Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
NASA Moon Space Technology

NASA's Future Inflatable Lunar Base 203

Roland Piquepaille writes "If you think that future NASA's moon camps need to have a science fiction look, you might be disappointed. Today, NASA is testing small inflatable structures. In fact, if these expandable 'tents' receive positive reviews, astronauts will 'camp' on the moon as early as 2020. These 12-foot (3.65 meter) diameter inflatable units could be used as building blocks for a future lunar base. Right now, a prototype is tested at NASA's Langley Research Center. But NASA also wants to test other inflatable structures in the not-too-friendly environment of the Antarctic next year. Still, it's too early to know if NASA's first habitable lunar base will use inflatable or rigid structures."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA's Future Inflatable Lunar Base

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

    by BajaTech ( 985404 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:07PM (#18208136)
    Does it come with an inflatable Astronaut for entertainment on those long cold nights?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by antarctican ( 301636 )
      Both the building and the astronaut's rubber buddy have one big flaw which I'm hoping I'm just missing in all this... micro-meteorites. Are they going to be testing these inflatable structures with pellet guns? Or perhaps more accurately high power riffles?

      It's the same thought I had about the inflatable space hotel story a few months ago... there you have to deal with increasing space junk. Or Chinese anti-satilite weapons.

      Or am I just missing something? I would hope NASA scientists are far smarter tha
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ksalter ( 1009029 )
        IANAE, but I would imagine they would use some type of resealing technology that we already have (should protect agains small punctures). Plus if the bags are in sections, then you could lose one section but not the entire structure.
      • You do not have to fill them "air". Think GROW FOAM.
        • by ArcherB ( 796902 ) *
          You do not have to fill them "air". Think GROW FOAM.

          Uh, isn't foam filled with air? (forgive me if this was a joke that WHOOSHED over my head?)

      • Not flimsy material. (Score:5, Informative)

        by pavon ( 30274 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @01:04PM (#18208928)

        Or am I just missing something? I would hope NASA scientists are far smarter than myself....
        They are.

        These outposts, as well as Bigalow's hotels, have multiple layers, one of which is essentially kevlar, the same stuff that bullet proof vests are made out of. They actually provide much better protection from micro-meteorites and space junk then our current metal structures do.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          They actually provide much better protection from micro-meteorites and space junk then our current metal structures do.

          Crews of the long term missions (15..17) reported that the foam packing material which they left around on the surface started rocketing off into space (well, a couple of hundred metres, anyway) because it outgassed and then exploded.

          The problem with lightweight structures which have gas inside is that they make good rockets, not just because a rock might put a hole in it, but because a p

      • Re:Inflatable (Score:4, Interesting)

        by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @01:05PM (#18208952)
        You can make a fabirc with the same tensile strength as steel. So given unlimited money you can makes a tent with the same protection as a metal tent of more mass. Imagine a kevlar inflatible tent filled with water. You get a place to store you water and a decent radiaction shield. Druability problably isn't too much of an issue. As for micro meterors, your defence against them would problably involde kevlar derivatives anyways.
      • by nmos ( 25822 )
        Are they going to be testing these inflatable structures with pellet guns? Or perhaps more accurately high power riffles?

        I'd expect that even traditional materials like aluminum would be vulnerable to micro-meteorites if made small/thin enough for transport to the moon. Also, for more perminant installations they could build what amounts to a Lunar Igloo out of Moon dust/dirt for protection and just use the inflatable as a sort of bladder to keep the air in.
        • Exactly. Sure, conventional wisdom has metal walls being tougher than fabric, but that's because we have the luxury of using thicknesses ranging from about a quarter of an inch to yards in the case of warships.

          Meanwhile about the only experience your average person has with flexible wall construction are tents. It might seem wierd, but by the weight and thickness your average tent is tougher than a metal one would be.

          For an experiment, take your average soda can. It's little thinner than tent fabric. No
      • These things are going to be buried under several feet of lunar soil in order to provide radiation protection. That will certainly protect them from micro-meteorites.

