In my early years I was a voracious reader of science fiction.  In the pantheon of SF writers, the trinity was Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein. Robert A. Heinlein’s 1966 book “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” remains my favorite SF book of all time.  Much of my early political thought was influenced by the libertarian principles that Heinlein wove into his fiction.

As I watch the national leadership, and especially Congress, these days, I hear a lot about “gridlock” and the general tenor is disgust and despair over what is happening on Capitol Hill.  I don’t think Heinlein would have been so troubled.  One of his characters gave this advice to a constitutional committee trying to establish a government:

“I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent—the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority . . . while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?”

Listening to that advice makes what we are watching these days in Washington seem streamlined and efficient, doesn’t it?

Before I go on, I need to remind you that I now work in the commercial spaceflight industry.  I note that as a disclaimer; no doubt some will say my paycheck influences my political opinion.  And whose does not?  But I try to remain objective.

Heinlein had a commentary on the use of government funds for space exploration, too.  In his novella “The Man Who Sold the Moon” (1949), the business tycoon funding development of the first manned mission to the moon has this discussion with his chief engineer who suggested it was a job for the government:

“I don’t want this to be a military job . . . can’t you get the same results by hiring engineers who used to work for the government?  Or even hire them away from the government right now?   . . . I’m telling you that this is not a government project.”

In another, more perfect, alternate universe, private industry would have led the way into space.  Now we are playing catch up.  It has become painfully obvious that the government cannot be counted on to continue the exploration and settlement of the solar system.  I say that with great regret.  For 32 years, I was a government employee working on the exploration of the solar system, but we just couldn’t get anywhere.  I’ve come to the rather painful conclusion that a sustainable model for space travel must look to private commercial industry.  After all, America was founded largely by people coming here to make a better life, to make money.

Where are you, Delos D. Harriman?

Which brings me to my last concern:  ‘There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch’.

Right now most of the “commercial” entities trying to build “commercial” spacecraft are looking for a handout from Uncle Sam to help fund them.  I suppose in a more perfect alternate universe that Robert Heinlein would have liked, this would not be the case.  But we don’t live there.  For historical reasons too lengthy to discuss here, this industry is going to need some seed money if it is going to get to ignition.  But the sooner it turns a profit and gets off the government dole, the better for us all.

So reluctantly, we need the US Government, NASA in particular, to help provide funds to get this new industry over the “initiation energy” hump.  This is not unusual in American history; many industries have benefitted from government seed money.  But it does come at a price.

The price will be government oversight and regulation.  I’ve been on the government side I and know just how onerous that process can be.  Not that being completely free of all regulation is a good thing; greed can take over and lead to stupid decisions based on short term financial gain.  Perhaps a well-organized and effective industry association with strong principles could police the field, but we don’t have that yet.  During start up, well-intentioned but heavy handed government rules can suck the air out of an enterprise.

So this is the dance that we have started; using government money as the seed to bootstrap an industry.  I just hope we don’t fall into the military-industrial complex tar baby which has entrapped the big aerospace firms for the last 40 years.  In a perverse way I’m reminded of the old saying “Once you pay the Dane-geld, you will never be rid of the Dane.”  Once you ask for government money will you ever be rid of the oversight?

About waynehale

Wayne Hale is retired from NASA after 32 years. In his career he was the Space Shuttle Program Manager or Deputy for 5 years, a Space Shuttle Flight Director for 40 missions, and is currently a consultant and full time grandpa. He is available for speaking engagements through Special Aerospace Services.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to TANSTAAFL

  1. well thought out as per usual, Wayne — As I read I looked over at my bookcase — prominent is a hardcover of the Moon is a Harsh Mistress — used some of his lessons there to co-opt folks in some civic works who used to be on the ‘other side’, to get them to join our efforts. He was a great thinker. One of the magnificent things that the US has done is underwrite basic science and then spin off the results to industry for them to apply… space exploration deserves the same support. How the baby bird jumps out of the nest? Maybe Elon or Jeff or one of those folks see a light at the end of the tunnel.

  2. Mark Ross says:

    Interesting…my libertarian side often wonders if gridlock in Congress isn’t the best outcome; certainly less harm is done when nothing is done!

