r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/InsaneMocktail • Sep 08 '26

Video University of Waterloo Students Launch Rocket Breaking World Record

41k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

7.0k

u/coldpassion Sep 08 '26

Breaking world record of....? Speed? Height? Noise? Spins? Fuel Consumption? All the previous?

2.2k

u/01010110_ Sep 08 '26 edited Sep 08 '26

World record of amateur rocket altitude at 63k feet (edit: liquid propellant rocket)

Edit 2: Since people are so excited about my use of feet, the altitude could be measured approximately as;

  • 9,852 toises
  • 22,860 varas (using the 0.84-meter Spanish standard)
  • 109.1 to 122.3 stadia (depending on whether the 157-meter or 176-meter anient Greek standard is applied)
  • 62.09 hPa or millibars.

1.0k

u/nm9899 Sep 08 '26

Very impressive, still only 20% of the way to space. Crazy perspective at this scale

417

u/tonyhart7 Sep 08 '26

its only 20% ????? I swear the video got to atmospher already

417

u/nm9899 Sep 08 '26

19.5km apparently. The generally accepted range in 100km above sea level

139

u/TamponTimTheCuck Sep 08 '26

So only 19.5%. Wild!

139

u/rex8499 Sep 08 '26

And probably only like 5% of the way to orbit, cuz you got to go sideways very fast as well as up. Space is hard.

47

u/randombits0110 Sep 08 '26

More like 0% of the ways to orbit (or incredibly close to it). They went (roughly) straight up... which means you come straight back down.

99

u/astrodude23 Sep 08 '26

At 44 degrees of latitude, they're about 4% of the way to orbital velocity at LEO. That's why countries tend to put their launch facilities closer to the equator: the faster the rotational speed at your launch site, the less fuel you have to burn.

At the equator you're about 8% of the way there just by virtue of the Earth's spin (assuming, of course, you're not trying for a retrograde or polar orbit).

55

u/jtr99 Sep 08 '26

So if I throw a rock on the equator I'm already ahead of these students' efforts?

9

u/Glittering-Ad3488 Sep 08 '26

I guess it depends which direction you’re throwing it in

4

u/That_dude_wow Sep 08 '26

already threw my rock. the record is mine

3

u/dna_beggar Sep 08 '26

Must be a rocket shaped rock.

→ More replies

29

u/Ecurbbbb Sep 08 '26

I just want to say I am super impressed with everyone's knowledge and input in this thread. However, you're all nerds! NERDS!!!

3

u/Ivan_Whackinov Sep 08 '26

RIP Donald Gibb.

→ More replies

3

u/dirtydigs74 Sep 08 '26

There's another reason: the achievable orbital inclination. The minimum inclination orbit you can achieve is equal to your latitude. i.e. an equatorial orbit is only achievable at launch from the equator. A polar orbit is achievable from any latitude.

In order to go into an equatorial orbit from a higher latitude a plane change maneuver is required. Theoretically this can be done during launch, but it would depend on the profile your rocket can achieve.

Either way, expensive on fuel compare to an equatorial launch.

2

u/Felosele Sep 08 '26

I assume you meant 4% to orbital altitude, not velocity

3

u/Betaateb Sep 08 '26

Nope, they mean velocity. You need to get to ~8 km/s to orbit the Earth. At the equator the Earth's rotation is going to give you 485 m/s of that velocity velocity for free. Altitude is largely irrelevant(not entirely, the desired orbit altitude changes the speed you need a bit), it is the speed you need, then you just have to point it in the right direction to get the altitude.

→ More replies
→ More replies (1)

6

u/rex8499 Sep 08 '26

Getting up out of the thickest atmosphere is the first significant part of getting to orbit. Going up is an important element of getting to orbit as far as the total energy that needs to be expended goes.

2

u/Additional_Teacher45 Sep 08 '26

The total energy expenditure to first escape the atmosphere and then attain orbital velocity is wildly higher than the energy required to perform both maneuvers at the same time. And that's before we even get into the gravity turn.

Modern rockets are so advanced that they can insert directly into a circular orbit straight from launch with no circularization burn needed. Math is wild shit.

