Sunday, October 17, 2010

Temperate and Indecisive Contests


Edward Gibbon contributed much to science fiction; without him there could be no fall of the Galactic Empire. In chapter XXXVIII of The Decline and Fall, summing up his theme, he speculates on a historical what-if that has never been followed up on in SF, so far as I know, and probably won't be: What if there were another wave of barbarian invasions?

Post-apocalyptic fiction has plenty of goth/biker barbarians (and post-Gibbon history has shown that 'civilized' people can be plenty barbaric), but old style barbarian conquest of civilized lands has been relegated to the sword & sorcery shelves.

Gibbon agrees that barbarian conquest has had its day, and gives several reasons. The first and most basic is the Russians, who by Gibbon's time had pretty much solved the problem of the Eurasian steppe nomads at the source: The plough, the loom, and the forge are introduced on the banks of the Volga, the Oby, and the Lena; and the fiercest of the Tartar hordes have been taught to tremble and obey.

But a bit later in his list Gibbon provides the text of this post. In war, he says, the European forces are exercised by temperate and indecisive contests.

This is of interest to us because, bloodthirsty lot that we are, we want to write about blowing stuff up, especially but by no means limited to spaceships. Temperate! Indecisive! does not sound like the way to sell a war saga. But if the war is intemperate and decisive you won't have much of a saga, because it will end with Chapter Two:

There was a brilliant flash of light.

In fiction this only works once, and probably with real civilizations as well.


The wars of the 18th century were temperate and indecisive, or seemed to be, for fairly basic reasons of technology and economics. Serious warfare, as the 18th century knew it, was expensive stuff: paid regulars and keeping them paid and supplied; artillery; massive fortifications and ships of the line.

And the advantage lay heavily with the defense, tactically and strategically. Enough dirt and stone, or even half a meter of oak, would stop cannon balls. As for the strategic level, experience in the 17th and 18th 16th and 17th century showed what happened to armies that pushed beyond their supply lines: They devastated a province or two, then came down with dysentery and crapped themselves to death.

Thus 18th century war looked at the time like a cohesive system, inherent to an advanced proto industrial society, but this line of Gibbon is usually quoted for its irony value, because along came the French Revolution and Napoleon and all of that.

The modern view through the 20/20 hindsight rangefinder is that the French Revolution raised the stakes of warfare by harnessing the power of national mass mobilization. You could put far more troops in the field than the pre-1789 world had imagined, but only by arousing the mass passions of your population - at which point you were no longer really in control.

But there were a couple of military preconditions to all this. First (or so I gather), the French Revolution showed that a militia rabble could indeed defeat 18th century regulars, if they outnumbered the regulars massively enough and were fired up enough, and second, that with good sergeants you could turn that rabble into a decent army pretty quickly.

I vaguely recall something about an artillery officer from Corsica in this mix, too, and strategic mobility coming back into play, but my ignorance is profound here. Suffice it to say that the 18th century model of temperate and indecisive contests did not hold up.

Now let us imagine midfuture settings. The means of making war in a serious, great-power way are presumably still expensive. The means of simply nuking your enemy back to the stone age are available, and cheaper, but not the means to keep your enemy from nuking you back to the stone age.

Since nuking each other back to the stone age is against the general interest of all parties, could they avoid it by tacitly accepting temperate and indecisive contests, and scaling their objectives to suit?

Doing so by overt treaty, and making war by formalized rules, sounds vaguely tinselly and implausible to us. But the stakes of 18th century war had been implicitly limited by the same Treaty of Westphalia that has given the name 'Westphalian' to the whole concept of a state system and balance of power. Religion, which had made 16th and early 16th 17th century warfare so implacable, was more or less taken off the table as a reason for European states to go to war.

This agreement was possible because bitter experience had taught everyone that neither Protestantism nor Catholicism were going to go away, so there was no point fighting over them.

No such formal agreement might be needed in a future era, only a tacit understanding reinforced by the very powerful motives of elites toward self preservation. The fact that World War II happened does not negate this tendency; in 1939 not only was the atomic bomb still (literally) science fiction, but most of the offensive weapons and tactics of the war were still quasi-experimental and more or less untried. Now elites know what will happen to them, and it tends to concentrate minds.