  3. Beth Webber says:

    When I despair of what goes on in our Congress, I will remember these words you have given us from Robert Heinlein.


  4. Charley S McCue says:

    Reminds me of the 2nd RTF when it was proposed that 10 corporations would be allowed to donate $1 million each to the Columbia scholarship fund. It would be some signage, not on the stack itself, but visible at KSC. Never saw the actually language, just the news reports. Apparently it was a very subtle acknowledgement, not like logos on the side of the Proton or Soyuz that the Russians have done.

    Something that beneficial and benign could not be allowed because of politics so the less government, the better.

    I think what ruined any chance of the SF view of commercial space leading the way was the UN ban on ownership ‘out there’. Why would anyone risk venture capital with no chance of ROI?

    On an aside, I can’t remember any story or novel depicting Mission Control before it was formed by NASA. Was there?

  5. bandsaw says:

    On the other hand, getting some government funding (with strings attached) will help the commercial folks off the liability hook. Can you imagine an insurance company being willing to cover human spaceflight for the possibility of another disaster?

    • waynehale says:

      Not at all true. The government indemnified United Space Alliance for the loss of Columbia, but there is no such provision in law or regulation for commercial space flight. Getting insurance may be one of the most difficult parts of the financial equation for commercial human space flight.

      • Jim Hillhouse says:

        When one considers that just one loss of crew could put any one of the companies in business jeopardy through loss of customers and subsequent litigation, insurance is a choke point.

  6. nooneofconsequence says:

    Wayne, nice way to greet CCDEV-2 awards. It is far more significant to space exploration than the two billion dollar earmarks in NASA’s budget intended to please certain constituents. If even half of them succeed at improving our chances to field more commercial in HSF I’d consider that victory enough.

    I always thought Heinlein was a bright eyed optimist about Congress. According to Asimov, he’d had direct experience with the military industrial complex, so no surprise for his obvious antipathy. Anything linked in anyway to “national security” must by its nature be so distorted in cost/deliverables because the means by which it is sold to the audience that signs off on it, does so for inherently the wrong reasons – this is the origin of the disconnect.

    Your ending implication is exactly the reason why commercial space has to eventually close its business case w/o government subsidies – so they can “push back” on its unreasonable demands. This breaks the cycle of dependence and finally, truly, “game changes”. I’d love to see the space side of the aerospace industry achieve this in my lifetime – how at the moment is unclear.

    Meanwhile, I speculate that some of the awards may be actually arsenal system “wolves” in new space “sheep clothing”. That’s how I think Heinlein might see them – knowing that the govt earmarks are drying up, so they wish to attempt to play the new game with the same old story, so as to continue to use Congressional influence in the same way as before to lobby for a share of the take.

    You need government and private industry to do HSF. The right balance. Hard to focus on balance when powerful interests of old want to edge a thumb onto the scales unnoticed. I hope we end up getting this balance right ASAP.

  7. Ronald Smith says:

    Weaning commercial companies off the government payroll, , forgive me if I deem the idea dubious. Afterall, wasn’t that the goal of the EELV program? And now the US is funding the entirety of both rocket families. Yes the government is saving money compared to Titan IV, Delta III, and Atlas II/III, but there has not been a single commercial flight for Delta IV, marginal ones for Atlas V, and even SpaceX still has been dominated by government payloads. So right now, commercial spaceflights looks to be solely in the realms of contractors for the government.

    • Ferris Valyn says:

      With regards to “SpaceX still has been dominated by government payloads” – 13/27 non-SpaceX flights are from non-NASA sources. Thats hardly dominated by government payloads.

      As for the issue with EELV – the fundamental problem is there wasn’t work done on developing the market for EELV (although there was work on developing the tech) – those mistakes are not being made again.

      We have to figure out some way to create a market for human spaceflight, or we’ll go nowhere

      • Jim Hillhouse says:

        What work is being done in developing the market for crewed space? Everything I see on the commercial crew efforts resembles some of the market mistakes of the commercial satellite launch binge, only the numbers are bigger.

        ISS crew rotation and visits will not a profitable crew launch market sustain. So what market for crew launches is being established so that we don’t have to bail-out SpaceX and Orbital like we did with Boeing and LockMart?

      • Ferris Valyn says:

        1. Demonstrating that a government can act as a commercial customer, rather than a contractee, is a huge change, and it provides a path for other sovereign clients to consider

        2. Demonstrating to the investor class that the government can act in a commercial fashion to spaceflight providers, rather than a contractee – also a huge change

        3. Focusing on developing business practices.

        Yes, ISS crew rotation, at current levels, is not enough. There is more to the equation that needs to be done (in particular, developing a more robust plan for utilizing ISS), but this is about developing business practices

  8. Greg Meadows says:

    This reminded me of the quote attributed to Ronald Reagan:

    Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

  9. James says:

    Wayne, you’re right that government funds come at the price of oversight and regulation. What I’m not sure about is whether it’s worth paying this price. Regulation won’t just affect the industries on Earth, it could limit the types of private missions that are permitted in space. A decade of regulating private spaceflight will set a powerful precedent. It will make it that much easier for the government to outlaw certain missions as “too risky” or “too dangerous”. But spaceflight today is invariably risky, and we’re not going anywhere if the freedom to take risks is taken away.

    Andrew, no doubt it’s a great book. I don’t think there are many comparable out there. I generally like his principles and his vision. Some plot details can be forgiven, but a lack of vision cannot.

  10. P. Savio says:

    If Elon gets Falcon Heavy up and running, and I don’t doubt he will, it might really be a private company heading back to the Moon as he has already stated that 2 x Falcon Heavy launches (2 x 55 tonnes each to LEO) would put enougth into Earth Orbit for a lunar mission (as per his statement during the Public announcement of Falcon Heavy). I’m beginning to think that NASA’s SLS might already be dead in the water before any design has even been picked.

  11. Beth Webber says:

    You know, the fledgling commercial space business is being seeded with more than government money. I suspect (and hope!) that much of the expertise that NASA is shedding is being seeded into these companies. Space Is A Harsh Mistress; hopefully with some of this experience and wisdom, the lessons learned by commercial space won’t be as painful.


  12. Jim Hillhouse says:

    Can anyone state the market justification for commercial space? Before anyone mentions the Futron space tourism study, realize that according to it, we should have had around 1,000 suborbital and 10 orbital flights this year; there were none. Futron’s predictions are the stuff of great SciFi but not for a business plan. 

    Anyone here old enough to have experienced the so-called commercial satellite business, a market that never was and that wasted billions? As Wayne well knows, all thing being equal, launching a satellites is less resource hungry than launching people. So, how, will commercial crew make it when every commercial satellite company went through Ch. 11, most ended up in Ch. 7, and none are today making a profit? 

    We can move forward in “commercial” space only if the Congress underwrites it? If the profitability matrix is insufficient to attract private investors in the numbers necessary for commercial space’s development, then it’s time to admit that commercial space is nothing more than a wealth transfer program from NASA. In that light, we are not talking commercial anything.

    • Andrew W says:

      “Before anyone mentions the Futron space tourism study, realize that according to it, we should have had around 1,000 suborbital and 10 orbital flights this year; there were none. ”

      Actually 1300 suborbital and 14 orbital “passengers”.

      Why were there none? There’s more evidence that the reason for the failure to achieve these passenger numbers has more to do with the absence of a service provider rather than the absence of potential customers.

      • Jim Hillhouse says:

        I appreciate the correction; I was trying to be charitable.

        The reason for the absence of providers boils down to the old cliche; space is hard. Which translates into space is expensive and risky. Which is likely why investors, who are not ignorant of the challenges of space, are hard to come by.

        There are potential space tourism customers, though possibly nowhere near in the numbers when the Futron tourism study was conducted thanks to the 2008 Recession. How does that change the underlying assumptions of the Futron study, esp. as regards the more expensive orbital tourism?

        Unless “space tourism” can become real, funding for space will come from the same source as it has since the beginning–the Congress.

      • Andrew W says:

        Many of us think that one of the biggest impediments to the development of space tourism has been , as Wayne puts it “During start up, well-intentioned but heavy handed government rules can suck the air out of an enterprise.” in other words, while space is hard, red tape’s made it far harder. Hopefully we’re now seeing a breakpoint, a fundamental shift in attitudes that will lead to big changes in how things are done.

