Ryan Promises “Robust” Space Program, Provides No Details
In an interview with WPTV in Florida, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan was asked about defense and the space program. His answer was more focused on the former (spend more!) than the latter (“robust”), providing few clues about what he and presidential candidate Mitt Romney would do with NASA if elected. Ryan refused to answer a question about NASA’s commercial space efforts.
Excerpts below.
Countering critics who perceived him and Romney as weak on national security and foreign policy, Ryan said Romney would propose to strengthen defense spending if elected.
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 cancellation 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.
Read the full story.
2 responses to “Ryan Promises “Robust” Space Program, Provides No Details”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

In other words more focus to established space defence contractors to build robust systems like SLS and Orion and eliminate wastefull spending on non-robust so called comercial space such as Comercial Crew.
Vote 1 for Pork with Ryan.
Love the sneaky meaningless phrasing…
“Ryan said Romney would propose to strengthen defense spending if elected.”
“Strengthen” spending, not increase it. Because “increased spending” is a bad thing, but “strong spending” is good.
“President Obama has advanced what we think are devastating and irresponsible cuts to defense programs.”
Cuts to “defense programs”, not “defense funding”. Because reducing “government” is good, but “cutting defense” is bad.