NASA Supports SpaceX Plan To Fuel Rockets With Astronauts On Board (engadget.com) 165
For years, NASA has been debating whether to allow SpaceX to fuel its spacecraft with super-cold propellant after astronauts have boarded. While the company typically fuels its rockets shortly before launch in order to prevent the coolant from warming up too much, the practice has been deemed "a potential safety risk" by NASA safety advisers due to the high risk of an explosion. Now, according to Engadget, NASA has "decided that it will move forward with the SpaceX plan to fuel rockets after astronauts have already boarded." From the report:
"To make this decision, our teams conducted an extensive review of the SpaceX ground operations, launch vehicle design, escape systems and operational history," Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, said in a statement. "Safety for our personnel was the driver for this analysis, and the team's assessment was that this plan presents the least risk." SpaceX will have to prove its system is safe, however. The company will have to demonstrate the fueling procedure five times prior to its first crewed flight and afterwards, NASA will assess any remaining risk before certifying SpaceX's system. In September 2016, a Falcon 9 rocket exploded on the launchpad while it was being loaded with propellant. No injuries were reported, but it didn't look good to NASA which was already reviewing the fueling procedure.
The master becomes the student (Score:3)
according to Engadget, NASA has "decided that it will move forward with the SpaceX plan to fuel rockets after astronauts have already boarded.
And maybe NASA will learn a thing or two about how to conduct a space-launch operation, as well.
Re: The master becomes the student (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Does the word "Challenger" ring a bell?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The point is, before the launch NASA was warned of possibility of 'O' ring failure due to the extremely cold weather. NASA chose to ignore the warnings an launch anyway. The whole Challenger accident could have been avoided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but that has what to do with SX's loading then filling, and teaching NASA?
Re: (Score:2)
"a potential safety risk" (Score:2, Informative)
Feynman had some choice things to say about NASA's grasp of "potential safety risks". I hear they haven't materially improved since.
Re: (Score:1)
The Shuttle would in no way pass the safety requirements being met by Boeing and SpaceX. The Shuttle was unsafe by design. Neither would the SLS, which will not have to abide the requirement for a number of successful unmanned flights before flying with crew.
NASA is giving ITSELF a pass on things it is requiring of the private launch companies. Of course it is a good idea to do those things.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand of the whole certification process, in order to be approved you can either do a whole bunch of component testing and paperwork, or you can fly your rocket a number of times.
SLS is going the component testing/paperwork route, SpaceX is reducing the paperwork and flying their rockets.
What it does highlight is the flexibility in the process. The old-school space crowd can still do it their way with the paperwork and the new guys can just go fly rockets and in the end you can get two diff
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand of the whole certification process, in order to be approved you can either do a whole bunch of component testing and paperwork, or you can fly your rocket a number of times.
SLS is going the component testing/paperwork route, SpaceX is reducing the paperwork and flying their rockets.
What it does highlight is the flexibility in the process. The old-school space crowd can still do it their way with the paperwork and the new guys can just go fly rockets and in the end you can get two different and probably-safe rockets out of it.
NASA is not allowing SpaceX to achieve certification by just flying their rockets. Because they are reusable, NASA is also requiring teardown and analysis which is where the requirement to improve their turbopump design came from. When the same problem with cracked turbine blades was found in the shuttle main engines, NASA changed the failure requirements to allow them.
Whoa. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Whoa. (Score:1)
Everything is a fuel with a suffiently strong oxidiser.
Re: (Score:1)
Everything is "a fuel", but not everything is "a rocket fuel".
Some things are just disaster fuels, and the race to the bottom called "cost cutting at all costs" is among the most disastrous of the bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Rocket fuel is usually just kerosene or methane - they have a pretty decent energy density, but not really that much greater than fat, though a couple times greater than sugar or protein.. Now, all the water in those astronauts is going to slow things down a bit, but dry 'em out and powder them first to aid efficient combustion, and they should work just fine.
Disaster fuels are a whole different pithos of problems - you don't care so much about energy density there as you do about instability - TNT and gun
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot hypergolic and flesh dissolving - like with fuming red nitric acid. Then you've got a party!
Re: (Score:2)
When comparison shopping, please remember that Soylent Green is made from all natural ingredients.
There are several problems here (Score:1, Interesting)
First, it's Russian Roulette, due to the lack of safety culture. (Note: I've worked at NASA.) This means that accidents might not happen the first time, or the twenty first. Each spin that ends up OK will convince others that it's safe, when it's really just lucky. Five successes is like rolling dice five times and not getting a one. It's going to happen. I would want something a little more technical, such as detailed analysis of failure modes, extensive sensory data showing precisely what is happening phy
Re: (Score:1)
Rei
Re:There are several problems here (Score:5, Informative)
> Third, I don't see the added value. The refrigeration doesn't have to be internal (so you don't need the extra weight on board and can avoid ice buildup).
SpaceX uses densified propellant. Meaning, it's loaded at a temperature significantly below boiling point, which means simply replentishing what boils off doesn't work, as at that point it's already too warm to be useful.
That's why SpaceX needs to abort if the rocket spends too long sitting on the pad. The only solution if the propellant warms up too much is to drain all the fuel, and refuel the rocket again.
That's unless you're suggesting they should make some sort of giant cooler that wraps around the entire rocket.
> Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky.
If I recall correctly, given that this was a test, they simply pushed the rocket as far as it would go, and weren't aiming for an exact orbit.
Re: There are several problems here (Score:1)
Heh, rocket koozies. Tesla could sell advertising space.
Re: There are several problems here (Score:1)
"That's unless you're suggesting they should make some sort of giant cooler that wraps around the entire rocket."
Yes. The momo-2 has such a thing built into the launch pad tower. It wraps around the section of the rocket with the fuel tanks and retracts just before launch. If you wanted to, instead of just insulation, it could be a refrigeration unit.
Re: (Score:3)
Judging from Google search results, the Momo-2 seems most notable for exploding at launch.
Re: (Score:2)
> Third, I don't see the added value. The refrigeration doesn't have to be internal (so you don't need the extra weight on board and can avoid ice buildup).
SpaceX uses densified propellant. Meaning, it's loaded at a temperature significantly below boiling point, which means simply replentishing what boils off doesn't work, as at that point it's already too warm to be useful.
That's why SpaceX needs to abort if the rocket spends too long sitting on the pad. The only solution if the propellant warms up too much is to drain all the fuel, and refuel the rocket again.
That's unless you're suggesting they should make some sort of giant cooler that wraps around the entire rocket.
If the tanks can take it, then they could be pumped down while the fuel is loaded to evaporatively lower the temperature of the fuel and oxidizer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is putting astronauts in a capsule equipped with a Launch Escape System while the rocket beneath can't explode yet, makes it actually *safer*.
Re:There are several problems here (Score:4, Insightful)
And don't forget that if you are pre-fueling before crew ingress, you've got all kinds of ground crew crawling around on the tower and such, that's far more people next to a big hazardous device. If you fuel when the astronauts are in the capsule belted in and buttoned up, and everyone else has a chance to GTFO before the fuel pumps turn on, the maximum risk to life would be the flight crew and they have far better chances due to the launch escape system.
Obviously no one wants anyone to die, but in the proposed scenario the only people around would be the astronauts, one with their hand on an abort handle capable of getting them out of there with extreme rapidity with a twist of the wrist. That seems like a better scenario to me.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
out of there with extreme rapidity with a twist of the wrist
And it doesn't even take that much. There is an automatic process which can trigger the LES upon loss of connectivity through a wire that runs the length of the rocket. The moment that wire is broken, the LES can fire, and this can react faster than any human could.
Re: There are several problems here (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Thing is putting astronauts in a capsule equipped with a Launch Escape System while the rocket beneath can't explode yet, makes it actually *safer*.
Yes, thank you. The number of people in this thread (intentionally?) misunderstanding this is rather large.
