Tea Party in Space argues for more money for commercial space

For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.


Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Andrew Gasser at the Tea Party in Space website today argues strongly for Congress to fully fund the new commercial space program at the $850 million amount requested by the Obama administration.

As much as I am for these new commercial companies, I do not think it a good idea to fund them at these high levels.

For one thing, the government is still broke. It can’t afford to spend that much money. It is therefore unseemly for a website that uses the “tea party” label to advocate more spending at this time.

For another, the more money the government commits to these companies, the more control the government is going to demand from them. Far better to keep the government participation as small as possible. Make it just enough to allow the companies to succeed but not enough so as to make the whole effort a government program.



  • Kelly Starks

    While I agree with most of what your saying (and yes a tea party site advocating huge pork handouts as “investments” in our future doesn’t fix somehow) given the bulk of the market they are finding, the gov rules them.

    Really this has always been the problem, NewSpace old space (companies that can do a HELL of a lot more with a couple billion then Musk and company are doing) no market buyers, means no product; adn for decades the market for heavy lift and crew carry has pretty much been DOD & NASA .. with a FEW other fights by others. So DC politics and purchasing whims rule. Others like Biggelow were thought to be a huge market shift — but its not happening.

    If SpaceX holds to its no FAR contracts excepted, they are going to starve out pretty quck.

    Really you want to revolutionize space as far as cost, accessability, etc — you don’t need new tech, you need a new (hopefully BIG) market.

  • maybe the government can help out companies through an improved regulatory environment, better cooperation, and use of government facilities and information … things that don’t cost a lot of money but have good value

  • Kelly Starks

    Excelent oideas – not ones that find favor in the current admin, but excelent ideas.

    Really the core issue is about no market for launch services. Which make it really tough for any service provider – especially a strugling start up that can’t offer the best cost/quality/value, much less reputation and experence. Right now even the big players are tetering on the edge.

    REally the DOD’s bulk buy of the next few years worth of demand wasone of the best ways to help. No charity or gov grants. The DOD gets a disconut, and the vendors get a cash infusion..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *