Amazing Hearing in Congress Yesterday, 12/12/12, The Honorable Ralph Hall chaired his last hearing concerning American spaceflight. Sadly, it wasn’t attended by all the members of the full Committee on Science, Space and Technology. What a shame – it was the best hearing the committee has had in memory. Nothing against the hearing that included Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, Maria Zuber, and Mike Griffin; but this hearing had real substance.
Space News is reporting that an “ad hoc” panel of the National Research Council (NRC) is looking into possible NASA Field Center closures. This is a codeword for “downsizing”. If NASA is to survive this must happen sooner rather than later. Here is a brief portion of the article:
The ad hoc panel of the National Research Council (NRC) has its origins in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2112), which funded NASA and other federal agencies. The law set aside $1 million for the NASA inspector general “to commission a comprehensive independent assessment of NASA’s strategic direction and agency management.”
Willard Mitt Romney is ignorant when it comes to space policy and it was on display for all to see at Thursday night's debate. There is no possible explanation we can offer as to why Mr. Romney commented and used the rhetoric he did, it just was incoherent. Mr. Romney was all over the place on the space issue showing he really has no cogent thoughts about space exploration, settlement, and policy. Watch this video of Mr. Romney addressing the space issue and then compare it to Mr. Gingrich. I wish I had more from Mitt Romney on space but this is all that could be found.
Back on October 4th of 2011 TEA Party in Space reported that Nobel Prize scientists acknowledged that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) was killing science. Our position was mocked and ridiculed. Supporters of the JWST said that the information was taken out of context (I guess you needed an IQ over 140 to think that).
TEA Party in Space (TPIS) has always stated the position of competing the Space Launch System (SLS). Not only would this avenue promote innovation and competition, but would compete ideas in the private sector as well as creating jobs. We have been attacked in the past for calling SLS in its current form, "a government jobs program", when it reallty was. Now we have proof.