 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / May 2008They said the APU fire is normal?
I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or night, before... > I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or night, > before... Yep; it's bright, but normal. I don't think it's flames - more steam (APU's run on hydrazine, I think - the 'waste' from that is water vapour). >> I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or >> night, before... > > Yep; it's bright, but normal. I don't think it's flames - more steam > (APU's run on hydrazine, I think - the 'waste' from that is water > vapour). Nope, it's ammonia and hydrogen--no oxygen involved until the hot gas hits the atmosphere... --Damon Are they not effectively gas turbines? You get very, um hot exhaust from those, Toasted donunts anyone? :-) Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or night, >> before... > > Yep; it's bright, but normal. I don't think it's flames - more steam > (APU's > run on hydrazine, I think - the 'waste' from that is water vapour). > Are they not effectively gas turbines? You get very, um hot exhaust from > those, Toasted donunts anyone? > :-) Yum! I can almost smell the aroma of ammonia... ;-) Yup kills 99 percent of all germs dead. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> Are they not effectively gas turbines? You get very, um hot exhaust from >> those, Toasted donunts anyone? >> :-) > > Yum! I can almost smell the aroma of ammonia... ;-) "Brian Gaff" <Briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:miQGj.267$xA.225 @text.news.virginmedia.com: > Yup kills 99 percent of all germs dead. Ouch. --Damon > Yup kills 99 percent of all germs dead. > > Brian And what percentage of the eaters? > I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or > night, before... Maybe running a little rich? (That's a joke) The dual exhaust vents at the base of the tail look more or less normal. It's snowing outside my bedroom window as I watch the landing and wrapup on my computer monitor. Somewhere I >know< it's Spring... --Damon, near soggy Seattle >> I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or >> night, before... > > Maybe running a little rich? (That's a joke) The dual exhaust vents at > the base of the tail look more or less normal. And the shutdown seems normal--no visible exhaust of any sort now. --Damon >> I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or >> night, before... > > Maybe running a little rich? (That's a joke) The dual exhaust vents at > the base of the tail look more or less normal. Yeah, the infrared night movies I've seen of it are pretty cool, you can see it "chugging". > It's snowing outside my bedroom window as I watch the landing and wrapup > on my computer monitor. Somewhere I >know< it's Spring... > > --Damon, near soggy Seattle SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html > I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or night, > before... There was one point of view where you could clearly see that those "flames" illuminated the shuttle, especially the tail. Couldn't have been just vapour. And the flames were dancing around. On the other hand, the view from the front of the shuttle showed 2 clean plumes of steam coming straight up and not dancing at all. >> I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or night, >> before... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > On the other hand, the view from the front of the shuttle showed 2 clean > plumes of steam coming straight up and not dancing at all. Hi, Yeah, they had shut down the APU's before switching to the front view, so that is why all you see is just left-over steam... I've been looking for pictures from earlier night landings that show the APU flames at night, but have come up empty so far. A Deja search revealed James Oberg talking about these flames as a "fire-breathing dragon" that occured "once in a while in the early days". Other searching and reading about the APU's has also revealed that the APU's have had many problems over the years, especially with being "leaky".. Another waiting Archilles heal? >>> I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or >>> night, before... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Another waiting Archilles heal? This has been explained: the APU exhaust is hot ammonia and hydrogen. It burns on contact with atmospheric oxygen. So what? Where's the problem here? --Damon >>>> I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or >>>> night, before... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Where's the problem here? Hi, It hasn't been fully explained. I know how the exhaust is produced, but why aren't there visible flames coming from the APU's on every night landing? Sure, you can see the heat being exhausted in the infrared for every night landing, but this landing had visible-spectrum flames coming from the APU's. Can someone point out out pictures or videos that show visible flames coming from the APU's from other night landings? > >>>> I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or > >>>> night, before... [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Can someone point out out pictures or videos that show visible flames coming > from the APU's from other night landings? I'm not even so sure about the idea that one can "see the [APU] heat being exhausted in the infrared for every night landing." See: <http://tinyurl.com/2lr94x> JTM On Mar 29, 4:54 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > I'm not even so sure about the idea that one can "see the [APU] heat > being exhausted in the infrared for every night landing." The heat in the APU exhaust is there for ALL landings and therefore visible in IR on all landings. On Mar 29, 4:38 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Mar 29, 4:54 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The heat in the APU exhaust is there for ALL landings and therefore > visible in IR on all landings. Proof to refute the provided image link/example, which you neatly purged? JTM > I'm not even so sure about the idea that one can "see the [APU] heat > being exhausted in the infrared for every night landing." > > See: <http://tinyurl.com/2lr94x> You must remember, in that shot, Discovery is still traveling at well over 100 knots--the exhaust is being dissipated by the slipstream between the vertical stabilizer and the OMS/RCS pods (if you view the visible light version of the "on fire" landing, even during rollout, the flames are dragged back along the body). But, that being said, if you look at video of that same landing (STS-114 http://tinyurl.com/25sg39), you can start to see the APU exhaust "strobing" at the about the 1:16 mark. And it looks like the still image was taken just between "puffs" of exhaust some where around the 1:46-1:50 range of the video... by that time, the puffs are quite clearly visible (in IR). Now, changing gears here: I'm wondering if we're all "arguing" about this just because the commentator used the word "normal" to describe the fire. I wonder if he should have said the phrase "not unexpected". As described elsewhere, the exhaust is flammable... maybe this is the first time it stayed alight all the way to the ground--every other time, the slipstream was able to put it out well before going sub-sonic... > max...@mission51l.com wrote: > > I'm not even so sure about the idea that one can "see the [APU] heat [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 1:46-1:50 range of the video... by that time, the puffs are quite > clearly visible (in IR). I'm on the dial-up and have never been able to get YouTube to work for me here. Would you be so kind as to compare the video at the link below to the one you reference and tell me if they are the same? (Use FIND "APU fire" to locate it.) http://groups.msn.com/SpaceCowboySaloon/sts9.msnw > Now, changing gears here: I'm wondering if we're all "arguing" about > this just because the commentator used the word "normal" to describe the > fire. I wonder if he should have said the phrase "not unexpected". As > described elsewhere, the exhaust is flammable... maybe this is the first > time it stayed alight all the way to the ground--every other time, the > slipstream was able to put it out well before going sub-sonic... "Not unexpected" is still a bit lenient, in my opinion. I doubt if aerodynamic flow will assist NASA much in explaining an APU anomaly noticed while on orbit. Regardless, I would expect the design/testing of the exit orifice to guarantee continued expulsion under all expected conditions, unless shutdown is ordered. JTM > max...@mission51l.com wrote: > > I'm not even so sure about the idea that one can "see the [APU] heat [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > over 100 knots--the exhaust is being dissipated by the slipstream > between the vertical stabilizer and the OMS/RCS pods In my own linked image, I don't believe the orbiter has touched down yet. (Also, I'm not altogether certain that's an Edwards runway. I'm going by the caption.) > (if you view the visible light version of the "on fire" landing, > even during rollout, the flames are dragged back along the body). Are you now referring to STS-123, rather than STS-114? If you are referring to STS-123, were APU flames visible prior to touchdown (in either IR or color)? > But, that being said, if you look at video of that same landing (STS- 114http://tinyurl.com/25sg39), you can start to see the APU exhaust > "strobing" at the about the 1:16 mark. And it looks like the still > image was taken just between "puffs" of exhaust some where around the > 1:46-1:50 range of the video... by that time, the puffs are quite > clearly visible (in IR). I'm still a bit handicapped here, with no YouTube access. In the range of time you mention above, has the STS-114 orbiter touched down yet? > Now, changing gears here: I'm wondering if we're all "arguing" about > this just because the commentator used the word "normal" to describe the > fire. I wonder if he should have said the phrase "not unexpected". As > described elsewhere, the exhaust is flammable... maybe this is the first > time it stayed alight all the way to the ground--every other time, the > slipstream was able to put it out well before going sub-sonic... After looking again at a fairly old IR landing video, I'm developing an airflow theory of my own that offers a different explanation. If there's enough cooperative interest here, I might be willing to capture that video and upload it to my website. After that, I would be happy to offer you my theory and explain how I came up with it. I find your comments constructive, thanks. JTM On Mar 29, 4:54 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > > "Damon Hill" <damon1S...