Space Tradeoff DA—7ws GRAMS
Disad written by:
Evan Runburg
Aaron Chung
Izzy de la Guardia
1NC
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program will be funded now but it’s on the chopping
block and fragile funding levels are key – that’s key to private space development
--Other impacts in this ev: manufacturing, aerospace, private space access, space exploration,
Russian dependence bad, ISS good
Kremer, 5/30 [Dr. Ken Kremer, speaker, scientist, freelance science journalist, PhD in
Organic Chemistry and over 25 years of Research & Development and Manufacturing
experience, “’Why Commercial Crew is Critical for Future Exploration: One-on-One Interview
with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden,” http://www.universetoday.com/112192/whycommercial-crew-is-critical-for-future-exploration-one-on-one-interview-with-nasaadministrator-charles-bolden/, 5-30-2014, Evan]
NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, MD – Why is NASA’s Commercial Crew Program to develop private human transport
ships to low Earth orbit important? That’s the question I posed to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden when we met for an exclusive
interview at NASA Goddard. The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is the critical enabler “for
establishing a viable orbital infrastructure” in the 2020s, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told Universe
Today in an exclusive one-on-one interview at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Bolden, a Space Shuttle
commander who flew four time to space, says NASA wants one of the new American-made private crewed
spaceships under development by SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada – with NASA funding – to
be ready to ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) and back to Earth by late 2017. Flights for
other commercial orbital space ventures would follow later and into the next decade. Since the shutdown
of NASA’s space shuttle program following the final flight by STS-135 in 2011 (commanded by Chris Ferguson),
America has been 100% dependent on the Russians to fly our astronauts to the space station and
back. “Commercial crew is critical. We need to have our own capability to get our crews to space,”
Bolden told me, during a visit to the NASA Goddard cleanroom with the agency’s groundbreaking Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS)
science probes. Administrator Bolden foresees a huge shift in how the US will conduct space operations in low earth orbit (LEO) just
a decade from now. The future LEO architecture will be dominated not by NASA and the ISS but rather
by commercial entrepreneurs and endeavors in the 2020s. “There are going to be other commercial stations or other
laboratories,” Bolden excitedly told me. And the cash strapped Commercial Crew effort to build new
astronaut transporters is the absolutely essential enabler to get that exploration task done,
he says. “Commercial Crew is critical to establishing the low Earth orbit infrastructure that is
required for exploration.” “We have got to have a way to get our crews to space.” “You know people try to
separate stuff that NASA does into nice little neat packages. But it’s not that way anymore.” Bolden and NASA are already
looking beyond the ISS in planning how to use the new commercial crew spaceships being developed
by SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada in a public- partnership with NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
“Everything we do [at NASA] is integrated. We have to have commercial crew [for] a viable low Earth orbit
infrastructure – a place where we can do testing – for example with what’s going on at the ISS
today.” “And in the out years you are going to be doing the same type of work.” “But it’s not going to be on the ISS.” “After
2024 or maybe 2028, if we extend it again, you are going to see the people on commercial vehicles. There are going to be other
stations or other laboratories.” “But there won’t be NASA operated laboratories. They will be commercially
viable and operating laboratories.” Private NewSpace ventures represent a revolutionary
departure from current space exploration thinking. But none of these revolutionary commercial
operations will happen if we don’t have reliable and cost effective human access to orbit from
American soil with American rockets on American spaceships. “We need to have our own
capability to get our crews to space – first of all. That’s why commercial crew is really, really,
really important,” Bolden emphasized. The ongoing crises in Ukraine makes development of a new US crew
transporter to end our total reliance on Russian spaceships even more urgent. “Right now we use the
Russian Soyuz. It is a very reliable way to get our crews to space. Our partnership with Roscosmos is as strong as it’s ever been.” “So
we just keep watching what’s going on in other places in the world, but we continue to work with Roscosmos the way we always
have,” Bolden stated. The latest example is this week’s successful launch of the new three man Russian-US- German Expedition 40
crew to the ISS on a Soyuz. Of course, the speed at which the US develops the private human spaceships is
totally dependent on the funding level for the Commercial Crew program .
Unfortunately, progress in getting the space taxis actually built and flying has been significantly
slowed because the Obama Administration CCP funding requests for the past few years of roughly about
$800 million have been cut in half by a reluctant US Congress. Thus forcing NASA to delay the first
manned orbital test flights by at least 18 months from 2015 to 2017. And every forced postponement to
CCP costs US taxpayers another $70 million payment per crew seat to the Russians. As a result of the
congressional CCP cuts more than 1 Billion US Dollars have been shipped to Russia instead of on
building our own US crew transports – leaving American aerospace workers unemployed and
American manufacturing facilities shuttered. I asked Bolden to assess NASA’s new funding request
for the coming fiscal year 2015 currently working its way through Congress. “It’s looking better. It’s never good. But
now it’s looking much better ,” Bolden replied. “If you look at the House markup that’s a very
positive indication that the budget for commercial crew is going to be pretty good .”
The plan trades off with NASA’s budget—finite private and public funds
Mangu-Ward, 13 [Katherine Mangu-Ward, managing editor of Reason magazine and a Future
Tense fellow at the New America Foundation, “Is the Ocean the Real Final Frontier?”,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/09/sea_vs_space_which_is_the
_real_final_frontier.html, 9/4/2013, Evan]
While many of the technologies for space and sky are the similar, right down to the goofy suits with bubble
heads—the main difference is that in space, you’re looking to keep pressure inside your vehicle and underwater you’re looking to
keep pressure out—there’s
often a sense that that sea and space are competitors rather than
compadres. They needn’t be, says Guillermo Söhnlein, a man who straddles both realms. Söhnlein is a serial space entrepreneur
and the founder of the Space Angels Network. (Disclosure: My husband’s a member.) The network funds startups aimed for the
stars, but his most recent venture is Blue Marble Exploration, which organizes expeditions in manned submersibles to exotic
underwater locales. (Further disclosure: I have made a very small investment in Blue Marble, but am fiscally neutral in the sea vs.
space fight, since I have a similar amount riding on a space company, Planetary Resources.) As usual, the fight probably comes
down to money. The typical American believes that NASA is eating up a significant portion of
the federal budget (one 2007 poll found that respondents pinned that figure at one-quarter of the federal budget), but the
space agency is actually nibbling at a Jenny Craig–sized portion of the pie. At about $17 billion,
government-funded space exploration accounts for about 0.5 percent of the federal budget. The
N ational O ceanic and A tmospheric A dministration—NASA’s soggy counterpart—gets much less, a bit more than
$5 billion for a portfolio that, as the name suggests, is more diverse. But the way Söhnlein tells the story, this
zero sum mind-set is the result of a relatively recent historical quirk: For most of the history
of human exploration, private funding was the order of the day. Even some of the most famous
examples of state-backed exploration—Christopher Columbus’ long petitioning of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, for
instance, or Sir Edmund Hillary’s quest to climb to the top of Everest—were actually funded primarily by private
investors or nonprofits. But that changed with the Cold War, when the race to the moon was fueled by
government money and gushers of defense spending wound up channeled into submarine
development and other oceangoing tech. “That does lead to an either/or mentality. That
federal money is taxpayer money which has to be accounted for, and it is a finite pool that you
have to draw from against competing needs, against health care, science, welfare,” says Söhnlein. “In
the last 10 to 15 years, we are seeing a renaissance of private finding of exploration ventures. On the space
side we call it New Space, on the ocean side we have similar ventures.” And the austerity of the current moment
doesn’t hurt. “The private sector is stepping up as public falls down. We’re really returning to the way it always was.” And
when it’s private dough, the whole thing stops being a competition. Instead, it depends on what individuals
with deep pockets are pumped about—or what makes for a good sell on a crowdfunding site like Kickstarter.
<Insert CCP impact or other relevant impact scenario>
***Links***
Link – Budget Size
Ocean exploration budget is tiny—requires tradeoffs in other areas
Conathan, 13 [Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American
Progress, “Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending”,
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/space-exploration-dollars-dwarfocean-spending/, 6-20-2013, Evan]
In fiscal year 2013 NASA’s annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total
funding for everything NOAA does—fishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among
many other programs—was about $5 billion, and NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Research received just
$23.7 million. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as
Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million, deep-sea exploration is pricey
as well. And that’s not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and
completely inhospitable to human life.
Securing the budget increase critical to maintaining space programs
Foust 14 (Jeff, senior aerospace analyst with the Futron Corporation, PhD in planetary sciences
from MIT, “NASA Facing New Space Science Cuts”, May 30, National Geographic,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-sciencefunding-exploration/?)//DLG
This month the senior review panel charged with reviewing NASA's astrophysics programs
recommended that, in the absence of additional funding, the Spitzer Space Telescope be shut
down. This infrared telescope, launched in 2003, costs NASA about $15 million a year to
operate. Although the spacecraft is in good health and producing good science, the panel
concluded that there wasn't enough funding to keep it running without jeopardizing other
astronomy missions.¶ The senior review panel (SRP) also included a warning in its report. "The
operation of the nation's space-borne observatories is so severely impacted by the current
funding climate in Washington that the SRP feels that American preeminence in the study of the
universe from space is threatened to the point of irreparable damage if additional funds cannot
be found to fill the projected funding gaps," it stated, a comment printed in bold in the report.¶
NASA's planetary science missions are undergoing their own senior review, to be completed by
summer. Some scientists fear current budgets could force NASA to decide which of two large
missions, the Curiosity Mars rover and Cassini Saturn orbiter, it can afford to keep operating.
Plans are already under way to end the Cassini spacecraft's mission in 2017, by sending it
plummeting into Saturn's atmosphere.¶ Jim Green, head of NASA's planetary science division,
said at a recent science meeting that NASA can afford to keep operating all its existing planetary
missions, provided it receives an additional $35 million contained in a
supplemental budget request.
Link – Careers
Budget uncertainty deters scientists from the field
Witze 13 (Alexandra, MA Science Communication @ UC Santa Cruz, BA geology MIT, “NASA
funding shuffle alarms planetary scientists”, December 4, Nature International Weekly Journal
of Science, http://www.nature.com/news/nasa-funding-shuffle-alarms-planetary-scientists1.14304)//DLG
Scott Guzewich spent six years as a weather forecaster in the US Air Force before switching to his dream
career as a planetary scientist. Guzewich now studies the Martian atmosphere as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight
Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.¶ But Guzewich’s dream job may be turning into a nightmare. On 3 December,
NASA’s planetary science division announced a restructuring of how it funds its various research and
analysis programmes. And what sounded like a bureaucratic shuffle touched a raw nerve among
US planetary scientists, who already feel singled out in an era of shrinking budgets.¶ In particular, a
newly formed research programme that will cover roughly half of all planetary science proposals will not be calling for new grant submissions in 2014.
Researchers who draw the bulk of their salaries from grants will have no place to apply.¶ “Now I
have to basically skip 2014 and submit in 2015,” says Guzewich. “If nothing gets funded in that call,
then I guess it’s time for me to go to Walmart.”¶ Salary stream¶ Almost all US planetary scientists are funded, at least in part,
by NASA’s US$1.2-billion planetary sciences division. Many older and more established researchers get money from individual missions such as the
Mars Curiosity rover or the Cassini Saturn probe. Younger
scientists, such as Guzewich, must rely more heavily on the roughly
pot known as the research and analysis budget. This is the money designated to scientists exploring the
data streaming back from planetary missions. According to a 2010 survey by the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, nearly half of
US planetary scientists depend on this programme for more than half of their salaries.¶ The
restructuring, described in a virtual town-hall meeting organized by NASA managers, came as a shock to many. “People are
afraid that their jobs are going away,” says Britney Schmidt, a planetary scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.
$250-million
“It’s terrifying.”¶ Few dispute that the research and analysis programme needed fixing. The reshuffle eliminates a large and unwieldy list of funding
programmes and reorganizes them into five themes: emerging worlds, Solar System workings, habitable worlds, exobiology and Solar System
observations.¶ The biggest and potentially most popular of the new areas is Solar System workings. But at the town-hall meeting, NASA’s Jonathan Rall
said that funding proposals in this field are not likely to be due until February 2015. That was the last straw for many researchers who live from grant to
grant, because most of their existing funding is likely to expire well before money becomes available for the new Solar System workings area.¶ Outraged
scientists vented their frustration in the comments section of the meeting website and on Twitter. “People are upset with not knowing where their next
paycheck is going to come from, how they’re going to pay the mortgage,” says Schmidt. ¶ Much of the anger stems from larger and more profound
funding problems facing NASA planetary sciences. In 2012, the division received $1.5 billion from the government; this year, the administration of
Barack Obama requested almost $300 million less in its funding request to Congress. The final numbers, as agreed by legislators, bumped the division's
funding back up slightly.¶ Budget battles¶ James Green, head of planetary science at NASA, points out that the division is tugged in many different
directions. Each year, for instance, it sends $50 million to the US Department of Energy to help produce plutonium to power future Solar System
missions. Congress also likes to dabble in setting planetary sciences priorities; for the last several years, a group of legislators led by Representative
John Culberson (Republican, Texas) has ordered NASA to continue working on a mission to Jupiter's moon Europa. Across-the-board
cuts
known as sequestration have also nibbled away at planetary science budgets.¶ The result is more
priorities scrabbling for a piece of a shrinking budgetary pie. Next year, a high-level NASA review is
likely to have to decide between shutting down either the Mars Curiosity rover or the Cassini
mission to Saturn. Both are successful missions that cost around $60 million a year, a level that Green has said the division simply cannot
afford for the long term.¶ Green responded to the community's angst in a statement emphasizing future missions such as the New Horizons probe,
which will reach Pluto in 2015, and a Mars rover that is due to launch in 2020. “NASA’s commitment to planetary exploration research and analysis
activities will remain strong with no lessening of our resolve to continue to lead the world in this area while reflecting fiscal realities,” he said.¶ Mark
Sykes, director of the Planetary Science Institute, does not buy that argument. “The
restructuring of the research
programmes is major and done in a way that a lot of scientists are at risk of having to look for
other work,” he says. “This has not been well thought through.”
Successful space projects are key to insure continued interest in space careers
ISECG 13 (International Space Exploration Coordination Group,
“Benefits Stemming from Space Exploration”, September, NASA,
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stemming-from-Space-Exploration2013-TAGGED.pdf)//DLG
There are numerous cases of societal benefits linked to new knowledge and technology from space exploration. Space exploration
has contributed to many diverse aspects of everyday life, from solar panels to implantable heart monitors, from cancer therapy to
light‐¶ weight materials, and from water‐purification systems to improved computing systems and to a global search‐and‐rescue
system4 . Achieving the ambitious future exploration goals as outlined above will further expand the economic relevance of space.
Space exploration will continue to be an essential driver for opening up new domains in science and technology, triggering other
sectors to partner with the space sector for joint research and development. This will return immediate benefits back to Earth in
areas such as materials, power generation and energy storage, recycling and waste management, advanced robotics, health and
medicine, transportation, engineering, computing and software. Furthermore, innovations required for space
exploration, such as those related to miniaturisation, will drive improvements in other space systems and
services resulting in higher performance and lower cost. These will in turn result in better services on Earth
and better return of investment in institutional and commercial space activities. In addition, the excitement
generated by space exploration attracts young people to careers in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics, helping to build global capacity for scientific and technological
innovation.
Link – Empirics
Fifty years of empirics prove our argument
Lombardi, 14 [Michael Lombardi, environmentalist, entrepreneur, and explorer, diving
contractor and technologist by trade, Diving Safety Officer for NOAA's Caribbean Marine
Research Center (1999-2006), interim Diving Safety Officer (2011-2012) for the University of
Rhode Island, and a contract position (2009-2014) as Diving Safety Officer for the American
Museum of Natural History in NYC, “The Turtle Wins the (Inner)Space Race”,
http://anewlifeinthesea.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-turtle-wins-innerspace-race.html,
6/3/2014, Evan]
We (people of westernized civilization at large) have been discussing, with disbelief, the disproportionate
investments made by government and the private sector into space exploration versus ocean
exploration for a half a century . Since my departure from duty on Lee Stocking Island - one of the NOAA Undersea
Research Centers (NURC) in 2006, which served as the closest thing to an 'inner space' program, it has remained consistently
evident that that industry just continues to dive, dive, dive - and not in the productive way. In 2006,
things started to tank, resulting in the shutdown and dissolution of the NURC program, and the few
remaining assets have done all they can to limp by. Most notably was the Aquarius habitat program in Key Largo
which went through a management change, though still remains a somewhat poorly exploited national asset.
I've discussed my opinions on this previously, which are not the subject of this Blog post, though it is certainly important to consider
the context of where we are today. A colleague forwarded me the following 1966 Popular Science article which is a plea
from John Steinbeck to catalyze more ambitious ocean exploration activities:
www.popsci.com/article/technology/john-steinbecks-1966-plea-create-nasa-oceans Not much has changed since 1966.
Perhaps most interestingly, 1965 marked Ed White's first extra-vehicular spacewalk, and 1969 marked Neil Armstrong's famous first
footsteps on the moon (45 years ago). Throughout that period, and trickling in to the 1970's were a series
of undersea habitation programs which were largely billed as sea - space analogues . The result
- interesting saturation diving technologies and techniques for the private sector as the offshore
oil boom took place, and a variety of shallow infrastructure to keep scientists in the field . What
stopped working was a model where science and industry continued to work together,
leveraging cooperative assets to keep exploration on the focal plane. NASA on the other hand, kept its
perspective high and for the far reaching but greater good of mankind, and so they took the glory - and the federal
funding to go with it. 45 years (July 20 this summer) since Armstrong's small steps, we finally have an opportunity to
take a real giant leap. The race for a seafaring humanity has been a slow one, but this is the win
we all need to improve upon and advance our role with and within the Blue Planet. Timing is
everything, and the timing is right.
Link – Perception
Even if they don’t directly compete, public perception of the issues as competing
forces a tradeoff
NRC, 03 [Committee on Exploration of the Seas, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and
Life Studies, National Research Council, “Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown”,
National Academies Press, Nov 4, 2003, p. 177, Evan]
During discussion of the plenary lectures, some important issues were introduced: • How can results of exploration be reported in
peer-reviewed journals? What will be the reward system for explorers in our universities? What can be done to encourage and
develop the next generation of explorers? • Ocean versus space exploration: Why is there an apparent lack of
public and political support for exploration of the oceans compared with space exploration?
Space agencies mobilize billions of dollars for satellites that sometimes fail, but centralized
space exploration maintains an effective public relations program. Perhaps the public perceives
that the ocean is more accessible than space and does not require large-scale
initiatives . This fallacy (e.g., ocean access must overcome difficulties of pressure and energy that do not exist in space)
has not been adequately addressed. To initiate and develop an ocean exploration program the imagination of our
children—the oceanographers of the future—must be captured. • How can priorities be identified that will provide the most impact
Perceptions
of competition for funding between ocean exploration and ocean research must be
avoided . The resource base must be expanded and new sources of funding clearly
delineated to support an ocean exploration program. The old treaties of the 1970s and 1980s (LOS, Sea Bed
for human populations? This is especially important to encourage the participation of developing countries. •
Authority) will be very difficult to renegotiate in this new and different political environment.
Link – Private Sector
Ocean money trades off with money used to spur private-sector space investment
Conathan, 13 [Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American
Progress, “Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending”,
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/space-exploration-dollars-dwarfocean-spending/, 6-20-2013, Evan]
In a time of shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our investments, we
should be taking a long, hard look at how we are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of
government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to
find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the heavens. The ocean already provides us
with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for
pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology.
Link – Public Support
Public support’s key to NASA funding
Levin, 03 [Alan Levin and Traci Watson, USA TODAY, “Public support could prove crucial for
NASA”, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-18-inside-shuttle_x.htm, 818-2003, Evan]
Like many Americans, Kenny Maroney of Tampa is fascinated by space travel. "We love the shuttle. The shuttle's cool," he says.
Maroney, 33, also typifies the kind of ambivalence many people feel about space exploration, particularly when asked whether
they're willing to spend more money on it. "At this time," he says, "it's not a top priority." His view — and those of millions
of
prove critically important to the future of NASA. Six months after seven astronauts
died as the space shuttle Columbia broke apart while re-entering the Earth's atmosphere Feb. 1, the space agency that put
men on the moon is under fire. (Related story: NASA support up after tragedy) Next week, the Columbia Accident
other Americans — may
Investigation Board will release its findings on what happened to Columbia and the role NASA played in the shuttle's demise. Its
report is expected to criticize NASA's safety practices. Congress plans to hold hearings on the accident next month. The report
also will
call for numerous improvements in shuttle safety that will almost certainly require
additional funding for NASA. At the same time, it is likely to say that budget cuts during the 1990s
contributed to the accident. The call for more funding makes public support for the
program all the more crucial. Without it, the government might be unwilling to
allocate the sort of money needed to keep the nation in space . Since the Columbia
disaster, Americans have rallied behind the space program. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows
support for increasing NASA funding to levels not seen since the 1980s. Such numbers can be
misleading. Throughout NASA's history, political battles and uncertainties over the value of
putting humans in space have fostered a public ambivalence. "The American people have at best a rooting
interest in the space program," says Marc Schlather, president of ProSpace, a space policy group. "They find it very
exciting. But if you ask them to line it up against Social Security or their parents' Medicare or veterans'
medical benefits, they're going to pick one of those other things," he says.
Public support key to continued funding and attracting scientists to the field
Venables 12 (Michael, “NASA, Got Space Exploration? Get Goals, Get Funding and Get
Uhura”, 12-14, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelvenables/2012/12/14/hey-nasagot-space-exploration-get-uhura/)//DLG
Houston, we have a[nother] problem. Much of the American public, the National Research
Council, the Space Foundation and the media do not have Bolden’s rose-colored perspective on
the currently established goals and prospective future of U.S. space exploration. So, the issue at
hand is an urgent one. Lighting a fire under NASA’s large glutei maximi. Again, NASA needs a
renewed commitment to its exploratory mission of the solar system and ultimately, the taxpayer
popular support to back it up. Two, more money to fund its space exploration programs.
About 3 billion more per program it turns out, but details, details. Three, to bring in more
people to do the job — more wo(man) power. To encourage women, period, to enter STEM fields
of research and practice. To recruit more women to STEM fields so they can do NASA’s work on
Earth and in space: aerospace engineering, oceanography, biology, space physics, engineering
management, mechanical engineering, polymer science and engineering, chemistry and
medicine.
Public support key
NASA no date (“The United States in Space”, NASA History,
http://history.nasa.gov/augustine/racfup3.htm)//DLG
In retrospect, NASA's accomplishments of the Apollo period provide an historical guidepost for
the attributes of the Space Program which America should seek to maintain in the future; one
that is capable of providing an impressive stream of scientific information to help us understand
the physical order of the universe in ways that can aid this and future generations; and one that
insures that the opportunities we open for operating in space can be applied to practical
problems here on Earth. A lesson that history offers is that the space program seems to
work best, to provide these scientific and practical benefits, when there is an overreaching
goal that can generate public support and focus the technological infrastructure on
tangible objectives. We believe this to be an important observation.¶ The Apollo program was an
enormous technological achievement, and its momentum carried the NASA manned
programs forward into the 1970s. In 1973, Apollo components were modified to launch the l2Oton Skylab prototype space station. The last Saturn rocket launched an Apollo Command Service
Module for the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Project.
Link – Scientists
Expanding ocean exploration attracts STEM students to the field
Bidwell 13 (Allie, reporter, “Scientists Release First Plan for National Ocean Exploration
Program”, Sept 25, US News, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/25/scientistsrelease-first-plan-for-national-ocean-exploration-program?page=2)//DLG
Expanding the nation's ocean exploration program could lead to more jobs, he adds, and could
also serve as an opportunity to engage children and adults in careers in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics, or STEM.¶ "I think what we need to do as a nation is make STEM
fields be seen by young people as exciting career trajectories," Schubel says. "We need to
reestablish the excitement of science and engineering, and I think ocean exploration gives us a
way to do that."¶ Schubel says science centers, museums and aquariums can serve as training
grounds to give children and adults the opportunity to learn more about the ocean and what
opportunities exist in STEM fields.
Link – Spinoff
Plan leads to spinoff investment in ocean tech—that magnifies the link
Etzioni, 6/25 [Amitai Etzioni, professor of International Affairs and director of the Institute
for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University, “Final Frontier vs. Fruitful
Frontier: The Case for Increasing Ocean Exploration,” National Academy of Sciences Issues in
Science and Technology, Jun 25, 2014, p. 65-74, Evan]
When large quantities of public funds are invested in a particular research and development
project, particularly when the payoff is far from assured, it is common for those responsible for the project to
draw attention to the additional benefits—“spinoffs”—generated by the project as a means of
adding to its allure. This is particularly true if the project can be shown to improve human
health. Thus, NASA has claimed that its space exploration “benefit[ted] pharmaceutical drug
development” and assisted in developing a new type of sensor “that provides real-time image recognition
capabilities,” that it developed an optics technology in the 1970s that now is used to screen children for vision problems, and that a
type of software developed for vibration analysis on the Space Shuttle is now used to “diagnose medical issues.” Similarly,
opportunities to identify the “components of the organisms that facilitate increased virulence in space” could in theory—NASA
claims—be used on Earth to “pinpoint targets for anti-microbial therapeutics.” Ocean research, as modest as it is, has
already yielded several medical “spinoffs.” The discovery of one species of Japanese black sponge,
which produces a substance that successfully blocks division of tumorous cells, led researchers to develop a late-stage
breast cancer drug. An expedition near the Bahamas led to the discovery of a bacterium that produces substances that are in
the process of being synthesized as antibiotics and anticancer compounds. In addition to the aforementioned cancer fighting
compounds, chemicals that combat neuropathic pain, treat asthma and inflammation, and reduce
skin irritation have been isolated from marine organisms. One Arctic Sea organism alone produced three
antibiotics. Although none of the three ultimately proved pharmaceutically significant, current concerns that strains of bacteria are
developing resistance to the “antibiotics of last resort” is a strong reason to increase funding for bioprospecting. Additionally, the
blood cells of horseshoe crabs contain a chemical—which is found nowhere else in nature and so far has yet to be synthesized—that
can detect bacterial contamination in pharmaceuticals and on the surfaces of surgical implants. Some research indicates that
between 10 and 30 percent of horseshoe crabs that have been bled die, and that those that survive are less likely to mate. It would
serve for research to indicate the ways these creatures can be better protected. Up to two-thirds of all
marine life remains unidentified, with 226,000 eukaryotic species already identified and more than 2,000 species discovered every
year, according to Ward Appeltans, a marine biologist at the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO.
