Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Encryption Security Space Science

Testing Quantum Behavior — From Earth to the ISS 196

Posted by timothy
from the houston-will-you-have-heard-me dept.
KentuckyFC writes "Einstein famously believed that the instantaeous effect of quantum entanglement would allow 'spooky action-at-a-distance' in violation of special relativity. Every test of entanglement on Earth has so far agreed with quantum mechanics but naysayers continue to point out various loopholes that might allow the results of these experiments to be determined in advance rather than instantaneously as QM suggests. Today, an international team of scientists is proposing the mother of all entanglement experiments, to be performed in space. The plan is to send entangled photons between an observer on the ground and one on the International Space Station. By the peculiarities of special relativity, the high relative velocity between the observers means that both will always be able to claim to have carried out their measurement first, thereby ruling out the naysayers' arguments (abstract). The experiment, called Space-QUEST, would be housed aboard Europe's Columbus module and would give the much-derided ISS a stab at doing some decent science for a change."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Testing Quantum Behavior — From Earth to the ISS

Comments Filter:
  • Post (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stooshie (993666) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:45AM (#23724761) Journal
    I posted this next week and it's still the first post.
    • Re:Post (Score:5, Funny)

      by rugatero (1292060) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:49AM (#23724825)
      No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
    • Re:Post (Score:5, Funny)

      by kclittle (625128) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @10:09AM (#23725219)
      Frist posts like this are just sooooo tomorrow, don't you think?
    • by YA_Python_dev (885173) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @10:18AM (#23725375) Journal
      Coverage of science news on slashdot is very often crappy, but we see the worst when it comes to space news.

      would give the much-derided ISS a stab at doing some decent science for a change.
      "For a change"?!?! Where the hell are you getting your informations about the science done on the ISS? On Fox News? There is *a lot* of science done on the ISS: literally hundreds of small, medium and big experiments have already been completed and the rate is increasing now with the European and Japanese labs on board and will increase even more starting next year with crews of six people.

      Sure it would be nice to do even more, and sure the costs are high (in part due to the STS, a nice but incredibly inefficient LV), but all this group-thinking about the "white elephant" ISS is akin to saying that kernel programming is easy. It's stupid, flat wrong and insulting for the people that get a lot of good work and science done.

      • by robert899 (769631)

        would give the much-derided ISS a stab at doing some decent science for a change.
        "For a change"?!?! Where the hell are you getting your informations about the science done on the ISS? On Fox News?
        Where the hell are you getting your information about science reporting on Fox News? The Daily Kos?

        Fox reports science news just as well as other MSM outlets.

        • by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @11:57AM (#23727605)

          Fox reports science news just as well as other TV outlets.

          Forgive my modification to your quote, but I think that print offers better coverage of science issues. And while Fox News may report science news as well as CNN does, an astrologer reports as much science as either one of them as well. Fox News is crap. If other TV channels are also crap, well, good job my friend, you're still watching crap.

      • by cybrpnk2 (579066) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @11:22AM (#23726689) Homepage
        Oh, dude, you've gotten me started. I worked on Space Station in the early 1990s and still haven't recovered from the bad taste that experience has left in my mouth. Political boondoggle white elephant doesn't even begin to cover what a stupid mess the ISS is. The only thing worse than setting it up in its shuttle-payload-upmass-hostile 57 degree inclined orbit to allow Russian participation is totally cutting off Shuttle participation in 2010. ISS was DESIGNED for Shuttle resupply during its lifetime and that resupply was first strangled and then totally cut off. Soyuz and Orion taking astronauts to this thing is a joke, and doing resupply by Jules Verne is a criminal waste. The dirty little secret about ISS is that at full mass and max solar array deployment upon completion, this thing is going to deorbit even faster from atmospheric drag than it is now and no way can Progress or Jules Verne is keep the completed assembly reboosted - only the Shuttle could. Do your homework about how far that thing fell during the years following Columbia when no shuttle visited [spaceref.com], and that's without the full solar arrays. Once the Shuttle stops going, ISS is heading straight for the Pacific even if it takes a few years to deorbit and get there. And secretly if not in public, NASA will breathe a sigh of relief when it splashes. But I digress. Nobody even knows anymore how much ISS costs anymore because of crooked accounting hiding the drawing of funds from everywhere within NASA, but nobody argues it's at least $100 billion dollars. I cannot prove an absence of good science. Instead, YOU tell ME what the top three discoveries on ISS have been. Hell, just tell me one thing we have learned on ISS that we didn't already know. "Bones decalcify in zero G"? This was new info worth $100 billion?
        • by YA_Python_dev (885173) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @11:56AM (#23727569) Journal
          I agree with a few of your points, but:

