive but it makes sense if that's the reason. Very interesting!

The EFFECT of drag is higher on small particles because their mass tends to be less as a ratio with their frontal area, then big objects. Also, they tend to be made of materials inherently less dense -- insulation, tiles, and [drumroll] ice.

They pull ahead from two factors. Exactly as you said, the lower orbit is shorter, and that accounts for 2/3 of the sep rate. In addition, the lower orbit is faster, due to marginally higher gravity, and that accounts for the other 1/3 of the sep rate.

The rule of thumb we used in Mission Control was that objects at average delta-H of 'x' feet would separate at a rate of 10X every rev (about 92-94 minutes). Something orbiting 1000 feet below woud be 10,000 feet ahead after an hour and a half. Something only 10 feet below would only be 100 feet ahead.

That's under free space drag effects. Stuff sheltered in the lee side of the shuttle, or even better in the payload bay or other nooks and crannies such as the main engine compartment, could remain close to the shuttle for hours and hours until later dislodged or disgorged by shuttle activity.

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:47 PM
Well, I have to admit I was wrong on ice particle sublimation in space. Unlike some posters on the board, I am actually willing to admit when I have been proven wrong on a point.

I thought the triple point of water would still apply, but apparently the temperature level is so low that ice not only stays in tact, it actually reforms, or re-condensates.

Here is a link on the triple point of water.

www.sv.vt.edu...

Here is an better link explaining what happens during water dumps.

www.dtic.mil...

Analysis of intensified video photographs of a twilight venting of excess water from space shuttle showed that the -1 mm diameter stream cavitationally fragments within about I m, forming two discrete-particle components and vapor. The images from nearby cameras are dominated by irregular, polydisperse water/ice droplets with sizes comparable with the venting orifice and outward velocity indistinguishable from that of the initially coherent liquid. In contrast the 2'h ki-long quasiconical trail imaged from a distant ground station consists of accompanying submicron ice spherules that were produced
by partial recondensation of the overexpanded vacuum-evaporated water gas, which are sublimating at rates that we calculated from the measured falloff of axial sunlight-scatter radiance and the energy balance of progressively roughening ice at 329 kim altitude; at low latitudes they cool to 180K in < 1 s, and their radii transition to the Rayleigh-scattering range in -I min. The very much larger fragmentation particles come tv a slightly higher equilibrium temperature within -2 min, and persist for a few earth orbits. These three components of the vented water (and other high vapor pressure liquids) radiate and scatter earthshine and solar photons, and the orbital-velocity molecules are also excited by collisions with the residual atmospheric gas, overlaying wide-angle contaminating foregrounds on remote optical sensing from onbcard. The particle
sizes, densities, and temperatures derived from the visible data are applied in estimating ultraviolet and infrared radiances of the ice/vapor-containing volumes near Shuttle Orbiter.

However, this article also makes this point.

Liquid water rapidly exposed to vacuum has long been known to be unstable against cavitationally burstingelO due to the violent growth of bubbles of vapor ("steam*) and dissolved gases within the then-superheated volume. About one-sixth of the injected mass evaporatesi1 in cooling the initially 300K stream and its fragmentastion droplets to in equilibrium temperature at sunlit orbital altitudes that we have derived as described here. The Discovery images also allowed us to bound the fraction of this evolved vapor from a routine operational venting that recondenses as it expands across the gassolid equilibrium line of the phase diagram of water substance, and to determine the dependence on their distance from .
Orbiter of the diameters of both these Rayleigh-Mie size droplets and the "geometric'-scattering, polydisperse strea.mrupture particles" 4 . These particles show no evidence of returning to the spacecraft.

Let's reemphasize this last point.

These particles show no evidence of returning to the spacecraft.

So, even though these particles last for a couple of orbits they don't return to the shuttle. The evidence of what we see in shuttle videos still stands. What we are seeing in the STS-75 tether video still can not be explained as particles close to the shuttle.

While researching the subject I did stumble upon this interesting book I thought I would share with the group.

resources.metapress.com...

www.praxis-publishing.co.uk...

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:02 PM

Originally posted by poet1b

We're all a little better informed on this thanks to the mature approach demonstrated by everyone involved in this debate. Let's pause for breath, hope the trend continues, and do some back-patting. Attaboy, boys.

Let's reemphasize this last point.

These particles show no evidence of returning to the spacecraft.

So, even though these particles last for a couple of orbits they don't return to the shuttle. The evidence of what we see in shuttle videos still stands. What we are seeing in the STS-75 tether video still can not be explained as particles close to the shuttle.

Videos still show some particles emerging from the stream in random direction. Not a lot, but more than zero. Also, water can accumulate around the port as ice there, to dislodge later as -- yes -- it melts. These all have been observed to actually happen. If the report was referring to one video of one dump early in the shuttle program, it's possible they did not 'observe' the effect that later observers became familiar with.

And we still need the events planned (per the Execute Package) and the events accomplished (per post-flight summaries) to identify potential debris-creation events, including water dumps. The Flight Director, Chuck Shaw, did state there was such an event, but the note from the Flight Activities Officer Robert Nute was referring to a MET that was based on the erroneous 'draft scene list' -- and was off by one day [it's why my 2000 Rense article referred to 'three days after' when we all are now agreed that it was FOUR days after the break.

We would not have made this progress but for the adversarial vigor of the debate here. I'm grateful to eveyone who's been making us all do better research. Thank you.

top topics

77