Fire in the sky - music clip

[Cybrludite]

Gets dusty in here around 2:45 or so.

[DeepDarkier]

group?

[artnafart]

hi from russia! cool ! viva space! world peace!

[Doribi117]

Beautiful song and inspiring at the same time

[youlovelost13]

Many people say we haven't accomplished anything since the golden age of space exploration, or that we now have to rely on the Russians. But that's simply not true! We know more about the universe now than we ever did, thanks to telescopes, probes, and satellites. Manned spaceflight over long distances may not be viable at the moment, but that doesn't mean we're not expanding our knowledge and horizons. Open your eyes, people - true science is about more than just sending people to cool places.

[z0nt21]

@youlovelost13 True enough.

The system which about to be born on planet Earth is that of automation, centralisation of a level of efficiency not seen before: you first have to subdue the Globe in a benevolent enterprise and eliminate most redundant uncertainty in society; make any resources on the face of the Earth available to any reasonable project, which requires it; before venturing out beyond LEO on a long-term missions - that, I do agree with.

[Falcrist]

It's not just Obama, congress wrecked NASA's budget earlier this month, and shut down JWST.

This saddens me, because NASA is one of the biggest things I can point to as an example of how the US contributes to mankind.

[chengloki]

Atlantis made it safeley down, thank God. Our space program is now dead. We now haveto rely on the Russians, at 50,000,000 dollars a pop. What the hell has happened to our country? Oh, I know, that idiot in the white House!!! =Stefan=

[MaxwellsDaemon]

As long as there are willing volunteers we should ride the fire. NOT because it's the best or cheapest way to conduct scientific study of the cosmos, but because it teaches us about supporting life for extended periods away off earth. Because of it's inspirational value. Because its brings humanity together. Because if humanity is to have a long term future we have to go. Because there is something deep in the human psyche that drives us to be wanderers and explorers.

[ComissarGrimDark]

I'm watching this as STS-135 prepares for the final space shuttle mission. An era is ending as Atlantis blasts into the sky. I wish her succesors luck..

[RepublibotThreePoint]

I like the song, but it seems a little odd to mention the Challenger disaster and not mention Komarov, who died on a Vostok mission, and Dobrovolski, Patsayev, and Volkov, who died in the Soyuz 1 disaster in 1970. Equal time due. The fire in the sky has claimed 18 people so far.

[magiimice]

Human gave theirself a decade to make a nice song about sciense and Greek gods

[AlAx15011980]

We are humanity. And our fire burning in the sky!

[HuntressUnya]

The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space - each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made that irrational decision. (Kudos to XKCD for the quote)

[z0nt21]

Thirty years on LEO... what were we thinking, was it a hazy dream, a nightmare?

I long for the day when the majority of countries, nay, People pool their resources to devise a plan, any project that furthers our evolution, and with no second back-thoughts about it.

[pubuman]

@z0nt21 Here Here!

[rottencranberry]

1:16 There is a dragonfly just at the exact moment apollo's lifting up. GODSPEED.

[SkyyCaptainn]

I want to see our fire in another sky

[DraconisDean]

Then five decades from Gagarin, 50 years to the day...

... we're puttering around in a tiny low-orbit space station, and haven't sent anyone to the moon in almost 30 years. Pathetic.

[mdt105]

@DraconisDean There's not really any point in sending people to the moon other than boasting right now - anything humans can do there can be done better with machines. Same with Mars. As for the ISS, well, assuming you want a manned Mars mission, it's a requirement; the ISS has required the development and implementation of a lot of tech we'd need for a Mars shot, like, for example, microgee toilets. Better to test that stuff out near Earth where there's some room for failure.

[smellincoffee]

April 12 1961:

"Gagarin was the first, back in 1961

When like Icarus, undaunted, he climbed to reach the Sun

And he knew he might not make it, for it's never hard to die --

But he lifted off the pad, and rode a fire in the sky!"

[chengloki]

The shuttle program is ended . There is no viable follow on.The X-37-B is just a small project, it will never be "Man Rated". The "Orion Project" is defunded. (Killed). The SSTO was stopped because of fuel tank cracks. (The Venture Sar). Oh, Let's stop instead of R&D!!! I don't know about you, but I'm really tired of living on this rock. The good stuff is "out there". =Stefan=

[pubuman]

How can anyone dislike this ?!?!?!?