1

u/Homers_Harp Sep 08 '26

Strictly speaking, any and all ballistic objects are in an orbital trajectory.

1

u/edfitz83 Sep 08 '26

You can leave the earth’s gravity by going straight “up”, it just takes a lot of energy.

1

u/SomethingIWontRegret Sep 08 '26

Unless you go straight up with enough energy to get to about 40,000 kph.

1

u/Much-Anything7149 Sep 08 '26

You can get to orbit at the Karman line with a higher speed. Low earth orbit requires 17,500 mph.

→ More replies (6)

47

u/nm9899 Sep 08 '26

The math appears to be mathing here!

1

u/DotesMagee Sep 08 '26

nope. it wasnt i. football fields so its basically magic.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Neuraxis Sep 08 '26

Yes however NASA defines it at 80.5km

3

u/LowerEntropy Sep 08 '26

Two completely arbitrary limits, chosen using the "Uh, 50mi/100km is pretty number 😜"-metric.

3

u/milkdrinker7 Sep 08 '26

And it might be worth noting that at 100km, you won't be orbiting for long at all if you tried it. Unless your satellite is very dense and/or very aerodynamic, it probably won't last for much more than a single orbit at that altitude. Even at 400km, the ISS requires frequent(~monthly) reboots to stay in its lane.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

13

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

26

u/chris_ro Sep 08 '26

How many football fields?

20

u/nm9899 Sep 08 '26

American or European?

46

u/nach0srule Sep 08 '26

"I-I don't know that!"

\gets cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril™**

12

u/lookitmegonow Sep 08 '26

I absolutely appreciate this

5

u/analogkid01 Sep 08 '26

"How do you know so much about swallows?"

"Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know."

10

u/pinniped90 Sep 08 '26

Canadian.

They're in Waterloo and they have BIG football fields there.

11

u/rowdy0044 Sep 08 '26

Huge… tracts of land!

→ More replies
→ More replies (2)

6

u/exkingzog Sep 08 '26

Canadian

4

u/rizorith Sep 08 '26

They said football, so clearly they're talking about Australian rules football

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Actually_a_DogeBoi Sep 08 '26

6

8

u/CommercialPosition76 Sep 08 '26

How many barleycorns?

6

u/Actually_a_DogeBoi Sep 08 '26

Am I the only one who can do conversions?

The answer is 16.25

5

u/Suitable_Ad_3851 Sep 08 '26 edited Sep 08 '26

What? No, 63k feet is 11.9 miles.

Edit: Just noticed you were replying to a post about a different number, not about the height the rocket achieved.

1

u/DeadAssociate Sep 08 '26

63 sounds more believable

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Andrewbie Sep 08 '26

Or about 1.54 million cans of Budweiser

1

u/mmccxi Sep 08 '26

how many baby elephants is that?

1

u/Positive_Issue8989 Sep 08 '26

63k feet is about 12 miles.

2

u/stlredbird Sep 08 '26

In Kerbal it’s only 80k. I feel lied to.

1

u/Betaateb Sep 08 '26

It is a very fuzzy line. There is atmosphere for hundreds of kilometers out. Even the ISS at 400km still has atmospheric drag that requires frequent reboosts to stay in orbit.

1

u/nellyruth Sep 08 '26

Damn. I was hoping the accepted range was a bit higher so that Katy Perry would no longer be an “astronaut”.

1

u/CranberryCode Sep 09 '26

For reference spacex satalites are about 15+ times further out than the rocket went.

→ More replies (2)

22

u/Playful_Letter_2632 Sep 08 '26

The view starts looking like space a lot before the official space boundary altitude. This is the view from the Lockheed U-2 which is the highest altitude plane used today. It flies slightly higher than what the university achieved at 21 km

11

u/jzillacon Sep 08 '26

Yep, because most of what we see of the atmosphere is really just the bottom two layers. Vast majority of clouds can only form in the troposphere and none to my knowledge form above the stratosphere, and at those altitudes the atmosphere is too thin to cause significant light scattering to give its blue colour. But the atmosphere is still there even if it's too thin to see easily.

2

u/big_duo3674 Sep 09 '26

Actually, noctilucent clouds form in the mesosphere

5

u/QuadCakes Sep 08 '26

Just to be clear, almost all of that curvature is from the lens. The horizon is significantly less curved than that even from the ISS.