SpaceX's approach is SAFER for the astronauts. If I were in their shoes, I would want to be in the capsule, buttoned up, with a primed escape system under me, than walking around outside a fuelled OR fuelling rocket.
Re: There are several problems here (Score:4, Interesting)
The 2016 explosion didn't rip the fairing apart. There's the entire service module (trunk) as a buffer between the launcher and the capsule. The engines are on the sloped sides, not beneath the capsule. And in the end, after analyzing the incident, Musk announced "Dragon would have been fine [popularmechanics.com]"
Re:There are several problems here (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, potentially, it could be made safe, but only by raising costs
Money is not the issue. Late fuel loading increases rocket performance.
The refrigeration doesn't have to be internal
What are you talking about ? There's no refrigeration.
Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky.
How is the guidance system software relevant for the fuel loading procedure ? The explosion happened because the designers didn't completely anticipate all the physical interactions between the oxygen and the carbon wrapped pressure vessel. Once you do understand these systems, the software is the easy part.
Re: (Score:1)
>First, it's Russian Roulette, due to the lack of safety culture.
As if NASA has one? They are the ones who launched Challenger outside of safe conditions and they are the ones who ignored the obvious damage to Columbia and let them re enter when they could have easily waited at the ISS for a rescue/repair mission. SpaceX has had what? 2 RUDS their in their entire history? That's a better record than anyone else.
>Second, potentially, it could be made safe, but only by raising costs.
NASA seems to think
Re: (Score:3)
Risks need to be managed or avoided in rocket science.
Gene Kranz has some insights into this, having lived though Apollo as flight director of multiple missions. https://www.reddit.com/r/Space... [reddit.com] Rocket science is a dangerous business, people WILL die. At issue is an analysis of the risks, mitigation strategies for the identified risks and the acceptance of the remaining risks that cannot be controlled.
Where I share your concern with Space-X's process, the question is really for the rocket scientists
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's Russian Roulette, due to the lack of safety culture. (Note: I've worked at NASA.)
Which NASA did you work for?
The NASA that put man on the moon when it was run by Germans / ex-Nazis?
The NASA that then went to hell with the hopeless Shuttle program, once the politicians took over (both inside and outside NASA)
The NASA who's safety "culture" was panned following BOTH the Challenger and Columbia disasters; especially the later which basically proved they'd learned nothing, changed nothing, fixed nothing since killing the Challenger crew through bad design and lousy management.
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's Russian Roulette
Geez, enough with the Russians already!
Five successes is like rolling dice five times and not getting a one. It's going to happen. I would want something a little more technical, such as detailed analysis of failure modes, extensive sensory data showing precisely what is happening physically and electrically, and an ultrasound scan of metal items before and after the series of runs to determine how they're handling the stress.
I assume all that is done and will be done; the thing about trying it out 5 times is that it's 5 more chances to see what was missed in all that.
Re:There are several problems here (Score:4, Insightful)
Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky. They failed to put the car on the intended orbit by a few million miles. Buggy software in a rocket is never good, but said buggy software controls the refuelling systems and we've seen where that goes. All over the landscape. Now, SpaceX and NASA want to do this with people on board.
Nothing to do with guidance or engine control. They just let the second stage engine burn to fuel exhaustion and it burned longer than expected. Except for the aborted ride-along satellite with the one ISS servicing mission because of the single engine failure in the first stage, all their launches have been precisely where the client wanted them. Including the spy sats.
Re: (Score:2)
Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky. They failed to put the car on the intended orbit by a few million miles. Buggy software in a rocket is never good, but said buggy software controls the refuelling systems and we've seen where that goes. All over the landscape. Now, SpaceX and NASA want to do this with people on board.
Nothing to do with guidance or engine control. They just let the second stage engine burn to fuel exhaustion and it burned longer than expected. Except for the aborted ride-along satellite with the one ISS servicing mission because of the single engine failure in the first stage, all their launches have been precisely where the client wanted them. Including the spy sats.