Some classic SF scenarios lend themselves to temperate and indecisive contests, for example deep space trade wars. Trade warriors may be constrained on the one hand by the risk of burning their profit margin on military spending, and on the other hand by the disadvantages of vaporizing prospective customers.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Starship Troopers logic of racial wars of extermination pretty much points toward, well, wars of extermination. Pick your scenario and take your chances.



The image is a scene from the Battle of Minden, 1759.

236 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 236 of 236
Milo said...

Thucydides:

"Should a stick of metastable helium become unstable, the entire amount spontaneously devolves in a massive energy release (AKA explosion)."

The question is if instability is a chain reaction. Does exposure to energy make the stuff less stable? If so, explosion (or just burning up for slower reactions) is a serious concern. If overcoming their stability is difficult enough that it can't happen by chain reaction, then you're pretty safe.

Also, woo! 200th post! Next person can have the honor of starting a new page :)

KraKon said...

Happy new page!

Tony said...

Rick:

"Really Fast airbreathers have a really basic problem, and it has nothing to do with the engines as such. If you fly much over Mach 5 in enough atmosphere for airbreathing you subject yourself to a brutal heat soak, much worse than reentry."

Which is why the fly-back booster was considered in the first place. To be technically viable, such a vehicle only has to push only a fraction beyond the limits of the SR-71 performance envelope. And that suggests that economic viability could actually be out there. In fact, in the 2004-5 timeframe, fly-back booster concepts seemed to be on the inside track frr the next NASA medium lifter, perhaps eventually working up into heavy lift. Then the VSE came along, and that was the end of that.

Raymond:

"If we were to manage metastable metallic hydrogen, though ( and progress has been made of late with various lithium hydrides), then it's a different ballgame."

Not really meaning to always be raining on people's parades, but... All metallic hydrogen can do is reduce the mass of the hydrogen tankage...maybe. It won't burn any more efficiently with O2 than LH2 would. But fuel tankage is not that big a percentage of the vehicle's toal mass. There's also oxidizer tankage, other structural mass, engines, avionics, piping, etc. Therefor it would add a few percentage points to payload mass fraction, but it's not going to be a game changer. Not being able to predict how a metallic hydrogen latice would decompose -- or how a metastable latice could be made to decompose -- there's no knowing what isotopes might result, and in what proportions. Burning might be even less efficient than with LH2/LOX.

Raymond said...

Tony:

I think you misunderstand metallic hydrogen's probable properties. (Caveat: this is predicted, not confirmed, since we haven't figured out how to make it. We've gotten to hundreds of GPa and still have yet to see it form, but we've gotten metallic forms of lithium hydride of various concentrations, so we're getting closer. Plausible tech, not magitech.)

Metallic hydrogen should be formed from a lattice of dissociated hydrogen atoms, and should be metastable to a temperature of around 1000 K. Once heated, it wouldn't undergo combustion, but would release a tremendous amount of energy as the lattice bonds are broken and the hydrogen re-associates itself into H2. This release would take place at approximately 6000 K, and would give approximately 216 MJ/kg according to this paper (http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/1103/117/1 for text-only people). The real problem would be to introduce additional mass in order to bring down the chamber temperature, not to actually combust (although if LO2 were used as the extra remass, the normal H2/O2 reaction would provide an afterburner effect). All-up, somewhere between two to five times as efficient as LH2/LO2
engines.

Oh, and it may be a room-temp superconductor (~290 K).

Tony said...

Raymond:

"Metallic hydrogen should be...metastable to a temperature of around 1000 K. Once heated, it wouldn't undergo combustion, but would release a tremendous amount of energy as the lattice bonds are broken and the hydrogen re-associates itself into H2."

Ummm...you do realize that, as described, that's just a species of cold (well, okay, lukewarm) fusion, don't you? H2 may come off the in isotope form, but so should H1, hydrogen ions, and a bunch of free electrons. You might get some plasma from the ions and electrons, but unless you were pumping in enough heat to keep the plasma hot, those will recombine into H1 and H2 soon enough. But the idea that H2 atoms will spontaneously form out of random protons and electrons...not anywhere enough pressure for that to happen.

I can see the decomposition of the metallic hydrogen causing one heck of a lot of gas pressure, and that is probably what advocates are banking on. But when you get into that regime, you're talking about a lot of heat and pressure that has to be contained. One would have to believe that liquid metallic hydrogen could be contained in relatively light tankage, pumped through relatively light plumbing, and then only decompose inside a relatively light -- but heated to the melting point of lead -- pressure vessel with a rocket nozzle attached.