1

u/According-Pass8230 Sep 09 '26

50 year old fighter jets can go that high.. Its closer to ground than space..

6

u/HucKmoreNadeS Sep 08 '26

Yeah, this is just inner space, we haven't even gotten to OUTER space yet...

1

u/TheVoters Sep 08 '26

Voyager 1 and 2 are beyond the Kupiter belt so both are in “outer space”

1

u/jzillacon Sep 08 '26

The Oort cloud is that actual outer boundary of the solar system as that's the point where the sun's gravitational force is so weak it can barely capture dust-sized particles. Estimates say Voyager 1 will reach the Oort cloud in about 300 years and cross it completely in 30 000 years.

29

u/Moppmopp Sep 08 '26

You know that you also .... got to atmosphere? Like your head and hand are in the atmosphere... ya know?

17

u/xiiicrowns Sep 08 '26

We are swimming in a fishbowl of atmosphere

3

u/BefreiedieTittenzwei Sep 08 '26

Except we keep pooping in the bowl.

3

u/xiiicrowns Sep 08 '26

Just like those goldfish

3

u/partyatwalmart Sep 08 '26

Atmosphere? Never touch the stuff.
People fuck in it.

2

u/textilepat Sep 09 '26

Most of the bowl is made of poop and stale breath.

3

u/mckulty Sep 08 '26

The fish-eye camera perspective is misleading.

4

u/mamasilver Sep 08 '26

fish eye lens?

9

u/happytechca Sep 08 '26

Yes, how else would you explain this flat piece of rock we call earth looks curved?

1

u/JarJarJarMartin Sep 08 '26

Don’t Facebook my Reddit. JK, it’s already far too late for that.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/PhilosopherFun7288 Sep 08 '26

"got to atmospher"(sic)? We already live in the "atmosphere" dude....

2

u/Choyo Sep 08 '26

Fun fact : oceans are part of the atmosphere.

2

u/marino1310 Sep 08 '26

The fisheye lens is doing a lot of the work there

1

u/Skilldibop Sep 08 '26

The widely accepted edge of space is the karman line, which is 100km, LEO starts at around 150km

1

u/Khutuck Sep 08 '26

About 99% of the atmosphere’s mass is below 60,000 feet, so you’re not really wrong, just technically wrong.

2

u/NotInTheKnee Sep 08 '26

The best kind of wrong!

1

u/scalyblue Sep 08 '26

To get to space wirh a rocket carrying its own reaction mass it would need to be at least as big as a telephone pole.

To get to orbit it would need to be the size of an actual booster

1

u/astralchanterelle Sep 08 '26

it would burn up

1

u/Witty_Ad_898 Sep 08 '26

The Earth’s atmosphere extends out beyond the moon. It’s just very thin out there, only scattered atoms but still held in orbit around the Earth. There’s no hard boundary, it just tapers off.

1

u/TactlessTortoise Sep 08 '26

Clouds are often surprisingly low in the sky, compared to how far the sky actually goes. Some types are way higher, and you can get a double-cloud layer situation in a little piece, but the conditions are different for them to form up high, and even then it's not much higher. They just don't keep their shape with such a low pressure. Maybe if there's a crazy heat mass propelling an ungodly amount of humid air upwards while surrounded by humid cold air? I'm purely guessing here.

1

u/intern_steve Sep 08 '26 edited Sep 08 '26

Aircraft can fly using aerodynamic controls and air breathing engines at 80k+ feet. They can fly using reactive controls above 100k feet still using aerodynamic lift as the primary lifting force *(thrust angle significantly contributes to vertical lift at these altitudes).

Edit: the real kicker here is that the absolute altitude record for a balloon is 176k feet (uncrewed), or ~136k feet (crewed). The only thing holding you up at that point is the atmosphere. Then you figure that there's still tons of air above that, it's just not enough to hold you up. The wikipedia list of altitude records was very interesting to read.

1

u/SomethingIWontRegret Sep 08 '26

Clearly they were still in atmosphere at the end. There are several clues.