[rottencranberry]

@pubuman 12 people feel pretty commfortable tightened to this stone.

[z0nt21]

Prometheus, they say, brought God's fire down to Man

And we've caught it, tamed it, trained it since our History began.

Now we're going back to Heaven, just to look Him in the eye:

There's a thunder cross the land and a Fire in the Sky.

There is so much Truth in these words, the kind of Truth that is elevated above all else.

I will keep whatever it takes to keep the Fire burning.

[Theelderdragon01]

GODSPEED to all our shuttles. Come home safe.

[zaivala]

Jordin later amended the song to, "And like Challenger and Columbia..." I sang this version at the Columbia Memorial at Trinoc*coN 2003 in Durham NC

[rohitaudipudi]

No cradle lasts forever, every bird must learn to Fly!

We're Goin to the stars, see our fire in the sky!

Love it!! We're goin to the stars!!

[MollesterJester]

i love this but i dont know why

[NekuraCa]

Great song, and great clips, this is a prefect video for this song.

[KBAFourthtime]

What kinds of spacecraft are flying during the parts,

"Now the rest is up to us and there's a future to be won.

We must turn our faces outward. We will do what must be done."?

[thuvt]

@KBAFourthtime: That's the Helios Prototype Solar-Powered Aircraft at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center

[KBAFourthtime]

@thuvt During which of those two lines I wrote? Or do I mean, which half of the line?

[FSpacelab]

@KBAFourthtime There's only one aircraft - Helios showed during both of those two lines you wrote.

[AlAx15011980]

Soyuz 1

Soyuz 11

Challenger

Columbia...

The Memory and the glory of the heroes of the space!

[Szgerle]

The Soyuz being vastly better than the Soyuz is a hard pill for a lot of americans to swallow. They should stop defending an obviously inferior system, just because of some misplaced patriotism.

[135barbara]

Thank you, thuvt. Your videos are evocative of the wonder, and the glory, and the danger, inherent in space exploration. I shiver when I hear this song and see your films. Keep reminding us. Continue to be our conscience and our voice until we finall soar to heaven.

[Dazzacopley]

BEST SONG EVAR!!!

[Rivercoon]

This version might have been written in 1991 but Jordan put out an earlier version that talked about the Apollo 1 fire. That was on "Minus Ten And Counting" put out by Off Centaur Publications in 1983.

[andysim232]

I Love this song. I only heard it first time today and I cant stop playing it.  Fantastic!

[GangsterSeba]

scheiss konovalov



[DireWolf505]

A truly grand song.

[DarkAngelKisses13th]

Anyone else get goosebumps? I did. Like eight times listening to this.

[andysim232]

@DarkAngelKisses13th I got goosebump too.

[rohitaudipudi]

@DarkAngelKisses13th For no Cradle Lasts forever, Every Bird must learn to Fly, We're goin to the stars , see our Fire in the Sky... !!

Man This guy is the God of Space Age literature.. 100 Times Still Goosebumps....

[nikobil]

Where can I download this?

[Kieselmeister]

@nikobil

prometheus music

you can listen to the whole album online, or buy the mp3s and cds

[GrigoriZhukov]

That's nice JBurdoo...now which one took more people per trip? Hmm...can't recall soyuz (fine system if you like bottle rockets) taking more than 3-4 at a time.

[siyuntz]

we're all idiots

[merloon]

Anybody else think of the opening credits sequence to "Enterprise"?

[salemcripple]

"They say she's just a truck, but she's a truck aiming high, See her big jets burning, see her fire in the sky" and "Though a nation watched her falling, yet a world could only cry as they passed from us to glory, riding fire in the sky"

Hell yeah! I love those parts!

[chengloki]

salem, yeah, I bet you love watching Americans die !!! =Stefan=

[GrigoriZhukov]

@salemcripple I still like an old description "It's a dragracing winnebago" ;^) But truck does sing better.

[VulcanFleet]

chengloki, if you're going to insult and misrepresent the President, at least have the good manners to spell his name right. Obama is much more friendly to scientific exploration than Bush was, but with the economic problems and the need for health reform he's having to be careful to keep the debt in check.

On a lighter note, I love this song! It sends chills down my spine.

