Saltar para: Posts [1], Pesquisa [2]

Astropolítica

"Se se pudessem interrogar as estrelas perguntar-lhes-ia se as maçam mais os astrónomos ou os poetas." Pitigrilli

Astropolítica

"Se se pudessem interrogar as estrelas perguntar-lhes-ia se as maçam mais os astrónomos ou os poetas." Pitigrilli

Released documents indicate satellite shoot-down was unnecessary, scientists say.

Agosto 28, 2008

Vera Gomes

U.S. News & World Report (8/26, Whitelaw) reported on new evidence that the official reason for shooting down a spy satellite, namely to prevent hazardous rocket fuel from being released on reentry, last February was false. "At the time, critics charged that the Bush administration was using the toxic fuel as an excuse to demonstrate missile-defense and antisatellite capabilities" but with "new evidence...the critics were very likely right." Yousaf Butt of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics "obtained U.S. government documents showing that NASA's own analysis concluded that the satellite's fuel tank was expected to burn up completely during re-entry -- even though NASA probably overestimated the tank's chances of survival." Butt, who said that the calculations had "optimistic oversimplifications," stated that "the newly released documents clearly contradict the official explanation for the shoot-down."

 

        The UPI (8/26) noted that Butts "described government modeling as oversimplified and biased against likelihoods that the tank would have burned when re-entering the atmosphere."

Rússia: Medvedev ameaça responder militarmente ao escudo antimíssil EUA na Europa

Agosto 27, 2008

Vera Gomes

Moscovo, 26 Ago (Lusa) - O presidente russo, Dmitri Mdvedev, advertiu hoje que o seu país pode responder com meios militares ao escudo antimíssil norte-americano na Europa, segundo a agência noticiosa RIA-Novosti.

 

Medvedev sustenta que a instalação de um sistema antimíssil próximo das fronteiras russas "irá criar, evidentemente, tensões adicionais".

 

"Temos de reagir de uma maneira ou doutra, reagir, evidentemente, de uma forma militar", disse hoje Mdvedev citado pela RIA-Novosti.

 

As autoridades russas já tinham advertido para uma resposta militar aos planos norte-americanos mas esta declaração do líder russo é susceptível de agravar ainda mais as já tensas relações com o Ocidente.

 

A ameaça surge depois de Medvedev ter reconhecido duas regiões pró-russas como nações independentes, o que foi prontamente criticado pelos Estados Unidos e Europa.

 

 

Lusa/Fim

 

in: noticias sapo

European missile defense and military space

Agosto 25, 2008

Vera Gomes

by Taylor Dinerman
Monday, August 25, 2008

 

The August 20th agreement for the stationing of US Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs) in Poland in order to deter or destroy Iranian long-range missiles aimed at Europe or the US was without doubt the direct result of Russia’s invasion of Georgia. From a political standpoint Poland wanted to send both Moscow and Washington an unmistakable signal as to which side they were on, even if it involved making a less-than-optimal deal from Warsaw’s point of view. Now that the agreement has been signed, the US should act generously and give Poland far more support than the US is required to. Also, NATO will have to pay far greater attention to the missile defense issue than it has in the past.

 

In exchange for stationing a mere ten GBIs in Poland, the US has agreed to also place a single battery of PAC-3 Patriot short-range air defense and anti-ballistic missiles on Polish soil. This is far less than Poland truly needs in order to give it a reasonable level or protection against an angry and resentful Russia. This battery is symbolically important, but the Poles need more than a mere symbol.

 

Russia has thousands of tactical and tactical/operational nuclear weapons mounted on ballistic missiles. Ostensibly these are no longer aimed at anyone in particular, but that may not matter much to the Poles or to others in Central and Eastern Europe who once again feel themselves threatened by Russia. These nations have little faith that they can count on their fellow members of the European Union to stand by them in an emergency, so they naturally turn to the US and to NATO for support.

 

It would be a mistake for leaders in Washington to simply see these nations as a place to park a few interceptors. At the same time as the missile defense deal was signed, the US and Poland also signed a Declaration of Strategic Cooperation. This has the potential to be the basis for a new and enlarged set of joint scientific and technological programs with Poland.

 

The Poles have traditionally been a highly scientifically literate people. Copernicus was just the first and best-known Polish scientist. Today there are hundreds of well-trained men and women in that country and elsewhere in the region who are ready to contribute to any number of strategically significant research programs including ones involving missile defense technology. Perhaps some of the Nunn-Lugar money the US has been spending to employ Russian scientists and engineers on projects supposedly intended to keep them from being employed by Iran or other rogue states could be diverted to support researchers in these nations.

