h1

“Smash,” episode 3

February 22, 2012

The third episode of “Smash” mainly continued plot lines set in motion in the first two episodes. It gave more backstory to the characters, helping to make them less one-dimensional stereotypes. The title of this episode could have been “Affairs and Revelations,” since that theme was played out with several of the characters. Current and past affairs are revealed and discussed, and they add levels of tension not only for those involved but for those around them as well. I’ll not provide too many spoilers for those who haven’t seen it yet.

Musical moments include a song from the show of all Bruno Mars tunes that was supposedly playing in New York, sung by Michael Swift (played by Will Chase). It was fully produced – music, choreography, lighting, sets – all put together for one tune in one episode. Chase is a fine singer and did a creditable job in a duet with Megan Hilty that is intended for the Marilyn show. They did it as they did the previous tunes from the show, intercutting the full staging with the rehearsal shots.

I’m still impressed with the level of musical performances on the show, including the covers. The variety of tunes used so far is impressive, The extended versions available on iTunes are well-produced and very enjoyable on their own.

What’s not to like? I really don’t like Tom’s scheming assistant, Ellis. So far he hasn’t any redeeming qualities at all!

h1

“Godspeed, John Glenn”

February 20, 2012

Fifty years ago today, a team of American and former German scientists and engineers took a missile designed to deliver a nuclear warhead and used it to put a highly-decorated U.S. Marine pilot into orbit. He wasn’t the first person in orbit – that honor went to Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, but John Glenn was just about the perfect 1960s American representative in space. Korean War hero, test pilot, and even the winner of a national TV game show, Glenn was unabashedly patriotic and had that boyish grin to boot!

Now, I’m not nearly as happy with his record as a U.S. Senator from Ohio – he was too liberal for me, and I felt he didn’t promote the space program enough – but he was the right man at the right time and he did America proud.

Glenn's Mercury-Atlas

Today, after tens of thousands of hours in orbit by hundreds of Americans and many, many others, Glenn’s short trip should still be thought of as a tremendously brave act. The Atlas was, at best, a pretty unreliable booster. It was getting to be more reliable by February of 1962 but it still had a long way to go to be man-rated by the standards of today. The skin of the Atlas was about as thin as a dime, and it only could support itself when fully fueled – it was a stainless-steel balloon with rocket engines on the bottom. Riding this thing into orbit was by no means a certainty.

Today's ULA Atlas V

The Atlas V that is commonly used today barely resembles the rocket Convair built in the early 1960s. It’s aluminum now, with a single Russian-designed engine. Today it’s a very reliable booster…but it hasn’t ever been used to launch a man into space. Perhaps it will be, since it is being considered as a potential launcher for the Boeing CST-100.

Boeing CST-100

But that reminds me…in 1962 we could launch a man into space on a ballistic missile. Today, we no longer have that capability…sigh.

h1

New rocket-powered vehicle duplicates 1995 takeoff and landing

February 18, 2012

Xombie

Masten Space Systems, which builds reusable suborbital rockets, recently tested a vehicle that took off, flew to 50 meters altitude, flew 50 meters horizontally downrange, and then landed softly on another concrete landing pad. It did so using new software called the Guidance Embedded Navigator Integration Environment (GENIE), which was developed by the nonprofit Draper Laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

This is pretty cool, but…the DC-X did the same thing in 1995.

DC-X

To be fair, the DC-X was controlled at the time, not flying completely autonomously. (Usually, that control was former astronaut Pete Conrad, if I remember correctly.) It did have automatic flying control systems, and in particular used the automatic landing mode several times. On its next to last flight, it flew to an altitude of over 3,000 meters.

Built by McDonnell-Douglas, the DC-X was a 1/3 scale demonstrator for a follow-on vehicle called the Delta Clipper, or DC-Y. The DC-Y was to be a manned, single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) reusable spaceship. It was originally funded through the Strategic Defense Initiative. It flew eight test flights in 1993-1995 but the aeroshell was cracked upon landing on the last flight. The vehicle was sent back to MacDac in Huntington Beach for repair. It was fitted with a new lithium-aluminum LOX tank  and a graphite-composite fuel tank that substantially decreased airframe weight. It was christened the DC-XA and flew four more flights from White Sands in 1996. On the fourth flight, on July 31, one of the retractable landing legs failed to extend on landing and the vehicle fell over. It suffered considerable damage, and it was decided there was not enough money left to fund repairs.