[chengloki]

Vulcan, I don't have to misrepresent the president, he does a good enough job on his own! !! What, 5 months since McChrystal requested more troops? A nd Obama still has not made a decision?? Maybe he should go back to Copenhagen, and get another prize. Hey, the Nobel prize for naivetey!!I can't think of anyone who deserves it more!! =Stefan=

[chengloki]

Vulcan, Ah yes, Obama keps telling about what he did, he keeps blaming Bush. (Georgie did it)! He can't take criticism. He keeps apologising. Any one who has been a parent, sees this. We don't have a president, we have a 2 year old. I'm not paying his way, will you!! As for keeping the debt in check, he ain't doing it!!!Obama is an IDIOT!!! =Stefan=

[chengloki]

Vulcan, Obama has denied NASA the funds to go back to the moon. Really friendly, man!!!He has only one agenda, GOV'T HEALTHCARE. I watched his "State of the Union Message". I needed a strong drink half way through. =Stefan=

[chengloki]

My prior two comments have aquired negative ratings. I believe that people hate hearing the truth. Damnit! We should have a permanent base on the moon, now, and planning the Mars mission.Instead, Barak is planning on how to bilk the US citizen. (Even worse, he's succeding). O.K. Call me a racist because I protest his policies. Know what? I don't give a rat's ass. Barak, at worst, is evil, at best, very naive. =Stefan=

[pubuman]

What's going to the moon got to do with Mars?

[chengloki]

The government is not going to do it. The damned liberals wan't their agenda. (ooooh, the gov't is taking care of me, where's my vibrator). We have to go on our own. Space exploration must be sponsored by the private sector. Can you imagine the minerals available in the asteroid belt?? =Stefan=

[chengloki]

Does, any one, besides me, see the new Orion spacecraft as a step backwards??? Oh, I'll grant that it is much bigger than Apollo, But seems that it is the same idea. What ever happened to the STS follow on?? =Stefan=

[Ironduke666]

Don't think so, the Shuttle was an maintenance nightmare, like every successor will be. And the Russian Sojuz showed that a conventional capsule is cheaper and safer than a shuttle. As for lifting payloads: no need for a driver there.

Scientific experiments can be conducted on the ISS or dedicated unmanned platforms.

There's only one thing the shuttle could and other platforms not: repairs and recovery in orbit.

[chengloki]

Iron, ever work on a King Air?? Talk about a maintenance night mare!! Yet, there are thousands flying. Why? They do the job. (Personnaly, I prefer working on Cessna twins). Yes, I'm an FAA certificated aircraft technician. =Stefan=

[112428]

Soyuz is not nessesarily safer than the shuttle. Russia lost Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 3, While the US lost Challenger and Columbia. NASA only lost more people because the shuttle is designed to carry 7 people while Soyuz can only carry 3 people.

[pubuman]

Not true, if you look at the number of soyuz launches to failures, its way better than the shuttle, and thats the key stat. Also the total number of lives lost/total number of people carried into orbit is lower for the Soyuz (lower the better)

[Kieselmeister]

@112428

Soyuz has had 898 launches and 24 failures across all Soyuz variants

the STS has had 129 launches and 2 failures

that gives a 2.67% rate for Soyuz, and 1.55% for the Shuttle.

The shuttle is nearly twice as safe as the Soyuz rocket.

Even more so when you consider that the 2 most recent Soyuz variant has already lost a rocket over only 7 launches

[JBurdoo]

Soyuz has had 898 launches and 4 deaths -- the Shuttle has had 129 and 14 deaths. In terms of man-hours, the Soyuz program is vastly more successful. And it is about to outlast the shuttle.

[Kieselmeister]

@Jburdoo The Soyuz CAPSULE has only been on 105 of the Soyuz ROCKETS.

Luck is the only reason no capsules have been lost via rocket failure.

Also every time an airliner crashes, 100s of people die, but an airliner is still safe than a car. Because each individual person who travels by air has a lower chance of being killed.

The STS carries twice the crew of the Soyuz, & has flown 20% more. If the lives lost / people launched was the same as Soyuz, the STS should have lost 29 lives not 14.

[pubuman]

@Kieselmeister Of all astronauts launched into space the US space programme has a fatalitly rate of 4.1% and the Soviet Union/Russia has a fatality rate of 0.9% - enough said.