 

There is also the open question as to how Poland’s missile defense system will be integrated with the US one. Will Poland, like Japan and Israel, have access on a limited basis to data from the Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites and from the Space Based Infrared (SBIRS) ones that are replacing them? Already the US system is using the large radar arrays in the UK and in Greenland at Thule. The new radar in the Czech Republic may be useful for more than simply tracking missiles from the Middle East.

 

President Sarkozy’s hope for a new European military space force may be an unexpected casualty of Russia’s invasion of Georgia.

Russia has given many of America’s allies, and would-be allies, new reasons to want to integrate their systems with those of the US. The Ukraine has already offered the use of a large former Soviet radar. This would not be of any use in tracking missiles launched from Russia, but would be useful in keep watch over the Mediterranean. It will be interesting to see if France agrees to provide data from the new radar they are planning to build to a NATO early warning system.

 

With a few years Poland and NATO may need to revise the warning and tracking system. A new tactical air defense and missile defense system known as MEADS (Medium Air Defense System) is being built by a joint venture of the US, Germany, and Italy. This system, which uses the PAC-3 missile, might be something that Poland and its neighbors might be interested in procuring. As a multinational program it might be easier to integrate new partners into this program than into a purely American one. It might also make a new NATO missile defense effort more palatable to the Europeans.

 

President Sarkozy’s hope for a new European military space force may be an unexpected casualty of Russia’s invasion of Georgia. The new “Euro DSP” satellites he wants to build may come on line sooner rather than later, but they may be NATO assets rather than EU ones. Poland and the other former Warsaw Pact states may now insist that if Europe is going to build a new set of military space systems that these are built with their requirements in mind. And they may be ready to invest in ones that support the Western Alliance as a whole.

 

Circumstances will force the new US president to take a hard look at the missile defense architecture that Clinton and Bush administrations have put in place. The technology is being developed, tested, and fielded in a slow methodical manner, well-suited to the post-1989 environment. That world is no more. An unhappy change is upon us and America and its allies will have to make some painful adaptations.

"Retaliação" russa

Agosto 21, 2008

Vera Gomes

A Rússia parece determinada a recuperar o estatuto que outrora teve. Vieram a público noticias que a Rússia irá retaliar contra o sistema de defesa antí-missil americano caso este seja instalado na Polónia. Ameaça ainda retirar-se da NATO e da mesa de negociações que possui com aquela instituição.

 

Podem ler mais sobre o assunto em:

 

"Rússia promete resposta dura a a acordo sobre sistema anti-missil"

 

"Rússia tem planos para cortar relações com a NATO e aliados"

Skin in the Game: Realising Australia’s National Interests in Space to 2025

Agosto 19, 2008

Vera Gomes

 

 

by Brett Biddington

Space is no longer the sole preserve of the national security community. Australia is dependent on foreign owned and operated satellites for basic services such as timing and navigation, communications and remote sensing. However, Australia has very little influence in the bodies that govern and regulate the peaceful use of space-based utilities. Any disruption or denial of these services will have a negative impact not only on national security but also on the economic and social well-being of the nation.

Australia has been spared the substantial costs associated with investing in the development and sustainment of national space capabilities. These investments were met largely through alliance relationships, in particular with the United States. Australia gained significant strategic and operational benefit from space-based utilities by permitting ground stations to be based on its soil. This situation is no longer sufficient.

New technologies have reduced the traditional barriers to operating satellites. An increasing number of nations and commercial bodies are developing space-based capabilities. In turn, as the competition intensifies, so the risk weapons being deployed into space also grows. In order to participate as a middle level power in the emerging debates about space security, many of which have global implications, Australia must put ‘skin in the game’ to ensure it has a confident, credible and respected voice. This report outlines a modest investment program that will allow Australia to protect and advance its national interests in space into the future.
 

Could Conflict in Georgia Block US Access to the Space Station?

Agosto 16, 2008

Vera Gomes

The conflict between Georgia and Russia over the disputed region of South Ossetia may have huge consequences for NASA's ability to send astronauts to the International Space Station in the future. The US has criticised the Russian military action, prompting concerns for the future NASA use of the Russian Soyuz space vehicle. This comes at a particularly critical time, as concerns were already high due to the Shuttle decommissioning in 2010. The US is only allowed to use Soyuz up until 2011 as that is when the exemption from the Iran Non-Proliferation Act runs out. If US-Russian relations turn even more sour, an extension to the exemption may not be allowed, freezing the US out of any involvement with routine manned access into space. US Senator Bill Nelson (Democrat), an outspoken critic of the government's funding of the US space program, has brought these concerns to light blaming the Bush administration for an over reliance on Russia for future space access…