I'd sooner believe in a cold gas engine based on H1 compressed to several million atmospheres and released out a nozzle for thrust. It would rely on the same basic technology -- supercompression -- but have far fewer failure modes, to say nothing of relying on no exotic forms of matter except, of course, for the Unobtainium the pressure vessel would likely have to be made of.

Tony said...

Raymond:

"Oh, and it may be a room-temp superconductor (~290 K)."

That explodes like so much C-4 if the building catches on fire. I don't think UL would approve.

Tony said...

Thucydides:

"Don't forget one of the other reasons IC engines took over the world besides energy density, scalability and ease of use was safety. There are no boilers to explode, and the fuel is relatively non toxic and can be handled at sensible temperatures and pressures (think about that next time you are at the self serve gas station!)."

Steam cars were liquid fueled, with gasoline or kerosene. So fuel composition is not an issue.

Steam boilers are not -- and were not, even in Stanley Steamer days -- that big a safety hazard. They could be made safe in operation and even made to fail gracefully. And they've just gotten better.

The problem with steam was lead-time-to-dispatch and efficiency. It just wasn't a technology that could be scaled down very well. You could afford to wait several hours for a ship to get up steam, beacause the typical voyage was more rigidly scheduled and many times longer than the typical automobile journey. Same goes for locomotives, though with a smaller gap in performance. But an autobile-sized steam plant still took up to half an hour to come to operating pressure, and that pressure wasn't high enough for efficient operation.

Raymond said...

Tony:

Uh, it's not fusion at all. Diatomic hydrogen is the most common molecular form of hydrogen because the covalent bond between hydrogen atoms takes 4.52 eV to break. Dissociation into monatomic hydrogen is an endothermic process - by corollary, formation of diatomic hydrogen from monatomic is an exothermic one. Thus, heat, and the vast majority of the resultant hydrogen will be diatomic and gaseous.

This is entirely a molecular process, not an atomic or nuclear one, and there are no variant isotopes involved.

Tony said...

Raymond:

I had already posted when I realized what you were talking about. Apologies.

Raymond said...

Tony:

Eh, it's alright. No offense taken. And the superconductivity wouldn't be very useful for anything besides rocketry, but may allow for magnetic confinement of the reaction instead of physical, reducing the need for additional mass to dilute the reaction and giving us a better specific impulse than is possible with straight chemfuel.

Anonymous said...

So...a late 21st century rocket made with graphene and fueled by metastable metallic hydrogen might just be the breakethroughs that are needed to bring the cost-of-launch down enought to bring it withing reach of people other than large coporations or the super-rich...to bad I'll probably be dead by then...:(

Ferrell

Tony said...

Ferrell:

"So...a late 21st century rocket made with graphene and fueled by metastable metallic hydrogen might just be the breakethroughs that are needed to bring the cost-of-launch down enought to bring it withing reach of people other than large coporations or the super-rich...to bad I'll probably be dead by then...:("

No reason to fret. All credible macro applications of graphene involve attachment to substantial substrates. Monolithic graphene structures, like fuel tankage, are simply magitech. The same goes for metastable metalic hydrogen.

Thucydides said...

The only thing I would consider as potential "IC" technology for spaceflight in the plausibel mid future (tm) would be beamed power, and even then I would add the caveat that we are talking about Liek Myrabo's "Lightcraft" which use a simple(?) annular mirror to focus laser energy on the air (while the spacecraft is accelerating to orbit) and remass once in vacuum.

While the spacecraft would be made to very high tolerances for the laser focus to perform as advertised, the overall concept is far lighter, simpler and has fewer moving parts etc. to go wrong. The heavy and complex part is on the ground where the crew can get to it for maintainance and repair.

Massive momentum exchange tethers are more like railroads, and other things like the JP Aerospace balloon spacecraft are rather implausible (although not impossible [I don't think]). Myrabo's other projects involving MHD accelerators driven by high energy microwave beams might be possible, but are much more complex and don't fall under "IC" tech.

Tony said...