[Kieselmeister]

@pubuman The math on that wiki page is not accurate, and you aren't quoting it directly.

18 astronauts have died, but 3 were Apollo 1, which wasn't a flight.

One was an X-15 flight which was not part of a space program, which didn't reach the FAI accepted boundary of space.

Also, the overall program rates have no bearing on a comparison between the STS and Soyuz launch systems.

The only reason Soyuz has fewer deaths is LUCK. The russians have been lucky that only cargo Soyuz have been lost.

[Kieselmeister]

@pubuman 24 failures, out of 898 launches, with a subset of 105 manned launches, can be binomially calculated.

the chance of getting 103 or more successes from 105 launches, with the overall 2.67% failure rate over all Soyuz rockets is 46.6%.

This indicates that the difference between manned and unmanned Soyuz is so close to even, that they can statistically be part of the same group.

The STS has a failure rate of 1.55%, and the Soyuz has 2.67%.

STS is thus STATISTICALLY safer than Soyuz.

[Kieselmeister]

I believe that the wiki page which pubuman was trying to quote was listing the percentage of astronauts who have died, without counting each multiple flights by the same astronauts...

there have only been 277 american astronauts + those of friendly nations, and 4% of them have died.

but I added up the crews of each STS flight, and got 775. giving a ratio of 14/775 or 1.81%

Soyuz has flown between 105-315 cosmonauts, giving a rate between 3.81%-1.27%

an average of 2/flight gives 1.90%

[pubuman]

@Kieselmeister Futhermore, if one is to consider the two systems properly one must consider the systems after the shuttles introduction (otherwise the comparisons are with older technology, procedures etc). Considering launches since 1980.1.1 there have been 16 failures out of 913 launches (where did you get 898 from anyway?!?!) - which is worse than the shuttle overall, but there have been 0 manned failures. As for the stats above, the Soyuz has flown 288 cosmonauts by my count, giving 1.39%.

[pubuman]

@Kieselmeister Sorry, cosmonauts and astronauts I guess... I'm pretty sure some of them were glad the Soyuz was around and reliable enough to bring them back when the shuttle failed.. By any reasonable analysis the Soyuz programme ends up in front of the STS for reliabilty and safety, which is probably what prompted the ESA to state "Soyuz launch vehicle: The most reliable means of space travel" - and of course this is not considering the cost per kg analysis in which the Soyuz trumps the STS.

[Kieselmeister]

@pubuman

The numbers are from wiki R-7 family page.

Soyuz are the last 12 entries , totaling the numbers gives 896 launches, & 24 failures. Since the page was updated there had been 2 Soyuz launches, now 3.

the Most Reliable moniker from the ESA, is reffering to the Soyuz SPACECRAFT stage, not the Soyuz launch system. Bringing back 284/288 people edges out 761/775, by .42%

making a distinction between the rocket and capsule, is like distinguishing between the SRB and the Orbiter

[pubuman]

@Kieselmeister Not at all, if you read through the article they mention more than a 105 launches. Regardless, that still doesn't address the point I raised about the differences in a human payload and cargo. So no, its not like making a distinction between the SRB and Orbiter. Futhermore, if you are considering the Soyuz launch system your numbers are off. And you have not considered my point about the changing technologies etc.

[pubuman]

@Kieselmeister from 1980, a conservative estimate (i.e. on the rate of success) puts 16 failures out of 913 launches for the "Soyuz" launch vehicle - 1.75% - while this is still worse than the shuttle, the human missions have had 0% failure, which under the hypothesis test yields 30% (i.e. the hypothesis is invalid). The 73 upgrades to the Soyuz system made it essentially a different vehicle from previous versions. Why not go from 73? That makes the numbers even better for Soyuz.

[Kieselmeister]

@pubuman

The Soyuz was upgraded 4 times since the STS first flew. Starting with Soyuz-U2 in 1982, those variants have flown no more than 185 times, with 3 failures.

The exact number of Soyuz-U2 launches is in doubt, ranging from 66-92.

62 manned Capsules flew since STS.

binomial P(x) of 62/62 with p(182/185) = 36.29%

The hypothesis test needs an arbitrary critical value.