Link – Tradeoff
Ocean policy forces cuts in other agencies—the plan trades off with NASA
McClain, 12 [Craig McClain, aka Dr. M, is the Assistant Director of Science for the National
Evolutionary Synthesis Center, conducted deep-sea research for 11 years and published over 30
papers in the area, PhD from Massachusetts, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now Pt.2”,
http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-2/, 10/16/2012, Evan]
The Ghost of Ocean Science Past
85% of Americans express concerns about stagnant research funding and 77% feel we are losing
our edge in science. So how did we get here? Part of the answer lies in how ocean science and
exploration fit into the US federal science funding scene. Ocean science is funded by numerous
agencies, with few having ocean science and exploration as a clear directive. Contrast to this to
how the US traditionally dealt with exploration of space. NASA was recognised early on as the vehicle by
which the US would establish and maintain international space supremacy, but the oceans
have always had to compete with other missions . We faced a weak economy and in
tough economic times we rightly looked for areas to adjust our budgets. Budget cuts lead to
tough either/or situations: do we fund A or B? Pragmatically we choose what appeared to be
most practical and yield most benefit. Often this meant we prioritized applied science because it
was perceived to benefit our lives sooner and more directly and, quite frankly, was easier to justify
politically the expenditures involved. In addition to historical issues of infrastructure and current economic woes, we
lacked an understanding of the importance of basic research and ocean exploration to science,
society, and often to applied research. As example, NOAA shifted funding away from NURP and basic science and
exploration but greatly increased funding to research on applied climate change research. Increased funding for climate change
research is a necessity as we face this very real and immediate threat to our environment and economy. Yet, did this choice,
and others like it, need to come at the reduction of our country’s capability to conduct basic
ocean exploration and science and which climate change work relies upon? Just a few short decades ago,
the U.S. was a pioneer of deep water exploration. We are the country that in 1960 funded and sent two men to the deepest part of the
world’s ocean in the Trieste. Five years later, we developed, built, and pioneered a new class of submersible capable of reaching some
of the most remote parts of the oceans to nimbly explore and conduct deep-water science. Our country’s continued commitment to
the DSV Alvin is a bright spot in our history and has served as model for other countries’ submersible programs. The Alvin allowed
us to be the first to discover hydrothermal vents and methane seeps, explore the Mid-Atlantic ridge, and countless other scientific
firsts. Our rich history with space exploration is dotted with firsts and it revolutionized our views
of the world and universe around us; so has our rich history of ocean exploration. But where
NASA produced a steady stream of occupied space research vehicles, Alvin remains the only
deep-capable research submersible in the service in the United States.
Link – Zero-Sum
The budget is zero-sum—ocean exploration should come at the expense of NASA’s
budget
Etzioni, 6/25 [Amitai Etzioni, professor of International Affairs and director of the Institute
for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University, “Final Frontier vs. Fruitful
Frontier: The Case for Increasing Ocean Exploration,” National Academy of Sciences Issues in
Science and Technology, Jun 25, 2014, p. 65-74, Evan]
Every year, the federal budget process begins with a White House-issued budget request, which lays out spending
priorities for federal programs. From this moment forward, President Obama and his successors should use this
opportunity to correct a longstanding misalignment of federal research priorities: excessive spending on space
exploration and neglect of ocean studies. The nation should begin transforming the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into a greatly reconstructed, independent, and effective federal agency. In the present
fiscal climate of zero-sum budgeting, the additional funding necessary for this agency should
be taken from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ). The basic reason is that deep space—
NASA’s favorite turf—is a distant, hostile, and barren place, the study of which yields few major
discoveries and an abundance of overhyped claims. By contrast, the oceans are nearby, and their study is a
potential source of discoveries that could prove helpful for addressing a wide range of national
concerns from climate change to disease; for reducing energy, mineral, and potable water shortages; for strengthening industry,
security, and defenses against natural disasters such as hurricanes and tsunamis; for increasing our knowledge about geological
history; and much more. Nevertheless, the funding allocated for NASA in the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act for FY 2013 was 3.5 times higher than that allocated for NOAA.
Whatever can be said on behalf of a trip to Mars or recent aspirations to revisit the Moon, the same holds many times over for
exploring the oceans; some illustrative examples follow. (I stand by my record: In The Moondoggle, published in 1964, I predicted
that there was less to be gained in deep space than in near space—the sphere in which communication, navigations, weather, and
reconnaissance satellites orbit—and argued for unmanned exploration vehicles and for investment on our planet instead of the
Moon.)
Funding is zero sum – no new increases in appropriations
Smith 13 (Marcia, “New House CR Adds Money for NASA Exploration, NOAA GOES-R, But It's
a Zero Sum Game,” 03/04/2013, http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/new-house-cr-addsmoney-for-nasa-exploration-noaa-goes-r-but-its-a-zero-sum-game, AC)
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) introduced the House version of a "full year" Continuing Resolution (CR) today that would fund the
government for the rest of FY2013. The bulk of the bill is about the Department of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs, but
it covers all government agencies. It gives
special attention to NASA's exploration program and NOAA's
geostationary weather satellite program, but in the end the totals for those agencies do not
change. Under a CR, agencies are generally held to their prior year funding levels not only at the account
level, but for particular projects. In this case, that would be the funding provided in the FY2012 appropriations bill (P.L. 112-55).
Exceptions can always be made, however, and a number of them are in the Rogers bill, H.R. 933. For NASA and NOAA,
though, it stil is zero sum game where the total appropriation is the same, but certain programs
get more than others.
AT: Space projects can’t lose funding
Projects can have their funding cut—NASA’s Opportunity rover proves
Chang 4/7 [Kenneth Chang, “For Space Projects, Zero Gravity”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/space/for-space-projects-zerogravity.html?_r=0, NY Times, 4/7/2014, Evan]
Opportunity, NASA’s resilient rover, just keeps rolling across Mars even though it landed a decade ago. It has survived
mechanical malfunctions, computer glitches, tricky sand traps, ferocious dust storms and long,
frigid Martian winters. But maybe not the budget ax. The Obama administration’s baseline
budget proposal for the fiscal year 2015 has an ominously low number for Opportunity: $0 . The
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, now circling the moon, also crashes to zero in the budget proposal. This
spring, they and five other long-lived robotic missions are up for what the space agency calls a “senior review”
to ensure that they are still producing enough science to justify the cost of continued operations .
Proposals are due on Friday, with decisions coming in June. But planetary scientists are asking whether the
budget numbers suggest that NASA has already written off the two spacecraft. The other five missions
are the Mars Curiosity rover, two Mars orbiters, NASA’s contribution to the European Space Agency’s Mars Express mission, and
Cassini, which is orbiting Saturn. “To see Opportunity zeroed was a bit shocking and surprising,” said Steven
W. Ruff, a research professor at Arizona State University and a member of the rover’s science team, “and
it contradicted my
understanding of what this senior review process was supposed to be about .” NASA officials have been
insisting to scientists that they have not come to any conclusions, saying that they had to fill in tentative budget numbers before the
senior review.
Link – Seafloor Mapping
The plan costs sixteen billion dollars
Vogt et al, no date [Peter R.Vogt, Marine Geosciences Division, Naval Research Laboratory;
Michael J. Carron, Naval Oceanographic Office, Stennis Space Center; Woo-Yeol Jung, Marine
Geosciences Division, Naval Research Laboratory; Ron Macnab, Geological Survey of Canada,
Dartmouth; “THE GLOBAL OCEAN MAPPING PROJECT (GOMAP) AND UNCLOS:
OPTIMIZING ARTICLE 76 SURVEYS FOR RE-USE IN PORTRAYING GLOBAL
BATHYMETRY,” http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/com_wg/ABLOS/ABLOS_Conf2/VOGT.PDF,
published some point after 2000, Evan]
The international, long-term Global Ocean Mapping Project (GOMaP) has been proposed and endorsed
by bathymetric specialists as justifiable and technologically feasible. As envisaged, the Project would take
roughly 225 ship-years to map the roughly 90% of the world ocean that is deeper than 500 m. The
primary objective would be to blanket the world ocean floor with sidescan sonar observations and multibeam bathymetry at an
approximate deep-ocean spatial resolution of 100 m (assuming the use of current technology); however a variety of compatible
underway observations could be added to the operation as well. Given the size of the existing deep-sea mapping
fleet and the competing requirements for such vessels, it might reasonably take 20 to 30 years to
complete the task. Total cost is estimated to be in the range of $8 to $16 billion (US). To put that
figure in perspective, it represents only a fraction of the money spent so far on space exploration.
Commercial Crew Modules
UX—CCP On Time
CCP will be on time—it’s progressing now but funding is key
Kremer, 5/30 [Dr. Ken Kremer, speaker, scientist, freelance science journalist, PhD in
Organic Chemistry and over 25 years of Research & Development and Manufacturing
experience, “’Why Commercial Crew is Critical for Future Exploration: One-on-One Interview
with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden,” http://www.universetoday.com/112192/whycommercial-crew-is-critical-for-future-exploration-one-on-one-interview-with-nasaadministrator-charles-bolden/, 5-30-2014, Evan]
The pace of progress in getting our crews back to orbit basically can be summed up in a nutshell.
“No Bucks, No Buck Rogers ,” Chris Ferguson, who now leads Boeing’s crew effort, told me in a separate exclusive
interview for Universe Today. The Boeing CST-100, Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser and SpaceX Dragon ‘space taxis’ are
all vying for funding in the next round of contracts to be awarded by NASA around late summer
2014 known as Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap). All three companies have
been making excellent progress in meeting their NASA mandated milestones in the
current contract period known as Commercial Crew Integrated Capability initiative (CCiCAP) under the auspices of
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. Altogether they have received more than $1 Billion in NASA funding under the
current CCiCAP initiative. Boeing and SpaceX were awarded contracts worth $460 million and $440
million, respectively. Sierra Nevada was given what amounts to half an award worth $212.5
million.
Milestones are being met now
Schierholz, 6/30 [Stephanie Schierholz, NASA correspondent, “NASA’s Commercial Crew
Partners Focus on Testing, Analysis to Advance Designs”,
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/june/nasa-s-commercial-crew-partners-focus-on-testinganalysis-to-advance-designs/, June 30, 2014, RELEASE 14-183, Evan]
NASA's aerospace industry partners are taking their designs and operational plans for the agency's
Commercial Crew Program (CCP) through a series of comprehensive tests, evaluations and review
boards this summer as they move through important milestones - all with an eye on
launching people into orbit from American soil by 2017. To meet milestones established in Space
Act Agreements with NASA, the companies are completing specific assessments such as materials stress
tests, engine firings and analysis, and system tests. The companies' engineers use data gathered from these
tests to refine the design, then NASA's team uses the data to ensure the tests satisfy milestone
objectives that provide confidence a spacecraft system or program is progressing toward its goals. "A vast array of testing and
work goes into even the smallest subsystem of a spacecraft, so getting to the point where our partners evaluate
integrated spacecraft, launch systems and operation details is a massive achievement for our
partners," said Kathy Lueders, program manager for CCP. Blue Origin continues to make steady progress in the development of
its Space Vehicle as the company moves toward an interim design review of the spacecraft's subsystems. The Boeing Company is
preparing for a critical design review that will determine whether the integrated design, systems,
software and operations plans for its CST-100 spacecraft are ready for the production of models for
extensive testing that simulates the demands of space travel. In May, Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC)
tested the main propulsion and reaction control systems (RCS) of its Dream Chaser spacecraft to
advance its design to a production version. SNC is preparing to perform additional RCS vacuum environment tests, simulating
flight-like conditions that will enable the company to further examine and certify system performance. SpaceX is preparing
to test the structural integrity of its Dragon spacecraft to verify it will stand up to the forces and
stresses exerted on it during launch, while in orbit and through re-entry into Earth's
atmosphere. Milestones achieved by NASA's CCP partners continue to advance commercial
spacecraft and transportation systems from design to reality. The successes of NASA and American aerospace
companies are ushering in a new generation of space transportation capabilities, which will enable new opportunities for people to
live and work in space. Later this year, NASA plans to award one or more Commercial Crew contracts
that will provide the agency with commercial services to transport astronauts to and from the
International Space Station by the end of 2017.
UX—CCP Being Funded
CCP will be funded now due to Congressional appropriations budget but it’s still
close
King, 4/30 [Ledyard King, Gannett Washington, USA TODAY, “Panel approves $785M for
NASA shuttle replacement program”,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/30/nasa-commercial-crew-programhouse-appropriations/8527815/, 4-30-2014, Evan]
WASHINGTON — Congress may be warming up to NASA's plan to fly astronauts to the International
Space Station on private rockets, but the agency still may not meet its 2017 launch target. A key House
Appropriations subcommittee voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a spending plan that
would provide $785 million for the Commercial Crew Program in fiscal 2015. That's $89 million
more than the program will receive this fiscal year, and it's the most the Republican-led panel
has ever endorsed. But it still falls short of the $848 million the Obama administration is
requesting. The money is included in a broad spending bill that also funds Justice and Commerce department programs. The bill
now heads to the full Appropriations Committee for action. STORY: SpaceX rocket blasts off for space station STORY: Second
private company rockets toward space station The $17.9 billion the package would give NASA is about $250
million more than the agency received in fiscal 2014. The bill would continue financing the space agency's top
priorities, notably a crewed mission to Mars within 20 years and the powerful James Webb Space Telescope set for launch in 2018.
It also would provide slightly more money than Obama has requested for science programs, aeronautics and security. Lax security at
NASA centers has undermined the agency's sensitive technology network, according to a recent report from an independent group
led by former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh. "The systems are being compromised," Rep. Frank Wolf, the Virginia
Republican who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, said Wednesday.
Congress has been less generous with Commercial Crew since the Obama administration began
asking for money to fund the shuttle replacement program, beginning with the fiscal 2011
budget. The last shuttle trip to the space station was Atlantis' flight in July 2011. NASA officials initially hoped
Congress would approve enough money to begin using private rockets by 2015 to ferry crew from the
U.S. to the space station. That's been pushed back to 2017, and the agency's inspector general warned last year
the schedule could be delayed up to another three years if there's not enough money. NASA
Administrator Charles F. Bolden Jr. has been clear that not funding the full $848 million this time would
almost certainly push that first flight to 2018. That would mean buying more seats on Russian rockets for trips to
the space station, at a cost of about $70 million for each trip. "Budgets are about choices," Bolden told members of the House
Science, Space and Technology Committee in March. "The choice here is between fully funding the request to bring space launches
back to American soil, or continue to send millions to the Russians. It's that simple." The agency plans to award a
contract in August or September to at least one of the companies — Boeing, Sierra Nevada and SpaceX —
now competing to fly crews to the orbiting lab. Agency officials hope to receive enough money to award multiple
contracts, saying continued competition as systems are developed and tested would result in safer, more affordable rides. The
Commercial Spaceflight Federation, an industry trade group, was disappointed with the amount
approved by the House subcommittee Wednesday. "NASA's Commercial Crew Program offers
the most cost-effective, safe source for routine flights to low-Earth orbit from American soil,"
federation Chairman Stuart Witt said. "Reduced funding for Commercial Crew (compared to Obama's
request) will delay the process of returning astronauts to space on American vehicles and
prolong our dependence on Russian vehicles." On Thursday, a key Senate Appropriations subcommittee is
scheduled to hear from Bolden about the budget request. The Senate traditionally has approved more for the
Commercial Crew program than the House, often leading to negotiations that split the
difference. As a result, it's likely the program will get more than $785 million when Congress
approves a final spending plan for NASA.
UX—AT: Cuts N/UQ
A. doesn’t take out the impact—our evidence says it’s sufficient now to solve but
barely
B. funding is increasing now—
NSS, 14 [National Space Society, nonprofit educational and scientific organization specializing
in space advocacy, March 2014, “Position Paper: The NASA Commercial Crew Program”,
nss.org/legislative/positions/NSS_Position_Paper_Commercial_Crew_2014.pdf, Evan]
The primary impact of the historically weak Congressional support for Commercial Crew has been to
funnel American money to the Russian space program rather than to jobs in the USA. More
recently, funding and support for Commercial Crew in Congress has been growing ,16 with
increasing recognition of the merits of competitive programs such as COTS which reached full operational
status in January 2014 under the CRS rubric with two private companies (SpaceX and Orbital Sciences) ferrying
cargo to the ISS. The time is long overdue for Commercial Crew to be fully funded to enable it to
proceed as rapidly as possible to full operational status.
Link—2NC Booster
Even slight cuts cause huge delays and complete cancellation of the project
Boozer, 14 [Rick Boozer, astrophysics researcher, public speaker, and author of the book The
Plundering of NASA, and member of the Space Development Steering Committee, has a Master
of Astronomy degree in astrophysics, “US citizens: demand maximum support for NASA’s
Commercial Crew Program”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2426/1, 1/6/2014, Evan]
By the end of this summer, the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of
vehicle development is scheduled to start. NASA’s Inspector General has indicated that if it is not
funded at requested levels, the first crewed flight to ISS could slip another three years, to 2020 . That
would make five extra years of sending American dollars to Russia while Congress continues
robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is even possible that Congress may force NASA to drop
work on one or more of the participating vehicles. Given the serious interest in it that the Germans are showing, it would be
ironic if SNC’s Dream Chaser was one that was dropped.
CCP Good—Private Space Access
Commercial Crew is a vital enabler for the private space industry
NSS, 14 [National Space Society, nonprofit educational and scientific organization specializing
in space advocacy, March 2014, “Position Paper: The NASA Commercial Crew Program”,
nss.org/legislative/positions/NSS_Position_Paper_Commercial_Crew_2014.pdf, Evan]
The Commercial Crew program offers the potential to strengthen the US orbital access industry and
build the foundation for a true private crewed orbital access industry . In the past, the
US government has supported the development of new industries in various ways, ranging from
Federal airmail contracts supporting early aviation to current nanotechnology research centers. Another example, and
perhaps the most successful, would be the creation by the US military/DARPA of the data switching
network that has become the current global Internet. An opportunity exists today for Congress to
enable the creation of a commercial crewed orbital access industry. This industry involves not
just space tourism, but also satellite repair and refueling, industrial research, and
private commercial space stations . Commercial Crew is a key enabler of this new
industry, and can significantly contribute to strengthening the larger US space access
industry, which has vast potential for the creation of large numbers of well paying American
jobs. Strong industries must have competition. A major advantage of the nature of the Commercial Crew program is that the
competitive environment keeps costs low, and forces each competitor to seek other markets for
their solution. For example, Sierra Nevada is marketing the Dream Chaser to European governments and achieving some
success.5 But the development of alternative markets is also related to the timely success of the
Commercial Crew program. Companies such as Bigelow Aerospace have flown multiple orbital test
vehicles to demonstrate some of the technologies that they are planning to deploy to create
inflatable private space stations. At one point delays in the readiness of Commercial Crew vehicles led Bigelow to lay off a
substantial portion of its workforce to conserve capital.6 Although Bigelow has since won a contract to attach an inflatable module to
the ISS, its Commercial Space Station plans7 remain in a holding pattern until the Commercial
Crew program moves to operational status so that private persons can purchase tickets to orbit .8
1NC—Space Col Module
Key to space col—extinction
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected
authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power,
professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space
Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to
Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World
Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st
Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could
_contribute_to_employment_economic_growth_environmental_protection_education_cultur
e_and_world_peace.shtml, Evan]
7.2. High return in safety from extra-terrestrial settlement Investment in low-cost orbital access and other space
infrastructure will facilitate the establishment of settlements on the Moon, Mars, asteroids and
in man-made space structures. In the first phase, development of new regulatory infrastructure in
various Earth orbits, including property/usufruct rights, real estate, mortgage financing and
insurance, traffic management, pilotage, policing and other services will enable the population
living in Earth orbits to grow very large. Such activities aimed at making near-Earth space
habitable are the logical extension of humans' historical spread over the surface of the Earth. As
trade spreads through near-Earth space, settlements are likely to follow, of which the
inhabitants will add to the wealth of different cultures which humans have created in the many
different environments in which they live. Success of such extra-terrestrial settlements will have
the additional benefit of reducing the danger of human extinction due to planet-wide
or cosmic accidents [27]. These horrors include both man-made disasters such as nuclear war,
plagues or growing pollution, and natural disasters such as super-volcanoes or asteroid impact.
It is hard to think of any objective that is more important than preserving peace. Weapons developed
in recent decades are so destructive, and have such horrific, long-term side-effects that their use
should be discouraged as strongly as possible by the international community. Hence, reducing the incentive to use
these weapons by rapidly developing the ability to use space-based resources on a large scale is
surely equally important [11,16]. The achievement of this depends on low space travel costs which,
at the present time, appear to be achievable only through the development of a vigorous space
tourism industry.
1NC—Resource War Module
Space access solves inevitable global resource wars—kills vtl and causes extinction
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected
authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power,
professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space
Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to
Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World
Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st
Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could
_contribute_to_employment_economic_growth_environmental_protection_education_cultur
e_and_world_peace.shtml, Evan]
7. World peace and preservation of human civilisation The major source of social friction, including
international friction, has surely always been unequal access to resources. People fight to
control the valuable resources on and under the land, and in and under the sea. The
natural resources of Earth are limited in quantity, and economically accessible resources even
more so. As the population grows, and demand grows for a higher material standard of living, industrial activity
grows exponentially. The threat of resources becoming scarce has led to the concept of
"Resource Wars". Having begun long ago with wars to control the gold and diamonds of Africa and South America, and oil in
the Middle East, the current phase is at centre stage of world events today [37]. A particular danger of "resource wars" is that, if
the general public can be persuaded to support them, they may become impossible to stop as
resources become increasingly scarce. Many commentators have noted the similarity of the language of US and UK
government advocates of "war on terror" to the language of the novel "1984" which describes a dystopian future of
endless, fraudulent war in which citizens are reduced to slaves. 7.1. Expansion into nearEarth space is the only alternative to endless "resource wars" As an alternative to the
"resource wars" already devastating many countries today, opening access to the unlimited
resources of near-Earth space could clearly facilitate world peace and security . The US National
Security Space Office, at the start of its report on the potential of space-based solar power ( SSP) published in early 2007, stated:
"Expanding human populations and declining natural resources are potential sources of local
and strategic conflict in the 21st Century, and many see energy as the foremost threat to national
security" [38]. The report ended by encouraging urgent research on the feasibility of SSP: "Considering the timescales
that are involved, and the exponential growth of population and resource pressures within that same strategic period, it is
imperative that this work for "drilling up" vs. drilling down for energy security begins
immediately" [38]. Although the use of extra-terrestrial resources on a substantial scale may still
be some decades away, it is important to recognise that simply acknowledging its
feasibility using known technology is the surest way of ending the threat of
resource wars . That is, if it is assumed that the resources available for human use are limited to
those on Earth, then it can be argued that resource wars are inescapable [22,37]. If, by contrast, it is
assumed that the resources of space are economically accessible, this not only eliminates the
need for resource wars, it can also preserve the benefits of civilisation which are being eroded
today by "resource war-mongers", most notably the governments of the "Anglo-Saxon" countries and their "neo-con"
advisers. It is also worth noting that the $1 trillion that these have already committed to wars in the Middle-East in the 21st century
is orders of magnitude more than the public investment needed to aid companies sufficiently to start the commercial use of space
resources. Industrial and financial groups which profit from monopolistic control of terrestrial
supplies of various natural resources, like those which profit from wars, have an economic interest in
protecting their profitable situation. However, these groups' continuing profits are justified
neither by capitalism nor by democracy: they could be preserved only by maintaining the
pretence that use of space resources is not feasible, and by preventing the development of low-
cost space travel. Once the feasibility of low-cost space travel is understood, "resource wars" are
clearly foolish as well as tragic . A visiting extra-terrestrial would be pityingly amused at the foolish antics of homo
sapiens using longrange rockets to fight each other over dwindling terrestrial resources—rather than using the same rockets to travel
in space and have the use of all the resources they need!
PSA Good—Space Col
Private space exploration’s key to space col
Handwerk, 11 [Brian Handwerk, National Geographic News, “After Space Shuttle, Does US
Have a Future in Space”, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110708-spaceshuttle-launch-atlantis-nasa-future-science/, 7/8/2011, Evan]
The firms in this private space race are already getting some significant financial boosts from Uncle
Sam. Aerospace firm Blue Origin, for example, scored $22 million for development of its New Shepard spacecraft, which is meant
to take off and land vertically. Sierra Nevada Corporation was awarded $80 million to develop the Dream Chaser space plane, while
SpaceX was granted some $75 million for work on a crewed version of its existing Dragon capsule.
And Boeing has so far received $92.3 million for development of its CST-100 crew capsule.
NASA hopes that private contractors might be able to keep costs low for government flights by
creating a boom in space-based enterprises, such as space tourism or commercial product and
technology development in microgravity. "Every extra use is going to help chip into the fixed
costs, and that will help reduce the cost of NASA's launches to the International Space Station,"
Slazer said. Deep Space—What's the Point? Thanks to the shuttle program and the ISS, humans have
learned to live and work in low-Earth orbit and to integrate the contributions of many different
nations to run such a facility. NASA hopes to build on that knowledge to design longer-term missions that
will send astronauts to asteroids and maybe even Mars. According to NASA's Bolden, the agency will focus
"on the design and development of a heavy-lift rocket with a multipurpose crew vehicle, to
enable us to at long last embark on deep-space exploration with humans." The new crew vehicle will be
based on the Orion capsule from the defunct Constellation program. But any deep-space mission would put
astronauts far beyond the reach of earthly aid, and some experts wonder whether humanity
really has a future in the far reaches of space. "You need to know if humans can live without
resupply from Earth, live off the land, and also if there is anything commercially useful to do up
there to pay the way," said Scott Pace, director of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute. "If the answer
to both of those questions is yes, you get space colonies. If the answer to both those questions is no, then it's
more like Mount Everest, where a few people might visit or make a living [off it], but nobody really lives there. "If you can live off the
land but there is nothing commercially justifiable to do, then it's like Antarctica—a scientific outpost and maybe even a place for a
few tourists to visit, but not something that really entails a human future." Alternatively, viable commercial
operations in space that require constant resupply from Earth, such as mining, might function
like offshore oil platforms, he added. "We really don't know which of these answers is correct," Pace said, "and in my view
the purpose of exploration is to find out if humanity really does have a future beyond the Earth."
PSA Good—SPS
Key to SPS—launch costs and spinoff tech
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected
authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power,
professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space
Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to
Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World
Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st
Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could
_contribute_to_employment_economic_growth_environmental_protection_education_cultur
e_and_world_peace.shtml, Evan]
Another potentially major space-based industry, which has been held back for 40 years by high
launch costs, is the supply of solar power from space to Earth . Although the potential of this
system was recognised in studies by the US Department of Energy in the late 1970s, and confirmed in the 1990s
[13], total funding has remained minimal. However, progress could be rapid once launch
costs fall to a few percent of ELV costs [14]. Hence, as passenger space travel activities expand to
large scale, a growing range of manufacturing activities in Earth orbit, on the lunar surface and
elsewhere could develop spontaneously, driven by entrepreneurial effort to exploit new business
opportunities opened up by the growth of new commercial markets in Earth orbit. These will in
turn open the door to the large-scale space activities described in [11].
PSA Good—Global Economy
Space industry’s key to employment—that’s a vital internal link to the economy
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected
authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power,
professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space
Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to
Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World
Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st
Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could
_contribute_to_employment_economic_growth_environmental_protection_education_cultur
e_and_world_peace.shtml, Evan]
In most countries, most of the population do not have economically significant land holdings, and so
employment is the economic basis of social life, providing income and enabling people to have stable family lives.
The high level of unemployment in most countries today is therefore not only wasteful, it also causes widespread poverty and
unhappiness, and is socially damaging, creating further problems for the future. One reason for investing in the development
of passenger space travel, therefore, is that it could create major new fields of employment, capable of
growing as far into the future as we can see. As of 2001, the hotel, catering and tourism sector was
estimated to employ 60 million people world-wide, or 3% of the global workforce, and 6% of Europeans [15]. Hence we can
estimate that the passenger air travel industry, including airlines, airports, hotels and other tourism-related work,
indirectly employs 10–20 times the number of people employed in aircraft manufacturing alone.