Re: beamed launch vehicle power

The problem with beamed power is that it's not downscalable. To lift your first payload of a given mass, you have to build an entire integrated system that only makes economic sense for hundreds or even thousands of payloads a year. After Shuttle, your investors (even government investors) are going to want to see a confirmed manifest of hard-to-escape launch service contracts, equivalent to at least half of the break-even volume for five to ten years.

That's not realistic, Tony. That's not fair. Sorry, guys, we're not in business to lose our shirts pursuing your dream. Show me the money.

Rick said...

By flyback boosters do you just mean putting wings on the 1st stage and gliding it back? Or airdropping at Mach 3 instead of Mach 0.75?

Back in the 50s the von Braun proposal had winged lower stages, and I vaguely recall talk of putting wings on the Saturn V first stage.

Pretty much all the alternative launch strategies have the same scaling problem. They all require enormous front end investment, justified only if you can count on an enormous launch traffic.

Tony said...

Rick:

"By flyback boosters do you just mean putting wings on the 1st stage and gliding it back? Or airdropping at Mach 3 instead of Mach 0.75?"

Wings, flight controls, landing gear, etc. on a liquid-fueled, vertical take-off first stage. It's a concept Buzz Aldrin has been promoting for a decade now, at least.

Since the booster's job is simply to get the upper stages above most of the atmosphere and impart the first few thousand kph of velocity, its required performance envelope is relatively limited and compact. It's also the first thing to go on the way up. Adding recoverability to the booster increases the mass and complexity of the booster, but that's all it does in mass terms. It may take a bigger booster to get to a nominal altitude and velocity, because the booster has to lift the mass of it's recovery gear as well as everything else. But when you get there, the upper stages and the payload don't need to be any bigger than they would have been with a single-use first stage.

Jim Baerg said...

I doubt the usefulness of wings on reusable rocket stages. They are a lot of extra mass to boost. Parachuting to a splashdown seems to me to be the lowest mass way to have a sufficiently soft landing that the rocket stage suffers negligible damage.

Raymond said...

Wings, landing gear etc allow for self-recovery, saving the cost of specialized barges and tranfer equipment. The booster can land at a convenient airstrip. And extra mass in the first stage is more easily compensated for without substantial performance penalties.

Tony said...

Raymond:

"Wings, landing gear etc allow for self-recovery, saving the cost of specialized barges and tranfer equipment. The booster can land at a convenient airstrip. And extra mass in the first stage is more easily compensated for without substantial performance penalties."

Well, there are all sorts of technical tradeoffs to be made, but on a first approximation it certainly seems like wings make more sense than parachuting into the sea. Wings are also more operationally flexible for a launch vehicle component you might want to actually market worldwide -- not everybody launches from the Atlantic Missile Range.

Jim Baerg said...

Raymond:
I'll concede you may have a point for the bottom stage of a rocket, since the extra mass doesn't have to be accelerated to quite such a high speed as the upper stages.

If you have a 2 stage to orbit rocket the extra mass of a heat shield to allow reentry & recovery may mean you are better off keeping the 2nd stage in orbit for use there. The notion of turning propellant tanks into extra living & working space on a space station has always sounded good to me.

According to this wikipedia article all the Apollo capsules landed within 10 km of the intended point. So for anything you want to get from space (eg: returning people, platinum mined from the moon, stuff needing zero gee for manufacture) something like Apollo capsules & parachutes could be aimed at a patch of ocean close to a good harbour for the recovery vessel.

Tony said...

Jim Baerg:

"If you have a 2 stage to orbit rocket the extra mass of a heat shield to allow reentry & recovery may mean you are better off keeping the 2nd stage in orbit for use there. The notion of turning propellant tanks into extra living & working space on a space station has always sounded good to me."

Conversion of launch vehicle tankage to pressurized volume on orbit may not be that economical. It's not properly insulated, it doesn't have docking interfaces, it doesn't have an electircal power, it doesn't have intercommunications capability, etc. Of course, one could design tankage that could be converted with a simple toolkit and supply an interior outfitting kit as part of the payload -- but that just eats up payload.

Also, who's going to use such converted volume? Space stations have even less economic validity in the future than they do today. People are going to be going to Mars to explore and maybe live, and to the rest of the solar system to explore. And it's going to be that way for the next two or three hundred years, maybe longer. So they're not going to need space stations. They're going to man spacecraft assembled by docking separately launched modules from Earth. Stations are wasted launch capacity. Maybe a case could be made for incorporating upper stage tankage in interplanetary spacecraft, if a way can be found to make the conversion process, safe and reliable.