        Jon Acheson

      • Look at it this way: When a micro-meteorite hits a solid structure, it's likely to cause a lot more damage. It could dent the materials, ricochet off of them, or shatter cold metals.

        With an inflatable structure, the micrometeorite is more likely to pass straight through, creating a small hole that can be easily patched.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        It's the same thought I had about the inflatable space hotel story a few months ago... there you have to deal with increasing space junk. Or Chinese anti-satilite weapons.

        I would think most of the space junk (especially that obliterated by Chinese anti-satellite weapons) would fall to Earth, rather than the moon. You know, more gravity and shit.

        But this is all good news, because the Chinese will have men on the moon soon, too. Which is even better, because then our astronauts can go to the Chinese inf
      • by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) *

        No, you're not missing anything. Rigid structures, after a puncture, can provide a strong, even surface around small punctures against which a patch may be applied, and against which it may adhere, and seal. Inflated structures depend on surface-equalized pressure to keep the surface taut, and once punctured, the structure bulges outwards around the tear; the larger the tear, the less likely it is to provide a good seating surface for the sealant. I'm talking about very tiny tears here; larger tears will d

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Firethorn ( 177587 )
          Rigid structures, after a puncture, can provide a strong, even surface around small punctures against which a patch may be applied

          Or it can provide a weak, folded, twisted and jagged surface that needs to be trimmed before a patch is applied and welded into place.

          Inflated structures depend on surface-equalized pressure to keep the surface taut, and once punctured, the structure bulges outwards around the tear; the larger the tear, the less likely it is to provide a good seating surface for the sealant.

          Have
    • Are they planning to have the base on the dark side of the moon?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Ummm...there's no "dark side of the moon," Geoff. But the nights are really long, since a lunar "day" or light/dark cycle takes about 28 days.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by amh131 ( 126681 )
          As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
        • Obligatory (Score:3, Informative)

          by StarKruzr ( 74642 )
          Matter of fact, it's all dark.
        • by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )

          Ummm...there's no "dark side of the moon," Geoff.

          When referring to the Moon, the "dark side" is the far side of the Moon, i.e. the face that points away from the Earth (due to its period of orbit being the same as its period of rotation (and its rotational axis being essentially perpendicular to its orbital path)). It isn't "dark" as in "no light"; it's more akin to "the dark ages" except more like "it can't be seen from here" than "there is no recorded history".

          For more practical purposes, it is harder t

    • by moeinvt ( 851793 )
      Well, if you get desperate, you could always breathe them.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )
        Well, if you get desperate, you could always breathe them [inflatable companion].

        I think we all know where the valve is...
             
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Tackhead ( 54550 )
          > > Well, if you get desperate, you could always breathe them [inflatable companion].
          >
          > I think we all know where the valve is...

          Oh, my God. It's Mega Maid. She's gone from suck to blow.

    • Does it come with an inflatable Astronaut for entertainment on those long cold nights?

      And the diapers and pepper spray to go attack its imaginary lover?

  • Bigelow Aerospace (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rycross ( 836649 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:10PM (#18208176)
    I wonder if these structures will be anything like the ones launched by Bigelow Aerospace [bigelowaerospace.com]. Their inflatable space habitat seems to be doing well. [bigelowaerospace.com]
    • NASA developed the idea, Bigelow bought rights to it, and these will be similar. But I suspect that Bigelow is probably working on something similar and will be much bigger.
      • It's a Moontrap! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
        Inflatable tents on the Moon were done in the movie Moontrap [imdb.com] in 1989. It starred Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov, Alfred Bester) and Bruce Campbell (Ashley 'Ash' J. Williams) and was used for a sex scene between Koenig (as Col. Jason Grant) and Leigh Lombardi (Mera) on the Moon.

        Virus [imdb.com] ripped it off 10 years later, sans Moon.