Likewise, passenger space travel services could presumably create employment many times that
in launch vehicle manufacturing—in vehicle operations and maintenance, at spaceports, in
orbiting hotels, in many companies supplying these, in services such as staff training,
certification and insurance, and in a growing range of related businesses. This possibility is particularly
valuable because high unemployment, both in richer and poorer countries, has been the major economic problem throughout the
world for decades. Consequently the growth of such a major new market for advanced aerospace technology and services seems
highly desirable, as discussed further in [16]. By contrast, in recent years employment in the traditional space
industry in USA and Europe has been shrinking fast: a 2003 report by the US Federal Aviation Administration stated
that employment in launch vehicle manufacturing and services fell from 28,617 in 1999 to 4828
in 2002, while employment in satellite manufacturing fell from 57,372 to 31,262 [17]. Likewise, European space industry
employment fell by 20% from 1995 to 2005; the major space engineering company Astrium cut 3300 staff from 2003 through 2006;
and in 2005 alone, European prime contractors cut 13.5% of their staff or some 2400 people [18]. Unfortunately, the
probability of space industry employment recovering soon is low, because satellite
manufacturing and launch services face both low demand and rapidly growing competition from
India and China, where costs are significantly lower. It is therefore positively bizarre that government policymakers have declined to even discuss the subject of investing in the development of passenger space travel services, and have
permitted no significant investment to date out of the nearly 20 billion Euro-equivalents which space agencies spend every year!
This is despite the very positive 1998 NASA report "General Public Space Travel and Tourism" [19], and the NASA-funded 2002
"ASCENT" study referred to above [2,3]. In the capitalist system, companies compete to reduce costs since
this directly increases their profits. However, reducing the number of employees through improving productivity raises
unemployment, except to the extent that new jobs are created in new and growing industries. In an economy with a lack
of new industries, increasing so-called "economic efficiency" creates unemployment, which is a social
cost. In this situation, governments concerned for public welfare should either increase the rate of
creation of new industries, and/or slow the elimination of jobs, at least until the growth of new industries
revives, or other desirable counter-measures, such as new social arrangements, are introduced. These may include more leisure
time, job-sharing, and other policies designed to prevent the growth of a permanent "under-class" of unemployed and "working
poor"—a development which would pose a major threat to western civilisation. One of the many ill effects of high unemployment is
that it weakens governments against pressure from corporate interests. For example, increased restrictions on such undesirable
activities as arms exports, unfair trade, environmental damage, corporate tax evasion, business concentration, advertising targeted
at children, and anti-social corporate-drafted legislation such as the "codex alimentarus", "tort reform" and compulsory arbitration
are socially desirable. However, when unemployment is high, corporations' arguments that government intervention would
"increase unemployment" have greater influence on governments. As outlined above, the
opening of near-Earth space
to large-scale economic development, based initially on passenger space travel services,
promises to create millions of jobs, with no obvious limits to future growth . At a time
when high unemployment is the most serious economic problem throughout the world,
developing this family of new industries as fast as possible should be a priority for employment
policy. To continue economic "rationalisation" and "globalisation" while not developing space
travel is self-contradictory, and would be both economically and socially very damaging.
It’s also key to global growth—spurs a massive new industry and enables limitless
resources—solves inevitable collapse on Earth from compLexity and carrying
capacity
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected
authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power,
professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space
Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to
Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World
Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st
Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could
_contribute_to_employment_economic_growth_environmental_protection_education_cultur
e_and_world_peace.shtml, Evan]
3. Economic growth The continuation of human civilisation requires a growing world economy, with
access to increasing resources. This is because competing groups in society can all improve their situation and reasonable
fairness can be achieved, enabling social ethics to survive, only if the overall "economic pie" is growing. Unfortunately, societies
are much less robust if the "pie" is shrinking, when ethical growth becomes nearly impossible, as
competing groups try to improve their own situation at the expense of other groups. Continued
growth of civilisation requires continual ethical evolution, but this will probably be possible
only if resources are sufficient to assure health, comfort, education and fair employment for all
members of society. The world economy is under great stress recently for a number of reasons, a
fundamental one being the lack of opportunities for profitable investment—as
exemplified by Japan's unprecedented decade of zero interest-rates. This lack of productive investment
opportunities has led a large amount of funds in the rich countries to "churn" around in the world
economy in such forms as risky "hedge funds", causing ever greater financial instability, thereby further
weakening economic growth, and widening the gap between rich and poor. Increasing the
opportunities for profitable, stable investment requires continual creation of new industries [16].
Governments today typically express expectations for employment growth in such fields as information
technology, energy, robotics, medical services, tourism and leisure. However, there are also sceptical voices pointing out that many
of these activities too are already being outsourced to low-cost countries which are catching up
technologically in many fields [20]. Most of the new jobs created in the USA during the 21st
century so far have been low-paid service work, while the number of US manufacturing jobs has
shrunk rapidly [21]. It is thus highly relevant that aerospace engineering is a field in which the
most technically advanced countries still have a substantial competitive advantage over later
developing countries. Hence, if a commercial space travel industry had already been booming in the 1980s, the shrinkage in
aerospace employment after the end of the "cold war" would have been far less. Consequently it seems fair to conclude that the
decades-long delay in developing space travel has contributed to the lack of new industries in the
richer countries, which is constraining economic growth and causing the highest
levels of unemployment for decades . The rapid economic development of China and India
offers great promise but creates a serious challenge for the already rich countries, which need to
accelerate the growth of new industries if they are to benefit from these countries' lower costs
without creating an impoverished under-class in their own societies. The long-term cost of such a
socially divisive policy would greatly outweigh the short-term benefits of low-cost imports. The development
of India and China also creates dangers because the demands of 6 billion people are now
approaching the limits of the resources of planet Earth . As these limits are approached,
governments become increasingly repressive, thereby adding major social costs to the direct
costs of environmental damage [22]. Consequently, as discussed further below, it seems that the decades-long
delay in starting to use the resources of the solar system has already caused heavy, selfinflicted damage to humans' economic development, and must be urgently
overcome, for which a range of policies have been proposed in [23,24]. 3.1. Popular demand is the basis of
economic growth The continuing heavy dependence of the space industry on taxpayer funding, despite
cumulative investment of some 1 trillion Euro-equivalents, is due to the simple fact that those directing the
industry have chosen not to supply services which large numbers of the general public wish to
buy. Yet it is elementary that only by doing this can the space industry grow into a normal commercial
activity. Doing so will create an industry which raises private investment to develop new, better
and larger facilities in order to sell better services to ever-more customers—in the familiar "virtuous
circle" of business growth. Eventually this activity may even reach a scale sufficient for the tax revenues it
generates to repay the public investment to date. In successful companies, investment is skillfully
judged so as to produce goods and services for which there will be large commercial (i.e. nongovernmental) demand. If this earns sufficient profits, then the activity will continue to grow
spontaneously for decades or more, like manufacturing of cars or airliners. If, instead, funds intended for
investment are spent on developing non-commercial products, such as expensive surveillance
satellites or a space station for which the only significant customer is government, then clearly the space
industry is doomed to remain forever a small, taxpayer-funded activity—a hindrance rather than
a help to economic growth. Economic policy-makers responsible for deciding the public budget
for space development must no longer rely exclusively on the advice of the space industry itself,
which ever since its origin has had different objectives than the economic benefit of the general public. That is, economic
policy-makers, who are responsible for tens of trillions of Euros of activity, must take the initiative to ensure that
passenger space travel services are developed as soon as possible. There are many ways in which private
investments in this field can be facilitated and supported, without governments themselves either planning or managing the
projects. Among other steps, this will require the important institutional innovation of collaboration
between civil aviation and civil space activities. Since, even with today's knowledge, researchers foresee the
possibility of economic development in space growing to a scale similar to terrestrial
industry [11]. This field of industry must be considered as having the potential to become a
major new axis for economic growth—equivalent in importance to the aviation industry,
but with minimal environmental impact, as discussed below—and therefore deserving of the most
serious and urgent attention by economic policymakers.
PSA Good—Environment
Private space access is uniquely key to the global environment and environmental
justice—five internal links
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected
authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power,
professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space
Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to
Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World
Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st
Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could
_contribute_to_employment_economic_growth_environmental_protection_education_cultur
e_and_world_peace.shtml, Evan]
4. Environmental protection Economic development in space based on low launch costs could contribute greatly,
even definitively, to solving world environmental problems. As a first step, substantially reducing the
cost of space travel will reduce the cost of environment-monitoring satellites, thereby improving
climate research and environmental policy-making. 4.1. Space-based solar power supply A second
possibility, which has been researched for several decades but has not yet received funding to enable testing in orbit, is the
delivery of continuous solar-generated power from space to Earth. Researchers believe that such spacebased solar power ( SSP) could supply clean, low-cost energy on a large scale, which is a
prerequisite for economic development of poorer countries, while avoiding
damaging pollution . However, realisation of SSP requires much lower launch costs, which
apparently only the development of a passenger space travel industry could achieve .
Hence the development of orbital tourism could provide the key to realising SSP economically
[14]. 4.2. Carbon-neutral space travel Clean energy produced by SSP could eliminate the
environmental impact of space travel, and even make it "carbon neutral" if this is
considered desirable [25]. Moreover, SSP has a much shorter energy pay-back time than terrestrial
solar energy, due to the almost continuous supply of power which it can generate, rather than only in
day-time during clear weather. Some critics claim that space travel will become a significant environmental
burden [26]. However, while superficially correct in the short term, this is the opposite of the truth
over the longer term. It would be a dangerous error to prevent the growth of space tourism in
order to avoid its initial, minor environmental impact, since this would prevent a range of major
benefits in the future, including the supply of lowcost, carbon-neutral SSP, and other spacebased industry. 4.3. Space-based industry If orbital travel grows to a scale of millions of passengers/year -- as it could by
the 2030s, with vigorous investment -- it will stimulate the spontaneous growth of numerous businesses in
space. These will grow progressively from simple activities such as maintenance of orbiting hotels, to in-space
manufacturing using asteroidal minerals. For example, the development of SSP would enable a range of
industrial processes using the advantages of space, including high vacuum, weightlessness, lowcost electricity and sources of both minerals and volatile chemicals in shallow gravitational
wells. If SSP grows to supply a significant share of the terrestrial energy market, more and more industry would
operate outside the Earth's ecological system . While most industries cause growing
damage to the Earth's environment as they grow in scale, industrial activities which are outside
the Earth's ecosystem need not cause any such damage. Hence the growth of space-based industry
to large scale offers the longer-term possibility of decoupling economic growth from the limits of
the terrestrial environment. Indeed, it has been convincingly argued that only the use of space
resources, including especially SSP, offers the possibility of protecting the Earth's
environment while enabling sufficient economic growth to preserve civilised society
[22,27]. 4.4. Severe weather amelioration and climate stabilisation The use of solar power satellites for reducing
the severity of hurricanes and typhoons, and/or ameliorating severe snow conditions has been discussed for some years. In the
extreme case this application of SSP might even include a role in the stabilisation of climate. Earth's
climate system is extremely complex, and is the subject of a great deal of ongoing scientific
research, including collection of an ever-wider range of data, and ever-more detailed analysis of climate change in the past. A
positive-feedback cycle causing sudden onset of the cooling phase of the long-term cycle of "ice
ages" has been hypothesized, whereby a winter with unusually low temperatures and/or unusually
widespread and/or longlasting snow cover would increase the probability of the following winter being even
more severe [28,29]. The beginning of such a trend would be similar to the sharply more severe winters
seen over the two last years in North America (as well as the unusually cool 2009 summer). Consequently,
although such a possibility may seem remote, and although there are thorny legal problems concerning deliberate
weather modification, it is nevertheless noteworthy that satellite power stations may be the only practical
means of selectively melting snow over areas of thousands of square kilometres, possibly
sufficient to prevent such a vicious circle, even in the event of terrestrial energy shortages . 4.5.
Ethical consumption Passenger space travel and its numerous spinoff activities have the important
potential to escape the limitations of the "consumerism" which governments in the rich
countries have encouraged in recent decades in order to stimulate economic growth, defined as
GDP. Researchers now understand that this is resulting in "excess consumption" which causes
unnecessary environmental damage [30], while reducing rather than increasing popular
satisfaction [31]. That is, "first world" citizens are increasingly trapped in a culturally impoverished
"consumer" lifestyle which reduces social capital, social cohesion and happiness,
while damaging the environment . By contrast, expenditure on the unique experience of
space travel promises to play a more positive role in the economy and society, enriching
customers culturally without requiring mass production of consumer goods and corresponding
pollution. As such it could be a harbinger of a future "open world" economy [27].
PSA Good—Second Renaissance
Note: Don’t read these they are all bad
It’s key to cultural advancement and a new renaissance era as a civilization
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected
authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power,
professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space
Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to
Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World
Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st
Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could
_contribute_to_employment_economic_growth_environmental_protection_education_cultur
e_and_world_peace.shtml, Evan]
6. Culture
The history and artefacts of the European Renaissance are still the subject of world-wide
admiration today. One reason for this unique flowering—such as in 14th century to 16th century
Firenze—was that there was a social ethic whereby the successful and wealthy had a sufficiently
strong sense of civic duty that they used part of their wealth to enrich the community,
particularly by building inspiring civic spaces—libraries, galleries, palazzi and other buildings—
and by commissioning works of art and scholarship, with results which still inspire us 600 years
later [33]. Such an ethic requires that those who are materially successful, however "self-made"
and praiseworthy they may be, recognise that they are also all beneficiaries of good fortune—to
have been born in a country, an era, a locale, and a family in which they have opportunities to
learn language and manners, to accumulate formative experiences, to obtain useful knowledge,
and then opportunities to exercise their talents and grow into a great career. In a successful
society, people who are blessed with such good fortune accept that they have a social duty to
repay this—by creating a similarly nurturing environment for future generations. The enduring
popularity of the achievements of the Renaissance surely illustrate the enormous value of such a
deep ethical sense in society, and especially among its leaders.
6.1. The need for a new world-wide renaissance
By contrast, as societies became richer over the following centuries, they were increasingly
disfigured by becoming more materialistic, a trend accompanied by more and more destructive
and barbarous wars, including the horrific "world wars" and communist revolutions. This trend
has continued with the recent shocking decline in ethics of the US and UK governments openly
flouting national and international law—and even the Geneva Conventions, once seen as a
bulwark of European civilisation by making war less inhumane through banning torture and the
killing of civilians, inter alia.
The way of thinking of Renaissance leaders was strikingly different from today when the wealthy
are encouraged to follow the rubric: "If you've got it, flaunt it", or appear to follow the frankly
psychopathic: "Everything for us—and nothing for anyone else." In the USA since 2000, "yall of
the real gains in national income, total net worth and overall growth in financial worth have
gone to the top 1%" [34]. The result of this is that the gap between rich and poor has widened
sharply so that the top 1% of the US population now holds more than twice as much wealth as
the bottom 80% of the population [34].
The futility of such behaviour is well-known throughout the ages, as expressed in such sayings
as: "You cannot take it with you when you die," or "There are no pockets in a shroud". The great
universalist religions of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam are in agreement that material wealth
is transient and acquisitiveness is not the path to happiness: to the contrary, having gratitude for
good fortune, and making efforts to help others less fortunate than oneself are extolled. The
reason why these teachings have lasted for millenia is because they help people to live satisfying
lives, to raise healthy children, and to maintain stable, resilient societies. They are the basis of
true civilisation.
Thus, while societies have grown far richer since the Renaissance, the way of thinking of the rich
today seems far poorer. Despite almost unlimited opportunities for creativity and cultural
contribution, most of the rich today leave behind little or nothing that will be remembered. They
typically use their money to buy large numbers of possessions, which are redistributed on their
death. Of course many people, including the wealthy, give generously to charitable
organisations, many of which do very valuable work for numerous socially beneficial causes.
However, much of this work does little more than offset some of the worst effects of the policies
followed by the rich countries which are in fact rapidly widening the gap between rich and poor.
We can judge this behaviour. The great universalist religions as well as secular humanism would
agree: the great benefactors of the Renaissance were more admirable human beings. Unless
corrected soon, this futile materialism of "modern" societies seems likely to destroy civilisation.
Yet under "neo-liberal" or "neo-con" dogma, instead of using the opportunity provided by
wealth to contribute culturally to society, the already rich nowadays exert pressure on
governments to reduce their taxes further, to remove remaining restraints on monopolies and
illegal surveillance of the general public, while falsely blaming already deteriorating welfare
systems for governments' fiscal crisis. The lack of new industries described above weakens
governments against such pressures via the threat of increased unemployment, which is
electorally unpopular. Such psychopathic greed and dishonesty among the upper levels of a
society are surely the prelude to its destruction, and represent the most serious challenge to
western civilisation. A new world-wide "Renaissance" is urgently needed, especially among the
rich of the world.
6.2. "The Earth is not sick -- she's pregnant"
Healthy societies can revitalise themselves. An interesting explanation of the potential of space
travel and its offshoots to revitalise human civilisation is expressed in the idea that "The Earth is
not sick: she's pregnant" [35]. Although this idea may seem strange at first sight, it is a
surprisingly useful analogy for understanding humans' current predicament. According to the
"Pregnant Earth" analogy, the darkening prospect before humanity is due to humans' terrestrial
civilisation being "pregnant"—and indeed dangerously overdue—with an extra-terrestrial
offspring. Once humans' space civilisation is safely born, the current stresses on the mother
civilisation will be cured, and the new life may eventually even surpass it's parent. This idea not
only illuminates many aspects of humans' present problems described above, it also provides
detailed directions for how to solve these problems, and explains convincingly how successfully
aiding this birth will lead to a far better condition than before the pregnancy. A young couple
may be happy in each other's company, but their joy is increased by the birth of children and life
with them, from which many new possibilities arise.
Likewise, the birth of humans' coming extra-terrestrial civilisation will lead to a wide range of
activities outside our planet's precious ecosystem. This evolution will solve not just our material
problems, by making the vast resources of near-Earth space accessible, but it will also help to
cure the emptiness of so-called "modern" commercial culture -- including the "dumbing down"
by monopolistic media, the falling educational standards, passification by television, obesity,
ever-growing consumption of alcohol, decline in public morality, pornography, narcotics, falling
social capital, rising divorce rates, and youths' lack of challenge and lack of "dreams". It will do
this by raising humans' sights to the stars, and showing that the door to them is unlocked, and
has been for decades—we have only to make a small effort to push it open forever.
In addition, re-opening a true geographical frontier, with all its challenges, will in itself be of
inestimable value for the cultural growth of modern civilisation. The widespread sense that we
live in a closed world which is getting more and more crowded will be replaced by an openended, optimistic vision of an unlimited future. Access to the cornucopia of space resources that
await humans' exploitation can clearly make a unique contribution to this. To the extent that
leaders of major industries are motivated by ambition in business competition, they will
welcome this opportunity to extend their activities to new fields in the far wider arena of space.
However, to the extent that they are motivated by the attempt to achieve monopolistic control
and profits, they may try to hinder development in space, even at the cost of preventing its wide
benefits, since this could be more profitable to them. Implementing the "Pregnant Earth"
agenda can prevent this cultural regression and start a true world-wide Renaissance, an
unprecedented flowering of civilisation of which human culture has been in need ever since the
inspiration of the Italian Renaissance was followed by a decline into progressive materialism
and war-mongering [35].
In pursuit of this goal, a growing number of space-related organisations are joining the Space
Renaissance Initiative" [36] started by the authors in June 2008. This has a programme to
accelerate the expansion of human activities into space by advocating investment to specifically
reduce the cost of space travel. That is, supporters recognise that space activities could
contribute far more to economic growth than they have to date if even a small fraction of annual
funding of space activities was targeted at making access to space much cheaper. At a time when
the world economy is in the worst state it has been for more than half a century, the possibility
of creating large numbers of jobs in commercially profitable, space-related work is very
attractive, and should receive the attention of policy-makers world-wide.
Solves philosophical dissent—astronautic humanism opens up a bunch of new
routes to go that solve everything
Autino, 12 [Adriano V. Autino, co-founder and president of Space Renaissance International
paper published on Issue #1 of the Journal of Space Philosophy, by Kepler Space Institute
September 2012, “Facing the 21st Century’s Civilization Challenges by the Tools of Astronautic
Humanism,” http://www.spacerenaissance.org/papers/Facing-the-21st-Century-CivilizationChallenges-by-the-Tools-of-Astronautic-Humanism.pdf, Evan]
Just a couple of years ago, when we (the SRI founders) started discussing the possibility of a
space renaissance spreading around the world, many criticized our philosophical approach.
They said: “philosophy is just talking. To expand into space, humanity needs action, science and
technology.” We went ahead, at our pace, developing the discussion about astronautic
humanism, sure that a new Copernican revolution was, and is, very much needed. In fact, the
dominating philosophy, even in the 21st Century, is still fully pre-Copernican, and the general
metaphysics (perception of the world) is limited to the boundaries of our mother planet. We
thought, in fact, that scientific and technological means for human expansion into space are
fully within our range. What is missing is the political orientation to space, and the general
public awareness of the absolute urgency of expanding into space. Such a situation can be
reversed only by a complete re-foundation of the philosophy1, a giant task, but fortunately we
are no more alone.
Nowadays several significant signs show that the situation is changing. Besides the few founders
of the modern astronautic humanist current, e.g. Stephen Ashworth, working on this matter for
many years, an important institute such as the Kepler Space Institute2 (an entity affiliated with
the Space Renaissance International3 , btw) decided to give birth to a Journal of Space
Philosophy, and kindly proposed to me to enter the Board of Editors. During 2010 I wrote an
article, reviewing the James Cameron’s movie Avatar4, from an astronautic humanist point of
view; Stephen wrote an article5 on his side, and both articles raised a good discussion.
A wide discussion has been raised as well, since 2006, around the interviews released by the
famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, stating that humanity is condemned if it will not
expand into space6. And, a few days ago, a rather famous character, Bob Zubrin, founder of the
Mars Society, published a long essay against the coercive birth control policies going on in the
world7. In his article, Bob clearly refers to new humanism, as a lay philosophy. Nowadays, when
we say that SRI is a philosophical society, everybody seems to think that it is a good thing, and
that we are contributing to fill a void that needed since long time to be filled.
Now is key
Autino, 12 [Adriano V. Autino, co-founder and president of Space Renaissance International
paper published on Issue #1 of the Journal of Space Philosophy, by Kepler Space Institute
September 2012, “Facing the 21st Century’s Civilization Challenges by the Tools of Astronautic
Humanism,” http://www.spacerenaissance.org/papers/Facing-the-21st-Century-CivilizationChallenges-by-the-Tools-of-Astronautic-Humanism.pdf, Evan]
Though we are not yet able to fully apply such an advanced ethics, however we were able to
conceive it, and – though people could think that morality is continuously going worse – the
percentage of people dedicated to murder, in our seven billion world, is for sure nowadays very
much lower than the one of, say, two centuries ago, when world population was less than one
billion, and wars were universally celebrated as source of honor and glory. By the way, this is
another rationale of the demographic growth: increasing the number of people, the percentage
of deviant and criminal behaviors decreases, and this generates a cultural feedback. The
philosophical decay of war as a value was due to the industrial age, that gave an earning to the
majority of the people, lowered the fear, raised the social rights, allowed the spread of the mass
instruction system. The current crisis is questioning all of this, and we run the risk of losing the
social platform built on by big sacrifice, by our parents and grandparents. But, if this crisis is
overcome, by the launch of the space industrial revolution, the path will be retaken, stronger
than before, and with very much less alienation. In fact, the electronic revolution already swept
away the Fordist production chain and its dehumanizing model, and robotics allows people to
do the pleasant and creative part of the work, saving the terrible fatigue of the past century
factories. And — this is not only a philosophical concept, but a political one too — we cannot
wait too long, to develop the space industrial revolution, since this crisis could quickly hack the
heritage of excellent entrepreneurs and technical knowledge, and our time-window to step to the
stars could close, earlier than what we imagine, and irreversibly. If we are not too late, all the
conditions for a formidable jump ahead in evolution will be in order.
This is the only option—it’s SINK OR SWIM—#gramslabswag
Autino, 12 [Adriano V. Autino, co-founder and president of Space Renaissance International
paper published on Issue #1 of the Journal of Space Philosophy, by Kepler Space Institute
September 2012, “Facing the 21st Century’s Civilization Challenges by the Tools of Astronautic
Humanism,” http://www.spacerenaissance.org/papers/Facing-the-21st-Century-CivilizationChallenges-by-the-Tools-of-Astronautic-Humanism.pdf, Evan]
We are space expansionists, not environmentalists! It is very much important to point out a big,
critical, difference: we, astronautic humanists, are not part of the environmental movement,
though we share some environmentalist cares. We are not devoted to “save the planet”, but to
save the civilization23. We are not “enlightened environmentalists”, having in our conceptual
baggage the concept of space expansion as one of the means for saving the planet. We are aware
that, if humanity will not expand into space, any possible culture will end, because the
civilization will be condemned. Therefore we are against any palliative measures, such as green
economies or de-growth strategies: they cannot save the planet for sure (save it for what, and
from what?), and, since they divert resources from a serious space program, they will accelerate
the collapse of civilization. All of our arguments and concepts are in favor of the space
settlement and industrialization, as the most urgent challenge humanity has to face24. We only
accept the discussion with environmentalists who share a humanist ethics, and the primacy of
our species and its rights, in the context of a cosmic ecology.
Solves all suffering
Autino, 12 [Adriano V. Autino, co-founder and president of Space Renaissance International
paper published on Issue #1 of the Journal of Space Philosophy, by Kepler Space Institute
September 2012, “Facing the 21st Century’s Civilization Challenges by the Tools of Astronautic
Humanism,” http://www.spacerenaissance.org/papers/Facing-the-21st-Century-CivilizationChallenges-by-the-Tools-of-Astronautic-Humanism.pdf, Evan]
Astronautic humanism defends each single human life. As Robert Pirsig says “Just as it is more
moral for a doctor to kill a germ than a patient, so it is more moral for an idea to kill a society
than it is for a society to kill an idea”16 (i.e. better that a whole nation, intended as a political
delimited territory, dies, than a single person die). Because any person, even the worst criminal,
could always change their mind, and give a fundamental contribution to the survival of the
species. Humans represent the highest (known) case of intelligent life. As we wrote in our book
"Three Theses for the Space Renaissance"17, intelligence is not an on-off property, as
demonstrated by several cases in the animal realm (dolphins, monkeys, etc...). And awareness is
maybe a more advanced parameter, when we try to classify capabilities and maturity of different
species. However humans hold the primacy on both the grounds, intelligence and awareness
(though we are still far from being complete humans). Therefore we strongly support the
development of a humanist ethics, giving priority to human rights, vs. other kinds of ethical
models (be they religious, ecologist, animalist, socialist, libertarian, etc...). Such an ethics should
of course encompass responsibility toward other sentient species, endowed with less intelligence
and self-awareness, which are however necessary for our life, but they deserve however not to
suffer, and we are not obliged to make them suffer. Not superfluous to say, we are against the
death penalty, where still applied, and we are strongly in favor of non lethal weapon systems,
allowing to catch the terrorists and criminals without destroying whole economies and
thousands of people’s lives. Murder, at all levels, from individual killing to wars, is the true
social poison that causes revenge and ethnic hate for generations to come.