      • Andrew W says:

        Oh, I was trying to make the distinction between “flights” and “passengers”, perhaps I was being unnecessarily pedantic.

  13. Fred Willett says:

    Jim Hillhouse asked “Can anyone state the market justification for commercial space?”
    Markets need no justification. They either exist or they don’t. If they don’t exist trying to breathe life into them is fairly futile. But if the market exists then it is demonstrated by customers through the door reguardless of what the studies tell you.
    Bigelow thinks he has a market. He has MOUs with 7 countries, but whether those turn into actual deals and customers through the door is still TBD.
    If Bigelow is right his Space Station Alpha, consisting of 2 Sundancers, one BA330 and a core module will support 12 people on orbit and could need 20 or so CST-100, Dragon or Dreamchaser visits a year. Bigelow’s Space Station Beta would double that.
    If Bigelow’s business case turns out to be accurate then a market exists and by 2016 it will be self evident. A market that will expand as people find more things to do with and from those private space stations.
    If it turns out that Bigelow is wrong then he’s done half a billion dollars and it will be some time before someone tries again.
    At this point who knows.

    • nooneofconsequence says:

      Correct. The theory of market definition is that of the BRIC countries wanting an ISS lite in order to keep up with the Joneses eg. international partners running ISS.

      The fear that they will fall behind otherwise (made real by some ISS benefits coming back that they can’t share in), or that they don’t want to (or can’t) become an ISS partner.

      The point of Bigelow is “ISS sized hab volume w/o Shuttle needed to put it there”. Once they have done this twice, the economics alone make anyone wanting to loft a hab think twice about going the DIY route.

      But Jim Hillhouse’s question is still valid – what are the sustaining economics for commercial space, past things like tourism, research labs, and prestige. You can front load with these to some extent (in any post war situation, tourism usually bootstraps other economic activities as in WWII), but it is real economic returns that become necessary.

      The pessimists have an easier time here for obvious reasons, and the optimists can only look foolish and whining when they point to the real difficulties in doing on-orbit laboratory research. Anyone who has been at a national laboratory and knows how difficult it is to get a significant “science product” to justify its existence, can appreciate the gap between “what needs to be done” verses “what can be allowed to be done”, and the too long run time before “magic happens”. What makes this even worse is the fact that to increase the chances for return one needs to broaden not narrow the scope of such research, yet to afford it one must necessarily narrow the scope.

      Ironically, the ISS sits largely unused because it is too costly/dangerous to do the experiments most likely to return value. Lower cost more frequent access to it and a means to compartmentalize risk might shift things to a more aggressive posture – could IP’s accept this?

    • Jim Hillhouse says:


      You misunderstood the meaning of “justification” but made good points about Bigelow.

      Buffett once said that the easiest way to loose a million is to invest in an airline. We will shortly see if the easiest way to loose hundreds of millions, even billions, is to invest in commercial crew space.

  14. Wayne:

    It appears that “commercial” space will not be able to stand in it’s own feet for at least another 25 years. There will be lots of money to be made when you can put a newly-married couple up into orbit for under $100,000. But to get there will require a very expensive, high-risk R&D effort into 100% reusable, low-maintenance spacecraft (ever heard that promise before?), or else a radical low-tech approach like OTRAG.

    Until then, NASA is one of the only real markets for “commercial” space, in which case it is the job of “commercial” space to meet NASA’s space exploration needs, rather than NASA’s job to invest in fundamentally unsound and unprofitable business ventures…

  15. Steve Pemberton says:

    The COTS and CCDev programs so far seem to have found that delicate balance between oversight and overbearing. I don’t know if it’s because the concept of these programs is so fundamentally sound, or if they are just being administered really well, or both. Either way if they eventually lead to successful vehicles that are a benefit to our country’s space program then I think the taxpayer investment will be justified and it will bode well for this type of government/commercial partnership in the future.