Turnaround time between the second and third flights in 1996 was 26 hours; the vehicle successfully validated a rotation of the vehicle prior to landing – the most difficult part of a tail-first soft landing – as well as a number of software and hardware innovations.

I’m not dissing the work of Masten with the Xombie. It was funded partially by NASA, and it is validating control systems and software that could be used on Earth, on the Moon, or even on Mars. It just bothers me that we could be flying reusable spaceships today that would be the third or fourth generation descendants of the DC-Y today. For a fictional look at how the world could have been if such vehicles were in common use, see the Firestar series of novels by Michael F. Flynn.

Early concept of the DC-Y

The SSTO vertical-takeoff-and-landing vehicle idea has been around since the 1950s; the Luna in the landmark film Destination Moon was such a vehicle, even if it did use a parachute for final landing back on Earth.

Luna, which took off and landed vertically, "as God and Robert Heinlein intended"

In the 1960s and 1970s a wide range of designs were promoted by such visionaries as Gary Hudson, Max Hunter (who designed the Mercury capsule) and Phillip Bono. Plug nozzles, drop tanks – all kinds of vehicles were designed. Some very large ships were designed to take off from a body of water!

Gary Hudson's Phoenix C

Even using very light airframes utilizing “solid smoke” (a silica aerogel), composite fuel tanks and honeycomb aluminum structures, the numbers just never came out in favor of successfully flying a single-stage rocket directly from Earth into orbit and back again. Liquid hydrogen and LOX (liquid oxygen) as fuel and oxidizer are the rocket fuel combination that produces the most energy per pound, but liquid hydrogen isn’t dense enough – the fuel tank has to be so large that a significant amount of the performance of the fuel is lost due to increased airframe weight. Improved engines or even nuclear engines are probably required to make this concept work. That’s why most of the SSTO designs since that time have taken off and/or landed like aircraft. (For a detailed discussion of the DC-X and SSTO, see Halfway to Anywhere by G. Harry Stine.)

Xombie isn’t designed to fly into orbit; in fact, Masten seems to be focusing on suborbital rockets. I have to hope, though, that the knowledge gained through these tests will help to lead to a viable SSTO someday once the propulsion technology is available to make it possible. If nothing else, it might help SpaceX as it tries to build the Grasshopper reusable suborbital rocket and the fully-reusable version of the Dragon capsule and the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. I wouldn’t usually expect such a technology transfer from one company to another, but the GENIE software was written by a nonprofit lab. They may be persuaded to license it to multiple users.

SpaceX Falcon 9 - reusable version soft-lands vertically

h1

I have JFK riding a robot unicorn on the Moon…your argument is invalid.

February 16, 2012

Keeping Luna safe for Americans!

Artist Jason Heuser has a somewhat different view of history than most of the rest of us. He has done a series of pieces revising the history of various American Presidents, including Teddy Roosevelt shooting a sasquach, George Washington fighting zombies, and Abraham Lincoln riding a grizzly bear. My favorite is the one shown above, depicting the real facts behind the JFK conspiracy. See, he was sent to the Moon in 1963 to fight aliens to keep us safe. Heuser’s artwork is available on Etsy. You know you need a print of this. Get it for a friend for, oh, Presidents’ Day…

h1

“Smash” episode 2 – “The Callback”

February 15, 2012
Katherine McPhee as Marilyn Monroe

Katherine McPhee as Marilyn Monroe

Caution – spoilers ahead!

I stand by my previous statements about “Smash” now that I’ve seen the second episode. I didn’t know the name Megan Hilty before, but I did my Wikipedia research since, and discovered that art sort of imitates life. (Yes, I know there are other sources of information. Some are even more reliable, I hear.) Hilty played Glinda in “Wicked” on Broadway and later for a while in the touring show. She has pretty darned good stage credentials. Katherine McPhee, on the other hand, has more experience in the pop music and recording world. Either McPhee is an extremely fine physical actress – and that could be the case, I suppose – or she really is a bit less comfortable with dancing. She really looked much less confident than Hilty, even in the dance segment where she should have it solidly rehearsed. I don’t have a problem with that, but I found it interesting.

The B story about Julia and Frank’s attempt to adopt a baby from China felt a bit flawed to me. First, the resolution of the conflict between the two resulting in Frank’s acceptance was awfully quick. It had that rushed feeling I get at the end of some CSI episodes, when the DNA match comes in and the killer is unmasked two minutes before the end of the episode. I did like the involvement of their son, however. Often teenagers are portrayed as selfish and emotional, and Leo seemed to have a better head on his shoulders than either of his parents.

As I said in my last post, I enjoyed the chemistry between Julia and Tom in the first episode, and I thought that relationship is developing nicely. They have differences of opinion, but they have demonstrated the kind of closeness and mutual respect that you hope to see in two professionals who have worked together for so long. I hope more of the interaction between Julia and Tom takes place on screen. I think a window into the creative process between a lyricist and a composer might be interesting to a general audience, especially if it can be done without being over the top. So far, the show is very subtle and kind of understated. I don’t know if the audience in general will appreciate that, but I sure do!

The scene where Dev expresses his upset with Karen because she didn’t make the dinner with the assistant mayor seemed forced, too. But then, both of them are young and driven. Again, Dev’s sudden change of heart was too abrupt for me. I found her reason for not calling him much more believable. She’s a young, inexperienced girl in the big city, being considered for a starring role in a Broadway musical by a womanizing, temperamental director. No pressure there!

I was so impressed with the pacing of the pilot that those little things bothered me. Many TV dramas today are written with condensed plotline timeframes, so many viewers probably didn’t even notice it. Reading what I just wrote, I feel like I’m writing a soap opera column. The show didn’t have that kind of feel at all. In my view they got it 95% right, and that’s far more than most any other new television drama I’ve seen in years. Theresa Rebeck, who created the series and wrote the scripts for the whole 15 episodes, is to be congratulated. Skillfully done. Kudos to director Michael Mayer as well.

No comment on the reveal as to who was selected to play Marilyn – I think that’s a feint; the star on opening night doesn’t have to be the one selected today.

I wasn’t able to watch the episode when it was broadcast. I was willing to pay the three bucks to get it from iTunes. The sound is great in the HD version, also, even on the iPad!

h1

Robert Zubrin gets it right…Obama thinks we live in a finite environment.

February 15, 2012

Before you get your metaphorical panties in a bunch, just hang onto your arguments about Our Blue Marble, know this: I don’t buy it. Earth is only a finite environment if we can’t get off this planet. If we can travel freely about the Solar System, and if we can exploit the resources found there, we will not have to worry about a finite environment for centuries to come – if ever.

Robert Zubrin has been working on ways to get us to Mars for decades. He has proposed a variety of logical programs, including Mars Direct. Dr. Zubrin has made the exploration of Mars his life’s mission. Still, his recent piece in National Review Online is not the statement of a zealot. It is, instead, a short analysis of the beliefs that guide the Obama Administration and that Administration’s effect on space exploration in general. I invite you to read the entire piece. There are a pasage near the end that is particularly interesting. In discussing Obama’s Science Advisor, John P. Holdren, who co-authored a book in 1971 with Population Bomb author Paul Erlich called Global Ecology, he writes:

Thus, in order to accept the constraints on human aspirations demanded by Holdren, Ehrlich, and like-minded thinkers (whether rationalized by alleged limits to available resources in the 1970s, or by the putative threat of global warming due to excessive use of natural resources today), people must be convinced that the future is closed. The issue is not that resources from space might disrupt the would-be regulator’s rationing schemes. Rather it is that the ideaof an open future with unlimited resources and possibilities undermines the walls of the mental prison that the would-be wardens of mankind seek to construct.

Ideas have consequences. If the idea is accepted that resources are limited, then human activities must be severely constrained, and someone must be empowered to enforce the constraining. But if it is understood that the possibilities for human existence are as open as unfettered human creativity can make them, then the protection of liberty, rather than its restriction, becomes the first responsibility of government.

Dr. Zubrin, you are absolutely correct. If the President and his advisors believe in a closed environment, there is no “hope and change” that can help us as the population increases. (There is evidence that the overall world population may actually level off; that’s a story for another article.) We are trapped here, fighting over increasingly smaller individual pieces of the pie. We are trapped by the small-minded politicians in Washington because of their misguided philosophies and obsession with control.

h1

“Smash” – I think I’m going to like this!