We are all in favor of the concept of compassion, toward a fully human status. Our further
cultural and social growth, and civilization development, can be traced to lower the suffering of
all the sentient beings18 (Buddhist concept) and to pursue their happiness19 both as individuals
and as communities (US Constitution), and such goals are achievable only accessing a larger
material platform. Only by expanding into space, humanity has a chance to complete its journey
and become fully human, giving birth to a Solar Civilization, fully inclusive, where the behaviors
of murder and exploitation will progressively reduce and fade out.
Astronautic humanism is strongly against any form of murder, genocide, suppression of human
life, torture, rape and violence on women and children. As an extension, we are also against the
inhibition of the right to genetic continuation. Each Earthling has the right to generate children
and grow them up for better life conditions, giving their contribution to the civilization pool of
thought and innovation. We are strongly against any claim of ethnic superiority, implicit in any
coercive birth control policies. Countries like Brazil and India are demonstrating, just in the fire
of this awful crisis, that their huge populations, when definitely and finally oriented to progress,
are great resources, as new industrial markets, against the crisis itself! If the world remains
closed, the precious thrust of these countries will not be enough to reverse the crisis, but if the
high frontier is opened, these countries will be in the first ranks of the new development engine
for sure.
This is what astronautic humanism is
Autino, 12 [Adriano V. Autino, co-founder and president of Space Renaissance International
paper published on Issue #1 of the Journal of Space Philosophy, by Kepler Space Institute
September 2012, “Facing the 21st Century’s Civilization Challenges by the Tools of Astronautic
Humanism,” http://www.spacerenaissance.org/papers/Facing-the-21st-Century-CivilizationChallenges-by-the-Tools-of-Astronautic-Humanism.pdf, Evan]
Defining Astronautic Humanism
To define astronautic humanism in a short paper is not that difficult as one could think. The
Space Renaissance Manifesto8 , written in 2010, states clearly: “Today, in the 21st century, a
quite new vision of the world is needed, thus we call for a new renaissance, a Space Renaissance!
The world is not finite; it is not bound to Planet Earth. During the 20th Century space flight took
its first hesitant steps thanks to some enlightened scientists and philosophers such as
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Krafft Ehricke, Gerard O'Neill, and others. These men were the fathers
of the philosophical current that we call Astronautic Humanism; thanks to them and the ideas
they have given us, we live in a season of great progress in science and technology... one that
lacks only resources and a unifying vision before it will transform the modern world as the
Renaissance and the Enlightenment transformed the old. We want to focus on humans and their
needs and aims again. Our concern is for all of the almost 7 billion humans living on Earth
today. We care for their aims and for their rights to a better future and living conditions, we
want to give them a hope that their children will have better living conditions and, most of all,
will have a future – this is our humanism. We think that each human person, wherever born, is
precious, since anyone could have the idea or make the discovery that solves some critical
problem. Real wealth is not found in money, but in new technologies, new solutions and the
potential for work: with 7 billion intelligences, humanity has never been so rich!”
Already in the above short definition we can see the main tracks of our astronautic humanist
basic concepts: astro-humanism is fully inclusive, for all humans, without neglecting other
sentient species. In this respect astro-humanism is definitely non sectarian, and rejects any
elitist concept of salvage or redeem, proper of almost all religions and more or less secret
societies of the past (“only the ones who believe will be saved”, “only few elected ones”, etc...).
People can keep on believing their religions, following their political parties, having their ethics.
The space renaissance, and its founding philosophy – astronautic humanism – are for all and
each one of the seven billions and more Earthlings: salvation is for everybody, or it will not be!
The only thing we are asking all Earthlings for is to think about how to warrant the continuation
of a seven billion civilization: this planet is no more enough, therefore the only way is to expand
into the Solar System, giving birth to a Solar Civilization. Astronautic humanism doesn’t claim
to be a universal philosophy, we don’t claim to have concepts for every philosophic, religious,
political or ethical topics. We are just asking people of any orientation to add some concepts to
their ideological heritage, and maybe actively propose such concepts into their communities.
Human being is our focus. First of all astronautic humanism refers to classic humanism, and
puts the human beings, their interests, their material and spiritual needs at first place and at the
philosophic focus of attention. But it also goes over: while the classic humanists couldn’t have
knowledge of the physical limits of our mother planet, we do. Therefore we move from the
awareness that our mother planet cannot be enough forever, for a growing civilization.
PSA Good—Global Resource Wars
Goes global and causes endless warfare—private space access is key
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known and respected
authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space solar power,
professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space
Renaissance International, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to
Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World
Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics' 1st
Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, Arcachon, France, 25-28 May 2008,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could
_contribute_to_employment_economic_growth_environmental_protection_education_cultur
e_and_world_peace.shtml, Evan]
8.1. Heaven or hell on Earth ? As discussed above, the claim that the Earth's resources are running out is
used to justify wars which may never end: present-day rhetoric about "the long war" or
"100 years war" in Iraq and Afghanistan are current examples. If political leaders do not change their
viewpoint, the recent aggression by the rich "Anglo-Saxon" countries, and their cutting back of traditional
civil liberties, are ominous for the future. However, this "hellish" vision of endless war is based on
an assumption about a single number—the future cost of travel to orbit—about which a different
assumption leads to a "heavenly" vision of peace and ever-rising living standards for everyone. If
this cost stays above 10,000 Euros/kg, where it has been unchanged for nearly 50 years, the prospects for humanity are bleak. But if
humans make the necessary effort, and use the tiny amount of resources needed to develop
vehicles for passenger space travel, then this cost will fall to 100 Euros/kg, the use of extra-terrestrial
resources will become economic, and arguments for resource wars will evaporate
entirely . The main reason why this has not yet happened seems to be lack of understanding of the myriad opportunities by
investors and policy-makers. Now that the potential to catch up half a century of delay in the growth of
space travel is becoming understood, continuing to spend 20 billion Euro-equivalents/year on government space
activities, while continuing to invest nothing in developing passenger space travel, would be a gross
failure of economic policy, and strongly contrary to the economic and social interests of the
public. Correcting this error, even after such a costly delay, will ameliorate many problems in
the world today.
CCP Good—ISS
Commercial Crew is uniquely key to ISS effectiveness and leadership—that’s a vital
internal link to disease treatments, science leadership, and STEM—however,
stable, continued funding is key
AIA, 13 [Aerospace Industries Association, NASA Issue Paper, “Enabling International Space
Station’s Tremendous Research through Commercial Crew and Cargo Programs,”
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/AIA_2013_NASA_Authorization_ISS_Issue_Paper.pdf,
Evan]
As our nation looks to develop new capabilities for human spaceflight, it’s important to
remember that utilization of the International Space Station is well underway, and we must continue to
provide this return on taxpayer investment. Building the largest space station in history with sixteen partner nations is an
astonishing success, demonstrating the ability for a multinational partnership to successfully design, build, and operate a complex
and sophisticated space system across multiple decades. The cooperation that enabled the ISS is tremendous,
but the ISS’s story is just getting started, and the best is yet to come . RECOMMENDATIONS
Significant breakthroughs in research require continued investment beyond 2020 to fully realize
the potential of the ISS research platform and allow the United States and its partners to maintain leadership in scientific
and technological research.
Full utilization of the ISS in the post-Space Shuttle era depends on
continuing development of new domestic access to ISS for American astronauts .
The Commercial Cargo program has already re-established U.S. domestic cargo access with two
successful ISS re-supply missions. NASA’s Commercial Crew program is the most expedient
way to now reestablish American domestic crew access to ISS and end reliance on the
Russian Soyuz for rides to the ISS. BACKGROUND Since the dawn of humanity, the effects of weight have been present
in every Earth-bound experiment. Before the era of spaceflight, scientists could only very briefly remove these effects in labs – they
simply had to be accepted. Thanks to the ISS, the effects of weight now be wholly modified or removed
from a scientific investigation for months, if not years at a time. With this revolutionary development, a curtain
has been lifted for scientists, revealing startling new insights. ISS research is yielding
impressive results for life saving research . Microgravity holds special promise for
vaccine design and development , as the food borne pathogen Salmonella has exhibited increased virulence when
cultured in microgravity. Microgravity-induced changes seen in the bacteria have opened a world of
insight into Salmonella that could eradicate the disease on Earth – a solution that will be
particularly critical to saving lives and improving quality of life in some of poorest parts of the
world. Significant breakthroughs like this one are being seen in a host of other fields on board
the ISS, but continued investment beyond 2020 is crucial to fully realize the world changing benefits
that could await. The ISS research platform puts the United States and its partners at a
distinct advantage in scientific and technological research , and full utilization through
the decade and beyond is the only way to maximize taxpayer return on investment in this irreplaceable
National Lab. The science onboard ISS is innovative and exciting, and students are some of the
first among us to recognize this, thanks in large part to the education and outreach programs conducted at NASA. As a
continuous and permanent human presence in space, the ISS provides a stimulating platform to inspire
students around the country to pursue STEM degrees. Programs like the In-Flight Education Downlink
Program provide real-time learning opportunities for students to interact with astronauts in space.
The value of inspiring students with live communications from Earth orbit cannot be
underestimated, and the ability to reach communities throughout the nation has been expanded
with our permanent home in space – the ISS. Full utilization of the ISS in the post-Space Shuttle era
depends on continuing development of new domestic access to ISS for American
astronauts and improved cargo transportation. The Commercial Cargo program has already re-established U.S.
domestic cargo access with two successful ISS re-supply missions. NASA’s Commercial Crew program is the
most expedient way to now re-establish American domestic crew access to ISS and
end reliance on the Russian Soyuz . In addition to independent access to the ISS, the
Commercial Crew and Cargo programs are helping to develop new commercial space
capabilities . Just as NASA programs in the past were integral to proving new space systems for commercial use such as
commercial communication satellites, the Commercial Crew program holds similar potential to
demonstrate capabilities to low Earth orbit. Investment in Commercial Crew and Cargo is also
helping to free NASA’s resources to execute its plans for human exploration beyond Earth orbit,
and demonstrate reliability in new affordable launch systems for exploration and space science
missions. Significantly altering the Commercial Crew and Cargo program would incur devastating
delays for American access to ISS. U.S. industry is investing capital and innovative ideas to
support this new future, and U.S. government agencies and the Congress have also taken key
steps that have fostered these new initiatives. Stability in these programs is needed for
industry to realize the complimentary goals of developing new systems and re-establishing
American access to ISS.
--- ISS Good—Disease
ISS key to disease prevention – zero gravity environments are a critical testbed for
vaccine development
ESA 12 (European Space Agency, “International Space Station Plays Role In Vaccine
Development,” 08/16/2012,
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/International_Space_Station_Benefits
_for_Humanity/International_Space_Station_Plays_Role_in_Vaccine_Development)
Have you ever been afflicted with a case of food poisoning so awful it made you stop to wonder why no one’s found a cure or sure-fire preventative for it
yet? And chances are you or someone you know has experienced a bacterial staph infection so aggressive it was resistant to nearly every antibiotic used
by the medical profession.The development of vaccines to different pathogens has impacted our global health in ways we could have never anticipated
as recently as the early 20th century, and there are still plenty of pathogens to protect ourselves from. The evolution
of vaccine
development is being streamlined with the help of the microgravity environment exhibited on
the International Space Station. Researchers Timothy Hammond, Ph.D., at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center and
Cheryl Nickerson, Ph.D., at Arizona State University have both flown experiments, using microgravity in their
search for therapeutic agents or vaccines against Salmonella bacteria. Salmonella infection is one of the most
common forms of food poisoning in the U.S. Worldwide, Salmonella diarrhea remains one of the top three causes of
infant mortality, so a vaccine has the potential to make dramatic improvements in health for
developing countries. The space environment has been shown to induce key changes in microbial
cells that are directly relevant to infectious disease, including alterations of microbial growth
rates, antibiotic resistance, microbial invasion of host tissue, organism virulence (the relative ability of a
microbe to cause disease) and genetic changes within the microbe. Collectively, this body of work has shown that the
virulence of this organism increases in microgravity. The targets identified from each of these microgravityinduced alterations represent an opportunity to develop new and improved therapeutics, including
vaccines, as well as biological and pharmaceutical agents aimed specifically at eradicating the pathogen. Early work that
laid the foundation for the microgravity-based vaccine development studies began in 1998, when Nickerson initially was funded by NASA in an effort to
understand how Salmonella bacteria would respond to a microgravity environment. This was the first of what would be multiple studies from this team
on Salmonella bacteria grown in true microgravity or ground-based analogues of microgravity. The
studies of Salmonella and
MRSA bacteria in space are part of the U.S. National Laboratory pathfinder program to
demonstrate the use of the space station as a research platform for commercial research and
development. The pathfinder research approach uses a set of flight experiments to identify the components of the organisms that facilitate
increased virulence in space, and then applies that information to pinpoint targets for anti-microbial therapeutics, including vaccines. Discovering the
factors responsible for growth and virulence of bacteria will contribute to the development of novel therapeutic treatments, including vaccines. In fact,
the commercial corporation Astrogenetix’s space-based Salmonella research has resulted in the discovery of a potential candidate vaccine for this
pathogen and is currently in the planning stages for review and commercial development. More recently, two Arizona State University teams led by
Nickerson and Roy Curtiss III, Ph.D., worked together to deliver vaccine samples that were flown to the space station on STS-135. The
investigation seeks to improve on existing vaccines against Streptococcus pneumonia—a bacteria that causes lifethreatening diseases, such as pneumonia, meningitis, and bacteremia. This organism is responsible for more than 10 million
deaths annually and is particularly dangerous for newborns and the elderly, as they are less responsive to current anti-pneumococcal vaccines
traditionally delivered by needle. An orally delivered vaccine known as the Recombinant Attenuated Salmonella Vaccine, or RASV, is currently
undergoing clinical trials, and the Arizona State University research teams are seeking to increase this vaccine’s anti-pneumococcal effectiveness by
maximizing its ability to induce a protective immune response. “We have the opportunity,” commented Nickerson, “to utilize spaceflight as a unique
The samples sent to
the space station were a genetically altered strain of Salmonella that carries a protective antigen
against the Streptococcus pneumonia bacteria. Molecular targets identified from this work hold promise for translation to
research and development platform for novel applications with potential to help fight a globally devastating disease.”
develop new and improve existing anti-pneumococcal RASVs to prevent disease for the general public. Moreover, because RASVs can be produced
against a wide variety of human pathogens, the outcome of this study could influence the development of vaccines against many other diseases in
addition to pneumonia. This
space-based research provides evidence that the International Space Station
as a National Laboratory is a valuable resource that can be utilized for the benefit of Earth .
Discovery of therapeutic targets for MRSA and Salmonella infections are examples of efforts to use the novel microgravity environment to develop new
pharmaceutical agents, and as the station nears completion, there will be an increase in such opportunities to utilize the International Space Station
National Laboratory as a platform for drug discovery. Overall, these results represent just a fraction of the possibilities of future microgravity
discoveries. Scientists participating in these studies plan to fly a continuing series of experiments to the space station, giving them streamlined access
that will help to accelerate progress for several different lifesaving vaccines
--- ISS Good—Laundry List
Space station key to laundry list of impacts
RedOrbit no date (Red Orbit,
http://www.redorbit.com/education/space/human_spaceflight/space_station_benefits__spac
e/)
Space Station Benefits Now with a permanent human presence in space aboard the International Space Station, the practical
benefits to mankind are almost infinite. Not only will there be new advances in space technology, but there will
be a chance for all types of different scientific fields to have new theories tested and experiments
completed in microgravity. Combustion science is a key element of many of modern society’s critical technologies.
Electric power production, home heating, ground transportation, spacecraft and aircraft
propulsion, and materials processing all use combustion to convert chemical energy to thermal
energy or propulsive force. Although combustion, which accounts for approximately 85 percent of the world’s energy
usage, is vital to humankind’s current way of life, it poses great challenges to maintaining a healthy environment. The testing of
combustion aboard the International Space Station will help humans deal better with the
problems of pollutants, atmospheric change and global warming, unwanted fires and explosions, and the
incineration of hazardous wastes. Aboard the International Space Station the field of fundamental
physics has a grand opportunity. Not only will the laws of quantum theory as they pertain to mapping of the relic of
quantum gravity –gravitational waves generated from the Big Bang — be tested. But the areas of high powered physics
will be able to develop new, more precise atomic clocks with the combination of a new laser
cooling technology and microgravity. According to Astronaut Dan Bursch, “The National Institute of Health has said
that protein crystal growth is the number one research tool that we’ll be using in the next century…” In a normal gravity
environment, protein crystals grow imperfections and impurities, though aboard the orbiting laboratories of
the
International Space Station protein crystals can be grown to almost perfection. This will allow the
development of more pure pharmaceutical drugs, foods and an assortment of other crystalline-based products including insulin for
diabetes patients. The ability to understand the Earth and its environmental response to natural and
human-induced variations such as air quality, climate, land use, food production as well as
ocean and fresh water health are some of the benefits expected from Earth science research
aboard the International Space Station. The astronauts onboard, their work and the instruments used will provide a
“window on the world”, enabling scientists to monitor and understand the factors affecting quality of life. In the fundamental
field of biology, the scientists of the International Space Station will assist in answering some
very basic scientific questions in a different environment. For example, what is the role of gravity in the
processes of biological evolution? Also, how does acute or chronic exposure to altered gravity and other space-related factors affect
normal physiology, metabolism and function of mature organisms? These are just two of a multitude of possible theories and
hypotheses in the fields of biological research that the astronauts and cosmonauts could help answer. Many of the new
engineering technologies being developed on the International Space Station will lead to
improved commercial space communication systems for personal phone, computer and video
use. Also, they will lead to improvements to energy use efficiencies, air and water quality
capabilities in private and commercial buildings, and to improvements in automated maintenance functions and
new lower-cost building construction techniques. Advancements in space technology will significantly
enhance the quality of life on Earth and will help make the utilization and exploration of space
safer and more affordable.The space station research will bring knowledge and insight about the far reaches of space down
to Earth. For instance, studies of the Sun’s effects on Earth will improve forecasts of events ranging
from the temporary disruption of telecommunications to the long-term alterations in climate. The
practical applications here on Earth gained from space science on the International Space
Station will be invaluable. This unique venue offers the opportunity to pursue investigations into solar studies, cosmic rays,
the physical and chemical composition of the space environment, as well as the presence of dark matter in the universe.
--- ISS Good – Natural Disasters
ISS key to Earth observation tech which solves natural disasters
NASA 14 (nasa.gov, “Overview of ISS Earth Observations,” 2014,
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits/observation.html
The International Space Station is a "global observation and diagnosis station." It promotes international
Earth observations aimed at understanding and resolving the environmental issues of our home
planet. The space station offers a unique vantage for observing the Earth's ecosystems with hands-on and automated equipment.
These options enable astronauts to observe and explain what they witness in real time. Station crews can observe and
collect camera images of events as they unfold and may also provide input to ground personnel programming the
station's automated Earth-sensing systems. This flexibility is an advantage over sensors on unmanned spacecraft,
especially when unexpected natural events, such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, occur. A
wide variety of Earth-observation payloads can be attached to the exposed facilities on the station's exterior; already, several
instruments have been proposed by researchers from the partner countries. The station contributes to humanity
collecting data on the global climate, environmental change and natural hazards using its unique
by
complement of crew-operated and automated Earth-observation payloads. The existing international partnerships, fundamental to
the International Space Station, facilitate data sharing that can benefit people around the world
and promote international collaboration on other Earth-observation activities.
AT: CCP Bad—Safety
Total safety is both impossible and stifling—their impact is hyperbolic and
disproven by the airline industry—Commercial Crew is more than safe enough,
and our evidence indicts theirs
***Note: this card is hot fire. You can just taste the salt coming off this guy from what the 2ac
author said. -evan
Robertson, 14 [Donald F. Robertson, space industry journalist, Feb. 24, 2014, “Avoiding Risk
— and Success”, http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/39612avoiding-risk%E2%80%94-and-success, 2/24/2014, Evan]
It is understandable that some astronauts feel “safety must be the single highest priority in
human spaceflight” [“NASA Forgets Key Lesson from Columbia Accident,” Jan. 20, page 19]. That attitude may have
been reasonable during the Apollo project, and even for the space shuttle, when spaceflight was new and
most things were being done for the first time. In 2014, however, after almost 60 years of
experience, Vance Brand et al. and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board are wrong.
Safety is not, and cannot be, the highest priority on a new frontier if humanity wants to
successfully get there. One of the key reasons human spaceflight has moved so slowly, and cost
so much, is that “safety” is given far too high a priority. In the United States, we are unwilling to
tolerate the death of a single astronaut without the expenditure of untold hundreds of millions or billions
of dollars covering every possible failure mode before flight, and again after every accident. If
the New World had been explored that way, the United States would not exist. In retrospect, from a
safety point of view, the space shuttle turned out to be a bad design. It is obvious now that placing the crew cabin on the side of its
rocket was not wise. That was not obvious when the shuttle was developed. We have learned the lesson: All of the five
human spacecraft under serious development in the United States place the crew vehicle on top of the rocket. We
learned this
lesson through experience, by developing and flying the shuttle — and by losing astronauts.
Even if we spend every cent devoted to spaceflight trying to anticipate failure modes, it is not
possible to anticipate every potential mistake, even apparently obvious ones. Blue water
shipping loses hundreds of sailors to accidents every year. We don’t stop shipping every time a
sailor dies. We accept that seafarers have a dangerous occupation, improve safety as much as is
consistent with getting the job done at reasonable cost, and pay crews accordingly. Any human
spacecraft we develop and fly often enough will have failures that kill astronauts and passengers — just like
failures involving aircraft and automobiles kill pilots, drivers and passengers. In fact, for no better
reason than convenience, as individuals and as a society, we tolerate far higher levels of risk with the routine use
of private automobiles than we would by taking the train or by flying. Safety must be an
important criteria: We need to have a realistic chance of getting to our chosen destinations, however that chance is defined.
But if we wish to explore, safety cannot come at all costs. There must be money left over to
accomplish the missions we have assigned ourselves. A human expedition to Mars is a popular goal for much of
the space community. Let’s set aside the question of whether such a challenging and risky mission is a wise choice immediately
following international space station construction and operations in the relative safety of low Earth orbit. As has been the case with
past human exploration on Earth, even with limitless funding, the chances of survival for the first human
expedition to Mars are likely to be quite low. A near-unlimited budget for going to Mars — the
Apollo model — is not in the cards. While we all hope the United States’ financial health continues to improve, it is unlikely to
return to the halcyon post-World War II days of the 1950s and 1960s, when most of the technology used in Apollo was developed.
We live in a different world now, one where spaceflight is more routine and must be more
affordable. If we are going to Mars, most likely we must do so without spending much more money in real terms than the postApollo NASA traditionally receives (substantially less than $20 billion per year, with approximately a third going to human
spaceflight). The acceptance of greater risk must be part of the cost-versus-value equation. In the
Commercial Crew Program, NASA has rightly emphasized setting standards and relying on
competition to encourage safety — just like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does with
commercial aircraft development. The FAA does not dictate to Boeing or Airbus everything they
must do to ensure safety, or insist that unlimited funds be spent. Boeing’s 787 was a new technology, high-
risk development, and mistakes that could have cost lives were made that neither Boeing nor the FAA caught in advance of routine
flight. When they were discovered, on operational vehicles, the aircraft were grounded while the lithium-
ion battery problems were contained. The alternative was not to develop or fly the 787 and continue with 767
technology — which has its own risks. Competition, too, is important. Airbus is developing the more conservative A350 in response
to the 787, and airlines will have a choice between two approaches to balancing performance, cost and risk, among other factors.
After 53 years, human spaceflight in the nations with the most experience — the United States and
Russia — must
be treated in a similar way. NASA should fund a minimum of two commercial crew
ensure competition and multiple approaches to achieving routine
orbital transport — even if the budget provided by Congress is below the optimum levels
required for historic levels of safety. Experience throughout the transportation industry has shown that the best
way to ensure increased reliability, and thus safety, is more frequent operation. Russia achieves
the extraordinary reliability of the Soyuz not with money but through relative simplicity and
flying a similar vehicle often over many decades. Space Exploration Technologies is using a similar philosophy in
its Falcon 9 launch vehicle — so far, with notable success. Subtle problems are caught through repetition, and
the lessons learned can be applied routinely to the production line. In a fixed budget
environment, flying often means keeping the cost per flight down. Astronauts may be lost early
on, but in the long term you will get more spaceflight with safer spacecraft. Exploring a new
frontier has never been, and never will be, easy or safe . If today’s astronauts want to be
astronauts, and fly, they have to accept less funding and greater risk than they have in the past.
The alternative, for astronauts as for the rest of us, is to price ourselves out of the game and stay safely at
home. Is that really what we want?
contenders, and preferably all three, to
Safety concerns are solved by tests and emergency capabilities—their ev is
uninformed fearmongering
NSS, 14 [National Space Society, nonprofit educational and scientific organization specializing
in space advocacy, March 2014, “Position Paper: The NASA Commercial Crew Program”,
nss.org/legislative/positions/NSS_Position_Paper_Commercial_Crew_2014.pdf, Evan]
Some critics fear that Commercial Crew will not provide sufficient crew safety.23 24 NSS believes
these concerns should be considered in a broader context. CONCERN: The next phase of
Commercial Crew will deemphasize safety since in the Commercial Crew solicitation NASA listed cost as
the first metric for judging competitors, with safety listed second. RESPONSE: This vein of criticism
seems to be based not on actual data, but on a suspicious reading of Commercial Crew
contract solicitations. Since NASA has switched from Space Act Agreements to FAR contracts for the next and final phase of
Commercial Crew in part to allow for greater control to ensure crew safety, it is ironic that these concerns are just now surfacing.
Even if safety were listed as the first priority in the contract solicitation, this would not mean
that any amount of money could then be spent on crew safety without regard for cost . Listing
crew safety as a second priority does not mean that suddenly rockets will be launched with rusty
bolts and leaking fuel tanks. Safety is being demonstrated in Commercial Crew by actual tests,
such as the two abort tests planned by SpaceX for 2014, as well as detailed reviews by NASA of
the Commercial Crew vehicles. This abort capability should significantly increase safety compared
to the Space Shuttle. The Commercial Crew providers must also meet FAA safety requirements
in order to obtain launch and reentry licenses from the FAA.
Tech and innovation solve safety concerns
Wall, 11 [Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior Writer, “What the Next 50 Years Hold for Human
Spaceflight”, April 12, 2011, http://www.space.com/11364-human-space-exploration-future-50years-spaceflight.html, Evan]
NASA's space shuttle has had two fatal accidents in 133 manned missions. The safety record of Russia's
Soyuz vehicle is comparable. Private companies will probably have to do better than that , or tourists,
scientists, educators and anyone else won't risk flying with them regularly. "The trick is to have the fatalities be rare
enough to be acceptable," Stern said. "Currently they are not, because the shuttle and similar systems have fatalities too
often on a per-flight basis." Stern thinks an
order of magnitude improvement in the safety of commercial
human spaceflight — one accident every 500 or 1,000 flights, say — might be enough to get people
taking to the heavens regularly. For his part, Whitesides thinks that human spaceflight might make huge
safety strides in the next half-century, perhaps becoming as reliable and routine as plane
travel is now . "I think travel to LEO [low-Earth orbit] could approach the safety of commercial airplane
travel in that timeframe, if not much sooner," Whitesides said. "Through the use of new technologies
and safety systems, we should be able to make significant advancements in space safety, as we are
doing today at Virgin Galactic." If all of these factors line up, humanity could escape from the boundaries
of its home planet as never before by 2061. We could establish an extensive and protracted
presence in Earth orbit, on the moon and beyond, experts say. Stern is optimistic that this push into space
is under way, facilitated by the improving capabilities of private spaceflight. "We're seeing that the
private sector can do human spaceflight, and do it at radically less expensive price points," he said. "I believe in 200 years,
when people look back, they will see this as the pivotal breakout in human spaceflight ."
