The scramble in Congress to head the House committee on Space, Science, and Technology after November’s election has begun.

Pioneer cover

From the press release: From the moment he is handed a possibility of making the first alien contact, Saunders Maxwell decides he will do it, even if doing so takes him through hell and back.

Unfortunately, that is exactly where that journey takes him.

The vision that Zimmerman paints of vibrant human colonies on the Moon, Mars, the asteroids, and beyond, indomitably fighting the harsh lifeless environment of space to build new societies, captures perfectly the emerging space race we see today.

He also captures in Pioneer the heart of the human spirit, willing to push forward no matter the odds, no matter the cost. It is that spirit that will make the exploration of the heavens possible, forever, into the never-ending future.

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at amazon, Barnes & Noble, all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit.

The scramble in Congress to head the House committee on space after November’s election has begun.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) have begun to quietly campaign to replace Rep. Ralph Hall as chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology next year, according to Stu Witt, General Manager and CEO of the Mojave Air and Space Port.

If Rohrabacher gets the chairmanship it will be very be good news for commercial space, and bad news for the NASA-built and very expensive Space Launch System (SLS). He has been a strong supporter of private space, and will likely want to funnel money to it from SLS.

I’m not sure giving private space more cash is necessarily a good thing, as that will encourage these new companies to be less efficient, more expensive, and more dependent on the government. However, getting SLS shut down will certainly help the federal budget deficit.


Every July, to celebrate the anniversary of the start of Behind the Black in 2010, I hold a month-long fund-raising campaign to make it possible for me to continue my work here for another year.

This year's fund-raising drive however is more significant in that it is also the 10th anniversary of this website's founding. It is hard to believe, but I have been doing this for a full decade, during which I have written more than 22,000 posts, of which more than 1,000 were essays and almost 2,600 were evening pauses.

This year's fund drive is also more important because of the growing intolerance of free speech and dissent in American culture. Increasingly people who don't like what they read are blatantly acting to blackball sites like mine. I have tried to insulate myself from this tyrannical effort by not depending on Google advertising or cross-posts Facebook or Twitter. Though this prevents them from having a hold on me, it also acts to limit my exposure.

Therefore, I hope you will please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


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


  • Joe

    The federal budget deficit in 2011 (the last year for which complete data is available) was $1.3 Trillion. The average yearly cost of the “very expensive” SLS is $3 Billion. That is about two tenths of one percent of the Federal Budget Deficit.

    Where is the other 99.8% of the money (another 499 such cuts) going to come from?

    I know you are against the SLS, but trying to use deficit reduction as an argument to cancel it is a real stretch.

  • wodun

    There isn’t any one big thing to cut. The three big things are SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense. That’s 80% of our budget but none of those will be cut out of existence. If we want to lower deficit spending it will take lots of little cuts of worthwhile programs, including the big 3. There are always more worthy causes than money.

    When it comes to SLS people might like to see that program gone but (I hope) people want NASAs funding not to get cut. So cutting SLS wouldn’t necessarily lead to a reduced deficit but maybe less waste.

  • Joe

    Saying that eliminating SLS would be “less waste” is a value judgment argument that has been beaten into the ground. I hope we can agree not to beat it one more time.

    As to the rest of your post, I actually agree with it.

  • steve mac

    I’ve been a supporter of Rohrabacher for years and I don’t live in his state. He has been a consistent voice for space exploration.

  • Joe

    Rohrabacher is an interesting political character.

    He supported the Delta Clipper Project vociferously, but then it was being developed in his district.

    On the other hand, he just as vociferously opposed the Transhab Module (the basic concept of which was eventually picked up by Bigelow Aerospace).

    If you want to support him (even though he does not live in your district), keep in mind the old cliché. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

  • DougSpace

    A NASA study showed that the Falcon 9 was developed between 1/3 and 1/8h the cost had it been done with FAR regulations. So yes, the SLS should be cancelled. Two commercially viable Falcon Heavies docked on LEO makes the SLS redundant. But the freed money should go to a “Lunar COTS” program to extend commercial space through cis-lunar to include the ice of the lunar poles.

  • Joe

    It is interesting how any topic is always turned to singing the praises of Space X.

    It is not readily apparent what that has to do with the use of deficit reduction as an argument to cancel the SLS, since you seem to be saying that any money allegedly saved should be spent elsewhere not used to reduce the deficit.

    As far as the NASA study is concerned, if you really believe that simply changing a management style can reduce cost by a factor of three (much less eight) why not advocate the application of the same management structure to the SLS program? It should give the same kind of alleged saving there as well.

Leave a Reply

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