1 deviation = 16-84%

2 SD = 2.5-98.5%

The 36.29% given by the binomial falls easily within a 1 SD critical value.

[pubuman]

@Kieselmeister FIrst of all, your initial hypothesis was that the Russians were lucky. A result of 46& means that the probabily of your hypothesis being correct is 46% (not exactly, but for a simple discussion it does). So that hypothesis is wrong. Secondly you don't assign an arbitary value like you said. The hypothesis test result is the confidence in the said hypothesis. Your analysis is flawed, you've confused two things together I think.

[Kieselmeister]

@pubuman

4 Soyuz variants post 1981, starting with the U2, for at least 159 & no more than 185 launches.

3 failures.

62 manned capsules since STS launch.

Binomial chance of 62/62 perfect record, with p(182/185) = 36.29%

Null hypothesis = spacecraft are same, 50% predicted binomial

Hypothesis test requires an arbitrary critical value. binomials are approx. normal.

range of 1st standard deviation = 16-84%

2SD is proscribed for such tests, 36.29% falls well within 1SD.

Null is not disproved.

[Kieselmeister]

@pubuman Assume null1 = The 4 STS era Soyuz rockets would be equal ore more safe than STS over 131 flights, alternate1 = less null2 = equal or less, alternate2 = more p(182/185) 129/131 flights 1 standard deviation critical value equals= .2717, worse= .3572, better= .3711 null1= .643, alternate1= .358 null2= .629, alternate2= .371 in the 1st, Soyuz was not 1 SD worse than STS in the 2nd, Soyuz was not 1 SD better than STS The 4 STS era Soyuz are thus within 1 SD of the STS in safety terms

[pubuman]

@Kieselmeister Again, what is this arbitary critical value you are talking about? Even if your analysis is correct (which its not) - then your statement that the STS is statistically safer than the Soyuz is wrong...

[pubuman]

@Kieselmeister @Kieselmeister That analysis does not take into account any differences in the way a manned launches are carried out as opposed to cargo only launches. Its not luck, its that the processes involved are not identical, and despite contrary claims the Russians do care about their cosmonauts. So the only thing you can accurately compare is the manned launches to unmanned launches. Also how did you get 46.6% - its actually 23.7% indicating a significant statistical deviation.

[Kieselmeister]

@pubuman

p=.9733

n=105

chance of getting more than 103 successes = 22.6%

chance of getting at more than or equal 103 successes = 46.6%

(>=) not (>)

[pubuman]

@Kieselmeister @Kieselmeister No, the correct intepretation is the complement of 103 or less successes (23%) - because of the way you have chosen to intepret the meaning of the probability. If you simply apply the hypothesis testing method in which case the "47%" is valid, then the correct intepretation is that the hypothesis - "The russians got lucky" is not correct.

[pubuman]

You seem to be an idiot..

[chengloki]

pubu, and you seem to have studied the manual quite well. Challenge my intelligence instead of rational debate. So who's the real idiot??? =Stefan=

[pubuman]

There is no rational reason for continuing with something like the shuttle...

[chengloki]

pubu, what is the reason for not having a follow on. The new Orion is a step backward. The venture Star was canceled. (Due to cracks in the fuel tanks). Don't R&D the problem, just cancel it!!Right now, the shuttle does the job. We have nothing else at this time. =Stefan=

[pubuman]

Perhaps, but the Soyuz does the same job in a far more efficient and safer manner. The Soyuz's reliability is far superior to the shuttle, and per kg payload the Soyuz costs only ~50% of what the shuttle costs. The only thing the shuttle is good for is recovery of payloads and maintenance missions. And the Soyuz is so much older. Just shows how badly the shuttle programme has faired. Its not step backwards, its the logical progression given these facts.

[112428]

The main reason that the shuttle is more expensive is because it is so much heavier. The original plans called for it to be a lot lighter, but the Air Force wanted it to be able to able to launch into a polar orbit to lauch spy satellites above the USSR from Vandenberg Air Force base in California. But after the Challenger diaster the Air Force abandoned any plans to use the shuttle and mothballed the Vandenberg shuttle pad.

[ucihapokujin]

just like how the russians built up a submarine corps so impressive it spent most of its time in the shipyard for repairs!

isn't it incredible what you can learn through aristotelian science?