WE HAVE ASTRONAUTS ON OUR SIDE TOO
Lopez-Alegria, 14 [Michael Lopez-Alegria, former NASA astronaut and current president of
the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Feb. 3, 2014, “A NASA for the Future”,
http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/39370a-nasa-for-the-future, Evan]
NASA’s innovative approach is the Commercial Crew Program, an initiative based on the highly successful Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services (COTS) program for ISS cargo resupply. COTS utilized a fixed-price approach instead of traditional
contracts to develop, demonstrate and procure safe, cost-effective ISS cargo resupply services from two companies, providing both
competition-driven cost containment and operational redundancy. Now that this successful model is being applied to human-rated
vehicles, however, a few respected voices have appeared in SpaceNews to decry what they see as a
sacrifice of safety in favor of price, and to call for a return to the comfort and familiarity of
traditional contracts. But their concerns reflect a mistaken belief that contracting method
drives safety. These two aspects of the program are apples and oranges; one is a variable and
the other must be a given. While NASA’s request for proposals for the latest stage of the program
— Federal Acquisition Regulations-based certification contracts — correctly weighs price highly, compliance with
NASA’s human safety requirements is non-negotiable . There is no sliding scale that would
allow a little less safety for a lower price; all competitors must meet the certification
criteria, and must do so in a manner that NASA itself approves. Further, the argument that price
trumps safety in this request for proposals incorrectly assumes that the more spent on
vehicle development, the safer the vehicle . In fact, history has proved that the only way to
truly guarantee safety is to stay home. Short of that, we must do our very best to maximize safety
through strong design and manufacturing standards, enforced by NASA’s unconditional
requirement to meet safety and other certification criteria. NASA’s independent Technical
Authorities in engineering, crew health and medicine, and safety and mission assurance, which were established as a
result of the key findings of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, will be vigorously engaged in
determining compliance. Failure to meet safety requirements is not an option for any
competitor . The implication that a commercial provider will somehow “cut corners” makes
little sense. Beyond their moral obligations to the men and women they plan to carry,
commercial offerers are incentivized to be safer than their competitors, not less so;
their very existence, let alone business success, depends upon it . The geopolitical and fiscal
environments are not the only things that have changed since the days of Apollo. Automobiles and airplanes are now
far safer, thanks to important advances in design and manufacturing techniques, as well as new
technologies like air bags and anti-skid brakes. Likewise, the next human space vehicles will be
safer than the space shuttle, with no abort “black zones” and with enhanced system health
monitoring via modern sensors, computers and data management suites. It is indeed an important role of
astronauts to be guardians of the safety and well-being of their brethren. Many of them are now engaged in doing just that, not only
in the halls of the Astronaut Corps but as part of the very companies that are developing these new vehicles. Many former
NASA flight control, engineering, and safety and mission assurance professionals have also
joined those companies’ development teams. When they wore NASA badges there was no
question of their dedication to safety; the considerable experience they gained in those roles
only serves to make them more effective stewards today. If we want America to retain its
leadership in space we must take full advantage of those concepts that are so fundamentally and
uniquely American: innovation, entrepreneurship and competition. To my esteemed colleagues who have
expressed concern, an invitation: Meet with the astronauts, engineers, technicians and other experts who
are building the next American spacecraft. They will demonstrate how they are putting the
safety of our astronauts first, and I believe you will leave convinced that the new commercial
crew vehicles will be the safest ever flown .
AT: CCP Bad—cost overruns
NASA procedure is normal and empirically proven to be successful—no cost
overruns etc
NSS, 14 [National Space Society, nonprofit educational and scientific organization specializing
in space advocacy, March 2014, “Position Paper: The NASA Commercial Crew Program”,
nss.org/legislative/positions/NSS_Position_Paper_Commercial_Crew_2014.pdf, Evan]
CONCERN: NASA will lack the accounting tools to verify cost or pricing data. Critics speculate that
such ground rules will lead to underbidding by contractors, resulting in either cost overruns or a
disaster in space.
RESPONSE : In non-governmental commercial contracts, buyers typically do not receive any
financial data about the costs incurred by a provider. Whether a provider makes money on a
contract, and how much if they do, is the business of the provider. The concern of the customer is to
ensure that the contract contains milestones demonstrating all critical requirements, including
safety. The critics have not put forward any evidence to suggest that NASA will not do as well in
this respect with Commercial Crew as it did with the hugely successful – and safe – COTS
program.
Other Modules
Uniqueness—Generic
NASA budget in contention
Foust 14 (Jeff, senior aerospace analyst with the Futron Corporation, PhD in planetary sciences
from MIT, “NASA Facing New Space Science Cuts”, May 30, National Geographic,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-sciencefunding-exploration/?)//DLG
But the reality is that while the stars and planets beckon, a budget battle is brewing over NASA, the $17.6-billion
civilian space agency. Cuts threaten spacecraft and telescopes, even as NASA struggles to clarify its
mission in the post-space shuttle era. (Related: "Future of Spaceflight.")¶ Since the end of the Apollo missions in 1973, the
space agency's budget has steadily declined from 1.35 percent of federal spending to less than 0.6
percent. A long-running annual drop in inflation-adjusted funds took a sharp downward turn in the
past two years, as budget cuts, including mandatory ones ordered by Congress, trimmed almost a billion
dollars from 2012 to 2013. The 2014 budget recovered some, but not all, of that cut.¶ In addition, a fundamental debate is
under way over the future exploration aims of NASA. The Obama Administration favors "stepping stone"
plans leading to an asteroid visit in the next decade; congressional representatives call for a return to the
moon.¶ A National Research Council report released in late 2012 called NASA's strategic plan to explore asteroids "vague," adding
that the agency's explanations did not explain "why it is worthy of taxpayer investment."¶ The debate over funding the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)—which was barred from receiving federal dollars in a 1993 congressional vote that scrubbed its
ten-million-dollar yearly operating cost—mirrors, in microcosm, the larger debate about paying for space science. Already
squeezed by decades of straitened funding, a variety of NASA missions, ranging from an infrared
space telescope to a 747-mounted observatory, now face cancellation.¶ Difficult Choices¶ When NASA
released its 2015 budget proposal in March, it dropped a bombshell on the astronomical community. The
proposal cut funding for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), a 747
jetliner equipped with a 2.5-meter (8.2-foot) telescope that can make observations above most of our
atmosphere's infrared-absorbing water vapor.¶ Unless NASA finds a new partner to take over its share of SOFIA's
operating costs, about $85 million a year, the proposed budget would force the agency to mothball the
observatory—even though it began routine operations earlier this year.¶ NASA administrator Charles
Bolden said SOFIA was a victim of limited budgets that had led the agency to prioritize other programs, such as the James Webb
Space Telescope (JWST) and a 2020 Mars rover mission.¶ "It turned out that we had to make very difficult choices
about where we go with astrophysics and planetary science and Earth science, and SOFIA happened to be what fell off the plate this
time," he said shortly after the budget proposal came out.¶ The space agency is also facing some difficult choices
about what ongoing space missions it can afford to keep running. Every two years NASA convenes panels,
known as senior reviews, to examine the performance of missions that have exceeded their original
lifetimes. The reviews are designed to ensure that the science these missions produce is worth the continuing expense, but it's
rare for such reviews to recommend ending a mission before the spacecraft can simply no longer operate.¶
Focus on space now – they’re perceived as zero-sum
Conathan 13 (Michael, “Rockets Top Submarines: Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean
Spending”, June 18, Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/06/18/66956/rockets-topsubmarines-space-exploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/
Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of mega-blockbusters such as “Titanic” and “Avatar,” brought this message to
Capitol Hill last week, along with the single-seat submersible that he used to become the third human to journey to
the deepest point of the world’s oceans—the Marianas Trench. By contrast, more than 500 people have
journeyed into space—including Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who sits on the committee before which Cameron testified—and 12
people have actually set foot on the surface of the moon.¶ All it takes is a quick comparison of the
budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why
space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide margin.¶ ¶ In fiscal year 2013
NASA’s annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total funding for everything
NOAA does—fishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other
programs—was about $5 billion, and NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million.
Something is wrong with this picture.¶ Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost
approximately $8 million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And that’s not the only similarity between space and
ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life.¶ Yet space travel excites Americans’ imaginations in a
way ocean exploration never has. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens
both big and small: Space dominates, with “Star Trek,” “Star Wars,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “Buck Rogers in the 25th Century,” and
“2001 A Space Odyssey.” Then there are B-movies such as “Plan Nine From Outer Space” and everything ever mocked on “Mystery
Science Theater 2000.” There are even parodies: “Spaceballs,” “Galaxy Quest,” and “Mars Attacks!” And let’s not forget Cameron’s
own contributions: “Aliens” and “Avatar.”¶ When it comes to the ocean, we have “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea,” “SpongeBob
SquarePants,” and Cameron’s somewhat lesser-known film “The Abyss.” And that’s about it.¶ This imbalance in pop
culture is illustrative of what plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control room when
the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as “Mohawk Guy” for his
audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron
bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference
from all but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as myself.¶ Part of this incongruity comes from access. No matter where we
live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the sky, and wonder about what’s out there. We’re presented with a spectacular
vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were
children. Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the
waves.¶ As a result, the facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak. Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean,
and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of America’s exclusive economic zone—the undersea territory reaching
out 200 miles from our shores.¶ Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider
this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look
pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus.¶ In a time of
shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our investments, we should be taking
a long, hard look at how we are prioritizing our exploration dollars . If the goal of government spending is to
spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the
heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of
mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology.
No ocean funding coming now
Bidwell 13 (Allie, reporter, “Scientists Release First Plan for National Ocean Exploration
Program”, Sept 25, US News, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/25/scientistsrelease-first-plan-for-national-ocean-exploration-program?page=2)//DLG
In order to create a comprehensive exploration program, Schubel says it will become
increasingly important that federal and state agencies form partnerships with other
organizations, as it is unlikely that government funding for ocean exploration will increase in the
next few years.¶ [ALSO: Remarkable New Giant Squid Footage Surprises Experts]¶ Additionally,
Schubel says there was a consensus among those explorers and stakeholders who gathered in
July that participating organizations need to take advantage of technologies that are available
and place a greater emphasis on public engagement and citizen exploration – utilizing the data
that naturalists and nonscientists collect on their own.
SQ ocean exploration funding is low
Adams 14 (Alexandra, Ocean Advocate for NDRC, MA in Environmental Studies @ Brown, “A
Blue Budget Beyond Sequester: Taking care of our oceans”, March 25, National Research
Defense Council,
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aadams/a_blue_budget_beyond_sequester.html)//DLG
This past year was a tough year - from deep sequester cuts to a government shutdown. Our oceans
definitely felt the budget crunch. After much excruciating negotiation, Congress finally passed a budget and now we are on
the road to what we hope will be a saner way to govern and plan.¶ The President has just released his budget for Fiscal Year 2015.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget can mean the difference between thriving oceans and
coastal communities, or the decline in this invaluable public resource. This year’s budget signals that we will invest in protecting that
resource, but by no means provides all that will be needed for the big job ahead. With half of Americans
living in coastal areas, NOAA’s work means protecting our citizens and our natural resources. Moreover, with a national ocean
economy that is larger than the entire U.S. farm sector in terms of jobs and economic output, keeping this economic powerhouse
functioning matters to us all.¶ For fiscal year 2015, NOAA has proposed a budget of approximately $5.5 billion, an increase of
3.2% above the 2014 enacted funding levels, which took steps to mitigate the worst effects of sequestration but
did not fund programs at the levels to which they ultimately need to be supported. This is a very
modest increase, given the enormity of the agency’s task. Based on this request, there is every reason why Congress should fund the
President’s Budget. Even the small increases this year recognize the agency’s critical role in feeding our nation, protecting our
coastal economies and preserving our precious ocean resources.¶ NOAA has dual responsiblilities ranging from mapping the ocean
floor to maintaining orbiting satellites for weather forecasting. And if we want to see investments in protecting coastal economies
and ocean health, in addition to accurate weather data, we need to ensure that NOAA’s budget is able to support both its “wet”,
ocean side, as well as the “dry” weather forecasting activities. This means funding both effective ocean, coastal, and fisheries
programs, in addition to weather forecasts, warnings and satellites. The National Ocean Service (NOS), which helps us understand
and protect our oceans and coasts, will need investments to continue its work. In FY 2015, NOAA requests a small increase of $20.6
million for NOS over the 2014 enacted levels.¶ ¶ With renewed commitment from both the Administration and communities around
our nation to prepare for the impacts of a changing climate, NOAA’s budget includes programs to help our nation adapt to these
changes. Some of our nation’s fishermen are on the front lines of climate impacts, as they watch more acidic waters decimate oyster
harvests while fish populations shift away from their classic geographic range. Because ocean acidification is changing the very
chemistry of our waters and threatening productive coastal economies, the President’s Budget has committed $15 million in funding
for ocean acidification research and monitoring. Just ask any shellfish farmer and you will hear that this investment is long overdue
and will help make the difference between abundant harvests and seasons without oysters to sell.¶ NOAA’s National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) is tasked with managing our ocean’s fisheries. In years past we have seen our fish stocks crash, but thanks
to Congressional action in 1996 and 2006 on the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act, stocks around the nation are now
rebounding. Implementing this highly successful Act requires funding to gather accurate data on the status of our fish stocks and
fishery managers to help implement programs. Funding these programs will help ensure our nations fisheries can continue to
support coastal economies while filling our dinner plates for years to come. This year, NOAA is requesting nearly flat funding for
NMFS compared to the FY14 enacted levels, as those provided funds for fisheries disaster assistance which are not reoccurring. ¶
Unfortunately, some critical programs won’t get what they need this year. This year’s budget cuts
funding for Ocean Exploration and Research by $7 million. This funding has supported exploration by the research
vessel Okeanos of deep sea corals and other marine life in the submarine canyons and seamounts off the Mid-Atlantic and New
England coasts that fisheries managers and ocean conservation groups, including NRDC, are working to protect. Even though funds
are stretched, shortchanging exploration and research will lead to weaker protections for species and resources that are already
under stress.
Uniqueness—NOAA Spending
No new NOAA spending means no trade off now
Congress 93 (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Lessons Learned From the
GOES Experience,” July 1993, http://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/text/goes.lessons.html, Aaron C)
NASA and NOAA have a long history of cooperation in developing spacecraft. An agreement between the two agencies, originally
signed in 1973, gives the Department of Commerce and NOAA responsibility for operating the environmental systems and requires
NASA to fund development of new systems, and fund and manage research satellites. This NASA line item is known as the
Operational Satellite Improvement Program, and was usually funded at an average level of about $15 million per year.(2) Prior to
initiating GOES-Next development, this division of labor seemed to work well. NASA had developed the TIROS and Nimbus
research satellites, which carry instruments that were eventually transferred to NOAA operational satellite systems. NASA and
NOAA budgets and organizational structure were based to an extent on the agreed upon division
of responsibility. NASA and NOAA cooperation became less effective over time. During the transition to the Reagan
Administration in 1981, NASA faced cost overruns with ongoing programs and began to spend more of the available resources,
including the line item that was used for NOAA development, on the Space Shuttle. In addition, the Reagan Administration was slow
to appoint senior agency management in NASA. As internal pressures mounted, NASA decided not to fund
development of NOAA operational sensors and spacecraft.
Uniqueness—SLS/Orion
Funding levels for SLS and Orion are being maintained now – no trade offs
Foust 12 (Jeff, “NOAA concerns overshadow NASA in Senate appropriations bill,” 04/18/2012,
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/04/18/noaa-concerns-overshadow-nasa-in-senateappropriations-bill/, AC)
If you looked at only the first sentence of the NASA section of the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill summary released by the
Senate Appropriations Committee after its markup of the bill Tuesday afternoon, you might have jumped for joy. “The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $19.4 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion over the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level,” it reads. Were senators suddenly feeling generous? Well, not really. The increase is due entirely to the transfer
of NOAA’s satellite programs to NASA. Without that transfer, NASA’s budget is $41 million less than the agency’s
fiscal year 2012 appropriations and just above the $17.71 billion requested by the administration. The chairwoman of the Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), singled out NOAA for
criticism in her comments about the budget, explaining the decision to move NOAA’s programs to NASA. “Unfortunately, the
Committee has lost confidence in NOAA’s ability to control procurement costs or articulate
reliable funding profiles. Therefore, we have taken the unprecedented step of transferring
responsibility for building our Nation’s operational weather satellites from NOAA to NASA ,” she
said in a statement. “While NASA missions have also experienced cost overruns and schedule slippages, NASA has been
more responsive and competent in correcting these deficiencies.” The transferred funding would be placed in
a separate, new account, called Operational Satellite Acquisition, within the NASA budget. That move was endorsed by the
committee’s ranking member, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). “NOAA and the Department of Commerce have failed to rein in
the life-cycle costs which are now exceeding $1 billion above last year’s revised budget projections,” she said in her opening
statement. “NOAA is traveling in the wrong direction, and NASA is the right agency to oversee the
procurement of satellites.” Beyond the shift of NOAA funds, the committee largely made tweaks to the administration’s budget
request. The subcommittee restored $100 million to NASA’s Mars science programs, although didn’t allocate that funding to any
particular Mars program. The administration’s request for commercial crew was cut by just over $300 million, from $830 million to
$525 million, but that reduced level is still above both the program’s 2012 funding of $406 million and the authorized level of $500
million for FY13. The Space Launch System and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle are funded at
effectively the levels in the budget proposal: $1.5 and $1.2 billion, respectively. The full appropriations committee
will take up the CJS appropriations bill in a hearing at 10:30 am Thursday morning.
Uniqueness—NASA Funding
NASA receiving funding increases now
Smith 6/6 (Marcia S., Senate Appropriators Increase NASA Budget, Save SOFIA, Transfer Two Programs from NOAA to
NASA – UPDATE, 06/06/2014, http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-appropriators-increase-nasa-budget-save-sofiatransfer-2-programs-from-noaa-to-nasa)
Earth Science. The Senate committee substantially increased NASA’s earth science budget, in part because it
transferred two programs to NASA from NOAA: Jason-3, an ocean altimetry mission, and DSCOVR, a space weather mission. Both
are cooperative programs that involve NOAA, NASA and other domestic and international agencies. They both have long histories,
but NOAA has been managing the programs most recently. The Senate committee would put NASA in charge
and adds money to NASA’s budget resulting in a total of $25.6 million for Jason-3 and $24.8 million for DSCOVR. (NOAA
requested $25.656 million for Jason-3 and $21.1 million for DSCOVR.) The Senate committee also eschews NASA’s efforts at
finding innovative methods for providing continuity of Landsat data. It directs NASA to proceed with a new Landsat mission for
launch no later than 2020 and a cost of no more than $650 million (including launch) that would “maximize the utilization of nonrecurring engineering efforts from Landsat 8.”
I/L—Spritzer
Spritzer
Algar 14 (Jim, “Budget cut may force NASA to axe Spitzer and turn down MaxWISE proposal”,
May 25, Tech Times, http://www.techtimes.com/articles/7481/20140525/budget-cut-mayforce-nasa-to-axe-spitzer-and-neowise-missions.htm)//DLG
NASA may have to make some tough choices if it wants to continue its space exploration missions, with two
particularly efforts -- the Spitzer Space Telescope and part of the NEOWISE mission -- possibly on the
chopping block.¶ Looking at the findings presented after a review by an independent panel, NASA may be forced to
shut down one space telescope -- the Spitzer -- to save others, including the Hubble and the Kepler
exoplanet-hunter.¶ Spitzer could be shut down for a lack of funds, while a proposal called MaxWISE meant to re-purpose the
NEOWISE -- the Near-Earth Object Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer -- data for astrophysical studies is also unlikely given the
expense.¶ NASA is facing a Congress that has been zealously tightening the space agency's budget.¶
Although NASA has cut funding for the 11-year Spitzer program after fiscal 2014, it hasn't completely closed
the door and ways to keep the space telescope conducting at least some scientific work.¶ "The Spitzer
project is invited to respond with a request for a budget augmentation to conduct continued operations with reduced operations
costs," the agency said in a statement responding to the independent review.¶ Officials with the Spitzer project were quick
to
seize on that.¶ "To be clear: Spitzer has not been canceled. Funding not yet identified, but NASA has asked us
for a revised budget," they posted on the projects' Twitter account.¶
I/L—Europa, Orion, SLS, Mars
Programs – Europa, Orion capsule, SLS rocket, Mars 2020
Foust 14 (Jeff, senior aerospace analyst with the Futron Corporation, PhD in planetary sciences
from MIT, “NASA Facing New Space Science Cuts”, May 30, National Geographic,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-sciencefunding-exploration/?)//DLG
The House bill adds $270 million to the president's proposal for the Orion capsule and the Space
Launch System heavy-lift rocket, which are being developed to carry out NASA's future deepspace missions even though it's unclear what specific missions they'll fly beyond initial test
flights in 2017 and 2021. However, the bill cuts by nearly 10 percent funding for NASA's Commercial Crew program, which
supports private development of spacecraft to transport astronauts to the International Space Station. ¶ The House's budget
would also set aside $100 million for a proposed mission to Jupiter's icy moon Europa that
would launch in the early 2020s. By comparison, NASA requested just $15 million for the mission in its proposed
budget, the first time the agency had specifically requested funding for the mission, although Congress provided some funding for it
in 2013 and 2014.¶ "With this funding increase, we will be able to keep Mars 2020 on track and begin
an exciting new mission to Europa, two of the science community's highest priorities ," said
Representative Adam Schiff, a Democratic member of the House Appropriations Committee whose California district includes
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
I/L—Innovation
Key to innovation – laundry list
ISECG 13 (International Space Exploration Coordination Group,
“Benefits Stemming from Space Exploration”, September, NASA,
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stemming-from-Space-Exploration2013-TAGGED.pdf)//DLG
There are numerous cases of societal benefits linked to new knowledge and technology from space
exploration. Space exploration has contributed to many diverse aspects of everyday life, from solar
panels to implantable heart monitors, from cancer therapy to light‐¶ weight materials, and from water‐
purification systems to improved computing systems and to a global search‐and‐rescue system4 .
Achieving the ambitious future exploration goals as outlined above will further expand the economic
relevance of space. Space exploration will continue to be an essential driver for opening up new domains in
science and technology, triggering other sectors to partner with the space sector for joint research
and development. This will return immediate benefits back to Earth in areas such as materials, power
generation and energy storage, recycling and waste management, advanced robotics, health and
medicine, transportation, engineering, computing and software. Furthermore, innovations required for
space exploration, such as those related to miniaturisation, will drive improvements in other space systems and services resulting
in higher performance and lower cost. These will in turn result in better services on Earth and better return of
investment in institutional and commercial space activities. In addition, the excitement generated by space exploration attracts
young people to careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, helping to build global capacity for scientific and
technological innovation.
I/L—Partnerships
Leads to international partnerships and key to address global problems – solar
flares, asteroids, sustainable growth
ISECG 13 (International Space Exploration Coordination Group,
“Benefits Stemming from Space Exploration”, September, NASA,
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stemming-from-Space-Exploration2013-TAGGED.pdf)//DLG
Partnerships and capabilities developed through human space exploration create new opportunities for
addressing global challenges. Space exploration is an inherently worldwide endeavour that attracts
broad international interest and affects people all across the globe by producing knowledge, capabilities,
and relationships that help society deal with some of the most pressing long‐term global challenges. Space exploration
is a catalyst for nations to build mutual understanding and trust, and international partnerships that advance common
exploration goals help to align interests among nations and promote diplomacy. As programmes become more
ambitious, like the ISS (see text box below) and human missions to the Moon, asteroids, and Mars, they require more
extensive international cooperation, and this creates opportunities to strengthen the capacity for peaceful, globally‐
coordinated activities in space and on Earth. Complex and demanding exploration missions will benefit from contributions by a wide
pool of partners. Future partnerships for space exploration will build on existing partnership such as the one for the ISS, but will also
be open to include new partners. Partnership opportunities can be adapted to the needs and resources of developed as well as of
developing countries. International partnerships and technical capabilities for space exploration contribute to developing new
options for dealing with global challenges for which space activities offer unique solutions. These include the
challenges of dealing with hazardous near‐Earth
asteroids and managing the threat posed by solar
storms to the people and equipment in space and on¶ Earth. Enhanced global partnerships and exploration capabilities may also
contribute to protecting spacecraft by developing new means for space debris removal. Furthermore, knowledge gained
from space exploration can also contributes to implementing policies related to environmentally
sustainable development. Earth can be regarded as a spaceship floating in our solar system. Many aspects of
sustainability, recycling, or efficient use of scarce resources have to be tackled in the course of
exploration missions and can be transferred to systems on Earth.
I/L—Asteroids
Proposal to increase funding for asteroids, GOP on the fence
King 14 (Ledyard, “NASA budget would ramp up the asteroid mission”, March 5, Tallahassee
Democrat, http://www.tallahassee.com/story/local/2014/03/05/nasa-budget-would-ramp-upthe-asteroid-mission-/6054577/)//DLG
WASHINGTON – NASA’s proposed budget for fiscal 2015 would ramp up funding to fly astronauts to an
asteroid by 2025 as part of a stepping-stone approach to Mars, a mission some lawmakers want to replace
with a return trip to the moon.¶ The $133 million for the mission, which would deflect a small asteroid
into near-Earth orbit so astronauts could practice landing on it to study its characteristics, is
part of the space agency’s proposed $17.46 billion budget released by the administration Tuesday.¶ Fiscal 2015
begins on Oct. 1 and ends on Sept. 30, 2015.¶ The budget also includes funding to continue NASA’s other top priorities: a deep-space
Space Launch System rocket and the Orion multi-purpose vehicle it will carry to Mars, the James Webb Space Telescope due for
launch in 2018, and the Commercial Crew Program that helps fund private efforts to send astronauts from the U.S. to the
International Space Station.¶ Now that the space shuttle has retired, NASA pays Russia about $70 million every time an astronaut
needs a ride to the orbiting lab.¶ U.S.-Russia tensions stoked by the unrest in Ukraine haven’t affected the countries’ partnership in
space, but NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden Jr. said it’s “ultra-critical” Congress fully fund the president’s $848 million
request for the Commercial Crew Program.¶ “We really need to get on with giving America its own capability to launch our
astronauts from American soil on American spacecraft so that we’re not dependent on other nations to do that,” he told reporters
Tuesday.¶ NASA’s entire budget request is about $185 million below the fiscal 2014 level but roughly $600 million more than NASA
received in fiscal 2013, when sequestration cut discretionary spending across the board.¶ NASA could have access to an additional
$900 million — its share of a $56 billion Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative that would be separate from the regular
budget.¶ President Barack Obama has proposed the fund for special programs — split evenly between defense and non-defense
projects — that would be financed by closing tax loopholes and cutting spending elsewhere.¶ The budget plan now goes to Congress,
which likely will make significant changes. Several key GOP lawmakers already have expressed their distaste
for the asteroid mission, saying a return to the moon is a more logical stepping-stone to Mars,
especially given other nations’ interest in a lunar mission.¶ The administration has decided an asteroid mission
makes the most sense. Aside from deflecting a small asteroid, the agency is also examining a proposal to chip a boulder off a larger
asteroid and bringing it closer to Earth.¶ The fiscal 2014 budget in effect now includes $78 million for
asteroid redirection. NASA officials said they’re confident lawmakers will approve the $133
million request for fiscal 2015 for a mission that would launch around 2025.