February 13, 2012

Megan Hilty and male chorus in "the baseball number"

The new NBC television series, “Smash,” is an interesting little thing. First – and I’ve only seen the pilot so far – it has every stereotype and trope of the story-about-Broadway genre I’ve ever seen…but they are all handled with great skill by the songwriters, writers and actors. The result is a very enjoyable 45 minutes with enough little chuckles and uplifting musical moments to make want to see what comes next. Isn’t that what a pilot is all about?

Characters are well-drawn but the can be partly because they are so stereotypical. The ingenue from Iowa – yes, Iowa; the womanizing director, the gay songwriter, the struggling chorus girl.

Debra Messing plays her part as half of the songwriting team subtly and with great skill. Her chemistry with Christian Bole is delightful. (Okay, I think in the dictionary under the term “winning smile” there is a picture of Debra Messing.) In fact, I didn’t see a weak cast member in this episode. Even Emory Cohen, who plays Messing’s teenaged son, Leo, does a fine understated job with the few lines he has in two scenes.

Jack Davenport, as director/choreographer Derek Willis, channels his inner Alan Rickman and is the character you love to hate. I hope he can sustain the balance between genius and horse’s ass required of his character.

Katherine McPhee. I have to say, I never watch “American Idol,” so I had no idea who this young lady is. However, her audition solo piece in the middle of this episode show in less than three minutes why it was possible to build a television series around her. She really is a musician. Great sound, great range, with a subtle kind of control. Megan Hilty is a superb talent as well, but her performances just show how much better McPhee is. I’m sure they will be an interesting pair throughout the season – two driven, talented young women competing with each other. That will undoubtably be a major plot point throughout the series.

I realize I’ve been using more superlatives than I usually ever do…and now that I’ve watched it a second time, I stand by my statements. Marc Shaiman and Scott Whittman wrote some fine songs, and they know the requirements of both Broadway and television, having experience that ranges from writing “Hairspray” for Broadway to multiple Academy Award and Emmy  Awards shows.

Angelica Huston does a credible job as the angel behind “Marilyn – the Musical,” but she is one of the reasons why HD television is not good for everyone – her makeup seemed heavy, designed to cover her age and creating an almost mask-like appearance. She’s still a more than competent actress – I’m sure having her in the cast will provide the writers with many dramatic opportunities later on in the show.

Students of television should study how this was done – how it was written, shot, acted, and produced. There was one flaw that I detected – the director has to give instruction to a dancer in rehearsal, and it was no more authentic in terminology than the portrayal of any musician in “Law and Order.” (Meaning not very…I loved that show, but dang, they really couldn’t portray a convincing musician or conductor to save their lives.) This show immediately made up for it by going right into “the baseball number,” which was enjoyable on so many levels. It reminded me a bit of the airline number in Bob Fosse’s “All That Jazz.”  (Fosse’s alter ego, played by Roy Scheider, takes a campy and downright trite song about commercial air travel and turns it into a stunning, seductive piece full of sexual innuendo. And I mean that in a good way. You should check out that film.)

One cute trick: all the show-related computer users – songwriters, actresses, etc. – are using Macs. The one Windows laptop I noticed was used by Messing’s husband, who is definitely not in the theater or music business. Messing also gets to put in a little plug for the iPad early in the episode.

I’ll probably watch this pilot, or at least the musical numbers, a few more times. It was a real pleasure to watch. I look forward to how the story – and the musical – will unfold.

h1

President Reagan’s address to the nation follow the loss of the Challenger shuttle

January 29, 2012

This is what I meant in my previous post. After 26 years – has it really been that long? – this speech still moves me to tears. This man was a leader and he kept us from losing the vision after such a terrible calamity was broadcast on national television.

And I can only close  with the verse penned by Robert A. Heinlein as an additional stanza to the hymn, “Eternal Father, Strong To Save,” which was long ago adopted as the US Navy’s Hymn.

Almighty ruler of the all
Whose power extends to great and small,
Who guides the stars with steadfast law,
Whose least creation fills with awe -
Oh grant Thy mercy and Thy grace
To those who venture into space.

h1

Presidental Vision – and more thoughts about the “Gingrich space program.”