1

u/redpandaeater Sep 09 '26

It's actually a lot less than 20% if you want to get into orbit as compared to just getting to space, but yeah we typically delineate space with the Karman line at 100 km.

1

u/Shandlar Sep 09 '26

The atmosphere thins at an exponential rate. Despite only being 20% to space distance wise, the atmosphere is already down to roughly 5% pressure at 20km.

19

u/ThanksForTheRain Sep 08 '26

I was sure they were close to orbit, but I guess the Earth's gravity is stronger than I expected

46

u/DriftnDaddyRL Sep 08 '26

Orbit is still in earth's gravity. It's just that satellites and stuff have to go just the right speed to combat the gravity. They're always "falling" but the speed keeps them from crashing back down to earth. Because the satellite is traveling sideways so fast, the Earth curves away underneath it at the exact same rate that gravity pulls it down.

5

u/Several-Action-4043 Sep 08 '26

And if you really want to get your mind blown, gravity isn't a force pulling them down. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime due to the mass of the Earth. They're simply going straight in curved spacetime which is why they don't experience centrifugal force and get sucked to the outside of their ship as they orbit like they would if gravity was actually a force. Once at orbital speed and altitude, other than a very small drag from the upper atmosphere, there are no forces acting on them at all.

2

u/B-mansferd Sep 08 '26

This is a great explanation

4

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/insanenearly Sep 09 '26

This is the one that made it make sense for me.

1

u/L_Cranston_Shadow Sep 08 '26

It's like falling in style.

1

u/Efficient_Try_9136 Sep 08 '26

still sounds like magic that gravity considering planets are flying billions of years in same orbit

1

u/Choyo Sep 08 '26

Teshnikally, everywhere in the universe feels Earth gravity.

28

u/azeo86 Sep 08 '26

Orbit and orbital height are not the same.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

13

u/McHildinger Sep 08 '26

orbit also requires a lot of horizontal speed, otherwise gravity just pulls you back down, no matter how high up you get (or so KSP has taught me)

1

u/MelangeBot Sep 08 '26

what if you are so high up you are closer to another planet? Would gravity still pull you back down?

1

u/redpandaeater Sep 09 '26

Well up and down don't really exist as such but yes gravity will always act on you and probably pull you towards the other planet. But right now even on Earth we're still being pulled by not just its gravity but the Moon, Sun, Jupiter, and so on and so forth.

2

u/MelangeBot Sep 09 '26

And your mom!

2

u/redpandaeater Sep 09 '26

Fair enough, but hers is pretty insignificant. Unlike yo mama who's so fat she needs to wear the asteroid belt to keep her pants up.

1

u/PatHeist Sep 09 '26

That depends entirely on your velocity (speed and direction) when you're at that location. If you match earth's velocity based on a Cartesian coordinate system most locations in the solar system will put you in a highly elliptical orbit around the sun, but depending on the location you could end up going just about anywhere including interstellar space.

But 'being high up' really stops having any meaning once you're outside of earth's sphere of influence (where earth is the primary gravitational influence). To get anywhere near another planet in any fashion that could remotely be described as 'going up' would involve an almost indescribable speed.

When we launch rockets most of what they're doing is gaining horizontal speed to achieve an orbital trajectory. They initially go slightly upwards to get through the thickest part of the atmosphere and reduce drag, but really interplanetary rocketry involves next to zero pointing of the rocket straight away from the planet.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/midwestia Sep 08 '26

That was my real takeaway, space is really far away

2

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Unusually_Happy_TD Sep 08 '26

Everything in orbit is under the effect of earths gravity, everything is still falling towards the Earth. However, the satellites in orbit have enough horizontal velocity that for every mile they fall, the earth curves a mile away from them.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/lefthandedchurro Sep 08 '26

Even the international space station is not free of gravity. At their height of like 250 miles above the surface, they would feel about 90% of earth’s gravity if they weren’t in free fall around the planet.

7

u/nm9899 Sep 08 '26

Around 1,500,000 km for that.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/art-of-war Sep 08 '26

Almost 1,500,000 km

4

u/Lavatis Sep 08 '26

Lol, this shit went 20km in the air my dude.

1

u/varsaku Sep 08 '26

A lot further. Keep in mind that earth’s gravity is so strong that it keeps our moon in orbit even that far out.