NASA key to asteroid detection and deflection – collision would be catastrophic
McBrien 14 (Michael, “GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR NASA SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED
YET”, Apr 20, Northeasterm University, http://www.northeastern.edu/nuwriting/a-case-fornasa/)//DLG
These advances were all made in the past, and looking forward it might not be as easy to determine how NASA can help the
economy. NASA is often tasked with extremely difficult challenges and they often succeed. Who could
have guessed 50 years ago that today our country would have hundreds of man-made satellites in orbit around the Earth? [6]
Many of the devices we use every day require these satellites to operate, including cell phones, GPS
systems, satellite television, and weather satellites. They
all rely on advances NASA made years ago. In the
past, it was not known that NASA would contribute so much to society, so how can one claim
that NASA will not provide even more advances in the science and technology fields that will
greatly alter the economy for the better? The truth is that NASA pushes boundaries. While it appears that
NASA does contribute positively to the economy, the point of NASA is not to make money for the economy. Therefore, “for a
mission-focused organization like NASA, which isn’t making a play for profits, any ratio of economic benefits versus spending that
exceeds 1-to-1 is a success” [5]. NASA serves many other purposes which are reason enough to continue
to fund it at a steady, if not increasing, level. One extremely important reason NASA must
continue to be funded is defense. More specifically, defense of the entire planet and the human
species as a whole from extraterrestrial threats. Asteroids can be as big as football stadiums and travel more than ten
times the speed of a bullet, and they pose a serious risk to life on Earth. It is widely believed that an
asteroid caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. This asteroid, known as the
Chicxulub asteroid, is thought to have been 10km in diameter and, upon impact, caused planet-wide fires and
tsunamis, subsequently ending most life on Earth [7]. Asteroids of this magnitude obviously do not strike Earth
very often, but smaller asteroids do pose a threat. Asteroids over 10m in diameter are not terribly frequent but can
punch through the atmosphere and strike the ground causing an explosion [8]. Due to the huge surface area of the Earth and the
relatively tiny surface area people have covered, the chances of an injury being caused by such an asteroid are still quite small. The
Tunguska asteroid in June of 1908 was about 50 meters in diameter and struck in an isolated region of Siberia. The impact caused
devastation in a region about 70km by 50km and people were reportedly knocked off their feet at distances of 60km away from the
impact [7]. Nobody was harmed in this particular incident, but if an impact of this magnitude were to occur today
in a populated region, the effects could be tragic. With asteroids of this size, the damage depends on where they
strike. However, asteroids over 100m in diameter can be expected to kill a hundred thousand to a
million people if they strike the Earth. These casualties can be caused by the impact itself and the
massive explosion that would ensue, or by the effects of tsunamis created if the asteroid strikes an ocean. If an
asteroid bigger than one kilometer in diameter struck the Earth, it could cause over a billion deaths. Debris thrown up from
the impact and the possible fires caused could block out sunlight and change the global climate. This
could lead to worldwide crop failures and widespread starvation. Incredibly, asteroids of this size strike the
Earth about once every million years on average [8], however, this is averaged over a very long period of time, and there is no
way to know what can be expected in the near future, at least not yet.¶ In 1991 after studies related to asteroids
were released, “the U.S. Congress directed NASA to conduct workshops on how potentially threatening asteroids could be detected,
and how they could be deflected or destroyed” and later in 1994 ” the House Committee on Science and Technology directed
NASA…to identify and catalogue within 10 years the orbital characteristics of 90% of all comets and asteroids larger than 1 km and
in orbits that cross the orbit of Earth” [9].¶ Congress finally realized the importance of the defense of the planet against asteroids and
asked NASA to take action. This was continued even further in 2005 when Congress tasked NASA with ” detecting
90% of near-Earth objects with a size greater than 140 meters in diameter by 2020″[9]. NASA was to attempt to find most of
the dangerous asteroids that had a chance of hitting the Earth. In response to these challenges, several programs were started
including the Lincoln Near Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR) and the Lowell Near Earth Object Search (LONEOS), among others,
to map all Near Earth Objects (NEOs) . They have made progress but have not catalogued all of the 1 km and
larger NEOs
,let alone the still-very-dangerous greater-than-140m asteroids [9]. Congress has told NASA
funding is still
being cut year after year. The plans for NASA’s funding are approximated at just under 18 billion dollars for 2012 and
that they should be mapping these imminent dangers, at least the ones that pose a serious risk to humans, yet
potentially the same for 2013 as well [2]. This is less than 18 billion dollars a year to learn about and defend against global threat.
This is a race against time, and with more money there is a greater chance of predicting and preventing
catastrophe. Yet there is still more money going into the defense of the United States from whatever threats there might be from
other groups of people. In 2013 the plan is to spend 614 billion dollars on National Defense [2]. Every year the government spends
more money in the Department of Defense than has been spent on NASA in its entire history. Everything NASA has ever produced,
everything they have accomplished in 50 years – going to the moon multiple times, implementing the Hubble Telescope, placing
many weather detection satellites into orbit, sending spacecraft to the far reaches of our solar system, landing a rover on Mars, and
so much more – has been done with less money [10] than is spent on two years of defending United States citizens [2] from whatever
threats are coming from other people and nations. If the new focus of NASA is directed towards finding and protecting us from
asteroids, why is it not being given the resources required to do so? Is space defense really that much less
important than any other defense? If there is such a desperate need for spending cuts in these upcoming years, the cuts
should be made elsewhere in the enormous budget, and, at the very least, maintain the current level of funding for NASA, as they
represent a vital part of the country’s, as well as the world’s, defense. This poses the question of “What could NASA accomplish with
more money?” With more funding, more telescopes and radar can be focused on locating and
predicting the paths of asteroids that pose even a slight threat to the world. With more funding, essential employees can
be trained to run these early-detection systems. This catalogue of determing threatening asteroids needs to be completed as soon as
possible, and a system for detecting new threats needs to be developed. To potentially save lives on Earth, it is not enough to
simply know where all these asteroids are and where they are headed. Asteroid 99942 Apophis is 325
meters in diameter and was found in 2004. When it was first discovered it was thought to have a significant probability of colliding
with the Earth in 2029. This has since been ruled out, however there is a chance that when the asteroid does fly by in 2029 the
Earth’s gravity will change the orbit of the asteroid enough to cause an impact on the next pass in 2068[11]. This may not seem like a
great threat, but there is a 2.3 in a million chance that our entire planet could be at risk. And if the asteroid had been on a collision
course for 2029, it may have been too late for us to do anything about it. It is not enough to simply know about all the asteroids and
their paths; further actions must be taken to prevent an impact . Right now there are not many
feasible options for stopping an asteroid of that size from hurtling towards Earth. One of the problems
involved in this are that the asteroids are so massive that it takes a lot of force and time to change their paths. Currently, the most
promising strategy is something called the “gravity tractor.” It works by flying a spacecraft near the asteroid and slowly moving
away, drawing the asteroid towards it ever so slightly. Over a long period of time this could be enough to change the trajectory of the
asteroid enough to avoid an impact with Earth. This method was created by NASA astronauts Ed Lu and Stan Love as part of a
private foundation B612 [9]. Although this foundation is now private, its founders began at NASA, and they are just a piece of the
network that NASA has been working with to help detect and conjure solutions to avoid an impact.
I/L—Econ
NASA has positive impact on the economy – even with most conservative estimates
McBrien 14 (Michael, “GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR NASA SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED
YET”, Apr 20, Northeasterm University, http://www.northeastern.edu/nuwriting/a-case-fornasa/)//DLG
The United States government is in huge debt and is adding to that every year with the deficit, which has prompted many to push for
a more balanced budget. This raises the question: should revenue be increased or spending reduced? It seems that the answer is a
little bit of both. Surely, this has its advantages and drawbacks, and it is very important to consider where these cuts have been
made. Most of the reduced spending has come from programmatic cuts [1]. This means that funding for different government
programs has been reevaluated and many programs have experienced a decrease in support. The National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, NASA, is one of the programs that the government has decided it
cannot continue to finance at its current rates, and the money being put into NASA has been cut back. This is
definitely not a smart place to make spending cuts and, at least for the near future, this trend of lessened government
support needs to be reversed. By using budget cuts as a possible solution to the massive deficit, many important programs have seen
huge chunks cut out of their funds, and NASA is one of those programs. NASA’s budget continues to be reduced from almost $18.5
billion in 2011 to $17.8 billion in 2012, with potentially increased cuts in 2013 [2]. Evidently, the United States government does not
think that NASA is worth more than about 0.4% of the federal budget. In light of these recent cuts, world-renowned physicist Michio
Kaku has said:¶ Back in 2004, President George W. Bush laid out an ambition plan. The space shuttle was to be phased out this year,
and five years later the replacement for the space shuttle (the Ares system) would be fully functional and operational. Then, by 2020,
the plan was to establish a permanent human presence on the moon, and after that maybe even the planet Mars. Forget about it –
everything is out the window! [3]¶ The government has decided to slash funding for many of NASA’s projects in an attempt to cut
back on the deficit and ultimately boost the economy. They claim they need every penny they can get in these rough times. The
economy is doing poorly, and government money is better spent elsewhere, and apparently they feel that government money would
be better spent outside of programs like NASA. However, there are many sources that directly counter this opinion, claiming that
NASA is an investment to stimulate the economy, and not just money being “shot into space”. The cost of NASA, as is true of
almost any government agency, is worth it, because it can
benefit the economy directly through the purchase of
goods and creation of jobs, and indirectly by inspiring people in industries that spawn from invented
technologies or materials. Many companies have gone on to be very successful private businesses after working with materials
invented by NASA. The Tempur-Pedic mattress company got its start when NASA scientists wanted to
provide comfortable seating for pilots that needed to remain in one position for a long time.
Umqua is a water purification company that began with NASA, and has continued to be successful in the
private marketplace [4]. There are many cases like these in which niches have been created for companies due to
progress made at NASA.¶ Cutting spending to NASA also harms the economy because it cuts jobs. The
recent retiring of the space shuttle has been estimated to have cut over 4,600 jobs [5]. Indeed, many attempts
have been made to directly measure the affect NASA has had on the economy, but ultimately none have been very successful in
finding a conclusive answer. Undoubtedly, NASA’s promotion has obvious benefits, such as the improvements it makes to the
telecommunications industry, but it is very difficult and costly to distinguish what effects NASA has had on any part of
the economy, and much more difficult to determine its effects on the economy as a whole [4]. However, some “estimated ratios
of revenue generated compared to spending have been as high as 14-to-1″ [5] for NASA. This
indicates a very high return on the money spent by the government on NASA, but many dismiss these ratios as very
generous. There have been more conservative results that are closer to 3-to-1 or 2-to-1 [5]. Even if these conservative
estimates can be believed, it still means that NASA ultimately provides more money to the
economy than the government spends on it. Other estimates have been made, and the conclusion has been widely
drawn that based on “the mission success of the life sciences effort and ample evidence of other social benefits… it can be concluded
that NASA Life Sciences investments have more than ‘paid for themselves’” [5]. While all of the studies don’t
agree on the exact numbers, all of these studies do agree that NASA is a generally good investment for the US government.
Therefore, the argument that NASA funding should be cut because of the tough economy is not one that can be supported with any
substantial evidence.
I/L—Launch Dependence
NASA needs secure funding to create spacecraft to transport astronauts to the
space station
Leone 14 (Dan, NASA reporter for SpaceNews, “NASA's $17.5B 2015 budget would fund new
science missions”, Mar 04, Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/04/nasa-175billion-budget-request-for-2015/)//DLG
NASA is once again seeking more money than lawmakers have been willing to provide for an
ongoing competition to build commercially designed spacecraft to take astronauts to the
international space station by late 2017. NASA wants $848 million for 2015, nearly $150 million
more than Congress provided in the 2014 omnibus bill, which is the high-water mark for the
program.¶ At the same time, NASA is seeking about $2.8 billion for the Space Launch System
(SLS) heavy-lift rocket and companion Orion deep-space crew capsule — about $300 million
less than Congress appropriated in the 2014 omnibus. SLS and Orion would debut in 2017 on an
uncrewed test flight to lunar space, with a crewed mission to follow in 2021.
Rising tensions make space coop uncertain – US needs to develop launch
capabilities critical to telecommunications and national security
O’Rourke 14 (PJ, “Why Does the USA Depend on Russian Rockets to Get Us Into Space?”, 622, The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/22/why-does-the-usadepend-on-russian-rockets-to-get-us-into-space.html)//DLG
“After analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I suggest to the USA to bring their
astronauts to the International Space Station using a trampoline.” That was an April 29 tweet from
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who is head of Russia’s space program and who is also
individually targeted by U.S. sanctions imposed due to the Ukraine unpleasantness.¶ He sounds
irked. Possibly Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed Rogozin to be irked. Possibly Rogozin is irked that he’s individually
targeted by U.S. sanctions because the U.S. didn’t have the guts to target individuals of real importance at the Kremlin, and
Rogozin’s feelings are hurt.¶ Here is an April 3 tweet from Rogozin about Russian-made rocket engines used to launch U.S. satellites:
“A Russian broom for an American witch.”¶ We’re Glinda, the Good Witch of the Free World. And we’re embarrassed about needing
Russian flying monkeys to get us into space.¶ It didn’t have to be this way. United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Lockheed
Martin and Boeing, puts U.S. satellites into orbit aboard all-American Delta IV rockets. ULA presented a paper to the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics detailing how quickly the Delta IV-Heavy could be “human-rated” (Washington politicianspeak for “safer than sending Christa McAuliffe up in the Space Shuttle Challenger”). ULA said 4 1/2 years. The paper was published
in 2009.¶ But leadership of the U.S. space program has been lacking. Don’t blame NASA. Every NASA official I’ve talked to,
including its present chief, Maj. Gen. Charles Bolden Jr., and the head of NASA under George W. Bush, Dr. Michael Griffin, is eager
to put the astro back in astronaut.¶ However, President Bush said we were going to Mars, and we went to Iraq instead. And U.S. lack
of space capabilities took President Obama by surprise, like everything else has—opposition to Obamacare, Tea Party, NSA
snooping, IRS targeting of conservative nonprofits, Crimea, VA screw-ups, ISIS fanatics pushing toward Baghdad.¶ And we’re a
democracy. So we the people share blame for Russia finally winning the space race. (Tortoise disqualified for technical reasons, first
place awarded to Sputnik hare.)¶ Just at a moment when we’re all making telephone calls to remote places, getting weather forecasts
for July 4 weekend, looking at Google Earth to see if our neighbor’s new addition violates zoning ordinances, watching DirecTV,
listening to SiriusXM radio, and unable to find our way home from our local bar without GPS, we’ve lost interest in space. ¶ That
we’re unable, for the time being, get to space personally is one thing. The more important thing is our ability to get
stuff into space—stuff that keeps the CIA informed, connects and positions our defense forces,
and helps us get home from the bar. Much of our ability is dependent on two rocket engines, the RD-180 and
the NK-33/AJ26. These are made in Russia.¶ On April 11, the Space Foundation issued a “Fact Sheet: Russian
Rocket Engines Used by the United States.” The Space Foundation is a non-profit international organization that has, for more than
30 years, been the foremost “advocate for all sectors of space.” Its mission is “to advance space-related endeavors to inspire, enable,
and propel humanity.” Its Fact Sheet, released nearly a month after The Daily Beast’s Christopher Dickey reported on U.S.
satellites using Russian rocket engines, is just the facts.¶ (I’m a member of SF’s board. Because, I guess, every
institution needs a class clown—in which capacity I got to talk to Charles Bolden and Michael Griffin. But I do not speak here, in any
way, officially or unofficially, for the Space Foundation. I don’t speak for anyone, not even, sometimes, as my wife and children have
pointed out, for myself.)¶ The factual situation is that ULA’s workhorse Atlas V rocket (more than three dozen launches vs.
Delta IV-Heavy’s seven) was
built around the RD-180 engine. Atlas V missions include, per the SF Fact Sheet,
“military communications, intelligence collection, missile warning, planetary exploration…earth
science payloads, a few commercial satellites, and possible human spaceflights in the future.Ӧ The
NK-33 engine, designated AJ26 after modification by America’s Aerojet Rocketdyne company, is key to the design of
Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Antares rocket. Fact Sheet: “The primary mission of the Antares…[is] to service the
International Space Station. Orbital is pursuing future commercial satellite launches and possible military satellite launches using
Antares.”¶ A month after the Space Foundation published the Fact Sheet, the ever-twittering Dmitry Rogozin tweeted: “Russia is
ready to continue deliveries of RD-180 engines to the US only under the guarantee that they
won’t be used in the interests of the Pentagon.”¶ Rogozin also announced that Russia will call it
quits with the International Space Station in 2020. That is four years before the U.S. plans to leave.¶ The ISS,
launched in 1998, is the most expensive thing ever built—$150 billion and counting. The U.S. has provided more than $100 billion of
that. There’s no astronomic reason the ISS can’t stay in use for another 10 to 14 years or longer. But it needs to be “reboosted” from
time to time to lift it back into proper low earth orbit. Otherwise the ISS becomes a 357-foot million-pound surprise for earthlings.
(Don’t worry too much. While the meteor that injured 1,000 people in Chelyabinsk last year was only 55 feet wide, it was 20 times as
heavy.) Currently only Russian rocket engines, fitted with the Russian ISS docking system, can
reboost the Space Station.¶ To these Russian nose-thumbings, one finger salutes, and social media bullyings, we do have
alternatives.¶ The Delta IV can carry a larger payload into low earth orbit than the Atlas V, 60,779 lbs. vs. 41,478 lbs. But a Delta
launch is much more expensive.¶ Plus, the Delta IV is—strange thing to say about an enormous rocket—very fast and noisy.
According to Aviation Week, “There is some concern that the acoustic environment and acceleration profiles in the Delta IV
nosecone could be too violent [for some Air Force and Navy satellite payloads].” Getting payloads “dual manifested” so that they can
fly on either the Atlas or the Delta “requires detailed engineering work,” says AV, meaning “is slow as hell.”¶ Also Made in the U.S.A.
is Orbital Science Corporation’s air-launched Pegasus. But it can carry a payload of only 977 lbs. The company’s Minotaur V can
carry 1,390 lbs. but has flown just once. And its Taurus XL, now designated Minotaur-C, has been trouble-plagued, with three of
nine launches ending in failure and the loss of $700 million worth of items supposed to go into orbit.¶ The SpaceX Falcon 9v1.1, all
privately funded, all domestically sourced, can carry 28,990 lbs. It’s made three cargo deliveries to the International Space Station.
But the Falcon is not yet Air Force certified for military and intelligence payloads. SpaceX is suing the Air
Force over the slowness of this certification, although going to the U.S. court system is not a famous way of speeding things up.¶ U.S.
Air Force four-star Gen. William Shelton, commandeer of Air Force Space Command and a guy who knows about
these matters, said during a keynote address at the Space Foundation’s May 2014 Space Symposium that he
would prefer
the U.S. to develop its own equivalent to the RD-180. But he noted that would cost more than $1 billion and take
between five and eight years.¶ So we have alternatives, sort of like the veggie burger alternatives we have on the backyard grill.¶
We’re dependent on the RD-180, which has flown 50 times on U.S. missions with 100 percent success. And to a lesser extent, we’re
dependent on the NK33/AJ26 engine, which we’ve used six times with 100 percent success.¶ Plus, of course, there are U.S. political
as well as U.S. technological headaches. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2015, passed by the Senate
contains an amendment from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
forbidding purchase of Russian RD-180 engines for national security missions after fiscal year
2017. The amendment is expected to survive the House-Senate conference and be in the bill signed by the president.
Armed Services Committee and now going to the full Senate,
CCP solves launch dependence
King 14 (Ledyard, “NASA budget would ramp up the asteroid mission”, March 5, Tallahassee
Democrat, http://www.tallahassee.com/story/local/2014/03/05/nasa-budget-would-ramp-upthe-asteroid-mission-/6054577/)//DLG
Now that the space shuttle has retired, NASA pays Russia about $70 million every time an
astronaut needs a ride to the orbiting lab.¶ U.S.-Russia tensions stoked by the unrest in Ukraine
haven’t affected the countries’ partnership in space, but NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden
Jr. said it’s “ultra-critical” Congress fully fund the president’s $848 million request for the
Commercial Crew Program.¶ “We really need to get on with giving America its own capability to
launch our astronauts from American soil on American spacecraft so that we’re not dependent
on other nations to do that,” he told reporters Tuesday.
K/ nat sec
MacKenzie 14 (Jean, Senior Correspondant @ GP, program director for the Institute for War
& Peace Reporting, “How Russia could strangle the US space program”, March 25, Global Post,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/140324/nasarussia-sanctions-rocket-rd-180-atlas-v)//DLG
BUZZARDS BAY, Mass. — Think Russia has no way to put pressure on the United States? Think
again.¶ The US relies heavily on Russia to furnish the engines that power rockets that deliver
both military and civil payloads into space.¶ This includes GPS systems in cars and cellphones,
and even systems that allow ATMs to function. Weather satellites are launched into space via
Russian-powered rockets, and military systems such as early missile detection also depend on
our friends in Moscow.¶ In addition, since NASA scrapped the space shuttle program in 2011, the
US has to rely on Russian Soyuz capsules to get its astronauts to the space station and to bring
them back home.¶ As the crisis over Crimea deepens and tit-for-tat sanctions go into effect,
conventional wisdom has held that the US is holding all the cards. Given the relatively small
amount of trade the US conducts with Russia each year, and its pre-eminent position as the
world’s largest economy, Washington has projected confidence as it moves to isolate Moscow
diplomatically and economically.¶ But Russia is unlikely to take it lying down. As Stephen Walt,
professor of international affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, warned in a talk
at Harvard recently, “They have ways of responding [to sanctions] that … we’re not going to
like.Ӧ One of the things Americans may dislike very much indeed is a possible ban on the sale of
RD-180 engines to the US under a contract with Russian manufacturer NPO Energomash.¶ The
RD-180 powers the Atlas V rocket, the main launch vehicle used to get US military and civil
payloads into space.¶ “The Russian rocket engines are the best in the world,” said Royce Dalby, a
space systems expert and managing director of Avascent, an aerospace and defense consulting
firm in Washington, DC. “RD-180 provides the most efficient and least expensive means of
getting our national security payloads into space.Ӧ The dollar amounts are not great, relatively
speaking: While the actual price paid for the engines is proprietary, experts estimate the cost
from $11 million to $15 million per engine.¶ In an average year the US launches eight or nine
satellites with the Atlas V.¶ But it gives the Russians a virtual stranglehold on the US space
program, including systems vital for national security.¶ Over the next 24 months, according to
Dalby, the Atlas V will be used to launch four classified spy satellites for the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO), one unclassified imagery satellite, two weather satellites, four
GPS satellites, three military communications satellites, two classified payloads for the Air Force
and one NASA science satellite.¶ “[Losing the RD-180] would be a blow to our national security,”
said John Logsdon, the founder and long-time director of the Space Policy Institute at George
Washington University. “The Atlas V is the primary vehicle we use to launch military and civil
pay loads into space.”
Domestic solutions fail
MacKenzie 14 (Jean, Senior Correspondant @ GP, program director for the Institute for War
& Peace Reporting, “How Russia could strangle the US space program”, March 25, Global Post,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/140324/nasarussia-sanctions-rocket-rd-180-atlas-v)//DLG
There may be alternatives on the horizon. Elon Musk, head of SpaceX, a company looking to
unseat ULA as the Air Force’s go-to rocket builder, testified before Congress in mid-March.¶ “In
light of Russia’s de facto annexation of the Ukraine’s Crimea region and the formal severing of
military ties, the Atlas V cannot possibly be described as providing ‘assured access to space‘ for
our nation when supply of the main engine depends on President Putin’s permission,” Musk told
the committee.¶ Instead, he proposed his Falcon rockets, which he said could provide high
reliability at a much lower cost.¶ But the Falcon would not be able to do the job without
extensive, and expensive, tweaking, Dalby says.¶ “The Falcon rocket is smaller and can’t loft most
of the military payloads that the Atlas tackles,” Dalby said. “Also, satellites are designed to fly on
certain rockets from the outset, and it would take years to reconfigure, if it would even be
possible.”¶ According to George Washington University’s Logsdon, the Delta IV engine, which is
produced entirely in the US, could step in, but it might have to be adjusted a bit for the task.¶
There is also the possibility that Pratt & Whitney, which has a joint venture with NPO
Energomash, could take over production. According to Logsdon, the US contractors have access
to the blueprints for the engine.¶ “But there is a fair degree of art as well as science here,” he said.
“The Russians are extremely experienced in advanced metallurgy and design. You cannot just
snap your fingers and make it happen.”
No alt to RS ISS transport
MacKenzie 14 (Jean, Senior Correspondant @ GP, program director for the Institute for War
& Peace Reporting, “How Russia could strangle the US space program”, March 25, Global Post,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/140324/nasarussia-sanctions-rocket-rd-180-atlas-v)//DLG
Then there is the space station — the US pays the Russians over $400 million a year to transport
US astronauts there and back.¶ “And for that there is no alternative,” Logsdon said. So for now
the US is in a delicate balancing act — trying to combine strong censure of the Kremlin’s
behavior with a cooperative relationship with Russia on space.
I/L—Telemedicine
Telemedicine
ISECG 13 (International Space Exploration Coordination Group,
“Benefits Stemming from Space Exploration”, September, NASA,
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stemming-from-Space-Exploration2013-TAGGED.pdf)//DLG
Maintaining the health of astronauts as they explore beyond Low Earth Orbit and conduct
missions of many months or years will require increasingly sophisticated methods.