        It's one of many obscure movies I'm wanting to come out on DVD.
        • by khallow ( 566160 )
          And it's ignonimous end is why you don't use thin inflated structures as part of your line of defense against man-killing robot-like thingies.
    • by FleaPlus ( 6935 )
      Coincidentally, last month there was an interview with Robert Bigelow where he discussed his plans for constructing an inflatable station which would be constructed at L1, and then transported to the lunar surface. He also apparently has some plans for how to use the lunar regolith for insulation, which he'll be testing this year. From his current schedule, it's looking like he may very well have his base up and running long before NASA's. Some snippets from the article:

      http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archiv [msn.com]
      • by Rycross ( 836649 )
        Thats really awesome. I'm starting to get excited about the potential of having moon bases in my lifetime.
      • What I find annoying about this is that it's indicative as to how much bureaucracy has crippled NASA that a private entrepreneur with several million dollars can effectivly keep up with it, even bypass it in specific areas.

        Lean and mean NASA no longer is.
  • Seeing as how sharp and abrasive lunar rocks/dust are supposed to be, putting up an inflatable habitat there that potentially might be punctured sounds like a really bad idea.
    • by Da Fokka ( 94074 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:21PM (#18208332) Homepage
      Good thinking, you should call NASA. They probably haven't thought about that yet.
    • Re:Got Fix-a-flat? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rycross ( 836649 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:23PM (#18208366)
      I don't know exactly what NASA's design is, but the habitats created by Bigelow use a very strong material for the walls, and they create a thick multi-layered system [bigelowaerospace.com] to mitigate the effects of punctures.
      • I'm sure they will use something strong for it. But lunar soil is supposed to be so sharp/abrasive as well as clingy due to charge and the size of the powder that it presents a formidable problem. Especially if they are planning on burying some of the inflatable structures as the article seems to indicate. I wish they would give more details on how they are simulating the super abrasive rocks/dust during testing.
        • by khallow ( 566160 )
          Are you claiming that stuff will get severely abraded just from sitting in lunar regolith? I doubt it otherwise the dust itself would have been abraded to something less problematic.
          • Have you ever worked or played with an inflatable... anything? Anyone touching the inside walls of the inflatable structure while they move around are likely to cause slight shifts in the outside of the inflatable walls, which means shifting against the regolith they are talking about possibly burying it in. Since there is no air and low gravity, there is a good likelihood that dust/rocks will be kicked up by folks simply walking around (or driving a moon buggy) outside of a surface structure, which could
  • Can't you just imagine the newspaper inserts?

    Jump into spring moon fashion!
    We've got the modular living quarters you're looking for at the prices that won't make you have to skimp on your Earth communication center!

    Is the US government still buying $600 hammers and $500 toilet seats? When are the Chinese producers going to start competing in the lucrative Mil Spec market?
  • "need to have a science fiction look"? I don't care if they're white warts, Art Deco or Victorian. Build them up there and let us judge whether they look right.
  • by maillemaker ( 924053 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:21PM (#18208330)
    I think it's a cool idea. Maybe after the structures are inflated, and later when appropriate manufacturing facilities are set up, perhaps a moon-soil-based rigid "foam" or "cement" can be sprayed or otherwise applied to the outside of the structures, making them semi-permanent?

    Steve
  • As far as inflatable lunar structures go, they first need to learn how to make concrete out of lunar material and material brought from Earth.

    Basically, you would inflate a mold for the structure and then pour concrete over it. I could see where working with concrete or a concrete like substance would be difficult in low G and lunar tempatures, but I believe they should be looking at doing something along those lines rather just having people live in temporary ballons.

    • by khallow ( 566160 )
      As I understand it, you can make a passable concrete just by mixing lunar regolith (the broken layer of dust and debris over the bedrock) and water. But inflatable structures in a vacuum are extremely strong due to the pressure difference. For example, the ISS gets considerable structural strength from air pressure alone. Finally, note that someone has to live somewhere while building all this stuff. "Temporary" (I bet some of these things will see decades of use) inflatable structures are a great way to do
      • by KokorHekkus ( 986906 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @01:03PM (#18208914)

        ...But inflatable structures in a vacuum are extremely strong due to the pressure difference. For example, the ISS gets considerable structural strength from air pressure alone....
        And they can be made in a way that is better at resisting moonquakes. Bend and flex instead breaking.
        From NASA:

        Between 1972 and 1977, the Apollo seismic network saw twenty-eight of them; a few "registered up to 5.5 on the Richter scale," says Neal. A magnitude 5 quake on Earth is energetic enough to move heavy furniture and crack plaster.
        And somehow it feels like plaster cracking forces is a much bigger problem when you're on the moon...