1

u/Jack_1080 Sep 08 '26

20% to break from gravity?

1

u/Efficient_Try_9136 Sep 08 '26

maybe it will drift longer if they didnt opened parachute

1

u/RandallOfLegend Sep 08 '26

And Felix did a sky dive from 2x this height.

1

u/Significant-Theme240 Sep 08 '26

20% of the way to space, in one minute.

Hella quick.

1

u/AeroSpiked Sep 09 '26

About 20% to the Karman line which is defined as 100km above sea level, but that itself is convoluted because Karman claimed the line should be lower than that (has to do with being able to get lift at a speed lower than orbital velocity).

1

u/beardedheathen Sep 09 '26

So they just need to do that 4 more times and they are NASA?

1

u/The_Motarp Sep 09 '26

The fact that not quite 20% of the way to space is a world record for amateur liquid fueled rocketry gives an idea of just how hard liquids are to get right compared to solids, which is a category where four different amateur teams have surpassed the Karman line.

They recovered the rocket, so it would be amazing if the next step was to add a small second stage and really move the numbers up.

62

u/Chairface30 Sep 08 '26

Hobbyist rockets have gone much much higher. There has to other stipulations, ie weight or length or something

107

u/EphemeralDesires Sep 08 '26

It is highest amateur liquid-propellant rocket

73

u/Pcat0 Sep 08 '26

Yeah, liquid propellant is super difficult at this scale. The solid propellant record is over 470k feet.

19

u/EphemeralDesires Sep 08 '26

Holy Moses! That is legit space is it not? That is like a quarter the way to the ISS.

29

u/Pcat0 Sep 08 '26

Yep 143km which is well over both the US and international definitions of space (80km and 100km respectively)

→ More replies (21)

5

u/redlaWw Sep 08 '26

Honestly, it's not that hard to get to space, all things considered. You just need a lot of fuel. The hard part about actual space programmes is going sideways fast enough to reach orbit, which requires control, understanding of motion in gravity, and lots more fuel, which requires correspondingly more effective rocket designs in order to lift that fuel.

1

u/skrutnizer Sep 09 '26

It takes far less energy (10% to 20%) to get to orbital altitude (as the Blue Origin flights attempt) than to sustained orbit due to the high tangential speed required.

3

u/redpandaeater Sep 09 '26

I swear some of the four-stage Black Brants have gone much higher than that.

1

u/Pcat0 Sep 09 '26 edited Sep 09 '26

Correct but the Black Brant isn't considered an amateur rocket.

1

u/Free-Pound-6139 Sep 09 '26

is over 470k feet.

Who the fuck writes it like that???

1

u/SE_prof Sep 08 '26

Would space engineering students still count as amateurs?

9

u/MrShake4 Sep 08 '26

Yes, they’re not professionals so they’re amateurs. They’re students they’re not being paid.

3

u/SE_prof Sep 08 '26

They can still work as interns some of may have a co-op while they did this project. And getting paid...

5

u/MrShake4 Sep 08 '26

Still they weren’t paid to do this. If you’re a physical trainer or coach and play in a beer league you’re not a “professional” athlete

Amateur doesn’t mean unemployed.

1

u/bitemark01 Sep 09 '26

Amateurs, because they're not getting paid for it 

1

u/SE_prof Sep 09 '26

If I'm a lawyer and I take a case pro bono, am I being an amateur?

1

u/bitemark01 Sep 09 '26

If all of your cases are always pro bono, then yes

→ More replies (6)

1

u/Draaly Sep 08 '26

Was about to say. I did 80k for a college project and it wasnt even the highest launch of the day.

8

u/Kill_4209 Sep 08 '26

girth?

11

u/Ok-Recognitio Sep 08 '26

We all know girth is what really matters anyway.

4

u/Noddy227 Sep 08 '26

The real calculation is length times diameter plus weight over girth, divided by the angle of the tip squared

2

u/Ok-Recognitio Sep 08 '26

Ok, but we all agree on where we start and end measuring for length, correct?

2

u/dmh2693 Sep 08 '26

It's imperative the cylinder remains intact.