Telemedicine provides medical care to patients who may be located far away from medical
providers. It is critically important to the success of space exploration, and space agencies have
led much of the innovation in this field since its very beginnings. Meanwhile, the public is using
telemedicine capabilities more and more to send diagnostic images to doctors in other cities, to
allow patients in rural areas to remain at home while hospital nurses monitor vital parameters
such as heart rate or blood pressure, and to conduct interactive medical examinations and
diagnostic procedures. The convenience and efficiency provided by telemedicine provides
tangible benefits to society and is improving the quality of life for people around the globe. The
Advanced Diagnostic Ultrasound in Microgravity (ADUM) developed by NASA in partnership
with a hospital in Detroit is one example of an exploration‐driven telemedicine innovation. This
portable ultrasound device being tested on the ISS may one day help crew members as far away
as Mars, and may also be particularly useful for emergency medical personnel on Earth. The
ADUM can diagnose a variety of ailments, including abdominal conditions, collapsed lungs, and
tooth infections, and it promises to save lives while lowering health care costs.35
Telemedicine increases global health care access and reduces costs
Eccles 12 (Nora, Research Assistant at the National Institutes of Health, “Telemedicine in
Developing Countries: Challenges and Successes”, February 1,
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/hghr/print/spring-2011/telemedicine-developing/)//DLG
In rural or impoverished pockets of the world, where disease is prevalent, doctors are scarce, and
health care infrastructure is inadequate, telemedicine is an innovative solution that connects the
developing world to the resources of the developed world. Telemedicine, defined by the WHO as “the use
of information and communications technology (ICT) to deliver health care particularly in settings where access to medical services
is insufficient,” holds promise in expanding health care access worldwide. Certain aspects of telemedicine,
however,
are often difficult to implement in underdeveloped settings and should be addressed to
can employ a multitude
of modern technologies, transmitting information via text, audio, video, or still images to a range of specialists. It is relevant
to a variety of disciplines including dermatology, radiology, and cardiology. With a simple Internet connection,
patients can videoconference with a health care professional half-way around the world or email MRI
scans for medical analysis. More remarkably, without any face-to-face interaction, doctors can distantly monitor the blood
pressure or glucose levels of a clinic’s patients through a computer screen.¶ For regions without adequate healthcare
infrastructure, the possibilities of telemedicine are tremendous, as it enables effective medical care
despite understaffed clinics and undertrained practitioners. Basic telemedicine initiatives can be
established with low start-up costs.¶ As Kathleen Fiamma, a Senior Remote Consultation Coordinator at the Center for
capitalize on the potential these new tools offer.¶ Courtesy of Glenn Edwards¶ Telemedicine
Connected Health, said in an interview with the HCGHR, “As long as you have a computer, Internet access, and a camera, you can do
telemedicine.” The Center for Connected Health is a Boston non-profit that runs Operation Village Health, a project that provides
health services in two Cambodian villages using a few cameras and a handful of donated x-ray, ultrasound, and EKG machines.
Doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital provide remote consultations for these patients at
no charge.¶ In general, telemedicine potentially eliminates a number of other costs, including travel expenses
for specialists and patient transfers. In a resource-constrained setting, this can have a substantial impact
on health care access.¶ Local nurses can perform telemedicine by using a simple digital camera to document a patient’s
ailment and sending it to a specialist doctor for consultation. (Courtesy of Glenn Edwards)¶ Moreover, by utilizing these
technologies, local doctors are able to learn from more experienced physicians across the globe . For
Operation Village Health, nurses
provide a diagnosis and outline treatment strategies before e-mailing
patient data to Boston doctors, who then revise these proposals as they see fit. With practice, local
nurses are better able to recognize particular diseases and devise treatment options.
Telemedicine has huge potential for cutting health care costs
Kinsella 4 (Chad, “Corrections Health Care Costs”, January, Council of State Governments,
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/csg/Corrections+Health+Care+Costs+1-21-04.pdf)//DLG
State corrections departments are utilizing telemedicine technology to save money on
specialized ¶ health care and transportation costs for those seeking specialized treatment.
Telemedicine allows ¶ a prisoner and prison health care professionals to hold a videoconference
with an outside ¶ specialist. This on-camera examination typically results in diagnosis of the
problem and ¶ suggestions about further consultation. ¶ Currently, several state corrections
departments are developing telemedicine capabilities. Both ¶ Texas and Ohio have been able to
save between $200 and $1000 every time they use ¶ telemedicine. Telemedicine allows prison
officials to bypass the high cost of transporting a ¶ prisoner to a hospital and the cost of sending
staff with the inmate.67 The average cost of ¶ installing telemedicine in a prison unit ranges from
$50,000 to $75,000, depending on the type of ¶ equipment used and whether communication
lines need to be placed. Also, it costs almost $60 ¶ per hour to communicate via telemedicine.
Fortunately, telemedicine equipment and ¶ transmission costs are decreasing.68 A report by the
National Institute of Justice found that the ¶ initial equipment costs might be recovered in about
15 months, with monthly savings of $14,200 ¶ afterwards for most prisons that use telemedicine
technology.69
Solar Flares Bad
Solar flares impact
Adams 11 (Mike, Editor at IBT, “Solar Flare Could Unleash Nuclear Holocaust Across Planet
Earth, Forcing Hundreds of Nuclear Power Plants Into Total Meltdowns”, September 14,
International Business Times, http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/213249/20110914/solar-flarecould-unleash-nuclear-holocaust-across-planet-earth-forcing-hundreds-of-nuclear-powerpl.htm)//DLG
(NaturalNews) Forget about the 2012 Mayan calendar, comet Elenin or the Rapture. The real threat to human
civilization is far more mundane, and it's right in front of our noses. If Fukushima has taught us
anything, it's that just one runaway meltdown of fissionable nuclear material can have wideranging and potentially devastating consequences for life on Earth. To date, Fukushima has already
released 168 times the total radiation released from the Hiroshima nuclear bomb detonated in 1945, and the Fukushima catastrophe
is now undeniably the worst nuclear disaster in the history of human civilization.¶ But what if human civilization faced a far greater
threat than a single tsunami destroying a nuclear power facility? What if a global tidal wave could destroy the power generating
capacities of all the world's power plants, all at once?¶ Such a scenario is not merely possible, but factually inevitable. And
the global tidal wave threatening all the nuclear power plants of the world isn't made of water but
solar emissions.¶ The sun, you see, is acting up again. NASA recently warned that solar activity is surging, with a
peak expected to happen in 2013 that could generate enormous radiation levels that sweep across planet Earth. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has even issued an urgent warning about solar flares due to strike in 2012 and
2013. IBtimes wrote, "With solar activity expected to peak around 2013, the Sun is entering a particularly active
time and big flares like the recent one will likely be common during the next few years. ...A major
flare in the mid-19th century blocked the nascent telegraph system, and some scientists believe that another such event is
now overdue." (http://www.IBTimes.com/articles/194...)¶ The story goes on to explain:¶ "Several federal government studies
suggest that this extreme solar activity and emissions may result in complete blackouts for years in
some areas of the nation. Moreover, there may also be disruption of power supply for years, or even
decades, as geomagnetic currents attracted by the storm could debilitate the transformers."¶ Why
does all this matter? To understand that, you have to understand how nuclear power plants function. Or, put another way, how is
nuclear material prevented from "going nuclear" every single day across our planet?¶ Every nuclear power plant operates in a nearmeltdown state¶ All nuclear power plants are operated in a near-meltdown status. They operate at very high heat, relying on nuclear
fission to boil water that produces steam to drive the turbines that generate electricity. Critically, the nuclear fuel is
prevented from melting down through the steady circulation of coolants which are pushed
through the cooling system using very high powered electric pumps.¶ If you stop the electric
pumps, the coolant stops flowing and the fuel rods go critical (and then melt down). This is what
happened in Fukushima, where the melted fuel rods dropped through the concrete floor of the
containment vessels, unleashing enormous quantities of ionizing radiation into the surrounding
environment. The full extent of the Fukushima contamination is not even known yet, as the
facility is still emitting radiation.¶ It's crucial to understand that nuclear coolant pumps are usually driven by
power from the electrical grid. They are not normally driven by power generated locally from the nuclear power plant
itself. Instead, they're connected to the grid. In other words, even though nuclear power plants are generating megawatts
of electricity for the grid, they are also dependant on the grid to run their own coolant pumps. If the grid goes down, the coolant
pumps go down, too, which is why they are quickly switched to emergency backup power -- either generators or batteries.¶ As we
learned with Fukushima, the on-site batteries can only drive the coolant pumps for around eight hours.
After that, the nuclear facility is dependent on diesel generators (or sometimes propane) to run the pumps
that circulate the coolant which prevents the whole site from going Chernobyl. And yet, critically, this depends on something
rather obvious: The delivery of diesel fuel to the site. If diesel cannot be delivered, the generators can't
be fired up and the coolant can't be circulated. When you grasp the importance of this supply line dependency, you
will instantly understand why a single solar flare could unleash a nuclear holocaust across the planet.¶ When
the generators fail and the coolant pumps stop pumping, nuclear fuel rods begin to melt through their containment rods,
unleashing ungodly amounts of life-destroying radiation directly into the atmosphere. This is
precisely why Japanese engineers worked so hard to reconnect the local power grid to the Fukushima facility after the tidal wave -they needed to bring power back to the generators to run the pumps that circulate the coolant. This effort failed, of course, which is
why Fukushima became such a nuclear disaster and released countless becquerels of radiation into the environment (with no end in
sight).¶ And yet, despite the destruction we've already seen with Fukushima, U.S.
nuclear power plants are nowhere
near being prepared to handle sustained power grid failures. As IBtimes reports:¶ "Last month, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission said U.S. plants affected by a blackout should be able to cope without electricity for at least eight hours and
should have procedures to keep the reactor and spent-fuel pool cool for 72 hours. Nuclear plants depend on standby batteries and
backup diesel generators. Most standby power systems would continue to function after a severe solar storm, but supplying the
standby power systems with adequate fuel, when the main power grids are offline for years, could become a very critical problem. If
the spent fuel rod pools at the country's 104 nuclear power plants lose their connection to the power grid, the current regulations
aren't sufficient to guarantee those pools won't boil over -- exposing the hot, zirconium-clad rods and sparking fires that would
release deadly radiation." (http://www.IBTimes.com/articles/194...)¶ Now, what does all this have to do with solar flares?¶ How the
end of modern civilization will most likely occur¶ As any sufficiently informed scientist will readily admit, solar flares have
the potential to blow out the transformers throughout the national power grid. That's because solar
flares induce geomagnetic currents (powerful electromagnetic impulses) which overload the transformers and cause them to
explode.¶ You've probably witnessed this yourself during a lightning storm when lightning unleashes a powerful electromagnetic
pulse that causes a local transformer to explode. Solar flares do the same thing on a much larger scale. A global scale, in
fact.¶ The upshot of this situation is that suddenly and without warning, the power grid infrastructure across nearly
the entire planet could be destroyed. As a bonus, nearly all satellites will be fried, too, leaving GPS
inoperable and causing millions of clueless drivers to become forever lost in their own neighborhoods because they never paid
attention to the streets and always relied on a GPS voice to tell them, "In fifty feet, turn right."¶ Communications satellites will be
obliterated, too. This, of course, will halt nearly all news propaganda distribution across the planet, causing tens of thousands of
people to instantly die out of the sheer fear of suddenly having to think for themselves. As another bonus, nearly all mobile phone
service will be disrupted, too, meaning all the teenage text junkies of the world will, for the first time in their lives, be forced to lay
down their iPhones and interact with real people in the real world.¶ But the real kicker in all this is that the power grid will be
destroyed nearly everywhere.¶ What happens when there's no electricity?¶ Imagine a world without electricity. Even for just a week.
Imagine New York City with no electricity, or Los Angeles, or Sao Paulo. Within 72 hours, most cities around the world will devolve
into total chaos, complete with looting, violent crime, and runaway fires.¶ But that's not even the bad news. Even if all the major
cities of the world burned to the ground for some other reason, humanity could still recover because it has the farmlands: the soils,
the seeds, and the potential to recover, right?¶ And yet the real crisis here stems from the realization that once there is no power grid,
all the nuclear power plants of the world suddenly go into "emergency mode" and are forced to rely
on their on-site emergency power backups to circulate coolants and prevent nuclear meltdowns from
occurring. And yet, as we've already established, these facilities typically have only a few hours of battery power available, followed
by perhaps a few days worth of diesel fuel to run their generators (or propane, in some cases).¶ Did I also mention that half the
people who work at nuclear power facilities have no idea what they're doing in the first place? Most of the veterans who really know
the facilities inside and out have been forced into retirement due to reaching their lifetime limits of on-the-job radiation exposure, so
most of the workers at nuclear facilities right now are newbies who really have no clue what they're doing.¶ There are 440 nuclear
power plants operating across 30 countries around the world today. There are an additional 250 so-called "research reactors" in
existence, making a total of roughly 700 nuclear reactors to be dealt with (http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/i...).¶ Now imagine the scenario: You've got a massive solar flare that knocks out the world power grid and destroys
the majority of the power grid transformers, thrusting the world into darkness. Cities collapse into chaos and rioting, martial law is
quickly declared (but it hardly matters), and every nation in the world is on full emergency. But that doesn't solve the really big
problem, which is that you've got 700 nuclear reactors that can't feed power into the grid (because all the transformers are blown up)
and yet simultaneously have to be fed a steady stream of emergency fuels to run the generators the keep the coolant pumps
functioning.¶ How long does the coolant need to circulate in these facilities to cool the nuclear fuel? Months. This is also the lesson of
Fukushima: You can't cool nuclear fuel in mere hours or days. It takes months to bring these nuclear facilities to a state of cold
shutdown. And that means in order to avoid a multitude of Fukushima-style meltdowns from occurring around the world, you need
to truck diesel fuel, generator parts and nuclear plant workers to every nuclear facility on the planet, ON TIME, every time, without
fail, for months on end.¶ Now remember, this must be done in the middle of the total chaos breakdown of modern civilization, where
there is no power, where law enforcement and emergency services are totally overrun, where people are starving because food
deliveries have been disrupted, and when looting and violent crime runs rampant in the streets of every major city in the world.
Somehow, despite all this, you have to run these diesel fuel caravans to the nuclear power plants and keep the pumps running.¶
Except there's a problem in all this, even if you assume you can somehow work a logistical miracle and actually deliver the diesel fuel
to the backup generators on time (which you probably can't).¶ The problem is this: Where do you get diesel fuel?¶ Why refineries will
be shut down, too¶ From petroleum refineries. Most people don't realize it, but petroleum refineries run on electricity. Without the
power grid, the refineries don't produce a drop of diesel. With no diesel, there are no generators keeping the coolant running in the
nuclear power facilities.¶ But wait, you say: Maybe we could just acquire diesel from all the gas stations in the world. Pump it out of
the ground, load it into trucks and use that to power the generators, right? Except there are other problems here: How do you pump
all that fuel without electricity? How do you acquire all the tires and spare parts needed to keep trucks running if there's no
electricity to keep the supply businesses running? How do you maintain a truck delivery infrastructure when the electrical
infrastructure is totally wiped out?¶ Some countries might be able to pull it off with some degree of success. With military escorts
and the total government control over all fuel supplies, a few nations will be able to keep a few nuclear power facilities from melting
down.¶ But here's the real issue: There are 700 nuclear power facilities in the world, remember? Let's suppose that in the aftermath
of a massive solar flare, the nations of the world are somehow able to control half of those facilities and nurse them into cold
shutdown status. That still leaves roughly 350 nuclear facilities at risk.¶ Now let's suppose half of those are somehow luckily offline
and not even functioning when the solar flare hits, so they need no special attention. This is a very optimistic assumption, but that
still leaves 175 nuclear power plants where all attempts fail.¶ Let's be outrageously optimistic and suppose that a third of those
somehow don't go into a total meltdown by some miracle of God, or some bizarre twist in the laws of physics. So we're still left with
115 nuclear power plants that "go Chernobyl."¶ Fukushima was one power plant. Imagine the devastation of 100+ nuclear power
plants, all going into meltdown all at once across the planet. It's not the loss of electricity that's the real problem; it's
the global
tidal wave of invisible radiation that blankets the planet, permeates the topsoil, irradiates
everything that breathes and delivers the final crushing blow to human civilization as we know it
today.¶ Because if you have 100 simultaneous global nuclear meltdowns, the tidal wave of radiation
will make farming nearly impossible for years. That means no food production for several years
in a row. And that, in turn, means a near-total collapse of the human population on our planet.¶
How many people can survive an entire year with no food from the farms? Not one in a hundred people. Even beyond that, how
many people can essentially live underground and be safe enough from the radiation that they can have viable children and
repopulate the planet? It's a very, very small fraction of the total population.¶ Solar flares far more likely to hit nuclear power plants
than tidal waves or earthquakes¶ What's the chance of all this actually happening? A report by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
said that "...over the standard 40-year license term of nuclear power plants, solar flare activity enables a 33 percent
chance of long-term power loss, a risk that significantly outweighs that of major earthquakes
and tsunamis." (http://www.IBTimes.com/articles/194...)¶ The world's reliance on nuclear power, you see, has doomed us to
destroy our own civilization. Of course, this is all preventable if we would only dismantle and shut down ALL nuclear power plants
on the planet. But what are the chances of that happening? Zero, of course. There are too many commercial and political interests
invested in nuclear power.¶ So the power plants will stay, and we will therefore be vulnerable to a solar flare which could strike us at
any time and unleash a global nuclear holocaust. Planet Earth has been struck by solar flares before, of course, but all the big hits
in recorded human history took place long before the age of modern electronics, so the impacts
were minimal. Today, society cannot function without electronics. Nor can nuclear facility
coolant pumps. Once you realize that, you begin to understand the true danger in which humanity has placed itself by relying
on nuclear power.¶ By relying on nuclear power, we are risking everything. And we're doing it blindly, with no real acknowledgement
of the dangers of running 700+ nuclear facilities in a constant state of "near meltdown" while foolishly relying on the steady flow of
electricity to keep the fuel rods cool. If Fukushima, all by itself, could unleash a tidal wave of deadly
radiation all by itself, imagine a world where hundreds of nuclear facilities go into a total
meltdown simultaneously.
AFF
Uniqueness
Uniqueness
N/U – Congress already distrusts NASA and cost overruns are killing the budget
Foust 14 (Jeff, senior aerospace analyst with the Futron Corporation, PhD in planetary sciences
from MIT, “NASA Facing New Space Science Cuts”, May 30, National Geographic,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-sciencefunding-exploration/?)//DLG
The space agency lost a lot of goodwill in 2011 with news that the budget of the Hubble Space
Telescope's successor, the JWST, had ballooned to more than eight billion dollars, up from the
previous estimate of five billion. Paying for the cost overruns of the telescope, scheduled for
launch in 2018, has eaten into the agency's already thin funds.
NASA fails anyways – lack of vision from Obama
King 14 (Ledyard, “NASA budget would ramp up the asteroid mission”, March 5, Tallahassee
Democrat, http://www.tallahassee.com/story/local/2014/03/05/nasa-budget-would-ramp-upthe-asteroid-mission-/6054577/)//DLG
But the agency’s budget proposal already is being called “out of touch (and) out of step” by Rep.
Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Science, Space and Technology
Committee.¶ “NASA is an agency that pushes the boundaries of science and engineering and
inspires future generations. But the Obama administration has failed to provide a compelling
vision,” he said. “The president’s budget makes cuts to some of NASA’s most inspiring missions,
including our next generation launch systems and NASA’s planetary science program.”
NASA OK
No impact – NASA will find other means to achieve their goals within budget
constraints
Dreier 13 (Casey, Director of Advocacy at TPS, “Top NASA Scientists Grapple with Budget
Cuts”, December 10, The Planetary Society, http://www.planetary.org/blogs/caseydreier/2013/20131210-top-nasa-scientists-grapple-with-budget-cuts.html)//DLG
Top NASA scientists tried to focus on the bright side Monday, highlighting the unprecedented
productivity of current space science missions, despite a continued future of diminishing
budgets.¶ Dr. Ellen Stofan, NASA's Chief Scientist, and Dr. John Grunsfeld, the head of NASA's Science
Mission Directorate and Hubble-repair astronaut, both emphasized the breadth of science returns at the
2013 American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.¶ "The positive thing about meetings like this is that you see our results
getting an enormous amount of press and an enormous amount of support and interest from the American people," said Dr. Stofan.
"And the more we have that, the more we’re doing our job.”¶ The first few questions from the press were about
the unusually harsh cuts to NASA's Planetary Science Division in recent years, including more than $200 million in cuts
proposed in 2014. In response, Grunsfeld listed a number of missions currently operating in space, keeping
the focus off the upcoming mission gap in the second half of this decade. He also highlighted the two planetary
missions currently in development.¶ “We have plans to go visit [the asteroid] Bennu with
OSIRIS-REx to bring back a pretty substantial sample. We are back involved with ExoMars 2016
and 2018. We have InSight, a geophysical monitoring station on Mars, and an AO for 2020 Mars
on the street,” Grunsfeld said.¶ OSIRIS-REx is a medium-class planetary mission that is scheduled to launch in 2016. InSight, a
small Discovery-class mission, is also slated for 2016. NASA is contributing a non-scientific communications package to the
European Trace-Gas Orbiter in 2016 and the Mars Organic Molecule Analyzer (MOMA) instrument on the ExoMars lander in 2018. ¶
“Given the tough fiscal climate, I actually feel very proud of how we’ve been able to try and
address almost all of the high-priority items in the Decadal Surveys," Grunsfeld said. "The one we have the
most problem with is the cadence of missions. We are constrained in missions.Ӧ Mission cadence refers to how often NASA can fly a
new spacecraft. Keeping a regular cadence is crucial for a healthy scientific community and a reliable industrial base for engineering
design and construction.¶ The National Research Council's Decadal Survey, which is the official consensus of the scientific
community, recommends flying small missions (Discovery-class) every two years, medium missions (New Frontiers-class), every five
years, and a flagship once every decade.¶ When asked about the next opportunities for scientists to propose small- and medium-class
missions, Jim Green, the Director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division said that NASA is planning to release a draft Discovery
mission announcement in 2014. Preparing a draft now, he said, will allow NASA to react quickly if Congress adds more money to the
Planetary Science Division before the year ends.¶ Green said that the next New Frontiers-class mission will be selected after the peak
funding requirements for OSIRIS-REx are met, which is likely to be after 2015.¶ These releases are just the "Announcements of
Opportunity," which begin a multi-year process of mission selection. Given that no selection will be made before 2016 or 2017, it’s
likely that the soonest a new mission would be ready to fly would be 2021 or 2022. The Clipper Europa mission concept, currently
estimated at $2.1 billion, remains off the table.¶ But NASA is trying to find creative ways to work within their
constraints. Said Grunsfeld: "I’ve challenged [our program managers] to look at other options: what
about Discovery and a half? Or New Frontiers and half? Not a flagship, but something that would allow us to do one of these
challenging missions. The spirit is: let’s use technology and use some of our capabilities to see if we can
do
70% of the science objectives of, say, a Europa mission, at half the cost. That might be worth the
trade.”
FY2015 announced – includes increase for NASA
SWE 14 (Society of Women Engineers, “The FY 2015 Science and Technology R&D Budget
Released”, July, SWE, http://alltogether.swe.org/blog/president-obama-releases-fy15-budgetslight-increase-for-r-d-included.html)//DLG
Highlights of the FY 2015 budget include:¶ $30.2 billion for the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), an increase of $200 million over FY 2014.¶ $12.3 billion for R&D at the Department of
Energy (DOE), an increase of $950 million or 8.4 percent over FY 2014, including $5.1 billion
for DOE’s Office of Science.¶ $11.6 billion for R&D at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), to develop systems for human exploration of deep space; continue
studies of our planet, the Sun, our solar system and the universe; continue development of the
James Webb Space Telescope for launch in 2018; and, continue to develop, in collaboration with
the private sector, U.S. capabilities for transporting human crews to the International Space
Station.
NASA Cuts Inevitable/NASA sucks
Cuts are inevitable—cost overruns and inefficiencies ruin NASA’s budget and
effectiveness
Block, 11 [Robert Block, Orlando Sentinel, “Bloated NASA losing its lustre; Storied agency
must become leaner in an era of shrinking federal budgets”, The Vancouver Sun (British
Columbia), January 1, 2011, Lexis, Evan]
Early last month, a private company called SpaceX launched an unmanned version of its Dragon capsule into orbit,
took it for a few spins around Earth, and then brought it home with a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. The total cost -including design, manufacture, testing and launch of the company's Falcon 9 rocket and the capsule -- was roughly $800
million US. In the world of government space flight, that's almost a rounding error. And the ability of
SpaceX to do so much with so little money is raising some serious questions about NASA. The agency that once stood for
American technical wizardry is seriously starting to lose its lustre. Already, Brevard County high school students are
talking in bowling alleys over orders of cheese fries about wanting to go work for SpaceX, not the agency that 40 years ago put
Americans on the moon. Inside NASA, some employees have taken to wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the letters "WWED," which
stands for "What Would Elon Do?" -- a reference to SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk, the Internet tycoon who invested his own
fortune in pursuit of his dream of sending humans into space at affordable prices. It's that lack of affordability that is
killing NASA, experts say. Aerospace-industry executives, NASA contractors and employees all
warn that unless the storied agency can become leaner and more efficient in an era of shrinking
federal budgets, it could find itself becoming a historical footnote. "NASA and industry need to
partner together to change our approach," says Jim Maser, the president of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, which has
designed virtually every rocket engine used by NASA since the dawn of the space program. Over the past six years, NASA
has spent nearly $10 billion US on the Ares I rocket and Orion capsule -- its own version more or less of what SpaceX has
launched -- and came up with little more than cost overruns and technical woes . In October, Congress
scrapped the Constellation moon program and ordered the agency to start over to design a rocket and capsule capable of taking
humans to explore the solar system. Maser warns that, without reforms, NASA will simply repeat the
Constellation experience. "Given that we are not going to get the budget increase that was hoped for
under Constellation, given that [the budget] is going to be relatively flat with a still-aggressive
agenda, if NASA and industry continue to do business in the traditional manner, I don't think
NASA's charter will be fulfilled," he said.
Links
AT: Public Support Link
Non-unique and no internal link – No public support for increased space spending
AND it doesn’t matter anyways
Foust 14 (Jeff, senior aerospace analyst with the Futron Corporation, PhD in planetary sciences
from MIT, “A new pathway to Mars”, June 9, The Space Review,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2530/1)//DLG
That conclusion appears to clash with another finding of the report. The committee examined the long history of
public opinion polls about space exploration. (The committee did not perform a new poll itself, although it did survey
“stakeholders” in the space community.) The committee found that while polls showed general interest in space
exploration, that interest did not translate into support for increased budgets.¶ “However, despite
positive attitudes toward NASA, there is relatively little public support for increased spending for
space exploration,” the report concluded. While the percentage of people who believe that the nation is
spending too much on space has declined somewhat over the years, it remains higher than the percentage who believes
the US is spending too little, a fraction that has remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s.¶ So how does the committee
reconcile the requirement for long-term spending increases with a lack of public support for such increases?
“We do not find that to be a stopper,” Daniels said, arguing that while there’s limited public support for increased
spending, there’s also little in the way of strong opposition to such increased spending should policymakers
decide to pursue them.¶ “Given reasonable progress, we’ll see what we’ve seen in the past, which is retrospective public
support,” Daniels said. That was a reference to the support that the Apollo program had long after the end of the program, even
though the program rarely had the support of the majority of the American public during the 1960s.¶ “The record from the ’60s
suggests that, during the Apollo program, there wasn’t tremendous demand for the program, but there wasn’t
tremendous opposition to it, and after
it happened, the public felt good about it,” said Roger Tourangeau, who
was a need for “strong
and sustained national leadership” to move forward on a plan along one of the pathways laid out in the report, on the
assumption that the public will follow.
chaired the committee’s public and stakeholder opinions panel.¶ Daniel’s message was that there
Empirically disproven—the most successful flights had little public support
Launius, 03 [Roger D. Launius, Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum,
Smithsonian Institution, “Public opinion polls and perceptions of US human spaceflight”, Space
Policy 19 (2003) 163–175, Evan]
If I have heard it once, I have heard it a hundred times, ‘‘if NASA just had the popular support that it enjoyed
during the 1960s all would be well.’’ 1 Analyzing public opinion polling data in the United States
from throughout the history of the space age, however, allows the plotting of trends over a long
period of time. The trends reveal several interesting insights about the evolution of spaceflight. For example, many people
believe that Project Apollo was popular, probably because it garnered significant media attention,
but the polls do not support a contention that Americans embraced the lunar landing mission.
