Ryan on NASA
A conversation with Paul Ryan about Medicare reform, Cuba and NASA, ABC Action News
“Ryan, who voted against the 2008 and 2010 NASA Authorization Acts, said he believed in a “robust space program.” He said the space agency, which has shed thousands of jobs after the retirement of the space shuttle and the cancelation of its Constellation program, was an “invaluable asset to our national security.” “President Obama has advanced what we think are devastating and irresponsible cuts to defense programs. We want to restore that because we believe in peace through strength. We believe in scientific research. We obviously believe that a robust space program is in the vital national security interests of America,” he said. “Mitt Romney has committed to restoring our national defense which we see as a national security issue including our space programs.” Ryan declined to say which role, if any, commercial space companies such as Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, would have under a Romney-Ryan administration.”
“We believe in scientific research. We obviously believe that a robust
space program is in the vital national security interests of America,”
he said.
Really?!? WTF?
Does this guy have any idea what NASA does?
While I do not comment frequently on left-leaning sites, such as Nasawatch, I have to say that Gonzo’s comment seems over-reactive to the rather positive quotation.
Here is a break down.
“We beleieve in scientific research”
I am so happy they “beleieve” in scientific research. Preferably, I would like to hear something along the lines of, “I will increase funding for scientific research.” or, “I will advocate for NASA to focus research more on A, B and C and to properly fund it it so these projects succeed”. Vague sound bites from supposedly intelligent and learned people is getting a bit old.
“We obviously beleive that a robust space program is in the vital national security interests of America”
Once again, I don’t care about their beliefs on the subject. Where are the details!?! More importantly, it is not NASA’s job to spend our money on national security and defense. That would be the job of our military. More specifically the job of the Air Force and in many cases the Navy, and their budgets by comparison are massive.
While I do not comment frequently on left-leaning sites, such as
Nasawatch,
WTF?? Civil Space has no left or right. Keith is trying to keep NASA honest.
comment seems over-reactive to the
rather positive quotation.
Ryan’s short statement on NASA to a Florida audience, if you actually read it, does not describe the real NASA of today. He either has no clue what NASA actually does (hard to believe) or he is signalling the Romney/Ryan game plan to gut everything in the agency that cannot be transferred to DoD space programs.
Has nothing to do with reading it.
You get labelled an “Obamaton” if you want the best for your nation to be competitive with others, … and Obama has had the foresight to have done it because his rivals chose to forgo it.
Ergo, you chose something incompatible with Obama’s rivals. So it you’re not for them, you’re against them.
So they live in a irrational world where NASA is whatever they need it to be at any time, such that the blinders to the obvious contradictions conveniently hide them.
I never depend on such people. You never know what they’ll choose to blind themselves to.
But that’s the price of political purity. Left or right.
I’m just a dumb engineer – that stuff’s beyond my ken.
“Left-leaning”? Hilarious. When I posted commentary seen as supportive of George Bush’s space policy some of y’all said I was a Bushie. When I was critical of the Clinton space policy I got complaints that I was a neocon.
Libertarians like Paul Ryan cannot justify taxing people to pay for NASA, but they all love NASA nonetheless.
Steve
It makes you wonder what he might have been muttering out of the other side of his mouth as he left the stage. To me, his comments seemed as non-committal but positive-sounding as he could make them, so he can still fall back in either direction without having to appear as having changed his position. In other words, a net content of zero.
Steve
That assessment sounds about right.
Mr. Romney was commendably straightforward regarding space. He said he would fire anyone who suggested spending significant amounts on a lunar base. Mr. Ryan has made clear in his budget proposal that he would significantly reduce NASA funding and said nothing in the interview to suggest otherwise.
Why is “defense” so critical again? Is Syria going to attack us? just as Iraq would have as this same party has claimed?
When it comes down to it, all of these research and science remarks are just about protecting and promoting oil income.
There are conservatives in the south think these “successful businessmen” are looking out for their interests. It’s really downright hilarious with some of these people who think their 5-6 figure income is what these guys are concerned about protecting. These guys are associated with bankruptcies that easily eclipse the average middle classes by orders of magnitudes. Who do you think pays for that?
They don’t care about you and they don’t care about NASA. Just about all politicians stink in this country, but these guys take it a new level.
Their concept of “national security” is the development of hardware for use in the “proxy war” of space exploration.
The more outlandish the expense/size/payload capacity, the greater the monument to America’s greatness. It’s like the grand cathedrals you find in Europe, that were built bigger and bigger to out compete other cities/nations. Had nothing to do with religion, other than larger must mean that “God is on our side”. Thus the fanaticism.
These people could actually care less about space exploration. Its just an excuse for (heh heh) having another large scale weapons program to intimidate other nations. Doesn’t matter even if it works.
It’s all about threat, not about results.
Mike,
I really, really, really, hate to say this, but SLS might just work in our favor in preventing this ill-informed team from derailing NASA HSF, which may, if we’re lucky, give them pause to reconsider other NASA undertakings. If these clowns end up in the WH, I can foresee them trying to make sweeping changes in all kinds of areas, not just NASA, and the net result is going to be chaos, very expensive time-wasting chaos.
In almost any other profession, you have to serve a detailed and lengthy apprenticeship before you can think about becoming a senior person. Not in politics; not even if you’re running for President. It’s a recipe for trouble.
Steve
Another “I love NASA…blah,blah,blah” speech. Sounds like everybody else. I do
like the SLS, one reason is that big programs keep the money and the attention on the agency. NASA shouldn’t be doing climate research, other federal agencies can do that. NASA shouldn’t be a political football. I was very upset that the discussion to continue or cancel Constellation a few years back came down whether you liked Obama or Bush.
Cancelling Constellation was the right decision, especially since the Republican’s can’t have it both ways. They want a great space program, but they don’t want to seem like they’re part of the problem when it comes to spending in DC. Guess what, Constellation done right would of cost more than the Republican’s or the Democrats would have been happy spending in what was a recession at the time. Anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves.
Not to mention, it isn’t like Constellation is really dead anyway. Orion is still alive, and the Ares V is still alive if renamed the SLS. The only thing that changed was that the destination was dropped, and we switched to having the comemrical crew getting us into space. Which just makes sense and even looks like it’ll actually pay off better than the Ares I would have, Constellation wouldn’t have left us gap-less after all. Indeed, the Augustine committee concluded that the Ares I might not fly until at least 2019! Long after we needed a ride to ISS if it is deorbited in 2020.
Space X & Boeing are cheaper, and will get us back to space faster. The Ares I deserves to be dead.
his record for these 14 years only demonstrates incompetence (hasn’t accomplished anything in congress), hypocrisy (took stimulus money, did’t care about the deficit before obame was elected), flip-flopping (was an ayn rand fan before he wasn’t) and fanaticism (wanted to make abortion illegal under *all* circumstances, no exceptions for rape etc.). this guy is a bad joke, an intellectual light-weight with zero accomplishments.
actually the pentagon disagrees with you:
Pentagon, CIA Eye New Threat: Climate Change
http://www.npr.org/template…
there are a lot more articles on this…
Ryan shows an inexcusable misunderstanding of NASAs function. NASA’s charter is very clear- it is a civilian space agency. It does not do defense related R&D. This is not to say that spin off does not benefit the defense department as it benefits private industry.