@comcast.netnet> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > JTM One frame is not proof On Mar 29, 11:00 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Mar 29, 4:54 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Don't try to twist my words. Here again is what I said: <<I'm not even so sure about the idea that one can "see the [APU] heat being exhausted in the infrared for every night landing.">> JTM > >>>> I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or > >>>> night, before... [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Can someone point out out pictures or videos that show visible flames coming > from the APU's from other night landings? It is even visible on nite launches It has to do with the humidity level On Mar 29, 4:37 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > > "Damon Hill" <damon1S...@comcast.netnet> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Pictures or video, as the gentleman requested? On Mar 29, 6:01 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > On Mar 29, 4:37 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Pictures or video, as the gentleman requested? I have been on the runway and seen it. and also it happens on the launch pad too On Mar 29, 4:37 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Can someone point out out pictures or videos that show visible flames coming > > from the APU's from other night landings? > > It is even visible on nite launches Perhaps it is for STS-123, but APU fire is certainly not visible on any of the videotaped night launches that I've saved from over the years. I vaguely recall a news commentator for the STS-123 night launch alluding to the neat view of "the APUs," and NasaSpaceFlight.com didn't exactly exclude the chance of such a unique view, due to abnormal prelaunch processing: "Flight history also included the pulling of post flight documentation from Endeavour's previous flight - STS-118 - and processing work ahead of STS-123, including pre-flight pad preparations for launch. 'No Disturbance to Fuel Tank Region Except Insulation Repair on Fuel Side of Tank. Insulation was found during surveillance inspections to not be installed per drawing (inadequate amount of batting previously installed),' noted the findings. 'Reinsulated the Bottom of the Tank Area Where Line Exits the Tank. Insulation work was non-intrusive to fuel system fluid lines and tank. Very low likelihood any collateral damage occurred during this rework. Fuel and GN2 QD actuated during fuel servicing. Only Fuel Components Disturbed During Flow. New/Refurbished Cap Installed." JTM On Apr 3, 9:48 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > On Mar 29, 4:37 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > any of the videotaped night launches that I've saved from over the > years. Not STS-123. It isn't vehicle specific. It is due to atmospheric conditions. EAFB is too dry for it to happen regularly. It is visible on STS-97 launch On Apr 3, 10:33 am, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 3, 9:48 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > conditions. EAFB is too dry for it to happen regularly. > It is visible on STS-97 launch That's the sort of example I'm looking for. Obviously there must be SOME logical explanation for it, if we can just see it. Got a link (not one where we have to enter an "Inner Sanctum" to download)? JTM On Apr 3, 12:13 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > On Apr 3, 10:33 am, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > JTM It is on the link you posted on the other thread >> This has been explained: the APU exhaust is hot ammonia and hydrogen. >> It burns on contact with atmospheric oxygen. So what? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Can someone point out out pictures or videos that show visible flames > coming from the APU's from other night landings? I completely fail to see your concern with this matter; it is a non-issue. Where's the problem here? There is no problem. --Damon > >> This has been explained: the APU exhaust is hot ammonia and hydrogen. > >> It burns on contact with atmospheric oxygen. So what? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sure, that's why the "shuttle surge" has gone south, right? That's why Lockheed has a tank excuse for every maintenance and operations schedule slip due to technical malfeasance, right? That's why low- humidity Edwards has some landings where APU flames show up on IR, right? Endeavor was so "clean" that they only towed it back as far as Pad A, right? The list goes on, and on. When will NASA show Lockheed the gate and hire a Shuttle Processing Contractor who'll bring back technical excellence to our civilian space program? How many years must Lockheed stay on the gravy train? How many deaths with losses of our national resource will it take? How many Hallers will have to holler? How many people with rose-colored glasses must to "fail to see?" How do you get those glasses to fit, when you can't even see the nose on your face? Your strong suit is playing the role, sitting back with Findley in your dream world, while telling everyone to "kill-file" people who CAN see, else risk getting "kill-filed" themselves. Maybe you're the one who helped NASA take down its relevant links this afternoon when things got too hot, who knows? Regardless, it sure looks like you and "Charlie" are a couple of hired guns who had to ride in again just now. JTM > I've been looking for pictures from earlier night landings that show the APU > flames at night, but have come up empty so far. On an old IR video I have (night landing), the APU flames look about the same as on IR video from STS-123. JTM > I've been looking for pictures from earlier night landings that show the APU > flames at night, but have come up empty so far. I too have come up.empty in my search for such (color) pictures. This is a link to a credible color photo of the STS-114 night landing: <http://tinyurl.com/yryvap> After comparing much IR video, for me that AP photo is enough to prove APU flames on the STS-123 night landing. Notice the distinct color in those flames: <http://www.mission51l.com/photos/STS-123.jpg> JTM > I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or night, > before... You're probably too young to remember the STS-9 landing. At the link below, use FIND "APU fire" to locate (near the end) another link. It's to a very brief video clip (up_apuex.mpeg). Then you can make an informed comparison. <http://groups.msn.com/SpaceCowboySaloon/sts9.msnw> JTM ><http://groups.msn.com/SpaceCowboySaloon/sts9.msnw> > >JTM That is not STS-9 landing. Drag Chute was not in use at the time of STS-9. SignatureMika Takala On Mar 27, 2:15 pm, "Mika Takala" <mika.tak...@INVALIDpp.nic.fi.invalid> wrote: > ><http://groups.msn.com/SpaceCowboySaloon/sts9.msnw> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Mika Takala You're right; it was an afternoon landing. I seem to recall Av Week photos of it, They've mislabeled that link as STS-9. JTM On Mar 27, 2:15 pm, "Mika Takala" <mika.tak...@INVALIDpp.nic.fi.invalid> wrote: > ><http://groups.msn.com/SpaceCowboySaloon/sts9.msnw> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Mika Takala NASA says the first drag chute landing was STS-49 (a day landing). According to NASA, there has been only one night landing at Edwards since then: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/night_landings.html So the 'groups.msn.com' landing must have been STS-114, on August 9, 2005 (Return to Flight, with Eileen Collins). JTM Hi That cannot be true either, because the up_apuex.mpeg has been available for download at least on November 15th, 2002 - or at least the file on my G:\SpaceVids -folder has that timestamp on it. It could be any Edwards landing, and not necessarily a night landing - they can and are using IR also during day landings. The challenge to identify that landing continues. SignatureMika Takala NASA says the first drag chute landing was STS-49 (a day landing). According to NASA, there has been only one night landing at Edwards since then: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/night_landings.html So the 'groups.msn.com' landing must have been STS-114, on August 9, 2005 (Return to Flight, with Eileen Collins). JTM Well, we do know it has to be subsequent to STS-49 (not an "early" landing). OIther things point to it being the STS-114 landing. The background lighting looks like daylight is approaching. There appear to be lights in various background buildings, both at the beginning and at the end of the brief clip. There appear to be foothills in the background as well. I'm not sure we could see all that in IR, but you could well be right. On Mar 27, 6:37 pm, "Mika Takala" <mika.tak...@INVALIDpp.nic.fi.invalid> wrote: > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > JTM On Mar 27, 7:25 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > Well, we do know it has to be subsequent to STS-49 (not an "early" > landing). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'm not sure we could see all that in IR, but you could well be right. Sorry, I meant to say, "I'm not sure we could see all that in daylight IR." I found a fairly old IR video from a CNN broadcast. It's the only IR shuttle video I'd ever seen, actually. You guessed it; it was from a night landing at Edwards. JTM On Mar 27, 6:37 pm, "Mika Takala" <mika.tak...