The Iran Non-Proliferation Act of 2000 was signed by US Congress as a means to encourage Russian involvement in the nuclear ambitions of Iran to cease. The Act restricts US funding to Russia by limiting all purchasing of technology and services relating to the Space Station. A waiver was granted to NASA so the US could make use of the Russian Soyuz space vehicle, and it was hoped that the waiver would be renewed in 2011 so the US could still have manned access to space during the "5-year gap" between Shuttle decommissioning and Constellation completion. However, the lawmakers in Congress will be very reluctant to renew the waiver if relations between the US and Russia degrade, throwing NASA into a very difficult situation once the Shuttle is mothballed. This concern has been amplified since the military action in the disputed region of South Ossetia in Georgia, a US ally.

Regardless of whether the waiver gets renewed, Senator Nelson is deeply suspicious of Russia's intentions when NASA will need to take Soyuz flights after 2010. Deteriorating US-Russia politics may result in "Russia denying us rides or charging exorbitant amounts for them," he said on Tuesday. In response to the problem with the renewing of the Act waiver in light of the recent Georgia violence, he stated:

"It was a tough sell before [to Congress], but it was doable simply because we didn't have a choice. We don't want to deny ourselves access to the space station, the very place we have built and paid. It's going to be a tougher sell now unless there are critical developments during the next 48 to 72 hours." - US Sen. Bill Nelson

So have there been any critical developments in Georgia? Today, US Defence Chief Robert Gates warned that relations between the US and Russia will be damaged "for years" if Russia does not step down from aggressive operations in the region. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded by saying the rebelling Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions will never integrate back under Georgian rule. He also stated that the military has started to hand back the Georgian town of Gori, although a military presence will remain. So no, although the brunt of the military action by Russia appears to have calmed, there will still be huge pressure on the region and innocent civilians will be caught in the middle for some time to come.

As if to make matters worse the US and Poland have just signed a defence deal, hosting part of the US missile shield to protect against rogue states launching missiles into Europe and the US. Russia has outright rejected the US proposal, saying that a US controlled system near its border will destabilize the military balance in the region. Today's signing will only contribute to the tension between the two nations.

For further details on the US-Poland missile plans, see Poland "agrees" to host controversial US missile defence system.

Nelson strongly believes the Iran Non-Proliferation Act waiver is "dead on arrival. Nobody thinks it’s going to happen, and the reality is there is no back-up plan for the space station." Many critics believe the Act will have a self-defeating effect as it will stop NASA from accessing the $100 billion ISS investment. "There will be consequences not just for Russia but for the U.S. too," Nelson added.

Sources: Florida Today, Orlando Sentinel, BBC

 

in: Universe Today

India and Israel: Together in Space

Agosto 08, 2008

Vera Gomes

Siddharth Ramana
Former Research Assistant, IPCS
e-mail: siddharth13@gmail.com

 

On 20 January 2008, India and Israel successfully forged a partnership in the space sector when an Israeli spy satellite was launched into space by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). The Techsar satellite was launched 9:15 am local time (0345 GMT) from the Sriharikota space station in southern India.

The significance of the satellite launch is magnified by the fact that this launch was earlier stalled owning to intense objections by Arab states which viewed the satellite to be a direct threat to their defence integrity. An earlier report in an Indian news media claimed that the satellite launch vehicle was dismantled at the behest of American pressure. Such was the pressure on the Indian government to not support the Israeli space aspirations, that according to a senior Indian intelligence official, the launch was "dismantled" completely to prevent even a future launch if the government changed its mind (DNA, 4 December 2007).

The satellite launch is another feather in the growing cooperation between the Jewish nation and India, an alliance which has culminated in Israel becoming the second largest defence supplier to India.

It makes sense for the Indians and the Israeli's to forge an alliance particularly in the space sector. India has been developing its space program as early as the 1950's and while initially catering to civilian purposes; ISRO has also been involved in upgrading India's military prowess. For example, the Agni missile is based on a successful civilian satellite launch vehicle. India can offer its space expertise in exchange for Israeli expertise in their Unmanned Ariel Vehicle Program or else work towards a commercial arrangement, which would significantly boost the international commercial viability of ISRO.

Indeed, the interest of Israel and India in space cooperation was broached when the two countries signed a cooperation agreement in November 2002. When visiting Israel in August 2003, Krishnaswami Kasturirangan, former chairman of the India Space Research Organization, expressed interest in the Israeli concept of small satellites and their employment, adding: ''Israel has much to offer in terms of cooperative programs for the future.'' The Israeli Ofeq spy satellite had attracted Indian attention even before this visit.