Consistently throughout the 1960s a majority of Americans did not believe Apollo was worth
the cost, with the one exception to this a poll taken at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing in July 1969. And consistently
throughout the decade 45–60 percent of Americans believed that the government was spending
too much on space, indicative of a lack of commitment to the spaceflight agenda. These data do
not support a contention that most people approved of Apollo and thought it important to
explore space. The decision to proceed with Apollo was not made because it was
enormously popular with the public , despite general acquiescence, but for hard-edged political
reasons. Most of these were related to the cold war crises of the early 1960s, in which spaceflight served as a surrogate for face-toface military confrontation.
Public backlash is inevitable—funding concerns
Launius, 03 [Roger D. Launius, Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum,
Smithsonian Institution, “Public opinion polls and perceptions of US human spaceflight”, Space
Policy 19 (2003) 163–175, Evan]
At the same time, many Americans hold seemingly contradictory attitudes on NASA and human space
exploration. Most are in favor of the human exploration and development of space and view it as important, but also
believe that federal money could be better spent on other programs . This relates
closely to empirical research on other aspects of public policy. The American public is notorious
for its willingness to support programs in principle but to oppose their funding at levels
appropriate to sustain them .6 Most are also in favor of NASA as an organization, but are
relatively unfamiliar with the majority of its activities and objectives, and sometimes question
individual projects.
Public support N/U – lack of threat perception
Handberg 13 (Roger, Professor and Chair of Political Science @ University of Central Florida,
“When darkness falls: the future of the US crewed spaceflight program”, September 23, The
Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2371/1)//DLG
Recent efforts to create a new political justification for an enhanced human spaceflight program
have failed to catch on in terms of public political support. Efforts at replicating the past by
putting China in the role of the Soviet Union as a space program catalyst have failed to gain
traction. The overwhelming threat perception inherent in the early 1960s does not resonate
currently. So, the situation is one where the unique political imperatives that drove the early US
human spaceflight program do not appear at this point in history. Other factors also explain the
malaise impacting the US human space exploration program, but without political support
little is possible. Thus, China races alone to replicate what the US and USSR have done
earlier. Potential competitors such as India and Japan lag behind or have not joined the race yet.
AT: Momentum/Thumper
National momentum for ocean exploration
Bidwell 13 (Allie, reporter, “Scientists Release First Plan for National Ocean Exploration
Program”, Sept 25, US News, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/25/scientistsrelease-first-plan-for-national-ocean-exploration-program?page=2)//DLG
More than three-quarters of what lies beneath the surface of the ocean is unknown, even to
trained scientists and researchers. Taking steps toward discovering what resources and
information the seas hold, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
Aquarium of the Pacific released on Wednesday a report that details plans to create the nation's
first ocean exploration program by the year 2020.¶ The report stems from a national convening
of more than 100 federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, nonprofit organizations and
private companies to discuss what components should make up a national ocean exploration
program and what will be needed to create it.¶ "This is the first time the explorers themselves
came together and said, 'this is the kind of program we want and this is what it's going to take,'"
says Jerry Schubel, president and CEO of the Aquarium of the Pacific, located in Long Beach,
Calif. "That's very important, particularly when you put it in the context that the world ocean is
the largest single component of Earth's living infrastructure ... and less than 10 percent of it has
ever been explored."
AT: Commercial Crew
CCP Bad—Safety Turn
Commercial Crew puts safety second—guarantees accidents
Brand, 14 [Vance Brand, former astronaut, “NASA Forgets Key Lesson from Columbia
Accident”, http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/39192nasa-forgets-key-lesson-fromcolumbia-accident, 1/20/2014, Evan] ***gender modified
NASA’s proposed solution is the Commercial Crew Program, “stimulating” American companies to develop new
boosters and spacecraft to transport astronauts to and from the space station. However, our nation’s return to spaceflight could
be irreparably threatened by fatally flawed provisions in the new solicitation for the final phase
of Commercial Crew development. NASA is ignoring the main lesson learned in 50 years of
spaceflight and from the Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia accidents: Astronaut safety must be the single
highest priority in human spaceflight. For reasons that are hard to understand, NASA has chosen in the
Commercial Crew Program to blatantly ignore a top recommendation of the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board, which investigated the causes of the Space Shuttle Columbia’s 2003 breakup during reentry that resulted in seven astronaut deaths. The board’s report devoted a large section to stressing that the
next human spacecraft should have major emphasis on the safety of astronauts. NASA’s new
contract solicitation establishes three evaluation criteria, in order of importance: Price,
Safety/Mission Suitability, and Past Performance. “Mission Suitability,” which includes safety, is the term used for the
technical value of each company’s proposal. With these priorities, safety is less than 25 percent of the
overall evaluation of the contractor and his [their] proposed design. For the first time, “Price”
trumps “Safety/Mission Suitability.” This inverted prioritization is unprecedented for NASA human
spaceflight. It is unacceptable. Safety/Mission Suitability has always been and always should be of the
highest priority in these and all competitions. Safety was a prime consideration in the NASA-subsidized
Commercial Cargo development, which resulted in a services contract for delivery of supplies to the space station. NASA is
saying the safety of toothpaste, food, underwear and other supplies is more important than
human lives. While reducing costs is important to sustaining space exploration, the lessons of Apollo 1,
Challenger and Columbia teach that savings must not be achieved at the expense of safety.
That destroys the commercial space industry
Brand, 14 [Vance Brand, former astronaut, “NASA Forgets Key Lesson from Columbia
Accident”, http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/39192nasa-forgets-key-lesson-fromcolumbia-accident, 1/20/2014, Evan]
If NASA does not act quickly to change course and reinstate the traditional emphasis on safety,
it is all too likely that rather than the supposed revolutionizing of human spaceflight, the
Commercial Crew Program will be added to the long list of failed NASA programs . Or
worse, we will witness a tragedy due to a cheap proposed price. Not only would a preventable accident
be unfathomable, but it would also be a national setback in human spaceflight and
counterproductive to the original cause of saving money (at the expense of safety).
CCP Bad—Cost Overruns
Commercial Crew’s process causes cost overruns and price modifications,
destroying the project
Brand, 14 [Vance Brand, former astronaut, “NASA Forgets Key Lesson from Columbia
Accident”, http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/39192nasa-forgets-key-lesson-fromcolumbia-accident, 1/20/2014, Evan]
Another troubling shortcoming in this solicitation is that NASA has waived the certified cost or
pricing data that is normally required by Federal Acquisition Regulations in NASA contracts and also by
Department of Defense contracts. Why? The result is that neither NASA nor Congress can have
accountability or oversight of billions of taxpayer dollars to be spent in this program. Without
certified cost accounting and pricing, there is no real gauge to validate the proposed price in this
proposal process. The NASA contract will put the risk on contractors to complete this contract in
the event that costs exceed the proposed fixed price. If costs exceed what contractors can or are
willing to cover, this program and the space station itself will be put in jeopardy . The
real danger is that once NASA and the companies realize success cannot be achieved for what was
originally bid in the proposal, either safety will be compromised or NASA will have to find the
additional money to fix the problem. NASA will not even have the ability to perform the necessary
oversight to foresee these cost issues coming. NASA will presumably bail out the companies under
these circumstances, thereby encouraging cheap and unsafe proposals. When looking at the entire
history of the space program, modifications to existing systems are inevitable, necessary
and expensive. The tendency of human spaceflight costs to escalate beyond initial estimates
will make cheap and unsafe bids a huge problem.
No Impact—Cuts N/UQ
No impact—commercial crew has already been underfunded and cut multiple
times—here’s a table yo
NSS, 14 [National Space Society, nonprofit educational and scientific organization specializing
in space advocacy, March 2014, “Position Paper: The NASA Commercial Crew Program”,
nss.org/legislative/positions/NSS_Position_Paper_Commercial_Crew_2014.pdf, Evan]
There has been a long history of Congress substantially underfunding Commercial Crew, which
has the effect not only of delaying the point where the US once again can launch astronauts to
the ISS independently of the Russians, but also of greatly increasing the payments made to the Russians
over time. Originally the first flight of Commercial Crew was planned for 2015. Consider the following
facts:
Fiscal Year
Administration Request (millions)
Appropriation (millions)
% of request appropriated
20099
201010
201111
201212
201313
201414
150
0
500
850
830
821
50
0
321
397
525
696
33.5%
Nap
64.2%
46.7%
63.3%
84.7%
Note that in
2014 Congress appropriated $696 million, but with $171 million “held” pending the
outcome for congressionally mandated studies on the value of the Commercial Crew program.
Some might note that many NASA programs don’t receive all of the requested funding. This is, of course, true, but there exists,
as demonstrated above, a clear pattern of failure on the part of Congress to fully fund a
relatively modest Commercial Crew effort in the context of maintaining or increasing funding
for other NASA programs. Further, these funding shortfalls are significant, and are consistent
with Congress’s expressed support for an early down-select to a single provider.15
AT: CCP Solves Space
CCP won’t catalyze private space—new congressional riders make it non-costcompetitive
Foust, 7/3 [Jeff Foust, that guy who wrote every single card for the space topic ever, like
seriously how did he have the time to write like half of the cards on the topic, “No action, but
more commentary, on Shelby’s commercial crew cost language”,
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/03/no-action-but-more-commentary-on-shelbyscommercial-crew-cost-language/, 7/03/2014, Evan]
The Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill remains in the Senate, after action on the
bill stalled out on the Senate floor two weeks ago due to matters unrelated to NASA. The earliest
debate on the bill could resume is early next week, although it’s unclear exactly when they’ll take up the bill again. The absence
of action, though, has not meant an absence of commentary about the bill, in particular a
provision in report language accompanying the bill requiring “certified cost and pricing data”
from companies receiving commercial crew and cargo contracts from NASA. As floor debate on the bill
began two weeks ago, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who requested that provision, defended it by arguing that it
ensures “the price NASA has agreed to pay for vehicle development matches actual development
expenditures.” Many in the commercial spaceflight industry, and advocates of that industry,
opposed the language, arguing it would drive up costs . In an op-ed in Space News this week, Eric
Sterner of the Marshall Institute argues that, at first look, it makes sense to apply those cost requirements to the
commercial crew program, since it is primarily funded by the government, which will also be the primary customer of those services.
“Despite constant rhetoric to the contrary, there is nothing ‘commercial’ about the commercial crew program,” he writes. Yet, he
notes that such pricing data is not required for NASA’s existing contracts for crew transportation
services from Russia, which “means is that the need for FAR-compliant cost and pricing data is
not absolute, required above all other things.” The need to expedite development of commercial crew systems to
end reliance on Russia and maximize their use over the remainder of the International Space Station’s lifetime calls for approaches
that minimize the bureaucratic red tape associated with conventional contracting approaches, he argues, among other reasons.
“When it comes to human spaceflight in the United States, NASA cannot pursue ‘business as usual’ approaches. It lacks funding and
time for a traditional procurement or development program.” Meanwhile, the Houston Chronicle takes a different, and more Texascentric, approach to its criticism of Shelby’s report language in an editorial Tuesday. Shelby, the paper argues, “wants to drag
companies like SpaceX back to Earth and force them to comply with NASA’s usual regulatory
paperwork. This idea threatens to kill the goose that could lay the golden egg ,” adding
that Shelby is perhaps motivated to protect the Marshall Space Flight Center in his state. “As fans of
the Johnson Space Center, we can sympathize with Shelby’s desire to protect his constituents’ jobs against a perceived competitor.
Shelby’s policy is misguided ,” the editorial continues. The editorial concludes by asking Texas’s two senators to
fight back: “Texas’ own senators should go to bat for SpaceX and ensure that its multimillion dollar
investment outside Brownsville doesn’t get tied up in Shelby’s red tape. Shelby is fighting for his state.
Where are the Texans fighting for Texas?” The Brownsville reference is to the likely site of a future
SpaceX commercial launch site, although it’s unlikely that facility will be used for commercial crew or cargo missions to
But
the ISS.
AT: Asteroids
Asteroid Deflection is improbable, it requires knowledge of the asteroid too far in
advance, and the spin of the asteroid makes moving it almost impossible.
Walker Et. Al 05 [Roger, European Space Agency Advanced Concepts Team, European Space
Agency, “Concepts For Near- Earth Asteroid Deflection Using Spacecraft With Advanced
Nuclear and Solar Electric Propulsion Systems,” 2005, SM, Accessed: 7/11/11,
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PRO/ACT-RPR-PRO-2005-ConceptsForNear.pdf]
For any deflection technique to be used, clearly its response time capability must be
within the given warning time of an impact. If the warning time is only a few
months to a year, then the only possible option would be a mass evacuation of the
impact zone. The use of nuclear weapons would be unsuitable, since the dispersion
of fragments from the disrupted body would not be sufficient and the hazard
would be simply spread over a much wider area of the Earth’s surface. For longer
warning times of a few years, space-based intercept/impulsive methods are
possible but their effectiveness would strongly depend upon the asteroid mass.
With only a few revolutions before impact, the required delta-V to be imparted to
the body (order 10-20 cm/s) is at least an order of magnitude higher than with
warning times of a decade or more 5 . Rendezvous/propulsive methods would not
be feasible in this scenario due to the time required for rendezvous and thrusting in
addition to the coast time for a miss. Typical warning times for asteroid impact are
expected to be on the order of 10-50 years 6 with current optical survey capabilities.
Over these timescales, both intercept/impulsive methods and rendezvous/propulsive methods
become feasible (assuming that the rendezvous delta-V is not too high). There are a number
of significant challenges associated with the propulsive deflection method. Most
asteroids rotate about their principal moment of inertia, but some asteroids have
been observed to be tumbling about all three axes, e.g. the slow, excited rotation state
of NEA Toutatis 7 . In the latter scenario, it may be very difficult to stabilise and control its
attitude motion so that propulsive thrusting for the deflection can occur. Additionally, if the
asteroid angular momentum is too large (e.g. it is a fast rotator and/or dense), a high
delta-V on-board the spacecraft will be required to re-orient the spin axis by the
desired amount prior to deflection thrusting, thus reducing the deflection effectiveness.
With irregular (but measurable) rotation states and gravity fields due to
inhomogeneous internal mass distributions, a safe landing on the surface of an
asteroid may also be difficult operationally, though not impossible 8
Asteroid Detection costs $300 million that the government simply doesn’t have.
Gilster 09 [Paul, Author for Centauri Dreams news forum, Centauri Dreams, “Hunting
Asteroids (and Money)” August 17, 2009, SM, Accessed: 7/11/11, http://www.centauridreams.org/?p=9094]
A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences points out that NASA has been
tasked to locate 90 percent of the most deadly objects that could conceivably strike
our planet. Yet only about a third of this assignment has been completed, and the money has
yet to be found to complete the job. The agency calculates it needs about $800
million between now and 2020 to make the needed inventory, while $300 million
would allow it to find most objects larger than 300 meters across. The problem is
that even the smaller sum is not available, and this AP story quotes space policy expert
John Logsdon (George Washington University) as saying the money may never come through,
calling the program “a bit of a lame duck.” In other words, there is not yet enough
pressure on Congress to produce the needed funds. Meanwhile, asteroid detection
remains a low priority for other governments as well, making this a problem we’re choosing to
ignore in the absence of recent reminders of its potential.
AT: Space Col
Space Col nearly impossible - too many barriers, Mars One proves
Keller 13 (Harry, chair of the Northeastern Section of the American Chemical Society and as a
reviewer for Analytical Chemistry, assistant professor of chemistry at Northeastern University,
PhD in analytical chemistry from Columbia , “Mars One: Exciting Adventure or Hoax?”, April 8,
ETC Journal [educational technology & change], http://etcjournal.com/2013/04/08/mars-oneexciting-adventure-or-hoax/)//DLG
Problem number one is radiation. Interplanetary space is filled with solar and cosmic radiation. The former originates
from the Sun and fluctuates on an eleven-year cycle. The latter originates outside of our solar system from cataclysmic star events
and black holes. Both are potentially deadly.¶ NASA has estimated that a three-year round-trip and visit to
Mars by astronauts would expose them to about one Siemen of radiation, the recommended
lifetime dosage. Annual exposure on Earth at sea level is in the milliSiemens range. The effects of radiation exposure
include cataracts, increased likelihood of cancer, and sterility. Without radiation shielding on Mars, colonists will
be doomed to very shortened lifespans and would be unlikely to reproduce. Children, if born,
would have even more problems because rapidly developing cells are even more sensitive to
radiation effects.¶ The reasons that radiation is such a problem on Mars but not on Earth arise from the two things that
shield us Earthlings from radiation: our atmosphere and the Earth’s magnetic field. The Martian atmosphere is
about 1/100 that of the Earth. Essentially all radiation arrives on the surface. Mars has no magnetic field. Scientists postulate that it
is solid to the core and so has no liquid interior to generate a magnetic field. The Earth’s magnetic field deflects arriving ionic cosmic
rays and solar radiation, although gamma rays are unaffected. This deflection to our polar radiation is the reason that we see the
aurora borealis near our north pole but not near the equator. Those light displays are caused by energetic ions impacting the
atmosphere.¶ The proposed Mars One habitats have no evident radiation shielding, and radiation is not mentioned on their website.
The best shielding would be a thick layer of liquid hydrogen, but water can also function reasonably well. Oddly, metal
shielding, unless very thick, makes cosmic radiation worse because the rays hit metal atom nuclei and
create a shower of new radiation from what was a single ray.¶ The colonists could go underground to avoid radiation, but
Mars One has no such plans. They do hope to build extensions to the shelters from the Martian soil. We don’t know how feasible this
plan is or whether the thickness of the soil walls will be sufficient to avoid significant radiation damage.¶ Moving on past the
radiation issues, which may never be adequately resolved, you will encounter a number of more mundane issues. These fall into two
areas: physical and psychological.¶ Physical Problems¶ The physical problems have to do with life support and
expansion. Life requires air, water, food, and shelter. With one percent of Earth’s atmosphere, Mars has an atmosphere that we
cannot breathe. It’s mostly carbon dioxide (95%) anyway with oxygen only as a trace component. Even if you compressed it, you still
could not breathe it. The colonists must live in a pressurized environment and must scrub the carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the air to prevent stress and eventual death from hypercapnia. Oxygen must
constantly be generated from some source to make up for oxygen consumed by the colonists.¶ Plants grown for food can
perform the functions of carbon dioxide removal and oxygen generation, but early plans for Mars One suggest that the space allotted
for plants may not be sufficient for these purposes and must be supplanted by mechanical and chemical processes, which will require
power.¶ Substantial supplies of water will be required to support even four colonists who will be living in a water-poor
environment. The interior of the habitat may actually be moist because it will not take much water to saturate the small atmosphere
contained there. Most edible plants transpire, and a moist atmosphere will reduce their water requirements. Water will come from
three sources: water carried on the mission, water recycled from colonists, and water “mined” from the Martian soil.¶ This last
source may be a problem because the best location for water is near the Martian poles, but the best place
for solar energy is near the Martian equator. We do not yet know if reasonable amounts of water
exist below the Martian surface at the equator. Water is also the most likely source of oxygen.
Electrolysis of water produces hydrogen and oxygen gases. Therefore, water is necessary for both its own value and for replenishing
air. Because colonists must venture outside and so step through an airlock, losing air in the process, and because the habitat will
certainly have at least minor leaks, air must be constantly replaced.¶ The initial six habitat modules have been allocated
in pairs. One pair has been reserved for food production. The exact nature of the plants to be used has not been described by Mars
One. Unless colonists have a decent radiation shield, the plants will neither grow nor reproduce well. Assuming such a shield is
available, the plants must convert sunshine to edible plant matter. The solar intensity is about 43% of that on Earth, which will
necessitate the use of efficient plants that can grow well in eternally cloudy Earth climes. Most food plants must have strong
sunlight. Hybrids may be developed to compensate.¶ Even so, it’s unclear whether the amount of space allocated
for food production will suffice to feed the entire colony. Even if the space is adequate, the diet will be
monotonous. The inefficiency of animals for food sources means that the entire diet must be vegan. Yeast or similar organisms
must be grown as well to provide B12, which cannot be obtained from strictly plant sources. Colonists will never again see a steak or
filet of fish. They will have eggs or milk products. They won’t even have the produce of trees – nuts, apples, citrus, etc. There will be
no pepper, cinnamon, or vanilla.¶ Only the most efficient plants can be utilized for food on Mars. The variety will certainly be
limited. We cannot yet tell if colonists can grow some ginger or basil to help alleviate the monotony of diet.¶ Shelter will
remain a serious problem for the foreseeable future. Four people will inhabit six small modules of which four are reserved
for mechanical and food purposes. The shelter must remain airtight and insulating at all times. Temperatures on
the Martian surface drop to far below freezing at night. Although the atmosphere is extremely thin, very strong winds create
sandstorms that can erode anything exposed outside, including the shelters. The materials from which shelters
are built must
be strong enough to withstand the winds but light enough to ship to Mars, a real
engineering challenge.¶ NASA's Curiosity Rover¶ NASA’s Curiosity Rover¶ Heat will be lost through the walls of
the habitat even with the best insulation. This heat must be replaced. The Mars colonists will find absolutely no coal, no
oil, and no natural gas to use as an energy source. Only solar and wind energy will be available unless they bring
along a nuclear power generator. Small ones, such as is being used by NASA’s Curiosity rover, can provide some power but not
enough for this purpose. Heat will be a serious issue for Mars One. Their plans call for large flexible solar panels to be rolled out onto
the Martian surface to capture the wan sunlight. The plans do not show calculations for expected energy
capture during the long Martian winters. With a “year” twice as long as ours, winters are also twice as long.¶ In
addition, batteries must store this captured solar energy. Lots of batteries will be needed to hold enough energy for
heating and other purposes such as oxygen generation throughout the Martian nights. The Mars One information does not include
battery specifications. Even the most efficient batteries are heavy and will have to be lifted from Earth
to Mars at $10,000 per pound.¶ The colonists must work outside of their habitat in the harsh Martian environment and
so must have Mars suits that are the equivalent of space suits. Maintaining these will be crucial to extending the colony.
Without petrochemical sources, it’s unclear what materials will be used to replace the plastic
components of these suits.¶ If the colony is to be self-sustaining, it must be able to expand using local
materials. Water is too precious to use for making concrete or even adobe if the basic materials could be obtained. Note
that cement requires lots of heat to make. To make iron, iron ore and enormous amounts of energy are
needed. Converting iron to steel requires more energy and lots of carbon, but Mars has no fossil fuels as sources of carbon.
Similarly, copper, zinc, and tin all require massive amounts of energy – far more than the solar arrays will provide.¶
Colonists will have to expand their solar arrays as they expand the colony – if such expansion can be done at all. The hightechnology required for manufacturing these arrays will be far beyond the capabilities of the
Martian colony. With nothing to export, the colonists will have to depend on Earth to send them the needed
materials and will become interplanetary beggars. If they have children, they’ll have to expand their food tanks. Of what will they
construct them? Indeed, what building materials will the colonists have for any purpose, even for making cooking pots or children’s
toys?¶ Medical issues have not even been considered. The colonists would not have any access to
modern medicine. They would have to be carefully screened for genetic factors that predispose to disease. Medical problems
that we can handle readily here would result in death on Mars.¶ Psychological Pressures¶ Even if power, air, water, food, shelter, and
building materials can be resolved, a very unlikely result, the colonists must face extreme psychological
pressures. A single small error by one colonist can kill them all. This could happen on any day.¶ Only digital material
could be imported from Earth on a regular basis. With sufficient power, the colonists could watch videos and listen to music.
However, conversation with Earth-bound families and friends would not be possible. The round-trip delay for radio transmission is
between 6 and 40 minutes. Say, “Hello,” and you hear a response 20 minutes later on average. All communication with Earth would
be asynchronous.¶ What would it take to make life on Mars bearable? How could you overcome the monotony of
food, of view, of company, of smells, of cramped living spaces? You would never smell a pine forest again or see the ocean. There are
no “amber waves of grain” or even cityscapes. You’ll have no blue skies or clouds and no hope of ever experiencing them again in
person. You’ll be subject to extreme cabin fever.¶ It looks like Mars colonists will be in a constant state
of stress from a long list of sources. How can you stand this sort of stress? The answer typically lies in hope for the
future, in the belief that you’re building something for your children and future generations. Unless the problems of radiation,
power, water, building materials, repairing and replacing Mars suits, and the rest are solved, you’ve just sentenced yourself to a life
in prison, and that prison is the closest thing to hell that any living person can experience over protracted periods. Without hope,
Mars One is doomed today.
AT: Russian Dependence
Aff – Space relz are resilient
Kremer 14 (Ken, “ISS, NASA and US National Security dependent on Russian & Ukrainian
Rocketry Amidst Crimean Crisis”, March 5, Universe Today,
http://www.universetoday.com/110006/iss-nasa-and-us-national-security-dependent-onrussian-ukrainian-rocketry-amidst-crimean-crisis/#ixzz36uWSfncE)//DLG
When NASA Administrator Chales Bolden was asked about contingencies at a briefing
yesterday, March 4, he responded that everything is OK for now.¶ “Right now, everything is
normal in our relationship with the Russians,” said Bolden.¶ “Missions up and down are on
target.”¶ “People lose track of the fact that we have occupied the International Space Station now
for 13 consecutive years uninterrupted, and that has been through multiple international
crises.”¶ “I don’t think it’s an insignificant fact that we are starting to see a number of people with
the idea that the International Space Station be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.”
Russian coop sustainable
McKelway 14 (Doug, reporter @ Fox, “Crimea crisis comes at touchy time for US-Russia space
program”, March 5, Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/05/crimea-crisisus-soviet-space-program/)//DLG
Former astronaut Tom Jones says that NASA is intent on keeping ISS missions from becoming a
political football.He points to the Apollo/Soyuz missions of the mid-70s, during the height of the
Cold War, as evidence that the two countries cooperated in a spirit of detente.¶ Today, Jones
says, the two space partners are more inter-dependent than ever. "What they lack for example, is
all the control software that we use to point, maneuver and control the space station," he says.
"So, they would not be wise to deny us access, because they would be denying themselves access
to all the utilities and supplies they need for the space station."
SQ solves
MacKenzie 14 (Jean, Senior Correspondant @ GP, program director for the Institute for War
& Peace Reporting, “How Russia could strangle the US space program”, March 25, Global Post,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/140324/nasarussia-sanctions-rocket-rd-180-atlas-v)//DLG
When asked by an Alabama congressman whether the crisis in Ukraine would prompt the
Defense Department to move ahead with additional funding to develop domestic capabilities to
manufacture rocket engines, Hagel responded that it certainly would.¶ “You’re obviously
referring to the relationship with the Russians on the rocket motors,” the defense secretary said.
“Well, I think this is going to engage us in a review of that issue. I don’t think there’s any
question about that.”¶ But developing adomestic capability will be a long and expensive process.¶
United Launch Alliance (ULA), the Lockheed Martin-Boeing joint venture that manufactures the
Atlas V rocket, says it has the situation well in hand.¶ “Atlas V will continue to provide assured
access to space for our nation’s national security satellites,” the Centennial, Colo.-based
company said in a written reply to questions. “ULA maintains more than a two-year supply of
RD-180 engines in the United States to minimize potential supply disruptions, and has
developed significant engineering and manufacturing capability which ultimately demonstrated
the capability to co-produce the RD-180 domestically.”