And never mind that the car was successfully launched on the FIRST flight of a new rocket. Oh, having the two boosters land at the same time on a bullseye is some really crappy guidance and engine control, too, let's not forget about that...
Re: (Score:2)
*Life* is Russian roulette - and there's no such thing as a safe *anything*. All safety procedures exist only to lower the risks, not eliminate them.
If SpaceX can get 21 missions before a disaster, that's not actually that bad - NASA only managed 24 before the Challenger exploded, And another 88 before the Columbia followed suite.
Meanwhile, the actual launch statistics, the Falcon 9 has almost half as many missions under it's belt as the Shuttle (60 versus 135) and has had two explosions, on launch 19 whic
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is cheap because it's reusable. Which is another way of saying more durable. Their first stage components are built to last 10+ flights, while other rockets are built to last 1 flight.
What does NASA think about fueling in orbit? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A shaded fueling depot in space seems like the perfect opportunity for naturally super-cooled fuels. The dangers should be less though because the fuel won't warm and expand until made to.
Fueling rockets with astronauts (Score:3)
I like the headline better than the article. (Score:2)
The image it invoked in my head of astronauts either being used as rocket fuel, or some kind of poop based fuel, or something.
I know the actual explanation was more realistic, but the former was more fun.
Deja vous all over again (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry but to be fair, some "private" industry engineers had warned of what might happen prior to the launch but NASA pressured them to give the go ahead anyway, even excluding those "private" industry engineers from the talks regarding the go/no-go decision..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but to be fair, some "private" industry engineers had warned of what might happen prior to the launch but NASA pressured them to give the go ahead anyway, even excluding those "private" industry engineers from the talks regarding the go/no-go decision..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Exactly, not to mention that Shuttles (as marvelous as they were):
- had no escape system whatsoever, whilst all the capsules do - such a system would have saved Challenger crew
- had exposed all its heat shield during launch, whilst all the capsules do not, so the event as with Columbia, when an isolation foam hit its heat shield on the wing is not possible with capsules like the ones being developed (Orion, CST-100 and Dragon2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but to be fair, some "private" industry engineers had warned of what might happen prior to the launch but NASA pressured them to give the go ahead anyway, even excluding those "private" industry engineers from the talks regarding the go/no-go decision..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Forgotten to mention that such a procedure is only slightly less safe for the crew, whilst being much, much safer for the ground support team.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Reading comprehension problem maybe?
Re-read what I wrote and re-read the linked page entirely and make sure that you understand everything.
Thank you,
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it safer to do a whole lot of manipulation (as required with the boarding procedure, climbing the launch tower, sealing the hatch etc) around a rocket that is already filled with potentially explosive material, and might blow up at any point consuming in a ball of fire anything within the area that can't get away fast enough?
Or would it be safer to enter the capsule while the rocket is just an inert tube, buckle up, and wait till the rocket is filled up, sitting comfortably in a hermetic capsule equipped with a launch escape system - capable of getting away from the explosion fast enough to be safe?
Paradoxically, before the launch, the crew compartment is the safest of all places near the rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You foolishly assume .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Listen Windy, not everyone pointing out your lies and laughing at your incompetence is me. Plenty of people don't like liars and think you are an idiot. Plenty of people don't like what I say too, but that is usually because they are entitled assholes who don't like having to admit their country is so polluting. Or they somehow believe your other lie that I'm a Chinese troll. Repeat the lie often enough and some people will believe it. Maybe thats your whole plan lie often about everything and hope people are too lazy to check.
What were you trying to say though? Can you explain it in English?
PS: Everyone knows who [slashdot.org] the [slashdot.org] liar [slashdot.org] is [slashdot.org], when have you showed even a single lie of mine?
PPS:Not attaching your name to something doesn't make you a liar. Is that more Windy logic?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right...because decades of history of rocket design and operational history mean nothing because SpaceX.
By Apollo my forefathers loaded this rocket using donkey powered carts, and that is the way it shall be done until the end of time!
Re: (Score:2)
1. Not during. Before.
2. Not most dangerous; less dangerous than launch for certain. And the rocket sitting fueled on the launchpad is not quite safe either.
3. The aluminium shell can evacuate the area in time. Astronaut climbing to it from that concrete room can't.
4. If you modify things deviating from the regular procedure for this specific type of rocket, the most dangerous part (launch) becomes much more dangerous.
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you link to that "previous falcon fueling" accident you refer to?
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
LES would have worked, though.
Re: (Score:2)
That one is the infamous Amos-6. I believe GP referred to some prior unspecified event. Amos was not an instant explosion; it was a rapid fire, and indeed LES would save the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Doh, I can't read. Well, the only other one was CRS-7 and that took even longer, so I really don't know what the AC was on about, then.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't talk your ghetto slang, and I differentiate between combustion, deflagration and detonation.
Re: (Score:2)
... there have been a number of incidents where police dealt with an unstable person brandishing a gun by having a police sniper shoot the gun out of their hands. In those incidents, you typically hear that there were minor injuries from gun fragments. Meaning that the bullet broke the gun.
Any links to such an actual incident?
In sounds plausible, but I have never run across such an incident that I recall. But I question very much that they report that there are "minor injuries from gun fragments". I would believe minor injuries from bullet fragments however.
Re: (Score:2)
Any links to such an actual incident?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] I remember videos of a couple of other such incidents but I can only find that one at the moment.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Amos-6 went from nothing to an explosion, with shrapnel, directly under the payload.
There isn't much in the way of shrapnel to worry about. The majority of the force of the explosion is going sideways, and taking most of the rocket fragments with it. The bit of "shrapnel" being directed upwards is likely just large chunks of the end-cap of the stage, and they're being pushed at relatively low speeds compared to shrapnel propelled by an actual explosive.
But you'd need to react in 3 secs or you'll be pointing in the wrong direction for it to have any hope.
Any decent automated escape system would be able to react in a fraction of a second. Even if you were silly enough to leave it up to a h
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a video of Soyuz using its LES [slashdot.org]. It definitely saved the crew.
Re: Good (Score:5, Informative)
Fixed link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyFF4cpMVag
Re: (Score:3)
Why wouldn't it be? Critical failure of rocket on launchpad, endangering the astronaut lives. This is the primary job of the LES.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what sort of shrapnel can penetrate the heatshield...
Re: (Score:2)
> After fueling, the rocket is once again inert.
After fueling, the rocket is supposed to be again inert. Leaks, short circuits, construction bending under strain, oxygen corroding stuff, static charge accumulating, ice buildup, these things can cause problems even on an "inert" rocket.
Of course LES is not meant as replacement for safe procedures, but having the secondary safety feature accessible and ready to use throughout all operations is preferable to just relying on nothing going wrong during boardi
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the volume of propellants is significantly reduced when they are cooled, on the order of 10% or better. Where this adds weight for propellant, it lessens the vehicle's weight because it can be built smaller and lighter. It may not sound like much, but adding 10% more fuel can mean quite a bit of payload increase to orbit.
The question is if this increase in fuel capacity is worth the added risk? I don't know, that's what the rocket scientists are discussing.
Re: (Score:2)
> it lessens the vehicle's weight because it can be built smaller and lighter. ...which would be an issue in pretty much any other case, except SpaceX launchers are reusable, so the extra cost is insignificant.
As for payload to orbit, once again, we're talking manned launches. The launcher in current form, fueled before boarding, is perfectly capable of fulfilling the payload requirements for that type of missions. There's simply no need for that extra payload capacity. It would be worthwhile for cargo
Re: (Score:2)
I've got to disagree. Weight is a major issue and if you can get 5% more payload at the same vehicle hardware weight, you will be money ahead in the commercial realm and have extra performance margins all around. Extra performance margin usually means a safer more fault tolerant system which is a huge advantage for manned flights. It also means you can add weight to the vehicle to make it safer, carry more stores or even an extra seat or two. Having weight margin can be a very good thing.