  16. Fred Willett says:

    Justification can be a very slippery word in the context of a space business.
    The space economy is currently worth something like $200B a year and growing gang busters. Launch is only a small part of this. But there are pressures in space that look like they might justify new markets openning and allow new business models to florish.
    1/ The limited number of GEO orbital slots is a big pressure point. Over time as demand grows there may be “justification” for investment in a whole range of technologies to make the most of this limited resource. I’m thinking of things like on orbit assembly, on orbit servicing and recovery and things like that as businesses seek to squeeze more out of their slot.
    2/ Debris mitigation. We seem to be fast approaching the point where a new business needs to be created. A business of space janitorial services. How it will work has yet to be decided. Somebody will have to pay for it somehow. But when the bucolic byproducts of business get too deep somebody’s got to spring for a shovel and there’s a justified business opportunity there.
    3/ Space Tourism. Initially the focus has all been on building the vehicles to get people to space, or just sub- orbital. But once people start actually going somewhere in, lets say LEO, there is going to be a demand for things to do when they get there.
    Services for people on orbit. Someone is going to have to shake those martini’s.
    After all who said all the jobs in space, all the business opportunities need to be hi-tech?
    The bottom line is that if you have two businesses then the possibility of a business case exists in the gap between the two existing businesses. Now you have 3 businesses and 2 gaps with 2 new business opportunities, and so it goes. So the economy grows.
    Over simplifying a lot, but hey.

  17. Fred Willett says:

    I know I didn’t address the issue of justification. I slipped horribly off topic.
    Oh well.

  18. Yusef Johnson says:

    I would just like to ask one simple question, as folks debate the path forward and management/govt gaffes in policy. Especially since I will be headed out the door in a few weeks, taking my expertise in contingency abort with me.

    Just what the hell do folks expect us to do?

    Folks seem to be missing (or are just plain ignorant) the important problem. You have a generation of engineers who are about to be shown the door. And they are taking their skills with them. Did somebody at HQ think that these commercial forms would snatch us up? I refuse to accept the President’s call to win the future, as that I am here now, to win now.

    While the idiots that run the asylum debate how it should be run, they will soon find themselves by themselves.

    • Andrew W says:

      Yusef, would you like the government to spend your tax money wisely?

      • Jim Hillhouse says:

        Andrew, I think that’s why Yusef is upset. Is letting go of expertise in favor of…well, non-expertise, a good use of taxpayer’s money? Given that both COTS competitors are over 1 1/2 years behind schedule, maybe he has a point? Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how Yusef’s loss of work is a good use of taxpayer money?

      • Andrew W says:

        Jim, in my opinion the government has done a lousy job in getting value for money in space launch systems, now that’s not a criticism of the engineers, or the other people in the system, it’s a criticism of the system.

        You think COTS being behind schedule is a big issue? How is the Constellation program, or whatever they’re calling the latest reincarnation of it, going?

      • Jim Hillhouse says:

        Alright, first Andrew, I’m not an anti-gov’t but a “smart” gov’t person. So we’re not going to see eye-to-eye. I didn’t vote for Reagan twice because I liked his policies, but because Carter and Mondale gave me the willies.

        Wayne doesn’t want us getting into this debate about that “other” program…so I’ll be brief.

        That “other” program was financially starved during 5 budgets. Less money means program stretch. And let’s face it; early on it was likely managed like Shuttle, that is analysis and documentation heavy. After 25 years of Shuttle, that is how NASA did things. But NASA is learning, e.g. Morpheus, Proj. M.

        COTS has not been financially starved. SpaceX has been given $252.8M so far, as per its agreement. See GAO-09-618 [p. 19-20]. You can find Orbital’s numbers there too. So why the stretch? It wouldn’t bee too bad if this were the first time. But Falcon 1 was so late for IOC that Orbital launched TacSat 2 before Falcon 1 could loft TacSat 1, causing DoD to cancel that mission. I admire what the SpaceX folks have done. I like how they do it (1 person does 5 jobs). But maybe all the trash talk about NASA is a little misplaced…? Remember, stones in glass houses.

        I know, I know Wayne, no more about that “other” program. This debate was settled last October. Unfortunately, there is still some unfinished business amplified by the events of 15 months ago, i.e. Yusef.

        Andrew, did you know that in a March 18, 2010 hearing before the Senate’s Commerce, Science & Transportation’s Science & Space Subcommittee, SpaceX’s President Gwynne Shotwell committed SpaceX to hiring as many laid-off NASA employees as possible. Want to guess how that’s going? If you’re a nice, young college grad, it’s going well. Yusef? Not so well. There will be more on this issue.