          The dirty little secret about ISS is that at full mass and max solar array deployment upon completion, this thing is going to deorbit even faster from atmospheric drag than it is now and no way can Progress or Jules Verne is keep the completed assembly reboosted - only the Shuttle could.
          WTF? An ATV can give to the ISS a bigger dV than the Shuttle, especially if you consider all the propellant for the boosters on the Zvezda module that an ATV can bring and the STS doesn't. But I agree that the downmass capability of the Shuttle (or something equivalent) would be useful even after 2010.

          Nobody even knows anymore how much ISS costs anymore because of crooked accounting hiding the drawing of funds from everywhere within NASA, but nobody argues it's at least $100 billion dollars.
          This is an often-cited figure, because it's a nice round number, but it's for the whole project from 1990 to 2017 and including all the activities on Earth. IMHO it's money well-spent for 27 of engineering and science (yes, I know, we are just getting started with science, give them the opportunity to demonstrated its value after the station is completed).
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by cybrpnk2 (579066)
            The Jules Verne used the remainder of its unused docking fuel to raise ISS less than 5 km, and that one time kick that cannot be counted on to be there every time. Docking fuel is supposed to be allocated to docking, not reboost, during mission planning. JV also transferred less than a ton of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide to Zevzda. THis is primarily intended for attitude control, not reboost. Even if it wasn't, final completed weight of ISS in 2010 is slated to be 460 tons, so fuel being transferre
            • The Jules Verne used the remainder of its unused docking fuel to raise ISS less than 5 km, and that one time kick that cannot be counted on to be there every time.

              It's not a "one time kick", it's simply the first of four scheduled re-boost manoeuvres (yes, all four of them will be performed by JV). And it was deliberately small to keep the ISS low enough to be easily reached by the orbiter with Kibo.

              It's not "unused docking fuel", the ATV was designed to perform big reboosts for the ISS.

              • Keep it up guys. This is the best debate I've seen in ages!

                W

              • by cybrpnk2 (579066) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @03:36PM (#23733121) Homepage
                For reference, here's some pretty good Wiki articles on ISS [wikipedia.org] and JV [wikipedia.org].

                The facts [sciencedaily.com]: "On this first ATV mission, Jules Verne will deliver 4.6 tonnes of payload to the ISS, including 1 150 kg of dry cargo, 856 kg of propellant for the Russian Zvezda module, 270 kg of drinking water and 21 kg of oxygen. On future ATV missions, the payload capacity will be increased to 7.4 tonnes.

                About half of the payload onboard Jules Verne ATV is re-boost propellant, which will be used by its own propulsion system for periodic manoeuvres to increase the altitude of the ISS in order to compensate its natural decay caused by atmospheric drag."

                Also [itwire.com]: On April 25, 2008, the European Space Agency announced that earlier in the day its first automated transfer vehicle (ATV), the "Jules Verne," increased the altitude of the International Space Station by about 2.8 miles (4.5 kilometers)--the first time an ESA craft had performed such an important task. The 12.3 minute maneuver was directed by ESA's ATV Control Center, which is located in Toulouse, France.

                At 6:22 a.m. Central European Summer Time (CEST) (0422 GMT), controllers turned on two of the Jules Verne's four main engines. The two engines produced a thrust that increased the station's speed by about 8 feet per second (2.65 meters per second).

                To achieve this re-boost in altitude, the ATV consumed 537 pounds (244 kilograms) of fuel. In all, the ATV carries about two metric tons (about 4,400 pounds) of propellant for re-boost activities.