Now, I'm not a
Re: (Score:2)
Most of Dragon cargo launches don't reach full payload capacity, being limited by volume more than mass. With manned launch there will be much more empty space added. That means they absolutely don't need the extra delta-V.
The primary benefit to SpaceX fueling immediately before launch is that they do it before every cargo launch nowadays, and they have at least two launches per month. They have all the systems and engines calibrated for supercooled propellants, and everything is running smoothly. The last
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side...
Take a rocket that is loaded with so much payload and fuel it has TWR of exactly 1 on launchpad. It must burn some fuel to actually start climbing. Now keep adding more fuel instead. It won't take off until all that extra fuel is burnt and its TWR climbs above 1. And it will still burn lots and lots of fuel before it gets up to any reasonable speed.
Adding 10% fuel, and 10% thrust, plus 10% infrastructural overhead, will give you 10% more payload. Adding just fuel, not changing thrust nor
Re: (Score:2)
Consider also the possible added risk of diverging procedures. If the vast majority of launches use the last minute loading of super-cooled fuel, changing that procedure for the occasional manned launches introduces less-tested situations to the launch process. It's not impossible that a component could fail from being fueled an hour early and at warmer temps that doesn't fail in the super-cooled scenarios.
Re: (Score:2)
So "fueling mishap causing rapid unplanned disassembly of the launch vehicle" doesn't qualify as "something goes wrong" ?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that they have, but a couple considerations that occur to me:
- How do you get the foam off during launch? It has to be skin tight, at least at the ends, or it'll just act as a big chimney creating a draft that accelerates the warming. And if any of it gets snagged on the rocket, it'll introduce aerodynamic instabilities
- As the rocket takes off, that whole tower of foam will be melted, incinerated and/or blown apart by the rocket plume, which could create serious hazards and cleanup efforts (
Re: (Score:3)
It's safer. Is it entirely safe? And in case something *does* go wrong, while the astronauts are on the launchpad, preparing for boarding, or on the lift, are they safer than inside the capsule?
The difference is "higher chance of accident with a low chance of death" vs "low chance of absolutely deadly accident."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not entirely sure whether astronauts are actually less costly than regular fuel. Maybe they're using those who wouldn't have flown anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily a troll. Poor AC may just be in denial.
Re: (Score:3)
Since Apollo, all manned vehicles use atmosphere-like mix at 1bar. Apollo used pure oxygen at about 0.3 bar, which was sufficient for breathing but made everything extremely flammable. (although EVA suits are still pressurized to 0.3 bar with pure oxygen - thankfully the chance for a fire inside a spacesuit is rather low.)
While it was 0.3 bar, this was on Earth. (Score:2)
As they were testing valves and other gas handling, the Apollo 1 spacecraft was being tested with a pure atmosphere environment at 0.3 bar above the ambient, or 1.3 bar absolute. There were many things they were doing wrong with Apollo 1.
Re: (Score:2)
I read a NASA report on this fire last year, so I know the detailed sequence of events, and the conditions of the accident.
In space the Apollo command module was supposed to be at 0.2 bar pure oxygen, since the one-component gas at low pressure made the capsule engineering easier. Since the system set up to only handle oxygen, on the ground it was filled with pure oxygen at 1.0 bar. The exercise the crew was going through was supposed to be as close to launch configuration as possible. NASA had not spent mu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If it blows up... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Listen Windy, not everyone pointing out your lies and laughing at your incompetence is me. Plenty of people don't like liars and think you are an idiot.
Plenty of people don't like what I say too, but that is usually because they are entitled assholes who don't like having to admit their country is so polluting. Or they somehow believe your other lie that I'm a Chinese troll. Repeat the lie often enough and some people will believe it. Maybe thats your whole plan lie often about everything and hope people a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of which companies hire them.
What? Did you mean, "Most companies hire them" or something else?
Range safety is *very* important. (Obscure?)
Re: (Score:2)
/sarcasm Ouch, burn! (pun intended)