[pubuman]

Who are you replying to? You aren't makng much sense.. unless you are trolling, in which case.. troll fail :P

[JBurdoo]

Yes, and regardless of numbers of crew the Russians have accomplished a bit more than us -- in low earth orbit if not the Moon. Seven space stations versus one and a half, for one thing. And it's not the shuttle that's doing most of (about to be all) the work on the ISS, is it?

Bottom line -- the Soyuz is cheap and reliable. It's not snazzy or hi-tech, but it gets the job done. Not particularly well, maybe, but well enough for government work...

[pubuman]

@JBurdoo Heh, yeah exactly the point I was making - I would say its made in a decent enough manner, seeing as it does what its supposed to do without much fuss...

[ucihapokujin]

absolutely zero use for a reusable orbiting vehicle

absolutely no applications could ever come out of a vehicle that can make multiple trips to LEO with some payload and a human crew

[pubuman]

No, I mean the current shuttle programme. The way its launched etc is just inefficient.

[ucihapokujin]

oh i totally agree. we should do that shit like jules verne

[ideasrule]

Uh, what? You don't think that being able to launch, release a satellite, de-orbit, refuel, and launch again within hours is a useful capability? It would certainly drastically decrease the cost of sending up satellites.

[chengloki]

We will go to the stars, one way or the other. =Stefan=

[fenrusrat]

Great imagery for this song. Thanks for doing this.

[bluenina]

great stuff!

[taipei345]

Thank u buddy :)

[KiriannasBoyARtisan]

Is the reason Jordin Kare didn't write about Columbia's disintegration because it hadn't disintegrated when the song was written?

[thuvt]

That's right, he wrote the song in 1991.

[JBurdoo]

@thuvt Hey, Cat Faber (who also wrote The Word of God) wrote an excellent song about the loss of Columbia. I haven't been able to find a copy, and I'd love to see your take on it!

[JBurdoo]

When I sing this myself, I modify that line, to "Columbia and Challenger, twice more the price have paid."

Excellent video, BTW. Where did you get the space-probe animation at the end?

[KiriannasBoyARtisan]

I didn't get it.

[pubuman]

...?!?!

[meowwl]

I recognize that...it's part of a CGI animation of the Cassini mission's Titan landing....the Huygens probe.

[abhijith555]

Amazing Video. Good Job !

[bereabeard]

Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL do you read me, HAL?

HAL: Affirmative, Dave, I read you.

Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

HAL: I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Dave Bowman: What's the problem?

HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?

HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL

[lordioris]

Fantastic video, the song is simply brilliant! 5 stars all the way!

\,,/ \,,/

[xxxpartyhatmagexxx]

nice vid , but i wanted to see the alien ubduction scene from the movie "fire in the sky" lolz

[Solsequiem]

Wow...great song, absolutely amazing! Having always been a space fan, I loved this one. Thank you for sharing it!

[Oldwolf63]

Awsome !!!

[VaemerRiit]

This Vidio + Song should be aired somewhere for the masses to see. Its just epic... =^_^=

[NansJns]

Totally awesome vid!

[DrCantankerous]

This is my favorite song, ever, period.

[EXvall]

awasome!!!

[Ovtsehuev]

As they passed from us to glory

Riding fire in the sky...

Юра. Был. Первым.

[armorsmith43]

umm, I think you meant to comment on the lines about Gagarin. this line is about death.

Ну... Я думаю-что ты хочил писать о Гагарин. Эти слови о мёрте Американских Космонотов.

[greengrendel]

that like makes me teary each time...

[Canisestlupus]

I must to see before I die :

Our fire in another sky...

[knfstarfire]

At least some one is willing to put it out there for people to see :-) keep it up!!

[scumhunter1966]

I'll remember until I die.....

[scarobot]

rapchandus

[GuiltySpark347]

thank you.

[xxgooglexxman]

I love this vid, its so awesome

[xxgooglexxman]

This is the first time I heard this song and personally I Love it! It was brilliant and it went very well with the movie

[scotterechillin]

where da hell can i find da full film

[farmfanatic14]

ok my uncle my dad and i all love this IT IS GREAT!!!

[sandle2]

One of my favorite filk recordings ever - thanks for this!

[foolswisdom]

Fantastic! To Touch the Stars is a great album!