        See article: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15mar_moon quakes.htm [nasa.gov]
        • I'm sure I'm not the only /.er who's never heard of moonquakes before. Very interesting.
        • by khallow ( 566160 )
          I'm not losing sleep over moonquakes. Remember the network was sensitive enough that it was detecting these quakes anywhere on the Moon. Reading up [geotimes.org], it appears that they detected thousands of small quakes (the 28 quakes are a special high risk category called "shallow moonquakes"). One also has some risk from nearby meteorite impacts. But at a count, it appears that there were seven quakes between 5 and 5.5 magnitude over a five year period. That's extremely low frequency compared to Earth, but each quake p
          • Fair enough. But as I implied a magnitude 5 quake is a likely a much bigger problem if you're on the moon since your life pretty much depends on the structural integrity of your habitat. Depending on acceptable and calculated risklevels maybe these kind of structures should be used as a safety precaution even if other types of structures are built.

            Which brings the interesting question of what is an acceptable risklevel? I don't know but I played with some numbers in my head... let's say, for arguments sa
    • Doing work with concrete in a 1/6 g is probably not to different than working here. And the temps in the sun would not be an issue. The problem is the ingrediants; namely water. Most likely we would have to bring it from earth. Damned expensive. Instead, digging is probably what we will do. In addition, IIRC there is metal on the surface. Could use that to make iron carbonate which is liquid until heated and "degassed". That would allow us to dig a hole, and then place iron on the walls. The other choice is
      • by ag0ny ( 59629 )

        And the temps in the sun would not be an issue.
        I think the temperature in the Sun would be much more of an issue than you think... ;)
  • Moonbounce (Score:5, Funny)

    by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:24PM (#18208370) Homepage
    So its going to be a "moonbounce" only it'll actually be on the moon?
  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:30PM (#18208462) Journal
    That's one small step for
    Shplplplplplplplplpl...
    ah shit!
  • Bastards! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Schraegstrichpunkt ( 931443 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:39PM (#18208566) Homepage

    In fact, if these expandable 'tents' receive positive reviews, astronauts will 'camp' on the moon as early as 2020.

    Frickin campers!

  • I dunno where you guys live that those pill-shaped buildings aren't futuristic-looking. NASA should put up a huge one, and grow tons of food in it for the future colonists. Corn is probably the most pressing need, the rest of what we need could likely be engineered from corn oil, etc. First you have to have the facility to get a zillion tons of corn onto the moon... it's easier to grow it then to ship it.
  • by BeProf ( 597697 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @01:01PM (#18208890)
    Hey, Bob, toss me that putty knife.

    Oh crap...
  • First, I thought "What about meteorites?!?" ... then I RTFA.

    So I found out that they're planning to cover the inflatables with lunar "regolith" (sandy soil stuff). Then I remembered... that stuff is supposed to be pretty nasty. Without erosion like we have on earth, broken up rock keeps all its sharp points and edges all the way down to the microscopic scale.

    • But without the forces that caused the erosion on the earth, the stuff isn't going to be moving much from where you piled it up. Mostly you'll be worrying about high-traffic areas and equipment that's moving around, IE air-locks, space suits and such. The buried dome won't be getting too scratched up because the stuff, once settled, isn't moving.
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @01:09PM (#18208996) Homepage

    NASA is in the awful position of trying to pretend that Bush's lunar program is real. Congress isn't going to appropriate the money. Smart people aren't going to come to work on the program. The date is always a decade or two off. It's vaporware. So they futz around with stuff like this, lacking the money or capability to develop a new launch vehicle.