                After the burn was completed, the new altitude of the ISS became 212.5 miles (342 kilometers) above the Earth's surface.

                The Space Station needs periodic boosts to raise its orbit because its orbit decays slowly over time due to a very small amount of atmospheric drag on the large structure as it orbits about the Earth.

                In the past, the RSA Progress, the NASA Space Shuttle, or the ISS itself has performed such a maneuver. However, only RSA Progress and the ESA ATV are able to re-boost the space station to such a high level due to the amount of fuel onboard each vessel.

                The Jules Verne ATV (ATV-001) will perform three additional re-boost maneuvers over the next few months: on June 12th, July 8th, and August 6th. Normally, the space station tries to keep at an orbital height of about 211 miles (340 kilometers) above the Earth's surface.

                Later in August 2008, the Jules Verne, loaded with waste and unneeded materials from the space station, will be undocked from the ISS. The ATV has a capacity of carrying up to 6.3 metric tons (13,900 pounds) of unwanted material from the Station."

                So what most people don't realize is that JV carries a LOT more (dense, low-volume) as mass as fuel for reboost than it does anything else in that cool pressurized comparment it has the astronauts go in. I understand that the JV maneuvers were held off to allow Shuttle attachment of KiBo at the lower and easy to reach altitude. But my point is that things are only going to get worse and will ultimately I think go beyond what JV is designed or funded to do to keep ISS up.

                JV is an experiment in European autonomous docking technology, not an integrated reboost system. I have yet to see any plans for how many JVs will be flown in the long run - currently there are only 4 more in the pipeline thru 2015. The numbers above represent the data required to figure out just how many JVs will be required to keep ISS up for X number of years. I predict that when that calculation is finally run - and when NASA explains to ESA that there will be zero American funding to keep the JV production line running - that ESA will say, OK, we ain't payin no Euros to keep this junkheap up either, which side of Hawaii do you want us to splash the ISS in?

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by FleaPlus (6935)
                  Mostly-naive question: What are your thoughts on the reboost potential of the SpaceX Dragon (assuming they get it up and running)?

                  Also, what ever happened to the possibility of using solar-powered electrodynamic tethers to reboost the ISS?
        • by CptPicard (680154)

          The only thing worse than setting it up in its shuttle-payload-upmass-hostile 57 degree inclined orbit to allow Russian participation is totally cutting off Shuttle participation in 2010.

          So you're saying that it should have been a US-only project, only flyable to by the Shuttle and that it's a waste of money? Sounds to me like such a project is better of handled in a co-operative fashion, sharing costs...

          • by cybrpnk2 (579066)
            No, I'm saying that IF cooperating with the Russians had ORIGINALLY been a goal of the program, that ISS would have a COMPELTELY different design and location than what is up there now. People just see photos of floating astronauts on TV and say, oh, what a cool space station. The reality is quite different.

            The NASA Freedom / Alpha space station program in the late 1980s and early 1990s was well on its way to complete cancellation due to horrendous cost overruns and total program mismanagement and in-fi

        • by iamlucky13 (795185) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @05:05PM (#23735673)

          The parent post is overrated. It's not entirely correct and it's not very coherent.

          I worked on Space Station in the early 1990s and still haven't recovered from the bad taste that experience has left in my mouth.

          That is before any of the hardware had been launched. But it's unsurprising that the OP could be dissatisfied with the experience. Aside from being a government program and all the cliches that entails, the ISS has gone through many redesigns, and the effort of cooperating internationally has been an added source of delay and cost. He's not alone in such criticisms and the ponderous nature of government programs is one of NASA's biggest problems.

          ISS was DESIGNED for Shuttle resupply during its lifetime and that resupply was first strangled and then totally cut off. Soyuz and Orion taking astronauts to this thing is a joke, and doing resupply by Jules Verne is a criminal waste.

          The shuttle is a much more expensive spacecraft to operate than the ATV. The shuttle's advantages are it's manned, it is a versatile work platform, and it can carry cargo back to earth. It's overkill for basic resupply. Although Jules Verne didn't because there was a large amount of pressurized cargo on board, the ATV can carry up to 4.7 tonnes of spare propellant...much more than either the shuttle or Progress. There may also be a commercial option available for re-supply and reboost in the next 3-4 years through the COTS program.