1

u/Beginning-Actuary-68 Sep 08 '26

Amount/type of propellant

1

u/JohnHazardWandering Sep 09 '26

Liquid bi-propellant. I think it's hard at this small size. 

11

u/_PROBABLY_CORRECT Sep 08 '26

Where ya at now, flat earthers

2

u/PM_ME_DATASETS Sep 08 '26

Right? All it takes to prove them wrong is some fisheye lenses.

4

u/_PROBABLY_CORRECT Sep 09 '26

Yeah bad call on my part for them throwing a flag on the field for the fish eye. All they gotta do is fly up a non-fish eye that they build themselves and shoot it up 65k feet. Only they can prove they are right.

Happy cake day!

38

u/ftrlvb Creator Sep 08 '26

who measures in feet? we should measure in matchboxes or coins

11

u/KylAnde01 Sep 08 '26

My car gets forty rods to the hogs head, and that's the way I likes it!

1

u/GregTheIntelectual Sep 08 '26

Nazi Germany surrendered in 1945. Good news this was the swift end of a brutal authorization fascist regime.

Bad news, it was also the end of the metric system in Aviation.

2

u/Away-Commercial-4380 Sep 08 '26

The problem is that 1000ft is a perfect separation with modern aircrafts. Using multiples of 300 as flight levels just sucks (Hello Russia and China)

14

u/mountaingator91 Sep 08 '26

Crazy to think that U2s used to fly with conventional wings at 10,000 feet higher than this even.

15

u/AVgreencup Sep 08 '26

Barely. They were constantly stalling and recovering, basically a constant loop of it

4

u/mountaingator91 Sep 08 '26

Ok, Russian bot

Jk. Still impressive AF

1

u/lawnboy71 Sep 13 '26

How much did it beat the record by?

9

u/revcor Sep 08 '26

Used to and currently do! U-2s are still in service. And SR-71s and A-12s used to fly another 15,000 ft higher than that even

5

u/metallosherp Sep 08 '26

But, how many Smoots?

4

u/01010110_ Sep 08 '26

About 11,284 Smoots, rounded up.

2

u/metallosherp Sep 08 '26

Thank you for your service.

9

u/luovahulluus Sep 08 '26

Why are Canadians measuring it in feet?

14

u/EveryNameEverMade Sep 08 '26

It's more common to measure in feet and inches. Our system is like a mix of imperial and metric

8

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '26 edited 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Elu_Moon Sep 08 '26

People don't walk in aviation, they fly. Are Canadians stupid?

3

u/Baldazar666 Sep 09 '26

Americans are contagious.

4

u/Numnum30s Sep 08 '26

We often use feet and inches for measuring. Did you think we were fully metric?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/A_Nonny_Muse Sep 08 '26

Well you see? They could 'ave done better had they started off the top of an 11,000 foot mountain. People these days, they just dunno how to think anymore, they don't.

/s

2

u/motTheHooper Sep 08 '26

Toises: what an interesting measurement! Used for length, area, and volume!

1

u/vilette Sep 08 '26

Armstrong limit, 19km

1

u/r_a_d_ Sep 08 '26

liquid hydrogen count?

1

u/McLeod3577 Sep 08 '26

I would have though there were 5 toeses per foot.

1

u/userhwon Sep 08 '26 edited Sep 08 '26

It would be a French size 2.88-million shoe.

Edit: it's actually 63,497 feet, so, it would be a size 2.903-million shoe.

1

u/Clean_Variation_92 Sep 08 '26

If the shoes were on the feet, it would be 63.497 feet 😁

1

u/Aurcaw Sep 08 '26

Impressive. Very nice.

Let's see Paul Allen's rocket.

1

u/spook_sw Sep 09 '26

63,000 feet is approximately 6.06 × 10^-11 parsecs

1

u/inspektor31 Sep 09 '26

I thought your first one was tortoises at first.

1

u/NominalHorizon Sep 09 '26

Yes, but what altitude is that in furlongs? /s

1

u/FaithlessnessBorn266 Sep 09 '26

Toises like you toes?

1

u/JohnHazardWandering Sep 09 '26

What about in gumballs?

1

u/ts142 Sep 09 '26

126,000 average penises

→ More replies (17)