US TEA Party defines its space policy

[DocM]

Like it or not the TEA Party is now a major force in US politics, so when they issue their first space policy platform it matters. Fact is they've taken some very good positions, many of which align well with Obama's commercial space initiatives.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33929

TEA Party Space Platform

(Washington DC) -- TEA Party in Space (TPIS), a non-partisan organization, today publicly released the TEA Party Space Platform (link to platform). "This is our response to the vacuum of leadership in Washington, D.C., for America's national space enterprise," said Andrew Gasser, President of TPIS. "Whether it's timidity from the White House or Congress' earmark-laden 'compromises', our space dreams will be stuck on this planet unless someone articulates a vision based on economic and technical reality, so that's what we've done."

>

[several paragraphs of why NASA's such a mess - all true]

>

TPIS and its volunteer network will be reaching out nationwide to candidates and elected officials of all parties.

# # #

TEA Party in Space (TPIS), is a non-partisan organization dedicated to educating the American people and their elected representatives in applying the core principles of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets to the rapid and permanent expansion of American civilization into the space frontier, focusing on strategies for privatization, deregulation, and appropriate technology development partnerships between government institutions and the private sector. TEA Party in Space is proud to be part of a coalition of individual tea party groups with Tea Party Patriots. For more information, visit www.TEAPartyinSpace.com

>

[Not space specific....]

>

TPIS Platform

The TEA Party in Space Platform is grounded in American exceptionalism and the TEA Party core values of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.

Our goal is nothing less than the expansion of American civilization into the solar system. Fifty years ago, the United States was in a Space Race with the Soviet Union. Our nation applied the strategy we had developed in World War II - a "crash" federal research and development program that spared no expense to accomplish the short-term goal of landing an American on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth. America can no longer afford the big government "crash" model. We must return to traditional American free-market principles to expand permanently into space. It was American individuals and businesses who pioneered the wilderness, built a continent-spanning nation, and created the most prosperous economy in the history of humanity.

We must therefore advance the goal of permanently settling the space frontier by fostering private as well as appropriate government activities in space. We can do so by:

1. Creating a legal, tax and regulatory framework, that fosters free and competitive markets that increasing private investment in space activities.

2. Pursuing all federal space activities, especially civilian projects, in such a way as to utilize and strengthen the U.S. commercial space industry, and realigning projects wherever necessary to reinforce, rather than distort, normal market forces.

Only through fiscally responsible policy, which limits government bureaucracy and stimulates the free market, will the United States expand on its leadership in space. By removing barriers of entry to the utilization of the solar system, new business models become viable. This sound free-market-based approach will create new sectors of the economy and strengthen America as the vanguard of freedom and opportunity as we spread throughout the solar system. We will carry forth the American values that made our nation great. The United States will settle space as it settled the American continent. The days of Lewis and Clark, and Apollo, are over.

This is the Oregon Trail space policy.

Law and Policy

Congress must implement new policies and reform old space laws to promote the greatest possible private-sector engagement in profitable free-market space activities. Therefore:

Plank - Congress must reform International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), easing restrictions on U.S. private enterprise from engaging in commerce with friendly countries in the sale of goods and services. Specifically, and among other things, satellites should be removed from the munitions list.

Plank - Congress must pass legislation capping liability for commercial human spaceflight.

Plank - Zero-G means Zero-Tax. In order to stimulate the growth of the space economy, the tax code must be amended to exempt from taxation, all business activities related to human spaceflight, including suborbital, low earth orbit (LEO), and beyond.

Plank - The Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST) shall continue to be the regulatory agency for private spaceflight, including spaceflight carried out by the private sector for the public sector. NASA shall only have jurisdiction over missions which are exclusively carried out by and for the government.

Plank - Space Property Rights - the US department of State shall be directed to review and amend as necessary applicable international law to ensure the rights of all US private entities are respected, up to and including renegotiation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1972 Liability Convention, and to reiterate US opposition to the 1979 Moon Treaty.

Plank - Congress must order a study to:

* Determine appropriate roles and responsibilities for existing space-related agencies

* evaluate agencies' performance in those functions where they currently exist

* identify potential realignment of those functions being performed, including assignment to new agencies

* identify homes for those functions currently not being performed, including new agencies.

Economic Policy

For American values to spread throughout the solar system, the United States government must strongly support and utilize free-market principles in how it promotes the settlement of space. Government agencies including FAA/AST, DOD (including DARPA), and NASA must become a partner of commercial entities and facilitator of market emergence and growth. These government agencies must also develop sound economic policies for commissioning new missions, project management, and technology development. Robust free-market competition has been objectively shown to be the most cost-effective means of producing and procuring goods and services. Therefore:

Plank - NASA shall, when seeking to develop new space capability, first attempt to do so via a partnership with one or more commercial entities using fixed-price Space Act Agreements (SAA). Failing this, NASA shall still attempt to structure the largest possible fraction of the development as such a partnership. Cost-plus development contracts should be focused solely on specific challenges that are so technically risky and complex that they require this flexibility

Plank - Under no circumstances will NASA use cost-plus contracts for the development of traditional, rocket-based, launch systems.

Plank - Congress shall fully fund, as requested, the next phase of Commercial Crew Development to ensure the successful development of three or more orbital human spaceflight systems. NASA shall commit to purchase follow-on service contracts eliminating reliance on Russia for access to the International Space Station and other missions which take place or begin in Low Earth Orbit.