          There is absolutely nothing wrong with Soyuz or Orion performing crew rotation. Both of these craft have lower operating costs than the shuttle, and lower projected loss of crew probability.

          The dirty little secret about ISS is that at full mass and max solar array deployment upon completion, this thing is going to deorbit even faster from atmospheric drag than it is now and no way can Progress or Jules Verne is keep the completed assembly reboosted - only the Shuttle could.

          Total BS. The international partners are well aware of how much reboost the ISS needs and are planning accordingly. There is no secret. Progress, ATV, or the shuttle alone can't do all of the reboost, but combined they can. Also, once construction is finished, the ISS will be boosted to a slightly higher orbit to reduce the effect of drag. Lastly, the ISS is at nearly maximum drag, with only one more solar array to be added, but still growing in mass. Added mass works out net neutral. The momentum reduces the effect of drag just as well as it reduces the effectiveness of reboosts.

          And secretly if not in public, NASA will breathe a sigh of relief when it splashes.

          This statement, at least, is based mostly in fact. ISS is somewhat contentious at NASA, but it has its supporters and detractors. There will be quite a few glad not to have to divert resources to it, and plenty others frustrated by the loss of a unique laboratory environment and work platform. I doubt hardly anyone there would argue that it's completely without value, but many feel the money would be better spent elsewhere.

          Nobody even knows anymore how much ISS costs anymore because of crooked accounting hiding the drawing of funds from everywhere within NASA, but nobody argues it's at least $100 billion dollars.

          The contention of crooked accounting is unsubstantiated. If there's crooked accounting it goes on at lower levels, but the OP has provided no evidence of it. NASA funds are accounted for at the higher levels in the annual budget allocations. The problem with accounting for exact costs is that ISS draws on programs that have their own independent budgets. How much of the cost of the shuttle return-to-flight program should count towards the ISS, for example? More on cost here. [wikipedia.org]

          Hell, just tell me one thing we have learned on ISS th

      • by Falkkin (97268)
        If you want good coverage of space/astronomy news, I recommend the Bad Astronomy Blog:

        http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/ [badastronomy.com]

        Speaking of which, Phil Plait (the "Bad Astronomer") is also no fan of the ISS. From his article on this same experiment:

        "So some European scientists came up with the idea of using the International Space Station (I know! Using ISS for science! Wow!) to test this out."
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by gregbot9000 (1293772)
        Why do they need to put it on the ISS any way? Isn't there another side to the planet that we could work on? Or is it just easier to go to space than try and do science in China?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        ISS is estimated to cost $158 billion by 2017 (according to wikipedia, the source of all knowledge; I assume the US isn't paying for all of it). Current cost of the war in Iraq is over $500 billion (US is paying for all of that). Each person can decide for himself/herself which is the bigger waste of money, but the chances of something positive coming from the ISS is considerably greater in my opinion.
      • by khallow (566160) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @12:33PM (#23728485)

        I agree with the accusation that the ISS is a white elephant. Your claim of "hundreds" of experiments is padded by a considerable number of low value experiments such as archiving (in addition to the regular sampling if I read the list correctly) fluid and tissue samples from the crew of each expedition (there have been 17 returned expeditions so far, hence, 17 "experiments"). Let's put this in perspective. By the time the ISS has run through 2016, it'll have consumed around $150-160 billion between NASA and the other participants. This includes a decade or so of the Space Shuttle which we could have phased out in 2000 or earlier, if it wasn't for the ISS. Even after completion, it'll cost almost $2 billion dollars a year to maintain.

        In comparison. including launch costs the MIR station cost a few billion and the first serious NASA proposal in the mid-80's was around $12 billion in today's dollars, including launches. If NASA had gone with a scaled down station, it would have been completed years ago and generating a similar quantity of useful science (over its lifetime) for a small fraction of the cost of the ISS. The high maintenance cost means that there's a good chance that it'll be cheaper to splash the ISS and launch a new station, than to leave the ISS up there. Finally, I think it's clear that the primary purpose of the ISS has always been to extend the lifespan of the Shuttle (and deliver public funds to NASA contractors) rather to do anything useful in space. In that, it has been remarkably successful.