@INVALIDpp.nic.fi.invalid> wrote: > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Mika Takala I'm placing credibility on this STS-114 landing photo by Chris Carlson from AP: <http://tinyurl.com/yryvap> That eliminates the STS-114 night landing from consideration, as you thought. Based on NASA-history records, the up_apuex.mpeg must be IR video from one of the following 13 day landings at Edwards (as you also thought): STS-53, 55, 58, 59, 64, 66, 67, 68, 76, 92, 98, 100, or 111. Why would someone have substituted one of those for STS-9, on a web page honoring John Young? JTM On Mar 30, 6:48 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 6:37 pm, "Mika Takala" > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Why would someone have substituted one of those for STS-9, on a web > page honoring John Young? It is John Young's own page. He just wanted to hype up his story. On Mar 30, 8:14 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Mar 30, 6:48 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It is John Young's own page. He just wanted to hype up his story. Sadly for this forum, you're a chronic liar. It's MSN's page for STS-9. John Young has neither the time nor the need for hype. The substituted IR video plainly shows an externaol APU fire. On STS-9, TV monitors observed smoke coming from an OMS pod. There's a big difference "Charlie," and you know it. JTM On Mar 31, 8:03 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > On Mar 30, 8:14 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Sadly for this forum, you're a chronic liar. It's MSN's page for > STS-9. Chronic liar? You are the definition of it. your posts here and your websites are filled with lies > John Young has neither the time nor the need for hype. The substituted > IR video plainly shows an externaol APU fire. On STS-9, TV monitors > observed smoke coming from an OMS pod. There's a big difference > "Charlie," and you know it. > > JTM Idiot http://www.johnwyoung.org/sts9/sts9pg6.htm This is John Young's own website with said video On Mar 31, 9:33 am, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Mar 31, 8:03 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - "There you go again!" Read the fine print at the bottom of the page: "This site is for informational and educational purposes only. It is NOT sanctioned by John Young, NASA, or Navarro College." Notice also that the caption for this site's link to the undesignated up_apuex.mpeg video is not dishonest (unlike the one *I* referred to at MSN): "Video clip of a shuttle landing with hydrazine fire" Get your act together, Charlie! Get off my back! You come up with a *different* website, one that *still* is not John Young's, and you expect people to believe the random false assertions you make here? Give us a break!!! JTM On Mar 27, 2:10 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > > I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or night, > > before... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > JTM I'm sorry for any STS-9 confusion caused in my above reference to the night landing misrepresented by the link at groups.msn.com. Also, I was unable to locate any photos of the STS-9 day landing in my old Av Week clips. However, in An Illustrated History of Space Shuttle by Melvyn Smith, Chapter 7, STS-9, page 294, we find: "As Columbia rolled to a halt after a flight of 10 days, 7 hours, 47 minutes, TV monitors showed smoke pouring from one of her OMS pods. Investigations soon after revealed that two of her three APUs had leaked hydrazine fuel shortly before touchdown. This highly volatile fuel had ignited wiring and surrounding equipment. The area around two of the APUs was badly charred. Had the fire occurred during re-entry, and the third APU suffered similarly, with no power to control her flaps and air-brakes, Columbia would certainly have crashed; all as a result of the failure of two rubber 'O'-rings in the hydrazine fuel lines which perished, causing the fuel to leak and catch fire around the hot APUs. ... In future technicians would check the conditions of the APU's 'O'-rings after each flight." JTM > I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or night, > before... I have. It's happened at a number of EDW landings. Mary "'That's not a fire' is the first thing we'd say" SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. reunite.gondwana@gmail.com or miliff@qnet.com Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/ On Apr 4, 12:44 am, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" <reunite.gondw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or night, > > before... > > I have. It's happened at a number of EDW landings. > > Mary "'That's not a fire' is the first thing we'd say" When did you say that, when you saw it on IR video, when you saw it on color video during a night landing, or when you saw it up close and personal? If it was one of the first two, got a link? > -- > Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer > We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. > reunite.gondw...@gmail.com or mil...@qnet.com > Visit my blog athttp://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/ On Apr 4, 12:44 am, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" <reunite.gondw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or night, > > before... > > I have. It's happened at a number of EDW landings. Let me get this straight. You saw "flames." > "'That's not a fire' is the first thing we'd say" Yet you always immediately denied having seen a "fire?" JTM > I've never seen flames coming out the back of the shuttle, day or night, > before... You and a million other people. That is why it was pointed out that is is normal. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.