Owing to Israel's precarious security environment, the need for high resolution and timely imagery from enemy territory has led them to develop exceptional imaging technology. Indeed, the Israeli Spy Satellite Ofek-7 was instrumental in helping destroy a suspected nuclear bunker in Syria in September 2007.

The new satellite Tecsar is said to be technologically far superior to its Ofek predecessor. It would be the first satellite to incorporate Synthetic Aperture Capabilities. This feature allows the camera to take pictures of targets under cloudy and foggy conditions (Jerusalem Post, 20 September 2007). It would therefore place Israel in the small list of countries with imaging radar reconnaissance satellites able to distinguish camouflaged vehicles from rocky terrain, for example, and to see at night and through clouds and foliage. In addition, the aperture radar has 1-meter resolution and differing spot, mosaic and strip modes. These modes provide a multitude of different radar aspect angles to illuminate targets on the ground. And while further technical details of the satellite remain confidential, it is believed that the satellite also carries a powerful panchromatic camera.

According to some, the Israeli decision to use an Indian launch vehicle is based on the inability of the Israeli Shavit booster to fire the 600lb satellite into space. However, Israeli critics have observed that the decision can be traced to Israel strengthening ties with a major power other than the US. (ABC News, 27 September 2007).

The launch is a boon for India, for according to details of an agreement, Israel would be sharing the satellite imagery with India and in addition, it would provide a financial windfall for ISRO. The need for such a satellite is being felt by India, which was given a rude shock in 1999, when armed Pakistani intruders established bases deep inside the Indian territory in Kargil. When the Indian satellites were used to map the positions of the insurgents, the pictures were hazy and did not reveal any ground level movement - an intelligence failure which proved critical (DNA, 4 December 2007).

In addition, the launch of the satellite made ISRO richer by about USD$14 million. The launch provided an advertising impetus to the reputation of ISRO in the USD$2.5 billion global commercial satellite launch services (Hindustan Times, 22 January 2008).

With reports that the satellite has already started transmitting high-resolution pictures, the Indian space establishment can be proud of its achievement. In addition, the Indian defence establishment can be commended for having successfully dodged the concerns of its Arab allies while pushing ahead with an alliance which would only mean a win-win situation for India.

 

(in: www.ipcs.org/Military_articles2.jsp )

Russia to explain security pact in September: diplomats

Julho 29, 2008

Vera Gomes

by Staff Writers
Brussels (AFP) July 28, 2008

(in SpaceDaily, 28/07/2008)

 

 

 

Russia's ambassador to NATO said Monday that he would outline in detail in September Moscow's plans for a sweeping new post-Cold War-era security pact, according to Russian and alliance diplomats.

Questioned by his NATO counterparts about Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's idea, Moscow's envoy Dmitry Rogozin said that he would provide fuller answers on September 24.

One diplomat said, on condition of anonymity, that the ambassadors asked him "what the proposal signifies in concrete terms."

 

 

Would it "replace existing organisations like NATO and the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe), which would pose a problem, or complement them," the diplomat said.

 

 

"They asked for an explanation about what is missing" with current security arrangements in Europe and North America, he said.

A Russian diplomat confirmed that Rogozin had been questioned at length, after a 20-minute outline of Medvedev's foreign policy plans, and that he would provide more details on September 24.

Diplomats said that there were no clashes during the meeting.

In a speech in Berlin early last month, Medvedev called for a European summit to start to draw up such a pact.

He raised the idea again at an EU-Russia summit in Siberia, underlining that the OSCE and NATO had been unable to resolve Europe's security problems.

EU leaders have expressed interest in the idea but want Russia to explain it in more detail.

Moscow has been angered in recent years by the prospect of NATO moving into regions it regards as its traditional sphere of influence and notably opposes extending membership to Georgia or Ukraine as a threat to Russian security.

 

 

Russian analysts have said that Moscow would have difficulty convening a summit with western European allies with the stated goal of replacing NATO.

 

  

Politica espacial militar em 2012

Julho 25, 2008

Vera Gomes

by Taylor Dinerman
Monday, July 21, 2008

 

There are lots of good folks ready to advise Senators McCain and Obama on this and many, many other subjects, so it might be interesting to think about what the next US president is going to face in 2012. Geopolitically the world will probably not look that much different. What is certain is that the laws of physics, and above all the law of gravity, within the Earth-Moon system and beyond will not have changed.

 

The Middle East will still be the world’s primary center of war and political violence. Unless the US or the Israelis take truly dramatic action, not just a few air strikes, the Iranian nuclear missile program will continue. States such as China, Russia, and France will seek to develop and expand their military space forces. Small players, including India, Japan, South Korea, and Israel, will try and perfect their space assets and to insure that they can leverage them for maximum military utility.