"According to this wikipedia article all the Apollo capsules landed within 10 km of the intended point. So for anything you want to get from space (eg: returning people, platinum mined from the moon, stuff needing zero gee for manufacture) something like Apollo capsules & parachutes could be aimed at a patch of ocean close to a good harbour for the recovery vessel."

Parachute recovery requires a recovery force and acceptance of landing in a semi-random location. (Not always at sea.) Winged or lifting body recovery enables smaller recovery forces (only needed for an emergency) and larger cross-range capability, in exchange for some payload mass.

BTW...

"[S]tuff needing zero gee for manufacture" is a myth. Gravity is actually one of our most useful tools. Microgravity has yet to be proven to be a unique manufacturing environment for anything, even in theory. The whole idea, like satellite recovery, was just speculative nonsense dreamed up to justify Shuttle and Space Station Freedom.

Platinum from the Moon? How rare do we suppose platinum (ore or recycled) needs to be on Earth to economically justify that?

Jim Baerg said...

"Parachute recovery requires a recovery force and acceptance of landing in a semi-random location"

I just finished pointing out that with 1960s technology they could land within a few km of the desired location. There is no reason re-entries can not be timed so that all your vehicles splash down in the same small region & you only need one boat regularly traveling from a nearby harbour to that region.

Tony said...

Jim Baerg:

"I just finished pointing out that with 1960s technology they could land within a few km of the desired location. There is no reason re-entries can not be timed so that all your vehicles splash down in the same small region & you only need one boat regularly traveling from a nearby harbour to that region."

Just a boat, huh? I suggest you go back to your readings and pay a little closer attention to the size and composition of the naval task forces considered necessary to ensure the safe and timely recovery of three men in one module, even if they landed in roughly the right spot.

Anonymous said...

Tony said:"Just a boat, huh? I suggest you go back to your readings and pay a little closer attention to the size and composition of the naval task forces considered necessary to ensure the safe and timely recovery of three men in one module, even if they landed in roughly the right spot."

Most of that was showmanship and national prestige; we not only sent men to the moon, but we could afford an entire Carrier Battle Group to retreve them...

Ferrell

Rick said...

What Ferrell said. Anyway we have a much more relevant contemporary example, the recovery of the SRBs. Here's a fact sheet with a few details. There are 2 recovery ships, one per booster; each is 1000 tons and has a crew of 24.

These are solids, so the rest of the refurbishment process is very different, but this should provide some baseline on the cost of the recovery operation, and the effect of splashdown on the booster.

In principle this is a straightforward tradeoff between the additional mass penalty (and development cost) of putting wings and landing gear on a first stage, versus the recovery cost and added refurbishment cost.

I think there is a subtle bias against parachute recovery (especially of crews, more than boosters, etc.) because of its association with bailing out of crippled planes - only skydivers and paratroops deliberately hit the silk. But for spacecraft it is a simple way to soft land on a planet with a dense atmosphere, and wings don't really add that much.

I would also think that our ability to guide parachute descents is much greater than in the 1960s, though maneuver may be problematic for heavy payloads under giant chutes.

Byron said...

Gemini was originally planned to land on runways with a paraglider, but that got cut during development. More information can be found here. I personally think that paragliders are underrated as a way of recovering stuff. It allows many of the advantages of an airplane without the enormous design penalties.

Rick said...

Pulling up a comment of Tony's from a few days ago to make an important quibble:

And, BTW, ICBMs would have existed without spaceflight. They were developed without anything to do with space in mind. They were simply an extension of artillery, going all the way back to the V-2.

But would there have been a V-2 without Oberth, the VfR, and von Braun? Left to themselves I think the artillery people would have gone much more the direction of the Katyusha than the V-2 ... and for good reason, since the Katyusha was a FAR more useful weapon system.

The idea of building enormous multistage rockets was a creation of space geeks, and might not have emerged without them. It is highly indicative that the first generation Russian and American ICBMs were liquid fueled and thoroughly unsatisfactory as missiles, but descendents of both are still in use as space boosters.

Byron said...