    NASA barely has a manned launch capability. The Shuttles will be retired in three years, and the "Crew Exploration Vehicle" program is vaporware. The General Accounting Office was very critical of the program in 2006 [gao.gov]: NASA has attempted several expensive endeavors such as the National Aero-Space Plane, the X-33 and X-34, and the Space Launch Initiative, among others. While these endeavors have helped to advance scientific and technical knowledge, none have completed their objective of fielding a new reusable space vehicle. We estimate that these unsuccessful development efforts have cost approximately $4.8 billion since the 1980s." The original schedule called for contract award for the CEV in 2006 after the preliminary design review, but although a contract has been awarded, the PDR has been pushed back to 2008.

    Originally, the CRV was supposed to fly in 2014. Unlikely at this point.

    It's sad to note that the Big Gemini [astronautix.com] spacecraft, proposed in 1967 and mocked up by McDonnell Douglas, was intended to take 9 people to a space station in low orbit. If that had been built, reusing the Gemini technology (which was quite good), the US would have had a low-end crew vehicle. So NASA is now trying to replicate 1967 technology. But with the second team; who goes to work for NASA today?

    Realistically, the US manned space effort ends in 2010.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Oh for crying out loud! The accountants are whinging about 4.8 billion over twenty or more years?!

      Have they LOOKED at the US budget? In 2006, 406 billion went to interest payments alone for the debt. And they're griping at a price that is 1/200th of that per annum. Absolutely unfuckingbelievable.

      It's this kind of funding that is the reason NASA can barely ever get anything done. We give them a pittance and then complain when they can't build freaking spaceships with it, which gives us an excuse to cut
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dozer ( 30790 )
      "unsuccessful development efforts have cost approximately $4.8 billion since the 1980s."

      Yeah? Unsuccessful nation building efforts have cost the U.S. approximately $500 billion since 2003. If congress really wants to conserve money I think they know where to look.
    • Because that is a far better question. People here and elsewhere take it about as seriously as their voting, which means not very much.

      Look, I don't care who is the President as the result is the same. NASA gets the short end of the stick because Congress cannot buy votes with it. Making a moonbase, increasing our scientific knowledge, or working with others around the world, DOES NOT BUY VOTES.

      thats the real problem. A new local library buys votes, a funding program for cow farts at your local universi
  • Radiation? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 )
    I didn't see anyone mention radiation. It is estimated it would take about 4 feet of soil to give sufficient longer-term protection from space radiation. This is not practical with inflatable structures. If you are going to put 4 feet of soil on top of them, you might as well build a "solid" structure to begin with. Alternative techniques such as magnetic fields have yet to prove practical: they take way too much power.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Firethorn ( 177587 )
      This is not practical with inflatable structures.

      Why wouldn't it be? This isn't earth.

      First, the gravity is one sixth that of earth. So 4 feet of soil would weigh equivalent to 8" on earth.

      Second, we're going to be inflating them to fairly heavily compared to earth structures. There might still be less air in them than an inflatable on earth, but there'll be a larger difference between internal pressure and the zero pressure outside. That means that the structure would end up being VERY stiff comparati
  • Why NASA? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jmichaelg ( 148257 ) on Friday March 02, 2007 @01:25PM (#18209224) Journal
    NASA is going to try to make going to the moon as risk free as possible. This habitat is an example of risk aversion. Caves, though riskier, offer several advantages. They're bigger, they offer better solar storm protection. The downside is finding them and then sealing them. So instead, NASA is choosing to take a little cubicle up that has a higher probability of providing some protection for very few people. What's worse is that as soon as somebody dies there'll be tremendous pressure to shut it down which will encourage NASA to be even more risk averse.

    Going to the Moon is risky and is going to require a variety of strategies to succeed and people are going to die. 150 years ago, folks who wanted to come west tried whatever way made sense to them to get out here. Lots of folks died trying to get here but more folks survived and prospered. Had NASA run the western expansion, we'd all still be in New York.