January 27, 2012

One of the problems we have in this Presidential primary is that we tend to believe the sound bites we hear as the sum total of each candidate’s beliefs and philosophy. That is, of course, not true. I tend to listen to quite a bit of conservative talk radio, and I know that those people have their own agendas, too. Still, even if you’ve watched all the debates – and who would want to, with the infighting? – I think you only have a partial idea of what each candidate stands for.

Example: Newt Gingrich has released the bare bones of his “21st Century Contract with America.” You can find it here. It includes such pro-conservative items as lowering or eliminating many taxes, repealing regulations like Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley, and reforming the Federal Reserve. He was pretty specific in the documents about his plans.

You may disagree with him, but once you’ve read the Contract you at least know more about what the man stands for, instead of hearing people make jokes about “Newt’s crazy idea of a lunar colony.”

As I mentioned in a previous post, Newt actually knows whereof he speaks in regards to the space program from decades of involvement in it, including the Strategic Defense Initiative. We’ve been told for so long now that our space program is in decline and that we couldn’t possibly do such a thing in eight years that people believe it. Too many people think that somehow we were deluded into the race to the Moon by a misguided belief we were “beating the Russians” there. I’ve heard too many times that NASA knew before Apollo 11 that the Russians weren’t racing us to the Moon at all, that it was all a sham, some kind of hustle perpetrated by the “military-industrial complex.” (Thanks, President Eisenhower, for that term.) Of course, they were developing the N-1 giant launch vehicle, but the complexity of the task was too much for them, and each test flight failed. The Saturn V, on the other hand, was launched successfully every time.

The real truth is that we could be back on the Moon in less time than that, with appropriate funding and a belief that the funding level would remain predictable for the next five years. I’d love to believe we could do it in five years, but I think it would take at least six; a couple of years would be required just to rehire all of the personnel and reactivate the facilities.

I think it’s interesting that Lockheed Martin continued to build a simulator for docking the Orion, an Apollo-like space vehicle,  and continued to build the prototype vehicle even though they knew the program was dead; and that Boeing continued development of their CST-100 on their own money, and then both continued on the trickles that came out of NASA sort of under the table, as the space agency defied the Administration and Congress citing “previous contract commitments.”

Newt Gingrich is a pretty smart guy. He may have bigger dreams for America than Mitt Romney, but why is that a subject for ridicule? Back in 1979 the “Reagan is stupid” meme was already making its way through the media. Detractors liked to bring up the fact that he was a registered Democrat at one time. People said he was too old. People said he didn’t know enough to be President, and would be in far over his head. People said his wife was plastic, and that he had been divorced and both of those were liabilities. Wasn’t it funny that his supposed naivete actually turned out to be an inspiration to millions of people, not just in the US but in Eastern Europe, the USSR and other places? In fact, the only thing they could say that was positive was that he was “a great communicator.”

Ten years later he was referred to as “The Great Communicator.”

I feel like we’ve decided as a people that we are content to watch our 3D movies, and our football on our widescreen plasma TVs. We’ve decided to lament that China would soon overtake us, but what can we do? We can’t stop them, we have no right to stop them, and we’re a people in decline. The best we can hope for is that our decline is comfortable enough, and that maybe Social Security will last long enough. We’ll die earlier than we expected, because it’s too expensive too keep us alive even though we have the tools to do so.

I felt in 1979 that there was a grayness, a darkness, over the country. We were being told our savings would never recover. Countries in the Middle East did not respect us. Our President talked about a “National Malaise.” America was in decline, and somehow we were supposed to be. We deserved it, after the loss in Vietnam and the scandal of Watergate. We were nothing but trouble for the rest of the world, we were consuming all the resources that belonged rightfully to others, and we were always sticking our nose in where it didn’t belong. We were a nation of undeserving bigots, and everyone hated us.

Then Ronald Wilson Reagan said that none of that was true. We were America – the “shining city on the hill” that other peoples looked to with hope. Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher said things could be better and should be…and people believed. A dockworker named Lech Walesa bravely defied the Communist Polish government and became the first President of a free Poland. It started in 1980, just about the same time as the Presidential election here. The day of Reagan’s inauguration the Iranian government returned American hostages held for 444 days. Gradually, the sun came back up on America.