Plank - Congress shall allow NASA to cancel all existing Shuttle, Ares, and Space Launch System contracts terminating the $11 billion dollar earmark in 2010 NASA Authorization Law (Public Law 111-267). In addition, NASA shall competitively bid the development of any and all human exploration transportation capabilities.

Plank - NASA shall use competitions and prizes whenever feasible to stimulate the private sector, including individual American inventors, to achieve innovative and affordable solutions to technological challenges.

Technology Development

To accelerate the opening of the space frontier and settlement of space, the United States government should form appropriate partnerships with the private sector to cost-effectively develop technologies. NASA, acting as one of the principal agencies involved in space settlement, will play a primary role in these technology development efforts. Therefore:

Plank - NASA shall partner with the private sector to identify and fund the development of technologies which shall be useful for the development of a space economy, infrastructure, and settlement. The areas of technology that must be brought to a commercial operational market include (but are not limited to) those which:

* Lower transportation and operations costs for an ever-expanding list of destinations in space

* Mitigate detrimental effects resulting from the space environment on human physiology

* Enable local resources extraction and utilization

Plank - NASA shall partner with the private sector and fund milestone-based development of new technology. NASA must become more effective in transitioning high-risk high-reward technologies to commercial applications.

* Fuel depots

* Space tugs

* Space-based nuclear reactors

* Space-based solar power generation

Plank - NASA shall partner with the Department of Energy (DOE) and immediately resume production of plutonium (238Pu) to be utilized in outer solar system exploration.

[guru]

little too much NASA centric for a "limited govt" party

[DrJohnSmitherson]

Kinda off topic, why doesn't nasa offer commercial space flights? Is it too expensive?

[spudtrooper]

I don't like it at all.. this isn't NASA, this is a tax payer funded corporate/profit protectionist scheme. Not only that, its written as if its an imperialistic agenda.. Space for humanity but F*&!$# sharing it with the russians! big fat "meh"

[DocM]

Kinda off topic, why doesn't nasa offer commercial space flights? Is it too expensive?

With shuttle flying at >$1 billion a launch price was a huge issue, plus NASA has a policy against space tourism flights to ISS - all those were Russian flights - its only destination since the Hubble refits. With the Shuttle fleet just one flight from retirement it hardly matters anyhow.

Also: the American part of ISS is being designated a National Laboratory like Brookhacen or Livermore, so it's even less of a civilian zone.

With the commercial spacefraft; Dragon, CST-100, Dream Chaser etc. Both civilian (ex: to Bigelow stations) and NASA flights will be done, and the passenger list to ISS will include all the partners including Russia.

In fact, there's a lot of talk about at least Dream Chaser and CST-100 being sold to other nations for their own space programs & commercial crew use - not much different than Boeing or Airbus selling airliners.

To this end all the CCDev spacecraft are being designed to be launcher-agnostic; just make an adapter and stick them on an Atlas V, Delta IV Heavy, Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy or the upcoming Space Launch System. The Soyuz launcher probably doesn't have the lift capacity for most of them, but a human rated Proton etc. might work.

[PreKe]

Like it or not the TEA Party is now a major force in US politics, so when they issue their first space policy platform it matters. Fact is they've taken some very good positions, many of which align well with Obama's commercial space initiatives.

So their principle of "limited government" means government funding and regulation?

Cool story, bro!

Tea Party: Claim to be for small government, ask for big government!

[DocM]

No, the is about making better choices for the space program - choices that will avoid vampire programs like Constellation, Shuttle, ISS, James Webb Space Telescope, etc. from sucking the life out of more worthy and efficient programs.

Making better choices would let NASA do more with less, especially if done using fixed price, milestone dtiven programs like commercial cargo/crew.

Best example is what SpaceX has done on less than $800M is astounding, especially when you consider Orion started about the same time, cost tens of billions (and counting) and won't fly crews until Dragon has already been operational for years.

In fact - Dragon's third unmanned flight is being integrated at KSC now for launch this fall while Orion - oops, MPCV - is still a hangar queen.

[PreKe]

No, the is about making better choices for the space program

Yes, choices leading to Big Government. The Tea Party loves Big Government. Except if the government does things like allow gay marriage or uphold the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

[DocM]

You clearly don't have a clue about the main TEA positions. Virtually all of its positions are economic and, to a degree, neo-isolationist. They are now seeking a 10 year goal of cutting $700B from the DoD budget as part of the coming budget cuts, tens of billions beyond what Obama proposes. That's just for starts.

As far as gay marriage goes, you'll find as many Dems against it as Reps - especially in certain ethnic communities. Including the sitting US president. It's no more a party line position than gun control, though proponents try to make it one.

By establishment clause I assume you mean you favor the anti-religious movement being pushed by some groups. While not establishing a state religion is in there, one also has to recognize that the rest of the 1st gives freedom to express both speech and religion in the public square in order to empower a freedom of religion. This is counter to the freedom from religion that some anti-religious people try to read into it - especially when their wrath is targeted almost exclusuvely at just two religions; Christianity and Judaeism. That is neither fair nor legal.

[PreKe]

I do have a clue about what the Tea Party claims, and what it actually does. It claims to be against Big Government, but it's extremely supportive of Big Government, as a matter of fact. As I have just demonstrated.

[jakem1]

[bguy_1986]

I do have a clue about what the Tea Party claims, and what it actually does. It claims to be against Big Government, but it's extremely supportive of Big Government, as a matter of fact. As I have just demonstrated.

You have no idea what you are talking about... but this isn't the place to discuss that.

[PreKe]

I have just explained how the Tea Party is for Big Government. You have chosen to simply ignore it and make bogus claims without backing them up.