    Instead, the billions of dollars NASA will waste would be better spent setting up prizes to get people to risk their necks to get to the moon. The X-Prize showed that you get more people spending more money than the prize value to win the prize. You don't even have to make it all money. Heck Pennsylvania was a land grant that paid off a royal debt. Give people who can settle and produce something on the moon property rights to the land and whatever they produce and we'll see a resurgence of pioneers willing to try it.

    Since people can't walk to the moon like some walked to the West, NASA could say "we'll pay $20,000,000 for each settler you safely deliver to the Moon's surface. We'll pay $500,000 for each ton of provisions." and you'd see a wealth of companies spring up to ship people to the moon. If the prices are wrong, NASA could adjust as needed. Instead of 4 or 5 inhabitants for $100 Billion, you'd see 1000's.

    You'll see lots of people die just like they have before but you'll see survivors as well. Those are the people who should populate the moon, not government employees.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mdielmann ( 514750 )

      Had NASA run the western expansion, we'd all still be in New York.
      Nonsense. New York would have extended to the Mississippi, one block at a time, at which time they would have invested in making houses that could rest on the water as an independent community and be able to withstand any weather that had occurred there in the last 200 years. Because bridges are just too risky.
    • NASA is going to try to make going to the moon as risk free as possible. This habitat is an example of risk aversion. Caves, though riskier, offer several advantages. They're bigger, they offer better solar storm protection. The downside is finding them and then sealing them.

      Actually - the downside is that we don't know where any caves on the moon are, or even if they exist in the first place. NASA would be extremely foolish to base any planning on using places not known to exist, and if they do exist - w

      • by delong ( 125205 )
        Niether NASA nor the US goverment can give anyone land on the Moon - as the Moon, like Antartica, is protected by international treaty

        A treaty which hardly anybody signed, and no space power signed, and never went into effect. In other words, it is not law and useless.

        The United States can give anybody land on the Moon. The US could give me the Andromeda Galaxy. The important factor is whether those property rights can be enforced. Since the US is the only nation on Earth even close to having the techni
  • I dunno, sounds pretty stupid to me. NASA dudes: there are tiny meteors that strike every part of the moon constantly, completely unimpeded by any trace of atmosphere. A meteor a fraction of the size of a grain of sand would puncture this thing like tissue paper. One the size of a pea would do quite a job.
    • First, your topic. Earth to idiots. Guess what? This story is about leaving Earth. Meaning they're still here. Second, people much, much smarter than you are are working on this project (obviously) and they are probably aware that there are pebbles flying through space. Bigelow is working on inflatable habitats for orbit; on top of that they're going to be on the moon, so they could just bury the structures and solve the problem entirely. Please don't post again until you find a brain. kthx.
    • by koreth ( 409849 )
      Huh, I bet NASA had never heard of micrometeoroids before. Good thing you warned them.
  • NASA has been studying inflatables for moonbases or temporary shelters since the Apollo era, although the design then had the tube horizontal rather than vertical (which seems to make more sense to me).

    The largely forgettable 1989 movie "Moontrap" featured an inflatable shelter, which gives astronaut Walter Koenig a chance to get the moon-babe's (Leigh Lombardi) clothes off.
  • Obviously, the ideal shape for any space-bound inflatable structure is a sphere.

    I think we all know what this means.

    http://www.geocities.com/yank2010/SBCITY2.JPG [geocities.com]

    Oh shit, there goes the planet.
  • Wonder if the male gigelow, Bigelow, had anything to do with this. He claimed the inflatable material could withstand more micrometeoroid hits than space station materials but never said what impact it could withstand from inside.
  • Woohoo! (Score:2, Funny)

    by nih ( 411096 )
    Bouncy Castle!
  • Wait... wasn't this in Revenge of the Nerds? (Do you want to do it on the moon?)
  • ... that you take proper care of your fingernails [sluggy.com] before handling inflatable moon bases.

Mathematicians practice absolute freedom. -- Henry Adams

Working...