        I find it odd that ISS supporters have to resort to the numbers game and other vague arguments (like lauding the value of "international cooperation"). If you can't find 5 or so big reasons that justify the ISS, you're not going to make up the difference with thousands of mediocre ones. What justifies almost $2 billion a year in maintenance and the huge opportunity cost of putting almost a sixth of a trillion dollars into this project? As I see it, we could have done a hell of a lot more in space with that money.

      • literally hundreds of small, medium and big experiments

        So simple division gives me a cost of about $1 billion per experiment give-or-take 50%. That's real value for money!

        Rich.

      • Here's the list (Score:3, Interesting)

        by iamlucky13 (795185)
        For all the naysayers of ISS science, here is the list of past and present experiments for your review:

        ISS Experiments by Expedition [nasa.gov]

        Please note the count of experiments currently stands at 561, and the focus ranges from virology, to fluid mechanics, to relativity, to astronomy, and even engineering validation (not simply of space station components, but also of fully independent technologies). That's nothing to sneeze at.

        And while a fairly large portion of them are relatively minor or PR projects
  • by Thornburg (264444) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:48AM (#23724819)
    Apparently the entangled photon link they were using to host the webpage couldn't hold up under the strain of Slashdot.
  • Derision (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OpenSourced (323149) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @10:02AM (#23725099) Journal
    would give the much-derided ISS a stab at doing some decent science for a change

    That won't necessarily help with the derision, as nobody denies the fact that interesting experiments are possible in space. The main point of contention will still be if you need to keep live persons there continuously to perform them. It'd have to be shown that a satellite or a simple orbiting mission couldn't have performed the same experiments for a fraction of the total costs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by camperdave (969942)
      It'd have to be shown that a satellite or a simple orbiting mission couldn't have performed the same experiments for a fraction of the total costs.

      Well, the real question would be how many experiments do we neeed to do aboard the ISS before it becomes cheaper than sending up mission after mission after mission.
    • Re:Derision (Score:5, Insightful)

      by YA_Python_dev (885173) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @10:42AM (#23725887) Journal
      You surely can save money on the purely scientific part of the ISS by removing the human presence. If you are fine with the possibility of humanity never leaving his cradle.

      But the ISS is not only about science, it's also about engineering and learning how to live for long periods off the world (the MIR was pioneer, but its design and MO would be too dangerous to use beyond Earth's orbit). The next target will be the Moon and then probably Mars, but we had to learn how to walk before we can run.

      • by khallow (566160)

        I don't see it that way. By squandering money on a vastly inefficient toy rather than genuine space development, we've increased the chances that humanity never leaves the cradle. Here's the sort of questions that I think we should ask about any future large-scale NASA project:

        1. Is there a coherent justification for the project? ISS fails here. Your post gives an example. We're burning over $150 billion dollars (through 2016) for somewhere around 100 man-years in space. Assuming it all works out. That's a b
    • Re:Derision (Score:4, Informative)

      by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @10:44AM (#23725943)

      would give the much-derided ISS a stab at doing some decent science for a change

      That won't necessarily help with the derision, as nobody denies the fact that interesting experiments are possible in space. The main point of contention will still be if you need to keep live persons there continuously to perform them. It'd have to be shown that a satellite or a simple orbiting mission couldn't have performed the same experiments for a fraction of the total costs.
      The cost of the ISS program is already ridiculously small, and the #1 thing that gets people interested in space at a young age, and in a lasting way, is the idea of people going into space.

      I think it's like a zoo. Maybe the animals inside are being held in some sort of unfair captivity (I tend to think that in modern zoos most animals are pretty satisfied, but let's not go into that), but the interest and money generated by those animals creates the world's largest resource for saving their wild relatives.

      Even if the ISS is never used in a way that provides more direct scientific knowledge per euro than unmanned missions, I believe it's worth it in the long term.
  • Spooky (Score:5, Informative)

    by mburns (246458) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @10:09AM (#23725227) Homepage Journal
    Remember that Niels Bohr denied that such a test of nonlocality was possible. Einstein had said that this phenomenon was "incredible" in his "EPR" article, thus rejecting his own prediction. And Bohr replied in effect that such things were taboo metaphysics.
    • I am not a physicist, but it seems to me that this experiment could raise some interesting possibilities, multiple ones of which could be simultaneously true. (1) Quantization is much more complex than thought, occurs on multiple levels, relies on several decoherence phenomena, and Schroedinger's equation is a special case of something else. (2) Special relativity is quantized and has its own decoherence, and is also a special case of some larger system. (3) Quantum statistics do rely on hidden variables
  • This will be really neat, but do we need to have people on the space station to do this experiment? It's not like someone going to be observing the photons with his or her eye and agreeing or disagreeing with the an observer on the ground?
  • Robust enough? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Thelasko (1196535) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @10:16AM (#23725357) Journal
    As I understand it, a quantum entangled photon is very fragile. I don't understand how or why it's fragile, but wouldn't that make this extraordinarily difficult to do? The trip to the ISS is pretty bumpy.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by SBacks (1286786)
      Its pretty bumpy for a giant spacecraft pushing itself through the atmosphere. It shouldn't be as bumpy for a single photon.

      Plus, I assume they'll be using hundreds or thousands of photons over the coarse of the experiment, even if 90%+ are affected on the trip there, it will leave plenty of data points undamaged.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Thuktun (221615)

        Plus, I assume they'll be using hundreds or thousands of photons over the coarse of the experiment
        An experiment involving entangled photons is hardly likely to be coarse.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by canavan (14778)
      They aren't going to ship the photons in a Sojuz or the Shuttle (in a highly reflective box?), instead they'll probably be using a laser or similar device to send the entagled photon directly to the ISS. The ride is still bumpy with the atmosphere between the sender and receiver, but it's probably manageable, as demonstarated in this experiment, sending photons over 144km [quantum.at]. They explicitly mention that this proves the feasibility of the ground to ISS experiment.
  • they will need to enlist the help of Roger Wilco.
    • by Stooshie (993666)

      they will need to enlist the help of Roger Wilco

      Actually, I'd prefer it if it was Seargant Bilco

  • Why not put the experiment on a probe traveling further and further away from earth?

    Or perhaps on the moon.

    Or mars.

    This is actually a fairly exciting bit of science.
    • Because we already have people on the ISS, who can perform it. Making a probe to do the test will be expensive. Vs. Having someone up there and send up some stuff on the next trip up. Yes it is still expensive, but we are paying for it anyways vs paying for something new whith a higher chance of failure.
    • Because we only need to send it far enough to know that light couldn't go from one end to the other during the tiny inaccuracy of our clocks.
  • Noooo! (Score:5, Funny)

    by FireIron (838223) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @10:31AM (#23725679)
    Please don't break reality. It's where I keep my stuff.
    • Or so you thought, until.... This quantum observer issue gives a whole new meaning to "keep an eye on your stuff," doesn't it?
    • by treeves (963993)
      It may be that if you keep your stuff in La-La-Land, you'll be much happier.
  • "ISS ... doing some decent science for a change"

    Of what you do not know, you should not speak.

  • By the peculiarities of special relativity, the high relative velocity between the observers means that both will always be able to claim to have carried out their measurement first, thereby ruling out the naysayers' arguments

    Of course, by that same logic, naysayers can always claim that each side carried out its measurement last, negating whatever benefit this "feature" supposedly proves.
  • By the peculiarities of special relativity, the high relative velocity between the observers means that both will always be able to claim to have carried out their measurement first, thereby ruling out the naysayers' arguments.

    What naysayers? Naysayers of what? And what are their arguments?

  • He famously hated the idea of spooky action at a distance, and never accepted QM. He certainly didn't advocate it.
  • I can't wait until they perform the Leather Goddesses experiment on Phobos.

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen

Working...