They weren't built that way because that was the best way of building space boosters. They were built like that because that was the fastest way of getting a workable ICBM. An ICBM must be close to being able to achieve orbit, and initially, they had to use liquid fuel because that was what was available. Later, they switched to missiles that were solid-fueled because that was better for ICBMs. However, it's not as good for space launch, except when you get it surplus.

Raymond said...

Byron:

The X-38 used a parafoil for its landing mechanism. Automated, even. The drop test went well, but the program was cancelled anyway due to budget cuts.

IIRC, though, parafoils don't have the tolerance of weather conditions that winged vehicles do. It may be a good place to start, but I think the additional flexibility and cross-range of wings would be better suited to a recoverable first stage in the longer term.

Byron said...

I know that. However, you won't launch in adverse weather, and you can control where you come down to avoid it. I was suggesting it as an alternative to parachutes (light, small, uncontrollable) and wings (large mass penalties). It might be better for reentry vehicles than the first stage, though.

Rick said...

The first generation ICBMs weren't built as space boosters, but they applied concepts and solutions initially worked out for space access.

Von Braun is the premier embodiment of this whole process.

'Ze rockets go up; who knows vere they come down: Zat's not my department,' says Wehrner von Braun.

He would build anyone a rocket to do anything, but what HE was interested in was outer space.

Counterfactuals are untestable, but I think the use of rockets to hit targets hundreds or thousands of km distant would have emerged without that human catalyst.

Thucydides said...

The Scottish group ASTRA did research into hypersonic waveriders and published some papers which indicated that a form of parafoil might be the best and most economical means of using the waverider form for high speed flight (especially reentry.)

Since the ship resembled a Rogallo wing hang glider it could be essentially packed up in folded configuration during launch, and also adjust the shape to meet different flight regimes (since waveriders are very sensitive to speed, the mach 25 re-entry shape would not work very well at mach 6). The light weight and low wing loading would give it better flight performance.

As for long range weapons, there is a chance that without von Braun and others, long range artillery would actually be artillery. The Paris Gun of WWI fame could fire giant shells to a maximum design range of 130km, and even railway cannons of WWII had effective ranges as far as 50km. Gerald Bull was hoping to achieve actual orbital launch using a gun, and there is no particular reason to think this is impossible.

Of course, manned spaceflight would be effectively impossible if giant tube artillery was the means of launching spacecraft into orbit...

Rick said...

Forgot about Gerald Bull - too clever for his own good.

Rockets always had a place in the artillery picture, but I think artillerists regarded them as basically self propelled mortar rounds, not remotely a substitute for long range precision fire.

Orbital guns would be totally unsuited to human spaceflight, but that is just the point. We got orbital rockets instead of orbital guns basically because of space geeks.

Thucydides said...

Thinking of contrafactuals

Rocket artillery is fairly old (the Chinese and Koreans used a form of rocket artillery against the Japanese in the 1500's), but has never had a reputation for accuracy. The "Rocket's red glare" over Fort McHenry must have looked pretty impressive, but rocket artillery was only an area weapon, and even today, most rocket artillery is designed to blanket a grid square with fire and destruction rather than hit pinpoint targets.

Gun artillery, OTOH, is relatively accurate "out of the box", and has multiple virtues, including relatively cheap ammunition, quick response time and a high degree of flexibility. If the Paris gun was linked to a forward observer, it might have been far more devastating. A rocket, OTOH, needs expensive and sophisticated guidance equipment on board to have a high degree of accuracy, which wasn't possible until the early 1940's.

If weapons like the Paris gun had not been specifically banned by the Treaty of Versailles, then the German Army might not have had any incentive to look at the VfR and von Braun's work. Weapons like the V3 (High Pressure Gun, AKA millipede) would have been developed instead and the war might have been marked by sieges using such weapons to devastate London, Moscow, Leningrad etc. The idea of using developed versions of these guns to launch some sort of small satellite package into orbit might have occurred to someone, and the Space age would have been born on the blast of super artillery pieces rather than a rocket.

Rick said...

Not a whole lot to add!

Would the 50s era Soviets conceptualize a gun capable of firing a 4000 kg shell over intercontinental range?

Thucydides said...

Would the 50s era Soviets conceptualize a gun capable of firing a 4000 kg shell over intercontinental range?

Given the Soviet (and Russian) interest in the gargantuan, something along these lines might have been arranged.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 236 of 236   Newer› Newest»