        How are the two gov’t programs going? If you read the changes, announced yesterday, that LockMart is making to the MPCV program, 2 things are clear. One, LockMart knows there is an axe over its neck. So it’s…how to put it nicely, compressing the test schedule to bring the program in-line for cost and time. Wish that had been done in 2007, but better late than never.

        How will SLS fair? We’ll see. All eyes are on MSFC now. If that center is successful, it will open up a world of possibilities for scientific and crewed missions, LEO or BEO.

    • Ed Minchau says:

      Yusef, why don’t you take your expertise in contingency abort and set up your own business as a consultant to launch services companies on contingency abort procedures, best practices, regulations, and so forth?

  19. Andrew W says:

    Jim, I think your comment does nothing to refute my criticism of the system NASA operates under, in fact if anything, it supports that criticism, it’s not a question of NASA being at fault so much as NASA being at the mercy of politicans.
    Like any player in the market NASA will do it’s best to meet new competition, great! As long as that doesn’t extend to getting to make the rules for competition.

    • Jim Hillhouse says:

      Andrew, from NASA to COTS, from CCDev to EELV, the whole space business is at the mercy of the Congress. Investors are not lining up to fund space tourism start-up’s business there has yet to be a case made on a market-based approach for sending people to space, or at least a model that will result in a positive ROI.

      The Futron space tourism study is so out of whack in its predictions as to be worthless, at least if you’re using it for predicting market trends on any reasonable basis. And if one looks a little deeper, space tourism has some other issues, according to an article by two ESA launcher directors.

      Perhaps Bigelow sees something nobody else does? Maybe Musk does too? We’ll know in a few years. Until then, I’m glad Congress hedged its bets. Oh, and in response to Bolden saying he didn’t have enough money for MPCV and SLS, Congress, bless its heart, increased the budget sizably for both programs. Of course, in a declining budget, that money had to come from someone’s hide, that being COTS and CCDev. Which goes to show, the system hasn’t changed.

      Ok, this will be the last I can post on this. This is a debate that will never end. But we have to start somewhere.

      Good luck Yusef. A raw deal you guys have gotten…

  20. J Roush says:

    Mr. Hale, I very much enjoy your articles and blog. However I don’t agree with you that a “sustainable model for space travel must look to private commercial industry”. While it is true that after Apollo NASA failed to lead us in human exploration of the solar system, they could have done so with the proper political vision and government funding. Commercial space will follow NASA to LEO, probably successfully. But I see no free market impetus for private companies to explore deep space unless NASA, or some other government, proves it is technically sustainable and that there are viable economic reasons for doing so. Would venture capitalists, banks or investors commit billions of dollars unless someone had already explored the region to evaluate the possibilities? Capitalism traditionaly does not support huge investments that couldn’t pay off for decades, if ever. The first human missions to deep space will be government mission financed by taxpayers and commercial space may eventually follow.

    P.S. Lewis and Clark were financed by government and they didn’t turn a profit. They certainly helped pave the way though.

  21. Kim says:

    I love Heinlein! “The Man Who Sold the Moon” was supposed to be a textbook for my Space Law class, in combination with a publication of the U.N. laws. Too bad there was only one other student… they canceled the class. I picked up the textbooks anyway.

    I think “Tunnel in the Sky” is still my favorite Heinlein novel.

  22. Beth Webber says:

    I will ask the ‘Emperor wore no clothes’ question, since I haven’t seen it answered in any of the discussions: What does TANSTAAFL stand for?


  23. Dave "The Right Stuff" says:

    Hey Wayne,

    It is time for a new blog posting!

    • Dave "The Right Stuff" says:

      I agree with myself. Wayne, what is up with the void of not posting any new blog entries?

  24. Beth Webber says:

    Your book has arrived! My copy arrived in the mail today; fittingly on the day Endeavour launched for her final mission. I’m looking forward to sinking into the details and stories of the program that we’ve never heard. Thank-you!


  25. Phil A says:

    See, I really can’t complain because I have not updated my website in over 6 months. So, let’s call this helpful praise, because I really have enjoyed what you have shared. I hope… well, I hope for whatever is best for you, Wayne. I also hope, somewhere along the way, you will favor us with a few more paragraphs. I’m sorry I cannot afford your book yet… it’s on my wish list!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s