 

By 2010 the question may not be what can we afford to launch, but how can we take advantage of the new lower prices?

Meanwhile, both long-range missiles and military space systems are going to proliferate. Even relatively poor nations in unsettled parts of the world are going to want to have their own “National Technical Means”, to use the old arms control euphemism. Smaller states in Asia and Africa are going to be the next nations to decide they want military space assets of their own. Malaysia and South Africa will both probably choose to commit big time to new reconnaissance satellites.

 

The US will probably not have deployed any “space weapons” but, in spite of relentless political posturing, the Defense Department will have done everything it can to prepare for the inevitable war in space. However, the President will not have been able to put much of a policy stamp on America’s principal military space programs. The early warning SBIRS satellites will finally have reached geosynchronous orbit and Air Force Space Command will still be trying to find new ways to use them to support America’s air ground and naval forces. If the TSAT program survives at all, it will still be trying to solve the nearly impossible problem of expanding demand for secure communications within the physical and legal limits of the radio frequency world.

 

Operationally Responsive Space will, by 2012, have produced a small number of useful satellites, but will not have revolutionized the field. After a major embarrassment caused by the publication of a satellite image that directly contradicted the words of at least one major world leader, commercial remote sensing satellites will have improved and will multiply as more and more politicians will want to have their own private access to overhead imagery.

The heavy, expensive, and fantastically capable NRO optical spy satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) will be just as vulnerable in 2012 at they are in 2008. Neither a treaty nor any form of international agreement will credibly protect them from harm and, in the unlikely event that the President and Congress agree to a program that would give them a form of active protection, the slow-moving procurement bureaucracy will insure that such systems will take be at least a decade before they are operational.

 

In 2012 the US will still be using the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 EELVs as its main space launch vehicles. For smaller payloads, though, the US will be even more spoiled for choice than it is now. NASA’s COTS program may insure that there will be three viable Delta-2-class launch vehicles available: an improved Delta 2, the Orbital Sciences Taurus 2, and the SpaceX Falcon 9. By 2010 the question may not be what can we afford to launch, but how can we take advantage of the new lower prices?

 

One thing the President and his (at least for the next four years it’s going to be “his”) Secretary of Defense will be able to do is to reshuffle the organizational charts. This is an easy way to make it look as if you are doing something useful—and sometimes it is actually meaningful. In March 1942, when George C. Marshall reorganized the Army into three large commands that reported directly to him, he cut the ground from under the old, unresponsive bureaucracy and laid the basis for America’s success in World War 2. In 1979 Jimmy Carter’s government was widely derided for setting up Central Command to deal with the Middle East—at the time he was criticized for just “throwing a headquarters at the problem”—but today US operations in that area would be unthinkable without it.

 

On many of the big issues the new chief executive will find his hands tied, but on future policy he can make a substantial difference.

It is highly unlikely that a new space force will have been created, but the current command structure may not last much longer. Strategic Command needs to either clear up its mission focus or someone in Washington will do it for them. It is hard to see how control of the nuclear forces and missile defense fits comfortably with control of the GPS and communications satellite constellations, while at the same time the intelligence gathering space systems are under the command of the “Intelligence Community”.

 

The next Secretary of Defense is going to find it hard to deal with this conundrum and unless he or she can come up with a miracle, it is unlikely that a satisfactory answer will be found by 2012. In fact, the new administration will have its hands full just dealing with the fallout from its predecessors. The Bush Administration has spent most of its eight years in office coping with the decision made by others, especially the Clinton administration’s decision regarding SBIRS, the major NRO programs, and the joint civil/military weather satellite NPOESS.

 

Whoever gets elected this year will face problems with the TSAT communications architecture and Space Radar. He will also need to give the DoD some directions on it future launch vehicle development policy. Does the US want to get back into the RLV business in a big way? Are the small “NewSpace” development firms ready to play a major role?

 

On many of the big issues the new chief executive will find his hands tied, but on future policy he can make a substantial difference. In science and technology policy, small decisions made in 2009 and 2010 will have big effects later, and that is the way history judges if a President and an administration have been a success or not.

Mais sobre mim

foto do autor

Subscrever por e-mail

A subscrição é anónima e gera, no máximo, um e-mail por dia.

Onde compro livros

Free Delivery on all Books at the Book Depository

Arquivo

  1. 2019
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2018
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2017
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2016
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2015
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2014
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2013
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2012
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2011
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2010
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2009
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2008
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2007
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2006
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  1. 2005
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
Follow