George H.W. Bush was a good man, but lacked the vision of Reagan. Soon the country knew it, but the changes set in motion during the Reagan years were beginning to bear fruit. We lost our way, of course, and elected a charismatic but irresponsible President. (I won’t even get into the influence of Ross Perot’s third-party run.) Two years later people were beginning to see their folly, and the first House Republican majority in decades was presided over by…Newt Gingrich.

Is he the perfect candidate? Of course not? Will he be able to deliver? That remains to be seen. I just think that he has seen the influence of visionaries and charlatans close up, and he has chosen the less-safe plan. Do we want to continue down the path of decline Obama has put us on? Do we want a competent executive running the country? Or do we want someone with vision to inspire us, to urge us to be better than we already were, to be the inspiration ourselves for the rest of the world?

No, we belittle a man for saying he believes we could be back on the moon in nine years. The first time, with computer technology far less than what we have in our cell phones, we did it in less time than that…from a standing start, after a President challenged us to do it “because it is hard.” Today, we could do it in six. I truly believe that. I hope others do as well.

The power of belief is stronger than we know. If we really think about it, it’s all we’ve had as an edge – a belief we were a unique people, and we had the freedom to do what we set out to. The freedom we enjoyed helped create the optimism and “can-do” attitude that Americans once had in large numbers, and that was rekindled in the 1980s. It can be done again, but it is far easier to do when we have a leader who believes in us, and in American exceptionalism.

h1

My grudging support for Newt Gingrich

January 27, 2012

Let me start by saying I’m not happy with either of the frontrunners in the Republican primaries. I think they have been spending too much time playing gotcha with each other when they should be focusing on the issues. One of the best reasons for having all these debates is that more of the public is exposed to ideas about government other than what the current Administration want us to hear. That’s why even having Ron Paul in the debates is good. (I’m not sure I believe I said that.)

But I’ve not watched even one of the debates. I knew from the outset that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich had the wrong idea about this, or their handlers did. Instead of trying to show us the differences in philosophy between them, they have focused too much on tearing each other down. All this does is breed mistrust in the public about the character of both men – and provide the Obama team with a great collection of sound bites for the summer and fall. (And he has the hundreds of millions of dollars to get them out there.)

That said, I have to say that Newt seems to have a vision for the future of America that Mitt doesn’t show. The other day Newt did a speech in Cocoa Beach, Florida. It could be said that he was pandering to a group that is facing high unemployment – the space launch infrastructure industry. Sure, many of those jobs are going away, or have already. (Although NASA cut a deal with the United Launch Alliance that saved some.) But I think he took the opportunity to use the location to talk about something that he really does believe in – space exploration. The boldness of saying that we should have a lunar colony by the end of his second term – nine years from now – is not “typical Newt craziness.” The only reason the development of new hardware for space flight is taking so long right now is because the amount of money available to hire the people needed to do the work is so limited. An Apollo-style push may not be in the cards, but it’s not needed; just a larger, and consistent amount of money. (During the Apollo push, about 4% of the Federal budget was devoted to space exploration; today it’s about 0.6%!)

Am I being a hypocrite by saying the government should spend more money on space, while advocating as I do for reduced government and lower taxes? The two are not mutually exclusive. It’s not just how much money we spend but where we spend it.

Let’s look at the Department of Education for a minute. Yes, I believe we don’t need it at all, and that education should be a responsibility of the several states. It’s not constitutional and it has proven to be of nearly no help in providing a better education for the students of the US. The budget for the US Department of Education for FY2012 is somewhere around $ 68 billion…NASA gets about $ 18 billion on a good day. Let’s just cut the DepEd to 50% – give ‘em $ 35 billion, rounded up. Then give another $ 6 billion to NASA specifically for manned space flight and lunar colonization. That would increase the budget of NASA’s  space exploration division to  250% of what it is today. (It’s about $ 4 billion today; another $ 4 billion goes to maintenance of the ISS.)

It might even inspire students to learn subjects that are used in technical fields like engineering and physics, just like it did in the 1960s. It might provide more positive benefits to education than the Department of Education does…but don’t you just hate intangibles like “inspiration”?

I’ve not heard another Presidential candidate, including the Present Occupant of the White House, say anything positive or inspiring about space exploration.

Yep, it’s my pet issue. Everybody has one, right? Well, it’s mine, and I’ll vote for the candidate I believe will do the best for my pet issue. I just wish it was more people’s pet issue.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.